Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Physical attractiveness

Physical attractiveness - Hot or Not composite comparisons[edit]

Reason: An (relatively) unbiased view of various levels of physical attractiveness that's cleverly composited and very clear/informative.
Articles this image appears in: Rating sites, Physical attractiveness, Averageness
Creator: Manitou2121(flickr), uploader:Quadell
Nominator: antilived^{T | C | G}

Support — antilived^{T | C | G} 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't this original research? I don't see how it passes criterion #5 (accuracy). howcheng {chat} 05:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is more that the accompanying text will probably have to be removed from the articles, rendering the images contextless. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's actually #6, and it just says it should be supported by facts/refs, which it is with the ratings behind them and so I see no problem with it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It just might be hard to justify their usage in the articles if the whole context consists of OR and has to be removed. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are there any copyright issues with using images that were harvested from the Hotornot website? Spebudmak 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on how recognizable they are. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And completely unrelated to the context discussion I find the image rather unattractive, starting with the drop shadows. This strikes me more like a nomination for "Neat Research Idea". ~ trialsanderrors 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator is cited incorrectly. It was actually created by a guy on flickr, not a wikipedian. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting concept, may however be WP:OR, but I oppose mainly because of the low quality of the full-size image - very fuzzy! --Janke | Talk 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Averages of faces are always fuzzy. There's no way around it I think. Junes 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might be more interesting to find a high-quality published composite of multiple faces. The album cover of Pleased to Meet You by James is a composite of the band members' faces. I know it's copyrighted, but that's the first example I can come up with. ~ trialsanderrors 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very interesting original research. Get it published somewhere and I will support it as a FP. —Dgies^t c 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I like the idea. But there are many problems to be solved above. And also the faces looks pretty much the same. They are mostly "Not" for me. --Arad 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since it was created with a freeware tool using very basic data assembly, I wouldn't consider it a violation of WP:NOR, unless significant original conclusions were being advanced at the same time. I do agree that it's not a particularly stunning image.--Eloquence * 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Even if you solved the above issues, I think the phrase "hot or not" (in the picture) is inappropriate, especially for the main page. Perhaps if you had a more scientific title, or even better, no title at all. Basar 06:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it inappropriate? The images were taken from the Hot or Not website. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that would make it appropriate if the image were only used to enhance the hot or not article, but since it is being used in general articles like physical attractiveness, I feel that a more than less slang phrase from a popular website would be less appropriate than something like "female physical attractiveness". I think letting the caption do the describing would be best though. Basar 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ignoring for the time being the sourcing, OR, and copyright issues cited by others, I personally dislike the design of the image. The typography is poor, and the drop shadow and bevel effects are cliche. I do not consider this the best wikipedia has to offer by any means.-Andrew c 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, will support if the drop shadows and title are removed. Willing to cast lone dissenting vote if necessary -- I like it. But I may still need to yield to OR concerns, if that's what the consensus says. Spebudmak 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about privacy issues? I'd hate to be one of the people in this image and find myself on the Wikipedia Main Page one day -- especially if I was one of the low-rated ones. At least on Hotornot.com your photo is one among a zillion. Spebudmak 10:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - These people don't actually exist. They are morphs from many different people on hot or not.--antilived^{T | C | G} 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm not sure about the accuracy of this, but if it is true (and there should be sources that justify what the picture says) - I support. Tomer T 14:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]