Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Biden & Obama

Biden & Obama

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2010 at 00:36:06 (UTC)

Reason: This is one of the better images of Barack Obama and Joe Biden together on the campaign trail.
Articles in which this image appears: Democratic Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008
Syracuse University
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks like too much of a snapshot. Gut Monk (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Monk. ‘Nuf said. Greg L (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Monk. Nothing special. -- Jack?! 04:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone else. Would make a great Facebook picture for Joe Biden though. Amphy (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Far too snapshotty. This isn't going to pass, suggest speedy close. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I echo J MilburnGazhiley (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also suggest speedy. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh, another "snapshot". Maybe "blurry" too? --Dschwen 14:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second (“third” actually, after J Milburn and raeky) Speedy Close This image can’t possibly win on any count. As an illustration of “Biden & Obama”, the president is partially obscured and way out of focus. So it doesn’t have a prayer in that regard. In the context of illustrating just “Biden”, we can come up with one that doesn’t have him eclipsing his president. Besides, WP:SNOWBALL tells us that it would take an army of socks to reverse this vote ratio. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get it. This is most likely the best Biden picture taken by a Wikimedian that we have (correct me if I'm wrong), plus it shows him with his running mate at the day he was announced as the vice presidential candidate. And it gets slammed as a "snapshot". I wouldn't know how to do right by this crowd. No point in even trying. Anybody maybe wanting to compare Biden's face to a manhole cover? That would just be the final missing comment. Geez, I can only facepalm when reading these "expert-opinions". Brings back "fond" memories of this candidate. --Dschwen 18:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is fabulous that in an all-volunteer electronic encyclopedia that we have pictures like yours, Dschwen, that add enormous encyclopedic value (EV) to our articles. Thank you. I am a big, big advocate of adding pictures to articles since they save a thousand words each and make our articles much more attractive and professional. However, being an important illustration of the subject in question and adding EV does not mean a picture is amongst our best works. I have gobs of illustrations I created for use in articles and few make it to FPC although all are exceedingly important to the articles.
    In this particular case, this picture is being used to illustrate both men, such as here at Democratic Party. That caption there states “Biden and Obama in Springfield, Illinois after Biden's formal introduction as the running mate.” Notwithstanding that Obama is co-featured in the image, he is way out of focus (and rather significantly eclipsed by Biden). Our Featured Picture Criteria requires that pictures be of “High technical standard” and that “Its main subject is in focus.” Focus is a serious flaw if one is going to be deciding whether it should be on the Main Page for a day, don’t you think? Again, none of this detracts from the fine contribution your picture makes to the articles it is in.
    Nevertheless, I’ll withdraw my seconding of the nomination for “speedy close.” There is no harm is giving this image a full and fair hearing to give others an opportunity to weigh in. Greg L (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's unfortunate it doesn't have lead room and the subjects are dead center... thats probably where the "snapshot" feel to it comes from. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Holy smokes. That “Lead room” article could benefit from some photos. Greg L (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought the same thing when I clicked over... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It could benefit from one of us “experts” with *good artistic taste*. ;-) Greg L (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I found a Quality Image of a racecar to add. Just looking over our FP galleries it could be that we favor centered compositions too much. Fletcher (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well it is not quite dead center. I considered a crop on the right which would instantly give it all the lead room you need, but it would cut of Obama's hand, which I thought was a nice "touch" (pun intended). --Dschwen 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: I, however, sincerely appreciate the constructive comment, Raeky. Helps me way more than hearing "snapshot" again and again. --Dschwen 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's sharp, but I found the legs in the background distracting, as well as the large, floating white square that they are standing on. Fletcher (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second Speedy Close Per Well… Duh! Greg L (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hair is obviously photoshopped. (Kidding!) Seriously though, it doesn't "pop" and doesn't make me go "wow" as most featured pictures do.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 03:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I know there is a large and irreversible consensus above me, however, I view the image as follows: a quality and effective demonstration of campaigning and reasonable illustration of the two candidates together. Though the image lacks "lead room", I don't think that the composistion is as bad as some here would indicate. Just my two cents. Cowtowner (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]