Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grey and navy suit on mannequin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Original - A pinstriped navy blue suit, with a grey one in the background, necktie and pocket square.
Reason
This is a beautiful picture that provides great illustration to Handkerchief and Suit (clothing). It's very high resolution, very crisp with no technical problems I can see (although I'm certainly not an expert in that field), both highly illustrative and very visually appealing. As far as I can tell, it passes the criteria with flying colors.
Articles this image appears in
Handkerchief, Suit (clothing)
Creator
Paul Goyette
  • Support as nominator Dylan (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry, this image doesn't quite make it. In the future, consider nominating images to picture peer review first. This image has only a very small portion of it in focus, has a large blown highlight, and has some strange shadowed artifacts in the lower right. It is encyclopedic for how to stuff a handkerchief in a suit pocket, but it certainly doesn't show a whole suit, and I even have a problem with the fact that it really doesn't show a whole handkerchief. - Enuja (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I can't argue with the technical issues, but if you look at the context in which it appears in each article, you'll see that it's not being used as the headlining image to illustrate a suit or a handkerchief. In both contexts, it's used to illustrate an application of either subject: in Handkerchief, as an example under "Folding styles" which is entirely about how handkerchiefs are used in suit fashions, and in Suit (clothing), as an example of "Accessories with suits". It doesn't have to to illustrate "a suit" or "a handkerchief" generally to add encyclopedic value. And given these contexts of use, it makes perfect sense for just that portion to be in focus. Dylan (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the technical issues raised by Enuja - Clegs (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by Clegs. —αἰτίας discussion 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted --jjron (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]