Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Homeless man in Paris

Homelessness

Reason: Found this while preparing the Commons POTY 2008 - this was second place in 2006, and was so powerful that I had to bring it over here a bit more. It is a little under size, but I think that its power is sufficient that we should consider it.
Articles this image appears in: Poverty in France, newly added to Homelessness
Creator: Eric Pouhier

Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Brilliant, but why are some areas dark? This is probably an author-added thing, but it probably subtracts from the EV. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to oppose, and of course above I meant vignette, didn't know the name of it. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose A striking picture, but sad to say, it should be possible to find a homeless person to take a picture of at the minimum required resolution. It also looks somewhat overprocessed as with an HDR image. As for EV, it is self-evident for Homelessness, less clear for Poverty in France which does not have any information on homelessness in France, other than this picture. It does illustrate poverty, but not all the poor are homeless. Fletcher (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose below minimum size requirements. Durova^Charge! 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear support - A very strong picture, I can't imagine a beter depiction of the subject. Plenty of mitigating qualities for the small size -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, and I have a feeling it may have been over-edited. Certainly lots of vignette. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small, the vignetting and desaturation aren't realistic. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Noodle snacks, but it has enough EV to make it weak. Spencer^T♦^C 02:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks like someone messed with the saturation/lighting levels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, image post processing removes some encyclopedic value to add sentimental value. The original might have a shot (if it were larger). gren グレン 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Spencer^T♦^C 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]