Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Matti Vanhanen, G8 summit.jpg

Matti Vanhanen at the 32nd G8 summit

Reason: I think this photograph of Matti Vanhanen, the prime minister of Finland, illustrates the article well. While the WOW!! factor may not be very high, the image does have encyclopedic value and the composition and technical quality are also quite good.
Articles this image appears in: Matti Vanhanen
Creator: G8
Nominator: KFP (talk | contribs)

Support — KFP (talk | contribs) 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I completely agree with the nominator on this. Very enc, however I am going weak do to the (as the nom said) weak Wow!! factor. ~ Arjun 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Why not? Per nom. --Tewy 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - There are some technical faults, but for an non-posed portrait, its pretty good. —Dgies^t c 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Support~~ Changed to Neutral - Also, why the wrinkles on his face look so wierd? They look more like compression artifacts. |:-D (My Middle Eastern smiley with a unibrow). --Arad 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, no wow, yes... but it's not really a good portrait, either. gren グレン 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it does illustrate the article nicely, but FPs should also be technically sound. He's not looking at the photographer and the background is kind of bland too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's the Prime Minister, there are probably higher quality pictures taken of him every single day. Its fine for illustrating the article I guess, but are there no official state portraits of him?Meniscus 14:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some official photographs available here, but they don't seem to have a license compatible with Wikipedia (see http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/ajankohtaista/kuvapankki/oikeudet/en.jsp). --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They definately wouldn't be eligible for FP since they wouldn't be public domain --⁪froth^T 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Support I agree with the "no wow factor" but what it loses there, it gains by capturing the human element of the subject. Coricus 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC) The guys below have talked up my opinion. The wrinkles mentioned above and distressed look are what make it work as a picture. Support.Coricus 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great photo in terms of quality. I oppose the use of this image in an infobox, because it doesn't have an official air; however getting a photo of a politician in a somewhat distressed state of mind (let alone a public domain one) is fantastic. I think it brings out the humanity of the subject. 60.230.105.56 08:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (signing in ... Leon 08:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Support Outstanding non-posed photo. An official portrait is probably still more appropriate in the infobox on his page, but this is an eye-catching photo for use elsewhere. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - not the best portrait-wise or focus-wise, but I agree with the above. --Janke | Talk 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not interesting. The subject isn't even looking near the camera. A FP needs to be more than just technically sound. Royalbroil^T : C 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - He's not even looking at us. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Comment -- It's never going to be featured picture quality, but this photo would be helped by cropping out some of the right and top, and maybe even a tiny bit off all sides. --jacobolus (t) 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not in focus, as nominator said: "No WOW factor". Madman 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - high-quality photo of a very notable person; an image that "adds significantly" to its article. TSP 12:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original version of this image is available at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/a2/20070213004359%21Matti_Vanhanen%2C_G8_summit.jpg . --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems high quality to me, and although some people do not like its composition, I think it's nice to have a non-posed picture. Free images of people seem to be rather hard to come by which gives it additional credence in my opinion. Basar 06:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it would look less realistic if the subject was looking at the camera. Technically it's quite good, in my opinion... typhoonchaser 07:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Photo! Tomer T 16:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Decent quality shot, but the face looks odd in close-up (Photoshopped?), the lighting is not very interesting, and it would look odd on the main page. ~ trialsanderrors 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current version is shopped. The original is available here. Why would it look odd on the main page? --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the contrast enhancement but I have absolutely no idea how/why the noise filtering was done. I think the original has acceptable amount of noise for human skin while the edit looks like three layers of Clearasil. Don't you think it would be odd to have a head of state looking away from the camera with a puzzled expression on his face on the main page? ~ trialsanderrors 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's on the main page now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not very interesting subject matter.--God Ω War 00:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I think this is technically rather a poor image. 86.6.207.111 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not interesting --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have liked this picture since the first time i saw it (a couple months ago i believe). It does make him look human. SECProto 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image may require copyright status verification, the only statement I can find on the G8 website is "If you wish to re-publish photos, you must provide a link to www.g8russia.ru." --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that be understood as a "copyrighted, but free use provided that credit is given" or, as CC-BY? --Janke | Talk 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is how it is currently interpreted on the image page ({{Attribution}} image copyright tag). However, the statement on the G8 website does not indicate that creation of derivative works is allowed. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]