Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tango couple closeup.jpg

Tango couple closeup

Reason: Perfect capture of an Argentine tango moment.
Proposed caption: A couple of Argentine tango dancers in close embrace. In Argentine tango, the dancers' chests are closer to each other than are their hips, and leader and follower may be dancing cheek to cheek or chin to forehead, depending on their heights. This very intimate embrace distinguishes Argentine tango from ballroom tango, where dancers arch their upper bodies away from each other.
Articles this image appears in: Argentine tango
Creator: Christian Aastrup

Support as nominator Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - does not clearly illustrate subject - half of the proposed caption is irrelevant because the photo does not show anything lower than the shoulders. There's also blown highlights on the man's shirt and the woman's hair, the entire image is slightly out of focus and motion blurred, as well as colour fringing on some edges (e.g. the lady's brooch). E5T4A7 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image doesn't really add encyclopedic value to the subject of either article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-04 14:56Z

Oppose Per above and the cropping is way too tight. Somewhat ironic considering your comments just below on the condor candidate... --Fir0002 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think you should restrict your comments to those that concern the current nomination. This is not the place to discuss the condor. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Comment on content, not on the contributor." There's no need to make it personal. (Also, that nom is independent from this one. Samsara can with no problem believe that a tight crop benefits one situation and not the other. Free opinion at work.). On the actual pic, I Oppose on the grounds of lack of encyclopedic content. --Mad Tinman _T _C 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that you're making a little too much out of that comment - I was just point out what in my mind was the fairly obvious irony of Samsara opposing an image below for a tight crop restricting enc value and directly after nominating a tightly croppped image. Surely you can see the irony there? --Fir0002 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I actually don't see any significant amount of irony, all I see is that Samsara thinks that the tight crop benefits this shot whereas it does not the other. Indeed, maybe I did make too much out of it - should just have pointed out I didn't see the irony. Cheers. --Mad Tinman _T _C 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I actually like this image a lot, it feels emotional and intimate. However, per many above, a picture demonstration must actually be demonstrating something. This picture is in no way encyclopedic.D-rew (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let me just interject there and check that people understand the significance of the picture. What is being shown here is the close embrace. It is a particular, well-recognisable embrace, and the dancers will be dancing like this essentially the entire time. That's to say, her nose may not leave his cheek for the entire dance. Just thought I'd clarify that. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... I'm still not sure, it doesn't seem to representative of it, as they could be just embracing each other (as I see it). However, a full sized pic of this would probably get the featured status - maybe contact the photographer, see if he has a full body shot? --Mad Tinman _T _C 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without more context in the picture the embrace could just be that - a common or garden embrace. We need to see more of the dancers to be able to judge that they are in fact dancing and not just a couple embracing. We can't even see what their hands are doing --Fir0002 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's time to invoke the martian scientist. It's probably really enc to Argentinians and fans of ballroom dancing, but I have to agree I don't "get" dancing, let alone tangoing, from the image. --mikaul^talk 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a fun meme. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of enc. value. Cacophony (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, you can't tell without reading the caption that they're dancing. The caption mentions the position of heads, chests and hips; an ideal photograph of this subject would illustrate those three things well. --bainer (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis of Samsara's explanation above. Apparently, the specific position of the heads shown in the picture is an important aspect of this form of tango. I didn't know that, so this picture and the article have taught me something new. That's the point, right? -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Blurred and not encyclopedic. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you want to double-check the image at full size about the blur allegation. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]