Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales

Reason: In my opinion, this is probably the best image of Jimbo Wales that we have. It had a Picture peer review in February 2009, where several editors thought it could be a possible candidate for FP.
Articles this image appears in: Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia Foundation
Creator: Wikimedia Foundation

Support as nominator --NW (Talk) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, it has significance, but the crop seems a bit tight to me - more of a headshot than a portrait. Is it just me or does he have a bit of a Kevin Costner look in this one? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kevin Costner, you say? Hmmm. Don't see it myself ;)
- And a headshot does make more sense than a portrait. The crop that you mentioned is about 300px on both sides of his face - maybe slightly tight, but still fine for a headshot, I think. NW (Talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You still don't see the similarity? :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the I'd prefer a less tight crop, especially at the bottom, and the DOF seems a bit shallow. Not enough for an oppose though. Time3000 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, accurate portrayal of the subject, among Wikipedia's best images of living people. Guest9999 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loved him in Bull Durham. Durova²⁸⁵ 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - insufficient DOF. Why was this shot at 200mm? Very easily replaceable (plus vain Wikipedia is vain). MER-C 09:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 200mm is a pretty standard portrait length these days, especially considering this was taken with a full frame body, the high focal length serves to flatten the features which is considered aesthetically pleasing. - Flying Freddy (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that's true. Typical portrait lenses are 85-135mm. Obviously a portrait can be taken with any lens I suppose, but 200mm is far less hand-holdable and impractical to shoot with unless you really need reach, and you just don't for portraits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Yup, sharp, plus Jimbo gets a bonus. ceranthor 12:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, no comment on the nomination, due to COI. :-) I just wanted to flag that I'm not sure the attribution is correct. I believe this is one of the shots taken by Manuel Archain of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But I need to research that to be sure. I think my assistant emailed it to someone around the time of the fundraiser and the attribution got lost. So, before this one makes it (or not), I'd like to be sure we get that exactly right. I will check over the next 24 hours.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Attribution confirmed and fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support of Kevin Costner, for when his attribution is updated. wadester 16 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Shallow DOF, as well as some vignetting. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose if the consensus was that wikipetan was to self-referential, then so is this. de Bivort 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to point out that Wales has his own article, while Wikipetan was representing a concept. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background has rather poor color choice. There is poor control of catch-lights in eyes. I would prefer a slightly more side-on view of the face since, given the size of this guys forehead, a centered frontal exaggerates this. I would prefer slightly more directional lighting that is more horizontally displaced than vertically. I would prefer that the subjects eyes were not so wide-open (poor posing and choice of shot). etc. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support high-detailed photograph of subject. While I would prefer a profile that is not 100% face-front, this is still really good. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—You can't get away from the way the chin is almost cut off by the frame: cramped appearance. And the background colour isn't wonderful. Tony (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The chin is further away from the bottom edge than the hair is from the top edge. wadester 16 07:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Highly detailed image, extremely crisp. Very clean, professional portrait. Gage (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — per above. Diego_pmc ^Talk 10:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 1 It's poorly-focussed and badly-lit alright but you can't dispute the EV ;-) If we must promote it, please lets have one like the edit, with an sRGB colour profile so he doesn't get a fake tan when you click on it, and a little brighter and neutral enough so that he looks reasonably healthy. I've also cropped it more appropriately for the headshot it is: I think most of the objections to the framing have been due to an excess of space at the top/left, rather than a too-tight crop at the bottom. --mikaul^talk 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, has anyone noticed how much he looks like Jimmy Wales? --mikaul^talk 10:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose— It is a fine photograph in may respects, but inadequate lighting contributes to poor definition of the lower facial features - there is severe blurring of the chin/beard with its shadow. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe this image has good resolution, detail, DoF and EV. Enough characteristics to become a FP. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer edit 1. I think portraits have a very difficult time getting through, and this one is clearly above average. I'm not a big fan of the tight crop, but it's good enough for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'm tempted to support per Diliff, but I think if we're going to feature a picture of Jimmy Wales, we should insist upon the highest possible quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nice photo and, Jimbo, we love you, man.--Jimmy xu wrk (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Smashing picture of Jimbo, It would be good to see it as a FP. Harlem675 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per FCB1. Also not a fan of the cropping. South Nashua (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]