Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nude on beach

Nude on beach

Edit 1. (Flattened horizon. Rotated by 1 degree, then cropped.)

Nice picture illustrating Nude beach and Skinny dipping. Woman in picture is (IMO) attractive. Background is out-of-focus but this would be difficult to achieve without losing focus on the woman. Picture does not show any "naughty bits" that some consider pornographic without resorting to black bars or pixelisation.

Nominate and support. - Billpg 21:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can just imagine the discussion this one is going to spark. But I'll just say; tilted horizon, ~~uninteresting color scheme~~, not so sharp. Not up to FP standards visually. It does illustrate the subject topic, but not in an eye-catching manner. --Bridgecross 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'll have a go at slightly rotating the pic later. (I confess, I missed it. If anyone else wants to do it, please do.) ~~I am confused at what you mean by "uninteresting color scheme". (I could turn her into a green alien from Star Trek perhaps.)~~ As for the other points, alas, I'm not original photographer. I've left a note on the uploader's talk page pointing out this discussion. --Billpg 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You're right I have nothing to base that criticism on. I still think that, though it illustrates the article content adequately, it does not do so particularly well (from the FP standards above). --Bridgecross 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Barely meets size requirements and although technically it's well done, it just doesn't say Featured Pic to me. howch e ng {chat} 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Edit 1 uploaded for your consideration. --Billpg 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Per Howcheng. Otherwise, it's a pretty good picture. Nauticashades 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The women is attractive enough not to be repulsive but doesn't look fake or the like subject of a 'glamour' or pornographic photo. It manages to illustrate a taboo subject without socking readers. The only problem is that it could be larger. The background being out of focus helps the picture by bring attention to the subject. Seano1 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess I have to oppose because of the low quality (it's really on the limit if not under), it's not the BEST of wikipedia and it lacks the encyclopedic part. Also this image doesn't really make me read the whole article because it's not that special or eye-catching. IMHO. It's not a bad shot though. Arad 03:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Arad and others above. --S0uj1r0 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - The size requirement is what's keeping me from supporting this. If it was a higher res, i would then agree with Seano1 --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Doesn't scream featured pic to me either. --WikiSlasher 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PYMontpetit 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose. I just don't see the encyclopaedic value, the low (though passing) doesn't help either. 65.93.214.9 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, seems I forgot to sign in when i typed that. BTW following "(though passing)" should be "reolution". say1988 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The image is tastefully done. It does an awesome job of illustrating the subject without being offensive. I hesitate only because of the image size. Royalbroil 13:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yawn. Aye-Aye 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The girl is nice and all of that,but i don't see why it schould be featured.--Pixel ;-) 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Royalbroil: I don't think the issues are serious enough to disqualify what is an otherwise excellent image. -- JDH Owens 12:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow" factor, rather a mundane back of a woman. Composition and colors arent too hot, either, and it just barely passes the size standard for a FP. No Go IMO. --Janke | Talk 20:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only mildly erotic Calibas 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted