Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rambhadracharya

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2011 at 17:05:24 (UTC)

Reason: This image is of high quality and adds good encyclopedic value to the article. Also its of enough resolution. It is of a free licence from Picasa and is used in a GA.
Articles in which this image appears: Rambhadracharya
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Pawan Sharma

Support as nominator --♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It's a fine picture and I'm sure it's a very useful addition to the article. However, in my opinion it's quite average... doesn't strike me as exceptional in any way. Plus it's in need of a crop (there is excess white space on three sides) and has only been in the article for 1 day. JBarta (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do crop it, just overwrite the original... no sense in a separate edit for a simple crop. JBarta (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That crop is an improvement, well done. JBarta (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The colors are too distracting (Not only that, they hurt your eyes). The flash from the camera gives the picture a ""fake light" look. Its not focused very well. Dusty777 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose General image quality problems, white balance, noise, CA, probably blown highlights, but I didn't check. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made it worse in my view. I've added an edit which fixes the white balance, but I still can't support because of the image quality. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close: This picture still fails points 1 and 3 of the FP criteria entirely (due to all of the reasons already mentioned above) and only just meets criteria 2... Nik thestoned 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible image quality amongst many issues. JFitch (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]