Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tiberius

Tiberius

Photo adds one of only two photographs to the Tiberius article, only colorized image of him. Adds a very clear image to the article. Photo taken by Alkivar.

Nominate and support. - ALKIVAR™ 07:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The background seems a bit distracting to me. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 02:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. I've attempted to edit it out, though I'm not really satisfied with the result. —Cryptic (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also agree, the problem was, I was afraid to wash it out before getting a few other opinions first. Cryptic your version looks good imo. ALKIVAR™ 22:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice picture, but with a distracting background. However, I can't support the edited image either, since it doesn't accurately reflect the reality at the time the photo was taken. — David Remahl 11:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like either. Although I'm sure the figure is splendid in real life, the reproduction of the photo is a little bland, and suffers a little from a lack of clarity - focus is an issue. Enochlau 12:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's so grey. --bodnotbod 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok what color would you rather see behind it? I can wash it entirely out to white or something if that would improve it for you. ALKIVAR™ 20:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see why the gray background is an issue--in fact I think it helps highlight the statue, and anyway, what do you expect in a museum? I support it mainly, though, because it contributes to the article on Tiberius--what better image are you likely to find of the man? As for editing, many of the pictures entered here are edited. The editing helped this picture a lot. Jeeb 20:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unremarkable.--Deglr6328 02:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely disagree from the top of WP:FPC:
  Featured pictures is a list of images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article.
- This clearly adds significantly to the article, I think people seem to forget that is the primary requirement. Its not just "Pictures that are striking" but more images that add significantly to an article. This certainly does that, as there is very little in the way of likenesses of Tiberius. ALKIVAR™ 02:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Does it? The bust was made in the 19th century, meaning that the sculptor has never seen Tiberius alive. As he had to rely on ancient statues, I'd much rather see a good image of an ancient statue. Therefore, I don't think the image of this bust is that much of an enhancement for the article. I would say it's even misleading. Esthurin 03:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose Great job on removing background, but a bust isn't that special to me. And Esthurin makes a good point about the value it has in an article. --Fir0002 10:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the reasons stated above by Esthurin and Fir0002. --Dschwen 08:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]