Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barack & Michelle Obama

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Barack & Michelle Obama edit

 
Original - Barack and Michelle Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign
 
Edit 1 cropped and image named descriptively
Reason
It adds significantly to the articles it illustrates. In fact, although there is a Barack Obama WP:FP this image is on his bio page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
Barack Obama and Michelle Obama
Creator
Luke Vargas (of flickr)
  • Support as nominator TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the black and white worries me a little. I don't mind it if some other photographer has made it famous--but we should not take that more 'artistic' step. gren グレン 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should expound on this nomination. The current Barack Obama WP:FP at Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg may be technically sound, but it is aesthetically alarming. There are at least a dozen pictures on wikipedia or commons that illustrate Obama without showing him on a bad hair day. He looks like he was dragging his feet across a shag rug while wearing wool socks. The only worse pictures aesthetically would show him with hair flaring from his nostrils or ears. I imediately looked for an aesthetic Obama picture when I noticed the current FP. Maybe tonight I will sit down and present a dozen or so images that would be chosen for Obama articles over the current FP. The point is that this is one of the first pictures that would be chosen for his article. It is probably the second or third most important picture on his bio. From an aesthetic perspective it is far superior to the current Obama FP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I have hair similar to Obama's. It's always like that ("bad hair day")...maybe that's just the way his hair is. Louis waweru (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of the color that hides technical flaws (no pun intended).--Svetovid (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Svetovid. The Black and White doesn't help the picture. 76.205.74.106 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Ach, this is me. I mean that the picture shouldn't be in black and white, not that there are technical flaws. SpencerT♦C 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP votes are disregarded . If you wish to vote, please create an account or log in. Also , could either of you explain to me what technical flaws are hidden ? I see nothing to incline me in that direction . --Mad Tinman T C 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Modern images should not be black and white unless there is a specific reason for them to be (and there is none here). Mangostar (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose same as Mango. And to be quite honest, I don't really think this is that flattering of a picture anyway.The freddinator (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Click "show" to view a huge gallery from Wikipedia articles)

The following are available on commons (I believe the sort only identifies images with Barack or Obama in the name)

(Click "show" to view a huge gallery from Commons)

Don't let me get started with flickr. Of these I think about 5 or 10 are better images than the current FP. Despite the current bias against black & white photography, I think the current nominee is one of them. Regardless, to say that the current FP represents the finest of WP is a joke.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to enter your private arguments, but it's not appropriate to clutter up the FPC page like that. I have hidden the two galleries you've dumped here, as if people can't go and look for themselves. --jjron (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the images above I consider the following better than the current FP although the last four may not be sharp enough and 2 and 3 need to be cropped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Click "show" to view a huge gallery from Commons)
  • Oppose Per above 8thstar 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wonderful picture, but I think photographs of contemporary public figures need to be in color to provide the most encyclopedic value / accuracy. Cacophony (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - I like the picture, but a couple of things as have previously been mentioned. The black and white, do you have the picture in colour? Might be quite good. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Based purely on aesthetics, I think the fact it's black and white is no problem at all. The depth contrast is absolutely stunning. I actually don't really get some of the criticism that's listed on this page, since I think that it's a very nice and natural portrait of these two people. —msikma (user, talk) 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangostar. crassic![talk] 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Better images of him exist. Spinach Dip 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I disagree that modern images shouldn't be black and white. Why shouldn't they? This is a great picture. Louis waweru (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless there's a previously established consensus against black and white photographs of modern figures, which seems a bit odd to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - what's so great about this image? I see no indication that this image is somehow "wonderful" or quailified to be a FP. Happyme22 (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Barack_%26_Michelle_Obama&oldid=1149991562"