Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Poolside 03.jpg

Mons pubis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 21:48:07 (UTC)

Image

Image isn't presented here due to depicting human female anatomy. File located at ~~File:Poolside_03.jpg~~ File:Poolside anterior view of mons pubis.jpg. Original caption was "Anterior view of a fully shaved mons pubis on a human female pelvis."

Reason: Meets the technical requirements for FPC, and is photographed cleverly, clearly showing the shape of the body part in question from the superb angle at which it was taken. Additionally, it was clearly not taken with the intention of appearing erotic, but instead informative. The natural lighting is good, and the shot is at the right distance to give a sense of perspective but not introduce distracting elements.
Articles in which this image appears: Mons pubis
FP category for this image: Biology
Creator: Hanna Apple

~~Support as nominator~~ --Pirated windows 7 install disc (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this to be a valid candidate, but I think the FPC page should stay SFW. Although, it should never become POTD. Calhoun ^talk 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this a bit, it's a decent photo with good EV so I'll ~~support~~. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. W. Calhoun (talk • contribs)

Note -- this user (as well as the nominator) has been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of User:Wagner. Jujutacular (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ support until the image is moved to more informative title. I have nothing against making it a POTD per WP:NOTCENSORED and given that the image is not that explicit. Brandmeister^talk 13:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is now at File:Poolside anterior view of mons pubis.jpg. Brandmeister^talk 10:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A person taking picture of their own crotch does not scream FP to me --Muhammad(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artistic composition is all well and good, but it doesn't make for particularly high EV when the subject of the image is human anatomy. The background is distracting (the plaid green and the feet) and the angle is awkward. Of the two images that are used in the mons pubis article, I feel that the more useful is the second one, although that one also has compositional issues. Honestly, the most useful image for that article would probably be File:Vulva labeled english.jpg or something similar, because of the labeling. File:Mons pubis 05.jpg would probably also work because with that you could give the location in reference to the pictured woman's thumb. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... the nominator has been indeffed. What happens now? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Reaper Eternal is blocking users with little evidence and expecting people to clean up the rest after him again. I say the nomination should remain because people have already voted on it. Calhoun ^talk 11:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom remains. If there was evidence of sockpuppetry or the like we would strike those votes, but given that most (all?) others that have voted are long time regulars there's little evidence of that. We could end up not counting his vote as is done with anon IPs, but I can't really see why given the block appears to be only to do with the choice of username. Obviously if another random newbie comes along and votes on this there would be a strong suspicion it was the same person so we would be unlikely to count any such votes. --jjron (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. In my comment above I AGFed on User:H. W. Calhoun who has now been identified as a sock of the nominator. Given this, and the nature of the discussion below, I'd be happy enough for a Speedy Close on this. --jjron (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nom made in bad faith, clearly a poor candidate, the fact people are even considering it as appropriate for the main page makes me worry about the state of the project... J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I agree it wouldn't be a good candidate for the main page, but "Featured Picture" ≠ "Must be on the main page". Sven Manguard Wha? 16:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know- it was in reference to Brandmeister. I would have thought that if we were talking about an image like this, it would be with the assumption that it was not going on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very disturbing photo that doesn't seem like FP material to me, even if composition is ok. Zappa O Mati 18:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really don't see how a shaved mons pubis has true EV, when the natural state is for it to be covered with pubic hair. Considering how much this normally matters for nature photos, I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. This picture has a poorer composition than the other in this article.Terri G (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination by a sockpuppet. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]