Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human male body

Naked human male body, seen in frontal or anterior view, standing in w:anatomic position.

Support as nominator (and model) Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - it's a very good picture overall, and we're unlikely to get another like it - but around the feet, it looks like it's been cut out from its background and left pixelated edges, particularly the subject's right big toe; and the upper hips. I commend you for your bravery though. For one thing, it's not often we get a penis in addition to the face of its owner on WP, but a free-licensed full body shot is very encyclopaedic, high quality and useful to the encyclopedia in many ways. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Yes, the background has been cut away from hips and down. It can be done better, though. Perhaps the nomination could be postponed until it's done better ~~(could do it in the weekend or so)~~.Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Posing without underpants was ok because it was for the sake of science. Sunbathing so wasn't, because it didn't feel like it was for science. If it makes it more suitable, however, it may be justified to do so for any further pictures. Any new version, however, may take long time (classes just started today), much longer than a week, as a stated earlier, so let's decide what to do with this one first. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Very poor photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the tan lines or the inaccurate cut from the background? Or maybe something else? The overall resolution seems good to me. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean all of those and also poor detail, general unsharpness and unsufficient resolution. For an easy shot like this there is little excuse for not showing photographic excelence -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Uncle.bungle. Not a bad shot; might make a viable candidate at the Commons Valued Image program. And with regard to Vanderdecken's comment, as a Commons admin it's nearly as rare that we get the subject's face in addition to his privates. Durova^Charge! 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, um, can we just check the subject's age? Because if he's under 18 - and arguably, under 21, I don't think we can accept this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The model is 22, so that won't be a problem. Old enough to know the consequences - young enough to have it to blame. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we are going for medical diagram-style enc, I would like to see a scale bar and body hair. de Bivort 08:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & oppose Ineligible, not in any article. The one with labels was moved to a gallery... --Janke | Talk 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support a nomination at Valued Images, but I think the age of the model should be mentioned in any caption for reference. NauticaShad es 01:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, should probably be higher resolution... but, more pressingly, this is poorly cut out around the feet. gren グレン 09:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grenavitar. Clegs (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thanks for all comments. I made a list on its description page of what should be included in any updated versions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality and removal of background, ie around the feet. Latics (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Gotta agree with Grenavitar (talk · contribs) here. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]