John McCain

Reason

It's a high-res shot of an obviously notable politician.

Articles this image appears in

John McCain

Creator

United States Congress

• Support as nominator ^8thstar 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. de Bivort 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What a stupid tie. Cacophony (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is not nearly as good as the Obama pic below. I hope the voters here realize the difference between FPC and the Presidential Election (whicht does not start until November by the way...). --Dschwen 04:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this picture to another FPC isn't a legitimate reason to oppose. The timing of the presidential election is also irrelevant to this particular image meeting the featured picture criteria. What are the shortcomings of this image as they relate to the featured picture criteria? Per Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#How_to_comment: All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that can be addressed. Cacophony (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing to another FPC is a perfectly legitimate reason. Please review the FP criteria and check out point 3, which is comparative as well. To determine if a picture is among Wikipedia's best you have to compare to other works. --Dschwen 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, this isn't particularly better than most of the politician images. gren グレン 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the shortcomings of this image as they relate to the featured picture criteria? Cacophony (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Despite obvious encyclopedic value, this is neither better nor worse than many other formal portraits. No partisan statement is implied in this vote. Durova^Charge! 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the shortcomings of this image as they relate to the featured picture criteria? Cacophony (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: is among Wikipedia's best work. This is competent formal portrait photography. What sets this apart is the importance of the subject, and maybe that's enough for some Wikipedians. Yet it's also composed in a style that has been done equally well many times over. Compare to Image:Javier Solana (2007).jpg, that shows a statesman at work in a less studied moment. Durova^Charge! 03:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per reasons given. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any reasons. Please elaborate. Cacophony (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just rather run-of-the-mill. Perfectly serviceable portrait, but nothing to get that excited about. I will admit though, it's certainly a better image than the rather poor-quality example for Barack Obama below that everyone seems to think is so great. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per other opposes; good portrait, but no wow. --Janke | Talk 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nothing wrong in this picture and looks real FP material. Support as per nom. 13:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talk • contribs)
• Oppose per Durova, although I think that this is a better portrait than the Obama one. Nonetheless, I don't like the way the subject's jacket blends into the background, which makes him look like a floating head and tie. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Decent portrait but doesn't strike me as anything with the "wow" required--much like all of our other politician photos. I don't like how he looks disembodied either... Mangostar (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]