Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sadou Kathmandu 04 04.jpg

Sadhu in Kathmandu

Reason: Diliff suggested this, and I'm nominating it. Meets criteria.
Articles this image appears in: Sadhu, could be placed in Nepal and/or Kathmandu
Creator: PICQ

Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice aesthetic ;) The composition is unusual but lovely.pschemp | talk 14:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the subject is cut off.--Svetovid (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The subject is cut off, yet I do like the composition. Capital photographer (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. I think the seated position in the other nom is more enc. Pstuart84 Talk 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet the watch the guy is wearing in that other picture is so fantastically out of place as to render that image not encyclopedic. pschemp | talk 16:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but the posture is more enc than the one here, so it's oppose to both sadly. Pstuart84 Talk 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no posture requirement for a Sadou, and this one is clearly demonstrating the hand position for a blessing, so how is it that only sitting Sadous are encyclopedic? If you look at the article there are ones sprawled on steps and even *gasp* walking.pschemp | talk 20:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that's fair - vote struck out. Pstuart84 Talk 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is unbalanced. Mangostar (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Cut off. ^8th star 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people think it being cut off looks fine, then... ^8th star 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- there is nothing inherently opposable about a portrait of a person that focuses on the face. "cut off" is not a valid oppose reason, because it doesn't diminish it's encyclopedic worth, but enhances the personal nature of the man. We have other FP ethnic portraits that don't show an entire body so I don't see why this is suddenly a big deal. pschemp | talk 20:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fact that it is 'cut off' isn't a great excuse since it would inherently be a tradeoff to show the entire body of a Sadhu. You'd lose detail of the face/upper body and I think this detail is important. I've always argued that a FP can illustrate an element of the subject, rather than the entire subject, if it does that job well. I think this image does that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Highly encyclopedic, but really strange composition. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Diliff de Bivort 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 8thstar-- mcshadypl ^T ^C 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Diliff. What would you gain by seeing the body?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Diliff. Nice detail, and I'm not bothered by the composition.--ragesoss (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the more I've looked at this the more I like it. Good EV, nicely composed and good quality - Peripitus (Talk) 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed, good use of color. Makes me curious about the topic, which is what an FP should do. Durova^Charge! 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support diego_pmc (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sadou Kathmandu 04 04.jpg MER-C 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]