Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dorothy Anstett

Dorothy Anstett

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2024 at 13:52:46 (UTC)

Original – Dorothy Anstett, Miss USA, 1968

Alt, bluish tint/hue reduced

Reason: high quality picture used as lead image, notable photographer
Articles in which this image appears: Dorothy Anstett, Miss USA 1968, List of Miss USA titleholders
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Bernard Gotfryd, restored and uploaded by Yann

Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — A 55-year-old promotional glam pic. Target bio at 155 words is a stub, with nothing about subject's notability other than her three-year marriage to Bill Russell half a century ago. (Subject now 76.) Scant visual interest. Lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Scant visual interest" for a model and a Miss USA. I will take that as ironic... Yann (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just another pretty fem. Not notable. -- Sca (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you thin she's not notable, than WP:AFD is that way. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think she's notable? For what? -- Sca (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support Lead image of a couple articles. I might not be interested in Miss America, but it certainly passes the General Notability Guideline many times over. That said, there are a few obvious dark blotches on her face and neck that clearly aren't meant to be there, like the one on her left cheek (right as you're looking at it), and some less intrusive ones on other bits of skin. Can you do a quick secondary pass? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, how did I miss that? I think I uploaded the wrong version. Thanks for spotting that. Fixed. Yann (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Support Alt Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - High quality portrait and an interesting glimpse of the past. Moonreach (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose @ Yann i would be careful when editing old film pics. Anycase 2nd version made by GRuban is best here. While new edit is trying to "correct" film colors to digital, and is grevious mistake. Please make renomination in seperate and revert to 2nd option of GRuban. --Petar Milošević (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban's version obviously too dark, and 669 × 991 pixels, while my version is 3,170 × 4,768 pixels. Yann (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is much sharper on that size in thumb on screen than your edit, I think you should make another Upload and leave original, since its better than your edit. --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. A thumbnail is always sharper that a full size image, but you must compare what is comparable, at the same size. Yann (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Vinícius O. (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 07:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdsds:, your oppose vote is missing an oppose rationale. Per instructions on top of the WP:FPC page: "Oppose, followed by your reasoning .... All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale". Bammesk (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This image does not meet criterion 3: "Is among Wikipedia's best work." It does not illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the subject's facial expression appears forced and the background buildings are distracting rather than contributing context. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to be on the cold hue side, as some photos of that era. Warming the colors up a bit would look more natural, I think. Brandmeister^talk 20:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: I already did that compared to the original TIFF. Isn't that sufficient? Yann (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a warmer version which is likely more faithful to natural vision. Brandmeister^talk 12:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Support Alt. Yann (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]