Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Female Pubic Hair

Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What is your standard of "good quality"? It's a half cut-off naked woman laying on a bed. Our actual articles on related subjects are very technical and have top-enc images.. do you honestly think that a naked woman on a bed offers nearly as much as those diagrams, which aren't even featured themselves? :D\=< (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is about pubic hair, not about nudity. It focuses on pubic hair. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose subject is no where near in focus. de Bivort 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This, while it is fine on its own article, should not be featured and listed among wikipedia's best imagery. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. As an illustration of pubic hair, far too little space is devoted to the primary subject. As a photograph of a woman, obvious problems with cut-off face (get a photograph of the model holding a signed release and show the entire face). Flat lighting, pedestrian composition. Durova^Charge! 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as ineligible - not in any article. It was in the gallery of pubic hair for about 14 hours before being reverted. I think it should be seen to settle into an article and receive concensus as being beneficial to that article for a while before being even considered for nomination as an FP. TSP (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheres the picture?