Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Justin Bieber

Justin Bieber

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2010 at 16:23:05 (UTC)

Original - Justin Bieber, a Canadian pop singer, at the 2010 White House Easter Egg Roll.

Reason: Everyone loves Justin Bieber, right? Dynamic and high quality portrait with character. Clear EV as the lead illustration in his biography.
Articles in which this image appears: Justin Bieber
FP category for this image: People/Entertainment
Creator: Daniel Ogren

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No, not everyone loves Justin Bieber. :-) I can't really fault the portrait though as it's naturally posed and well composed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diliff. On both counts. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ugh. Was in the hospital 3 days ago to deal with a minor emergency for my 2 year old, and beyond the curtain I heard a teenage girl almost in tears, pleading with her doctor to fix her up quickly or else she was gonna miss the Bieber concert that evening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs)
Weak Oppose. The lighting looks unnatural (I mean distractingly so). The background is pitch black and yet every side of him is well lit. He must be standing on the event horizon of a black hole. Kaldari (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's on stage, of course there's heavy lighting on both sides. For a bit of context, here's another picture from the same set, showing the same lighting and black curtain in the background. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Holy crap! I thought this would be a bigger disaster than the Miley Cyrus or the Black Tape for a Blue Girl noms. --I'ḏ ♥One 17:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I can't bring myself to support Justin Beiber-anything but I have no solid reason to oppose. Cowtowner (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't really feel I would recognise him based on this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a bit of a daft reason to oppose. Do you oppose all portraits of people you don't aren't aware of and therefore wouldn't recognise them? Or are you saying that if you saw him on the street or TV or in a magazine, you wouldn't recognise him because this image does not show his usual likeness? Matthewedwards : Chat 03:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A portrait is supposed to identify the portrayee sufficiently that you would recognise them if you met them again. This doesn't do that for me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't like him (my 7-year-old does), but the image is very nice and ticks all the boxes at WP:FP?. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think portraits from the side are good. Otherwise this would be a good FP if it were on the Bieber harcut. Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a full-on profile shot, and it's very rare you'll see a straight on portrait. Compare to our other portraits of entertainers. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, most of them look at the camera. Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most, certainly not all. Some recent promotions where the subject is not looking at the camera- File:Calvin Borel.jpg, File:Charlton Heston Civil Rights March 1963.jpg and File:William Notman studios - Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill (1895) edit.jpg. Also, as I said above, this is an on-stage shot (which, for many, boosts the EV)- what is the likelihood of getting an on-stage shot where he is looking at the camera for long enough to get a good photograph? J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A strong portrait of a performer. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File page at Flickr says this is CC-BY-NC-SA, which is not a Commons-compatible license. Not sure how to check what it once might have been, but the entire Flickr set has the same license. upstate NYer 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was confirmed by Flickr upload bot (see the image page) which means it was that license at the time of confirmation. It was released under this license (probably at the request of a Wikipedian- check the comments) uploaded to Commons and then the license was changed. Releasing under a CC license is irrevocable, so we're good to use it under this license. J Milburn (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the composition (poor lead room) and it's clearly overly cropped, lots of artifacts in the shirt due to noise, also the black background looks unnatural, almost as if he was cut out. No reason to promote a semi-underpar image of him when hes actively performing, better pictures are obtainable and likely in the near future we'll have more to consider. — raeky t 13:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll find that what looks a lot like chrominance noise is actually just the fabric of the shirt (you can see in the original uncropped Flickr shot that it's the fabric). I'm not saying the quality is amazing, but just making sure you're not seeing problems that aren't there. I don't think there are any significant artifacts in the shirt, although there are some along the neck line and on the chain. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe not in the shirt on second glance, but yea there is some issues with artifacts elsewhere, and that black background doesn't look natural in this corp, it's a little less an issue I think in the original where there is head room and looks more natural. Personally the uncropped is much better, composition wise. — raeky t 09:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why should a poor quality image be promoted when the person could be better dressed at least? Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because the criteria for FP does not include a subject's sense of style, and if the supposed issue is not actually an technical issue but just the fabric, then there should be no issue... gazhiley.co.uk 10:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - But if the composition is distracting because it almost looks like noise, AND a picture without this distraction could be easily obtained, then there is no reason to have this as a Fportrait. Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah I suppose fair enough... gazhiley.co.uk 11:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does this guy have that gets him both Easter and Christmas ops with the pres. Must be the hair.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward composition and strange facial expression Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+8 -4.5 FPC resists the spread of Bieber fever. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]