In today's world, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg is a topic that continues to generate interest and debate. Whether because of its impact on society, its relevance in history, or its influence on popular culture, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg remains a topic of great importance today. Much has been researched and written about Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg over the years, and its relevance has not diminished in the slightest. From its origins to its implications in the modern world, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg continues to be the subject of studies and research in different disciplines. In this article, we will explore different aspects of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg and its importance in today's world.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 14:55:24 (UTC)
Original – Petra Martić serving in the late afternoon sun at the 2013 Wimbledon Championships in London.
Reason
It's an interesting 'action shot/portrait' photo, with pleasant lighting which highlights the subject well. There is already a featured picture of Petra Martic but this one is quite different and doesn't duplicate the other image.
Hmm, strong shadows was the main (non dental related) issue with the other FP also. But where exactly is the problem? I don't think this image has as much of an issue with shadows, as the only part of her that is really dark is her forehead above the eyes. Obviously there is strong contrast in the late afternoon light and that's what's great about the image IMO. I've got plenty of images of people serving in even, overcast lighting but that also makes the image a bit... boring and undramatic. Anyway, the main problem with dodging the shadows is the introduction of noise - it didn't really work in the other FP and I don't think it will work here. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
But they are different subjects and fulfil different purposes on her article page. The previous FP is an infobox style headshot, this one is an action shot. I don't think it's fair to support conditionally on a delist of another image unless there's an obvious improvement on the same subject and it therefore fulfils the same purpose in the article(s). That's not the case here IMO. The way I see it, if you like this image but not the other, support it here and then file a delist nomination separately. Let the community decide what the decision should be, but don't try to manipulate this FPC to get a result that goes beyond this nomination. Ðiliff«»(Talk)09:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. I would not put this image in the infobox, at least not with a headshot available. The infobox is for immediate identification, whereas her playing can be an illustration of her style or the tournament she is participating in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
But the portrait only provides "immediate identification" of facial characteristics (that would have EV for actors, models, etc), but not what the subject is notable for (tennis player). The texture of her skin, eye colour, etc are much less relevant. Hence I think this is by far the better image for the infobox. I am consistent here with my previous stance on human FPs and would like to see images promoted that provide indication of the subjects profession/notability. I think the promotion of portraits simply because they are high-res is yet another area of FP bias, as if spots on the skin or teeth shape would be the most important information an encyclopaedia can provide. I take however Diliff's other point and withdrew the "conditional". --ELEKHHT23:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There's a reason why identification in official papers etc. is done with portraits (piss poor ones, but portraits nonetheless): the specific combination of eye color, skin tone, facial contours etc. are specific enough to individuals that they allow easy identification. That goes for any individual, be it a tennis player or a Wikipedian. I'm not saying we should feature all portraits we can get, but they do have high value. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I think identification of an individual is equally important (and featureable) regardless of what they are notable for. That said, if an image can be constructed in such a way that they are easily identifiable and doing what they are notable for, so much the better. In fact, I wouldn't even say that this image of Petra serving is necessarily a good image to identify her, but it does show what she looks like on a tennis court. Currently, the vast majority of our featured portraits are fairly regular bog standard formal portraits. I suppose it doesn't follow that Elekhh personally supported them, but the precedent is there. Also, I think it's missing the point if you think a high res portrait's only benefit is to show skin blemishes and teeth imperfections. We need to think beyond mere thumbnails in articles. Featured images can have a multitude of uses, many requiring high resolution to print at a reasonable DPI without pixelation. Ðiliff«»(Talk)12:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Weak support, full support conditioned on better use of the images in the article. This is a good action shot, and I see no issues with the shadows--it's an accurate depiction of a person in bright sunlight (context matters for an action shot). I would prefer to see the portrait as the lead, since that's pretty standard for any encyclopedia including this one, and I don't think the French Open shot with the busy background is adding that much. Chick Bowen05:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Your wish has been granted (by Elekhh, it seems), and it is now the lead image. While I don't think the French Open shot is particularly good, the article is large enough to accommodate three photos and it would be a shame to remove a photo of her from earlier in her career just to find a better place for this image. I'm not really convinced that the bottom of the article is the best place for the 'conventional' portrait of her now, but I'll leave the article alone and see if anyone else has an opinion. Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to revert my previous edit and fully support this FPC. Can also start a discussion on the article talk page. I'm not surprised if a more conventional layout gets more support. --ELEKHHT02:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
