Reason

Since a lot of people seemed to feel this would be a desirable image to feature (previous nomination), I'm nominating a tighter crop that might meet more tastes.

Articles this image appears in

Lauren Anderson

Creator

Work for hire owned and released by Lauren Anderson

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Intriguing crop, like there is no cloth below :) Brand 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as before --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As before, composition is still not ok IMO --Muhammad(talk) 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per above, unimpressive composition. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose The underlying image just ain't that great. Either my crop from the old nom or this one definitely improves it, but there's just a lot wrong with the framing that crops/restoration can't fix. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support, I still feel this image is featurable. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as before, the original perspective doesn't work with this tight crop, leaving it looking very flat. If the shot had been reframed as such it would work better. Mfield (Oi!) 20:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not used anywhere, which is a FP criteria. It's just a crop to try to overcome the shortfalls of the previous nomination. Even as a crop it's not a remarkable image, very standard and uninteresting pose and composition as a crop. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • On your first objection: Nonsense. We always put the winning version on articles, and the article for this picture is indicated above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)