- Reason
- Clearly not FP quality and below EV standards. ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Previous nomination/s
- Original nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Starlette; 1st delist nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/starlette
- Nominator
- ZooFariThank you Wikipedia!
- Delist — ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Very well illustrates both Media ethics and Cannes Film Festival. Very good composition. Had overwhelming support in 2005 (15+/2-). Historic significance: nobody would wear such clothes nowadays any more. Elekhh (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree about the clothing - I've seen similar in celebrity pages recently. No starlet would have legs unshaven or unwaxed like that however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I actually referred to the photographers, but is a very good observation about the body hair :) Elekhh (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Plainly mostlyharmless has never been to France ;) Modest Genius talk 05:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I actually referred to the photographers, but is a very good observation about the body hair :) Elekhh (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree about the clothing - I've seen similar in celebrity pages recently. No starlet would have legs unshaven or unwaxed like that however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Commment. I've shuffled it round a little in Cannes Film Festival so it better illustrates the section. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Some EV issues fixed, but I remain unconvinced with quality. The composition is poor in my opinion, the background photographers are underexposed, and the woman posturing is cut off. @ Elekhh: FP standards have changed since 2005 and it would be unfortunate if no one had guts to wear the cloths. ZooFari 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of how distracting is the "starlette", the image is not used to illustrate her as a movie star, but the film festival and the media exposure. I think is good for the composition that she's cut off, allowing thus the visual centre of the image to move towards the photographers. I agree that the image is not perfect in every single detail but I think it has high EV. I mentioned the very strong FP support from 2005 to underline that the image has such qualities. Elekhh (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I honestly don't find the EV high enough for exceptional quality. ZooFari 05:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of how distracting is the "starlette", the image is not used to illustrate her as a movie star, but the film festival and the media exposure. I think is good for the composition that she's cut off, allowing thus the visual centre of the image to move towards the photographers. I agree that the image is not perfect in every single detail but I think it has high EV. I mentioned the very strong FP support from 2005 to underline that the image has such qualities. Elekhh (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- keep. I thought I recognised this image. I see I supported it then and I like it even more now. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Remove from FP list; too dark, too blurry, only half of starlet is seen. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. The basic concern is a serious cut off, but such images are hardly found in public domain. Also bear in mind this is ca. 1979. Brand 07:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no issues with the quality. The cutoff-posing starlet is a compositional decision by the photographer that I like; we see enough to get all the information, without sections that add little. Seems to fit well in the Cannes article at least - Peripitus (Talk) 07:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept --jjron (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)