Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Commodore Grace M. Hopper, USN (covered).jpg

File:Commodore Grace M. Hopper, USN (covered).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 07:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by James S. Davis - uploaded by Jatkins, edited by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 07:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 07:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Support this, but I'm sorry to say, I don't think the work done on this picture has improved it. To my eyes, there's more detail and life to her face in the original. She might find the revision flattering, as it softens the wrinkles, but I like the greater degree of redness in her face in the original. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does this mean I should oppose the current revision? Are we charged with opposing a feature if there's another version we consider superior? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think you'd be called upon to oppose only if you considered the current nominated version inferior to the point of not being FP worthy at all (I mean called upon in the sense that you yourself would feel an oppose was warranted). I don't think FPC imposes any restrictions on individual voting, aside from obvious problems like sockpuppetry/vote-stacking, canvassing, etc, nor should it. INeverCry 18:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have another idea: Am I permitted to nominate the original upload as an alternative, although I currently have two active nominations? If not, would someone else please do that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t like the fashion of putting up alternatives, as little as I like subsequent editing. Let’s judge a nomination as it is, no further editing being performed (in order not to compromise the votings given before!) and no alternatives. If the work needs re-editing, then better withdraw the first nomination and put the alternative up as a new candidate. This way the voting would be much clearer. --Kreuz schnabel 08:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've always liked this pic and her no-nonsense expression, but I have to agree with Ikan on this editing. Noise reduction on the background, clothes, etc. is great, but her face has lost a bit of life with it. Wrinkles are an honor badge that you have achieved high age and nothing to hide or retouch. w.carter-Talk 08:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft for my taste. Noisy too. No FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist-hp This image is from 1984. I think for that era it's pretty good. --Pine^✉ 15:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFirst, we usually don’t consider the circumstances a pic has been taken under but judge the result only (except on pictures of greatest historical importance). Second, "pretty good" is not sufficient to be featured. We still look for the outstanding. --Kreuz schnabel 08:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No FP. JukoFF (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support She's just got way too much character for me not to support this one. INeverCry 18:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't see featureness here. ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 14:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nmaia. No wow at all. --Kreuz schnabel 08:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything featurable. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kruusamägi. --Karelj (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]