Support as nominator --ClausX (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unappealing background and confusing pose of subject. Also, identity of photographer and legitimacy of the license for the photo ought to be clearer. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing exceptional here. Even the nominator can't say better than "nice picture". Clearly not enough for FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what makes this picture notable. Can ClausX please explain why this should be a featured picture. Just because it "looks nice" doesn't make it automatically comply with featured picture criteria. Did the user even review it when nominating? AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this nomination was made 7 minutes after the user's account was created, and this is the only edit he has made except for one each to his user and talk pages (ClausX (talk·contribs·logs)). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator is "A Photographer" That narrows it down! Source is the model's web site. Any copyright issues? Oh, and Oppose --Bridgecross (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the use of this image has been cleared at OTRS. --jjron (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to background. Decent image, but not quite featured picture material. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support decent quality and if not perfect in all aspects in my opinion it is certainly among the very best images of living people on Wikipedia and a good illustration of the subject that adds significantly to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Guest9999. Certainly one of the best living persons images we have on this site and illustrates the subject quite well. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Guest9999.--Paris 16 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background --Muhammad(talk) 09:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like an extended caption, particularly where and what she's doing. brandt 09:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Have been a little undecided on this one. Was iffy on the creator/licensing at first, but it seems valid enough. Image quality is pretty good and as some of the others have said, for a Wiki photo of a living person/celebrity it is quite good (despite her being of perhaps slightly questionable notability). Not that impressed with the messy background, but on the other hand it's clearly intentional. Overall leads me to a weak support. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose No compelling reason to support this. But it's not terrible. Distracting background is biggest problem. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Awkward pose, distracting background, and looks heavily airbrushed. Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
