Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American M8 in Paris

American M8 in Paris, August 1944

 * Reason:I believe that this meets the criteria for EV, especially with the Arc de Triomphe in the background. Admittedly, the quality of the image is not up the standards of a modern image, but I believe it does meet the requirements in regards to composition and lighting (problem is burn outs).  The subject is the M8, and I believe that it shows the subject very well and adds it to a very important historical context (the liberation of Paris).  This image will also be used on Portal:Tank if it passes.
 * Articles this image appears in:M8 Greyhound, Censorship, Liberation of Paris, Arc de Triomphe
 * Creator: The U.S. National Archives website doesn't state who is the author Office for Emergency Management. Office of War Information. Overseas Operations Branch. New York Office. News and Features Bureau.


 * Support as nominator --JonCatalán(Talk) 18:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Very powerful image .  Beware  ofdog  22:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose There's quite a few scratch lines I'd like to see fixed in PS before I'd consider this an FP --Fir0002 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have an understanding of Photoshop, but you'd have to tell me to the tools to use. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Primarily the clone stamp tool but the heal tool can sometimes do a good job too. I'd have a go myself but it seems that holidays can be almost as busy as uni! :) --Fir0002 08:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Primarily the clone stamp tool but the heal tool can sometimes do a good job too. I'd have a go myself but it seems that holidays can be almost as busy as uni! :) --Fir0002 08:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment + Edit1 added I am ongoing with restoration. Question: should I go so far as to attempt to recreate the vehicle.unit identification numbers that were scratched out of the image at some point? Mfield (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what those were, I think you have a good idea as long as it is done historically accurately Thisglad (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like 20 X and 20R 1 to me.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some important units had the insignias or numbers censored in release photographs otherwise it could aid enemy intelligence about their location, that is probably what was done here Thisglad (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is no longer a valid reason for censorship. Do we remain truthful to the photograph, or to the scene? I'm leaning on putting them back in, but it depends on how well it can be done.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After more thought, I am leaving the censorship as is. The numbers are still discernable (which shoes how ineffective that piece of censorship really was), and removing them would be removing something that really adds more enc value, displaying how such images had their numbers removed. So rather than removing them I have added the image to the article on Censorship Mfield (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the censorship is an important part of this image's history. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, 20X (see notes here) would indicate a HQ (or other non-regimental) unit of 20th Infantry Division... which didn't exist. Our caption, taken from here, says it's the 102nd Cavalry, but I suspect that's in error - the numbers could as easily be 28X, which would indicate 28th Infantry Division, which was certainly in Paris for the parade and will have had an M8-equipped recon troop. If so, the second group would logically be 28R (28th Reconnaissance Troop), and then a specific vehicle number. Would anyone object to my correcting the caption based on this? Shimgray | talk | 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of avoiding "no original research" arguments, I would say no. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :-) That said, I'd advise against using the detailed caption that's currently in, eg, Liberation of Paris - a general "American troops...", etc, as here, is accurate enough. Shimgray | talk | 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit1 Mfield (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit1 per above Thisglad (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 - Looks good to me, and including the censorship is a nice idea. Skinny87 (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 23:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)