Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

 * Reason:Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis tossing the bouquet at her first wedding. A bit grainy due to the technical constraints of film photography indoors under natural lighting, and slightly cut off at the elbow, but otherwise lovely and irreproducible.  Used at her biography article.  Restored version of File:Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Ann Lowe
 * Creator:Toni Frissell


 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lack of EV in Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. A regular portrait would work better. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This photo has been in her biography (at lower resolution) since April 2007. It's hard to suppose what would be more encyclopedic for the section about her marriage to John Fitzgerald Kennedy than a wedding picture.  Durova Charge! 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a picture where Jackie is more clearly identifiable and where her husband is visible. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are asking for a picture that is not available to us, a picture that cannot be made??? Really :( GerardM (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Makeemlighter gives a valid reason. Or are you suggesting that this is the only photo taken at the wedding, or the only photo of Jackie O? --jjron (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that it is the only picture taken. What I am suggesting is that this is probably the best of the few that are available under a free license. We need the best illustrations we can get !! Thanks GerardM (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I note there are five photos of Jacqueline with JFK in the article... (not wedding photos, but the section isn't specifically about their wedding). That doesn't mean any of them should be featured, but it isn't the case that free images fitting Makeemlighter's requirements don't exist. TSP (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support If only to offset the lack of appreciation for a picture that was already used and is now available in a much better quality.. Restorations gives us new material, improved material about a time that people cannot appreciate; it is about a different culture. Illustrations really help !! GerardM (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. High quality, good EV for this part of her life. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Makeemlighter. Makes complete sense to me. No EV -> no FP. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - per Mostlyharmless. Were there an article about the wedding, separate from the article about Jackie O, I'd understand the opposes. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? That doesn't make sense. --jjron (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning, Xavexgoem? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not replying sooner (I thought I had! Oops). I'll rephrase the above: As this image is in the article about Jackie Onassis, and because it's a particularly fine image, I support it. It has encyclopedic value, and it has strong emotional value. It occurs before the cheating, the distance between her and her husband, and the assassination. Kennedy is not in the picture, which unintentionally adds to that. That's just imo, but I do believe the image would have another dynamic were he in it. If this doesn't address your confusion, please reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My reply to the above discussion: I remain unconvinced of the EV of this picture. What exactly does this picture add to the article? What does it show/tell us that words cannot? Does seeing her in a wedding dress (without her husband) really enhance the article? Perhaps some, but not a great deal. There are two ways for a picture to have exceptional EV in a biographical article: by clearly identifying a person, showing what they look like, as in a portrait; and showing them doing something that is illustrative of their lives (for example, a golfer golfing). This picture does neither. As I said above, having her husband in the picture would help EV, but it's still just her in a wedding dress. Wedding pictures are not particularly encyclopedic. I realize that it's nice to have pictures accompanying an article, but I hardly think this really enhances anyone's understanding of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. So, until someone can show otherwise, this picture fails criterion 5 and, thus, should not be featured. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That query would make sense if this were simply a pose in a wedding dress; this is a shot of her throwing the bouquet at her wedding. The symbolism of that act makes it inherently encyclopedic at her biography for the section about her marriage.  It's very surprising that a photograph which has been stable at the article itself for two years gets challenged on ev at FPC.  Other images have been added and removed from the article while this stayed.  Durova Charge! 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: This was a significant event. A remarkable woman marries one of the most historically memorable presidents of the United States, and in that also becomes one of the most historically memorable first ladies.  She may have been "privileged" and may have found limelight in some other capacity, but this is a snapshot in time of the critical event that really shaped her life.  This photograph has more content and interest than a portrait of her would.  And I don't think it's important that JFK isn't in the photograph; after all, most of the females who look at this picture will be hooked by what she's wearing, not him.  By the way, it's a gorgeous wedding dress!—which brings me to point out that this photograph could be used on the page for the designer Ann Lowe?   Mae din \talk 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion; done. Durova Charge! 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as the one who dug this up and added it to the article two years ago (glad to see that it stuck around!). Technical quality is acceptable for the time, good composition, and excellent EV (probably the defining moment in this woman's life). Glad to see we have an article about the dress designer--I agree that it is still gorgeous, after all these years. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right: this probably is the defining moment in her life. But it's defining because of who she married! So the absence of JFK in this picture greatly detracts from its EV. How can a picture be encyclopedic for a marriage if it only shows the wife and not the husband? Makeemlighter (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

--Wronkiew (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)