Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln assassination conspirators execution

Lincoln assassination conspirators execution

 * Reason:Execution of four people who conspired with John Wilkes Booth in the Abraham Lincoln Assassination. Restored version of File:Lincoln conspirators execution.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Abraham Lincoln assassination, Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell (assassin), David Herold, George Atzerodt, Fort Lesley J. McNair, hanging, Capital punishment by the United States federal government.
 * Creator:Alexander Gardner (photographer)


 * Support as nominator -- Durova  371 06:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The motion blur on the bodies is annoying, but I don't think we can expect a re-shoot. Clear enc. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In this specific situation motion blur adds to the encyclopedic value. See reference below.  Durova  371 02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Apparently they were still alive...  upstate NYer  06:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC); changed to strong support to try and outweigh some of the opposes. This is very important history.  upstate  NYer  22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of events can be classed as "very important history". The assassination of Julius Caesar, for example. However, we don't HAVE to have a featured picture on the subject, if one is clearly not available. To be a featured picture, it must be both an important subject, AND a decent portrayal of it. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Am trying to wrap my head around your argument, Mahahahaneapneap. You call this a subpar portrayal.  What, specifically, is inadequate?  We do not need the condemned prisoners' faces: good portraits are available for all of them and three of which are feature-worthy (one has already been featured).  Their order of position on the scaffold is not in dispute.  What this captures is the moment of their death.  Motion blur is advantageous in that regard: it gives the image dynamism and indicates how they were swinging.  It was much more difficult to photograph this kind of moment than a totally sharp image after a hanging was completed.  So you say that technical shortcomings outweigh the encyclopedic value.  How so?  Durova  371 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that I can't tell what's happening is the issue for me. If I hadn't read the caption, I would probably still have no idea. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have issue with known what's happening; I knew precisely what was going on. In fact, without even reading the title, I somehow knew (granted there are few options) that these were Lincoln's assassination conspirators. I don't know how you can't tell they aren't people being hanged, and since they are in the middle of dying, they are of course wiggling, which adds to the effect of the photo.  upstate NYer  05:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I question Mr A. Gardner's defintion of ""best edition".©Geni 10:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the comment more fully? The phrase "best edition" does not appear anywhere in this nomination or at his biography.  Durova  371 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When you send something to the libiary of congres to be registered you are ment to send the best edition. In this case the overall quality of the original appears to be rather poor.©Geni 23:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of original surmise. Doesn't take long on the LoC site to notice that Gardner copyrighted all or most of the images he took that day.  Per Lincoln's Assassins: Their Trial And Execution by James L. Swanson and Daniel R. Weinberg, pp. 24-25, 181 this image was taken closest in time to the moment the sentence was actually carried out.  Hence the motion blur.  And more specifically, "death struggles" (Swanson and Weinberg, 181).  Durova  371 02:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Low encyclopaedic value due to the extremely low quality. I would have no idea what is going on without being told. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment please explain the relation betwee encyclopaedic value and low quality... In our articles we use illustrations, so the fact that it needs some clarification or the fact that it clarifies the text is exactly why it is encyclopaedic. GerardM (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is such low quality that I can't see how it adds much to the articles. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. After reading the caption and file description I can not tell what many of the different parts of the photograph are. On first inspection it seems to be an unusual candidate having such low resolution, but I do not known much about the event, so I will leave it to others to talk-up any merits that it might have. Are any higher resolution versions available? Snowman (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support important historic material that provides a clue to an historic question. This "find" demonstrates why the attention to historic material profoundly affects our project. GerardM (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This is a remarkable photo with huge EV which meets the FP criteria. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting nomination. Arguably not much more detail visible than in the Bison skull pile. Elekhh (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on the bison skull pile, but the quality for this is not going to get any better due to camera limitations at the time. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inappropriately low quality in spite of restoration. Perceived quality of original is higher. I also found this (click on image for full res) where at least two, possibly as many as five faces would be identifiable (vs. none in the nominee). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feature-worthy portrait photographs are available for three of the four prisoners, and one of those is already featured (George Atzerodt). The encyclopedic value of this nomination is that it shows their death struggles (see reference above).  Only one photographer recorded this execution and only one of his photographs shows the nooses swinging; this nominee is that image.  Durova  371 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The EV for death struggle is certainly irrelevant to the nomination, as it is not included in such an article, and wouldn't be a particularly good depiction of it. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It's too blurry to tell what's going, in my opinion. If it wasn't for the obvious apparatus, I wouldn't have guessed that people are being hung here. The first and third bodies from the left are extremely undefined.-- mcshadypl T C  20:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey "Perceived quality of original is higher". I think the graininess resulting from the sharpenning and increased contrast makes the sky and especially the brick wall more distracting. Elekhh (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Strongly. Very high encyclopedic value, quality is actually pretty good for photography of moving people. I've added it to hanging, in the section on the United States, where it seems appropriate. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government
 * Support per Mostlyharmless, GerardM. NW ( Talk ) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support—Technical quality of the image irrelevant as the restoration is true to the original image's technical quality and doesn't deduct from it. Very high education value and a great restoration work. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)