Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office

Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office



 * Reason:Historical Signifigance and recognizability
 * Articles this image appears in:Oath of office, Vice President of the United States, 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jack Valenti, United States presidential line of succession, Sarah T. Hughes, Chrysalis (Babylon 5), Morgan Clark, President of the United States oath of office, List of United States presidential inaugurations, Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress
 * Creator:Cecil Stoughton, White House Press Office (WHPO)


 * Support as nominator &mdash; TomStar81 (Talk) 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support High encyclopedic and historical value Cacophony 01:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 *  Strong support - very historically significant, nice reproduction. I'm worried it's plagarized from here though :-) Debivort 04:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This image is obviously of huge historical significance, and it’s a great digitization — insanely high-res, and the overall image quality is very high. But perhaps we should hold off on this nomination and instead time it to coincide with the 44th anniversary late this year, as Commons did last year? Or can a picture be promoted to FP status, but just not selected as a POTD for a few months? —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The POTD appearance can be easily arranged to be on the correct date, however we don't suspend noms for the sole reason that their promotion coincides with some date. MER-C 08:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Support High res image with immense historic value. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 08:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice find. Hits all the criteria squarely and the best caption I've seen in a while :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support How could this not have been nominated and featured already? I'm aghast!   Enuja 04:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)  New version is better; it has the same scratches, which are sometimes a little more noticeable (man's face in far lower left), but that's because everything is clearer.  I am not expressing an opinion about how high resolution the FP version should be, simply that the lighter version is better.  Enuja 12:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very historical pic...I've seen this pic in multiple U.S. history textbooks (that's like the third time I said that on FPC). Maybe a task force should be created for finding all the historically significant PD pics in textbook. Anyways, very high quality scan of a pic a couple of decades old. Jumping   cheese  04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspended due to copyright concerns brought up by Debivort until concerns can be rectified Cat-five - talk 00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think Debivort was joking...you know, reference to Laura Roslin on Battlestar Galactica? Jumping   cheese  04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It always helps to check the source before commenting on copyright Rights Information: This image is in the public domain and may be used free of charge without permissions or fees. Bleh999 07:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination reopened Jumping   cheese  04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry about that should have realized it was PD just from originally looking at it, I guess I'm out of practice :) Cat-five - talk 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. It's not even like Battlestar Galactica was the first to do that.  Oh, by the way, support.  Was the lower left of the photograph always so dark and obscured? Spikebrennan 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support new version which is even better.


 * Weak oppose Scratched. Look at the air vent or whatever in the wall on the far left, about half way down. And it's so big at high rez it's hard to tell what you're looking at, eyt it can be blurry in places. Downsample?--HereToHelp 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be helpful if someone could download the .tif from here and redo the jpeg.  The current one, as Spikebrennan says above, is rather darker than the original. Chick Bowen 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I did that, but I'm not sure how well received my version will be, the high res is overkill especially since all you are looking at is film grain at full resolution. Bleh999 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support new version as it is lighter then first; overall image has great historical value. M.K. 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative - the second version is still high enough res that you can see the film grain, so any more is just wasted. Everything else has already been said.  Zakolantern 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original, Oppose Alternate The original seems slightly dark, but so has every copy of this image I've ever seen. The new one just looks washed out on johnson's face. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)