Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama and Biden await updates on bin Laden

White House Situation room for Operation Geronimo
Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 15:34:45 (UTC)
 * Reason:Without doubt one of the most powerful and significant pictures that has emerged in recent times. This view has been expressed in many media outlets such as CNN and the featured picture peer review had two response, with an unqualified support and an ambiguous response.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Death of Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden
 * FP category for this image:American history
 * Creator:US Government


 * Support as nominator --TheWilliamson (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support I was thinking of nominating this myself earlier today. The quality may not be perfect but it is indeed a powerful image reminiscent of scenes from 24. May need a light denoise --Muhammad (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Head bottom left, blown pixels at the top, poor composition (lack of focal point, hugely unbalanced), ambiguous focus, and noise. Yeah it's a important moment in american politics, but I'm not feeling it's an outstanding photograph. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The ambiguous response at peer review was pretty much an oppose, btw. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose On the basis we don't actually know the meaning of the image and there is no focal point in the image. Media outlets report they were watching the infiltration unfold in real-time, whereas Leon Panetta refute that saying Obama didn't watch via a head-cam, so what exactly they are watching/hearing on the Situation Room screen is unknown. Although an intriguing photo, without clarification of what exactly they are watching, it goes against the grain of photography and is too ambiguous to be a featured picture - in my view anyway. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, the quality isn't perfect, but I would suggest that the historic significance of the photograph is enough to over-ride those concerns. The atmosphere in the room is almost palpable. Bob talk 22:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The historical value is undeniable, though as others have said, it's somewhat diminished by the fact that we're looking at people looking intently at something, but we don't know exactly what they're looking at.  But I think what we're summarizing as "quality concerns" actually go deeper than that.  The noise derives from working without flash in available light, and I sympathize with that.  But it was an odd choice not to try to include the president within the depth of field; it kind of makes me wonder what Souza imagines this as a photograph of.  And, though I understand why the document in front of Clinton had to be pixelated, it doesn't make for very compelling photography. I've just sifted through Commons:Category:Photographs by Pete Souza and was left feeling like, even given the situation, this is not his best work. Chick Bowen 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Compelling, encyclopedic. Neutralitytalk 05:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hasn't been in the article for a week - per stevo we are still learning about it. Frankly though this is an easy support after that week - it's one of the more valuable images available on the topic and has been widely printed in the media with good reason (including my own local newspaper). JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very interesting image; when I saw it in the newspaper I was fascinated at those fascinated people. Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support While this image is new, I think it is clear that it will have lasting EV. The role of the Obama administration will not diminish over time. There is little doubt that this is a critical scene from the operation. It effectively shows the tension in the room (despite the obvious flaws) and it is a situation which will not be repeated. Cowtowner (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The noise is too great in this photo, as well as the pixelated document (which appears to be a photo of the compound) on top of the laptop detract from the overall subject. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is a valuable and useful photo, it isn't of particularly high technical standards and the uncertainty over what the people in the room were looking at limits the EV. It might be worth nominating this as a valued picture. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Seriously? The quality of this is terrible. -- mcshadypl T C  03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Although I can't comment on the quality of this image, I do think it the picture represents an important moment in modern history.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the pixelated documents detract from the composition. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  06:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What composition??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ZING! --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Noise is acceptable to me - Blieusong (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose fails WP:NOTCENSORED; see documents.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose fails in so many aspects. It's well known, but not good. --Niabot (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Historically important image, notwithstanding the technical shortcomings.  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)