Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Situation Room (photograph)

The Situation Room (photograph)
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2013 at 05:58:14 (UTC)
 * Reason:Technically? Nothing special, snapshotty even. But the encyclopedic value of the image, which has gained extensive analysis in its relation to the death of Osama bin Laden, offsets the technical limitations. We certainly can't take this one over again. A previous nomination in 2011 failed, but at the time the image's impact and individual notability was uncertain.
 * Articles in which this image appears:The Situation Room (photograph) +10 or so
 * FP category for this image:USA History (maybe)
 * Creator:Pete Souza


 * Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This image is immense. Prior nom was probably a good example of nominating too soon. "Snapshotty even": pretty much my thought when I first saw this image blasted on the front page of several media sites—"nothing special here"! But seeing it again brings a sort of surge of emotion now. Just goes to show the meaning behind "a thousand words". I wonder if the pixelled out document isn't a face? I'm sure it's been analyzed by some journalist somewhere. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 06:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as the previous nom. --Muhammad (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support When the photograph it's self has its own article, then obvious promote is obvious. — raeky  t  20:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The monumental historical significance overcomes such technical shortcomings as image noise, insufficient depth of field, etc. The oppositions in the previous nomination primarily focused on "we don't know the significance of this photo" and "we don't know what they're looking at", but the unfolding of events and release of information since then has made things clear. dllu (t,c) 22:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Neither the image itself nor the file information doesn't show what those people are looking at (probably a computer screen). Particularly Hillary's face makes me want to see what she is looking at, but that thing is out and one can only speculate. Brandmeistertalk  22:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Live feed from a drone, according to the article. I've added this to the description page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanx. Brandmeistertalk  01:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The photo is so notable it has it's own article, nothing can be more clear to promote than it. All technical shortcomings are put aside at that point. Case in point, Pale Blue Dot, when you have an article about an image, the image should immediately be a FP... I don't see any way to argue against it, unless we don't have the original image, and in both these cases we do. Obviously this one can get the anti-war, anti-united states, anti whatever crowd who is going to oppose for whatever reasons, but technical issues can't be valid in this case when the image is notable enough to have an article, imho. — raeky  t  01:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more or less my opinion as well, although Brandmeister did raise a good point about the description (which I fixed). Changing the image would reduce its EV; the whole point is that the image is the image, with all its shortcomings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Competent photo (especially given the constraints which applied to where it was taken), with huge EV in its own right and as a marker of this event. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I guess I can finally say, I told you so. Cowtowner (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The perfect English Wikipedia FP candidate. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support government heavies? Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's an Americanism... heavies, heavyweights (like in boxing), important and powerful people — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Entry #33 here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew what it meant and I also knew it was slang. But I suppose since it is just the nomination caption it won't matter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, LOL. Yeah, the POTD blurb would likely have more standard English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Historical value aside, there are still a multitude of quality issues here. I can't support it.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't just put historical value aside. From the WP:Featured Picture Criteria: A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. and the WP:Featured Picture Criteria furthermore states that, regarding the criteria for technical standard, Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. dllu (t,c) 23:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As the picture has an article on it, this is essentially the same as opposing a notable painting because you don't like the style. Considering Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold passed easily... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Useful picture to explain that event. --C5st4wr6ch (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support great image and very high EV but I'm a little distracted on the portion of head in the lower-left corner. Funny thing because it seems that they are watching to our discussion because of their direction, it's nothing important though. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 05:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Strong ev outweighs technical shortcomings.  Spencer T♦ C 21:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - High EV is more important than technical excellence Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 08:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)