Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yalta Conference

Yalta Conference



 * Reason:Incredible, iconic, and overall striking picture... epitomizes WW2 and the 20th century... so many important people in one place.. Definite WOW factor. Also, very high resolution for an older pic. :) Cheers another FP --Tobyw87 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles this image appears in:Yalta Conference
 * Creator:Unknown (comes from the national archives)
 * Nominator: Tobyw87


 * Support &mdash; Tobyw87 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support pending clarification of copyright status (almost definitely public domain). Noclip 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This picture is very iconic and has great historical value.  The reason for my opposition is that the photograph seems to have scratches and other lines.  These defects can be fixed easily and when fixed, it will earn my support.  --Midnight Rider 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great historic picture.Bewareofdog 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We should be able to get a better copy of such a famous photo. &mdash;Dgiest c 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This photo comes from the national archives... I looked through the entire website that they have and I do not think a pic of greater resolution or size exists. It is 60 years old for peets sake! I think it is very good all things considered. If someone can find a better pic, all the better. --Tobyw87 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is only 60 years old for peets sake! this pic is even three years older, and its quality doesn't suck this badly. So please stop excusing picture quality just because it is 60 years old. The exposure is terrible, it goes from black to gray, with the lightest grays containing no details. Aynway, enc is undisputable, it is a typical textbook picture. --Dschwen 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow kinda sounds like the definition of something that is encyclopedic... typical textbook picture.. hmmmmmmmm --Tobyw87 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehmm...? You nicely restated my point, thanks :-) --Dschwen(A) 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support  - Very historic and encyclopedic. Uh, maybe the reason there are "scratches and other lines" is because this photo is over 60 years old.  --UCLARodent 07:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose In my opinion this image is the one I connect with the Yalta Conference (and just because the other one is b/w doesn't mean it is historically more valuable than it's "brother" (or "sister" for that matter) in color). The only problem about the color version is, that it's a bit small. (and the scratches don't bother me that much; historical value makes up for this, but just taking the b/w, because it looks more historical, seems a bit fishy to me). -Wutschwlllm 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * neutral I'd like to see a version of the color photo mentioned by Wutschwlllm which strikes me as the more iconic photo as well. Debivort 10:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I agree that the color image is much more iconic however I cannot find a version of it of the same quality as the image that I nominated. If someone could look for that, that would be highly beneficial. --Tobyw87 20:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * support The fact that this photo has scratches/etc is irrelevant in my mind. It is still a wonderful picture and deserves to be featured, if simply because of its historical impact and recognition factor.  There is a similar copy in color here but I don't think it has quite as much "oomph" as the bw version (mainly due to the demeanor of the "big three"). Srilina 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Wutschwlllm above. highlunder 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Iconic photo.--DaveOinSF 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I should have a scratch free image finished soon. [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Edit 1 With the scratches removed, I see no reason as to why this image shouldn't achieve FP status. H4cksaw   (talk)  01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Support Edit 1. TotoBaggins 02:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further input required. Raven4x4x 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I prefer the colour version. That might pass as a FP, despite its size, given its historical value.  I've not really judged the b&w one on its own mertis, but I note the criticisms of Dschwen. Pstuart84 Talk 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support But the picture still needs more work to clean it up. Edit 1 has too much blue in it.WindsorFan 09:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's too muddy. Needs more brightness or contrast or something along those lines.  howcheng  {chat} 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. B&W doesn't detract significantly. The resolution is good. Extremely iconic. --⁪froth T 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)