Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fidel Castro in Washington D.C., 1959

Fidel Castro in Washington D.C., 1959

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 01:14:26 (UTC)

Reason: In terms of quality, the image is the best we have of the subject, striking and of a high resolution. It is also featured on the Spanish and Turkish language Wikipedias. Primarily, its historical value warrants it in my opinion.
Articles in which this image appears: Fidel Castro
FP category for this image: People/Political
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. Greg L (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added an edit with brighter lighting --AutoGyro (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered composition, jpeg artifacting visible even in thumbnail. Not sure why the edit was uploaded as PNG. Fletcher (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm pretty sure it's impossible to see JPEG artefacting from the original image in a 300 px wide thumbnail of a 3000px image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I should have said the image description page. Although I can make out the artifacting in the thumbnail of the edit version, near the lower left. Fletcher (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Greg L (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not wild about the lighting or composition. We also have colour shots of the subject- it's not a bad shot, by any means, but I don't think it's feature worthy. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeez, JM. It was a news conference in the 50s when there were probably scores of Cuban rebels around with guns. They used flashbulbs in big parabolic reflectors back then. One of the common complains about that flashbulb technology is pictures often had a “charcoal & whitewash” look. This is really quite good given the period. But that’s OK; with 400+ FPs in the queue waiting for their day on the Main Page as a Featured Picture, I’m pleased when nominations that I voted “support” on don’t do particularly well. Greg L (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's an environment in which it is damn near impossible to get a picture up to the quality we expect, and, surprise surprise, they didn't manage to get a picture up to the quality we expect. Not really seeing your point. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Press conferences such as these usually are cluttered. Sir Richardson (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to this image of Robert Kennedy. Sir Richardson (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said cluttered I didn't just mean a crowded scene - I meant other people and objects visually intrude too much on the main subject. In that picture of Kennedy there is more visual separation between him and the crowd below or behind him, and it's a more striking image IMO. If the picture of Kennedy were cropped and centered showing only the bullhorn, microphones, and heads of a few people around him, it likely wouldn't be FP. Fletcher (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Boring picture per J Milburn I'd rather see a color picture, interesting moment depicted (Castro in the US). --I'ḏ ♥One 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 04:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]