Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marcos visit Johnson 1966
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 14:14:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- A dramatic photo of world leaders. But the focus is on Imelda Marcos.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ferdinand Marcos, Lyndon B. Johnson, Imelda Marcos, State Arrival Ceremony
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History
- Creator
- Magalhães
- Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment — I'm not sure if the up-the-nostrils angle is dramatic or just gimmicky. Nor is it apparent what this 1966 photo illustrates other than a routine state visit. (And those eyes over F. Marcos's left shoulder, do they belong to Dean Rusk?) Sca (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Response I think the angle is made to accentuate Imelda's beauty in contrast to the others as she seems to be the most prominent person in terms of location. The photo represents the controversial relationship between U.S. presidents and the soon-to-be dictator F. Marcos, so if this was done today, it wouldn't be just a run-of-the-mill state visit. And who is Dean Rusk?--Theparties (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose and please stop nominating low quality images of Marcos (though this is better than some). This has little encyclopedic value with such an angle. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Response First of all, I didn't upload any of these photos so it is not my fault why the are "low quality" in your opinion. Second, being "low quality" doesn't necessarily prevent an image from becoming featured, like the image of Michael Collins below (which you voted for by the way), as long as it represents historic value, and this image pretty much represent that value in terms of the contradiction of the Philippine-United States relationship during the martial law era and the democratic ideals both countries claim to represent.--Theparties (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Collins image was from 1922. This is from 1966. That's a significant gap in terms of technology and expected deterioration of the prints before digitalization. The "historic value" you tout has already been questioned by Sca, above, as nothing here says anything more than "state visit". Composition and such ("up-the-nostrils", to quote) are poor, though not as poor as the one you nominated below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Crisco: the composition here is not good and the mild historic value of the image does not compensate for its flaws. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)