Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2017 Women's March

2017 Women's March

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2017 at 12:39:11 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photo demonstrating a historical event in the making

Articles in which this image appears

2017 Women's March

FP category for this image

People/Others

Creator

AmandalynnJones

• Support as nominator – Justin Ormont (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a historical event? I don't think and more,the woman on the right is out of focus. Sorry. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This doesn't show anything special about protesting other than how many sore losers there are in Hillary's camp. And in addition to the women, the other sign in the background is also out of focus. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm inclined to agree that this photo does not have an FP-quality composition, even though it is a fine portrait of the main subject. That said, I'm surprised (to put it politely) by the above comments. This is indeed an event of significance; this is something that should be clear whether it is thought that the protestors are merely "sore losers" or not. Given the ongoing worries about Wikipedia as a hostile space for women, perhaps it would be prudent to not be so dismissive? (This is a rhetorical question. I am really not looking for a debate, here.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• oh my dog Josh Milburn.I have six daughters(!!!) (and a wife!) losing the elections and complaining is still not a democratic thing, I don't like Trump. But complaining is useless and so foolish. If won the Clinton (very feminist to use her husband's name!) They would have to complain about? For blowjobs in the White House? (or Madonna) Greetings --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what you think you're proving. Your comment is barely coherent. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The important is coherent. Salut. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I note that the image is currently only used in a gallery, and so is probably not eligible for FP status for that reason alone. The article, naturally, is attracting a lot of attention at the moment; perhaps it would be best to hold off until it is more stable before selecting one or more images to nominate. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too small at 2048×1365 (see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria); also the out-of-focus woman on the right is too distracting for me. Sorry. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration." On these grounds, since this is the largest national protest in the U.S. since the Vietnam War, a case could be made for an exception on historically relevant grounds. And this is 1500px on one side, so it half way there. That being said,these are ongoing protests, so I'd expect it wouldn't be too hard to obtain another photo with the required size parameters and with the out of focus elements back in focus. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. If the nominator feels that an exception should be made here, then he should make it. But, as you said, these are ongoing protests, and other opportunities should be available to take a better, larger picture. —Bruce1ee^talk 21:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update/Size: I contacted the photographer [1]. She uploaded a larger version (6,720×4,480px). Justin Ormont (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated my vote to reflect the new size, but I still oppose because of the focus issues. —Bruce1ee^talk 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Composition, out of focus, bad crop. --Mile (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Ditto, ditto, ditto. Given today's camera technology, a much better comp could have been found in an impromptu series of quick shots. Sca (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Crop/composition: Do you think a tighter crop would be useful? I was thinking of cropping away the foreground women on the right. Justin Ormont (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But then you will have 3 people with little girl choped off. For protest there should be more people. --Mile (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - for an event in 2017, with millions of participants (largely young, creative people seeking to go viral and spread awareness) there should be effectively infinite free-use photos available for our use. As such, a FP on the subject should really knock it out of the park. As far as photojournalism goes, this shot isn't particularly poignant or striking. It's a low-contrast snapshot of one demonstrator holding a relatively tame sign, surrounded by lots of bored-looking people... most of whom are cut-off and/or out-of-focus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposePer other - Jobas (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]