Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wilhelm Keitel signing unconditional surrender
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 12:21:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is the
onlybest available photo of this historic event. Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/V-E Day. There is simply no way to avoid the headless men. - Articles in which this image appears
- End of World War II in Europe, Victory in Europe Day + 5
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
- Creator
- Lt. Moore (US Army), edited by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support, what a pity the head of the other man is not seen!, However, a good shot and interesting event. --LLcentury (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – A justly famous photo that obviously has been around since the event 74 years ago. My question: Why would we promote this familiar, widely known image now? – Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- PS: Interesting that the Herr Generalfeldmarschall removed only one glove to sign the document. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- WP:FP?: The same reason we promote any FP because it
[a]dds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- WP:FP?: The same reason we promote any FP because it
- PS: Interesting that the Herr Generalfeldmarschall removed only one glove to sign the document. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sure – but how does a photo that's been extant for 74 years, one that's been displayed in the target article End of World War II in Europe for at least eight years (probably longer), and one that was added to the sidebar article Victory in Europe Day (by me) three years ago, now suddenly add significant EV? – Sca (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand where you got "newness" criterion? That is not based on any policy for how we choose FP. The photo has always added significant EV and should have always been featured. It is among the best content on Wikipedia--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Adds is a present-tense verb, connoting current action. A photo with the history of WP use outlined above isn't "adding" anything to Wiki now. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are misunderstanding the meaning of Adds. But well ok. The existence of such a criterion is news to me. If this project expects new photos or photos newly added to an article, it should or would be stated in WP:FP?. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sca's argument makes no sense and is definitely not Ok, it's like saying a hospital cannot benefit society today because the hospital was established 20 years ago. Bammesk (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are misunderstanding the meaning of Adds. But well ok. The existence of such a criterion is news to me. If this project expects new photos or photos newly added to an article, it should or would be stated in WP:FP?. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Adds is a present-tense verb, connoting current action. A photo with the history of WP use outlined above isn't "adding" anything to Wiki now. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand where you got "newness" criterion? That is not based on any policy for how we choose FP. The photo has always added significant EV and should have always been featured. It is among the best content on Wikipedia--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sure – but how does a photo that's been extant for 74 years, one that's been displayed in the target article End of World War II in Europe for at least eight years (probably longer), and one that was added to the sidebar article Victory in Europe Day (by me) three years ago, now suddenly add significant EV? – Sca (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
No it's not like that. Suppose the hypothetical hospital still had exactly the same operating room and equipment as it had when it opened. Would it make sense to argue that said operating room suddenly adds great benefit to society? The Keitel photo's EV began when it was added to the articles. (And its weighty historical value aside, it's a poorly framed composition that can't be fixed.) – Sca (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it is like that, because you wrote: "how does a photo (…) one that's been displayed in the target article (…) for at least eight years (…) now suddenly add significant EV? (…) A photo with the history of WP use outlined above isn't 'adding' anything to Wiki now." By the way, FP criteria doesn't say "suddenly adds". About "suppose": no there is no reason to suppose, the argument isn't about health care quality and operating rooms. If you want to elaborate, do it on your original argument. Bammesk (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a very historically significant image, but it's just not a good photo. The top of Keitel's head is cut off, as is the bottom of his hat, and there's nothing which clearly puts the photo in context. If WP:VPC was still going, this would be a good candidate for that status. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 12:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The shadows just look wrong on it. I did some experiments, and discovered the only way to fix it is to pull the shadows way down. Which does, admittedly, look substantially better; the image is horribly faded. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 07:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've uploaded over a fix. I guess I can Support the fix. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 07:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)