Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Henry Breault

Henry Breault

Original - President Calvin Coolidge bestowing the Medal of Honor upon Torpedoman Second Class Henry Breault, March 8, 1924.

Edit 1

Reason: The Medal of Honor is the highest award of the United States armed forces. Henry Breault was a submariner who earned it when his vessel had a collision in the Panama Canal. The small submarine took less than a minute to sink. Breault reached a hatch and could have escaped, but a fellow sailor was trapped and could not have escaped with him. So Breault saved his shipmate by closing the hatch and remaining inside, waiting 31 hours inside the sunken vessel until a salvage operation arrived. This photograph was taken when President Calvin Coolidge bestowed the medal. Restored version of File:Henry Breault.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Henry Breault, Medal_of_Honor#Awarding_the_medal
Creator: National Photo Company

Support as nominator --Durova³³³ 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious EV in Breault's article, and useful EV in "Awarding the medal," surprised we didn't have such a pic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I'm not convinced with the uneven tones. Zoo Fari 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you mean particularly? Perhaps I could give it another tweak. Durova³³³ 01:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks okay on the right portion, but the shades from the left do not look even with the ones on the right. Any chance this can be fixed? It looks like someone put their greasy hands all over the left portion. Zoo Fari 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high EV. I can't see the issue ZooFari mentioned. — Jake Wartenberg 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by Very high EV? the medal is covered by the hand. All the faces are in strong shadow. Elekhh (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per ZooFari. And I don't think the photo does capture well of the moment of awarding the medal to the recipient.--Caspian blue 01:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, getting to this one. Spent a lot of time today on the 1937 all stars so please be patient. But fwiw the Mignon Nevada portrait has basically the same technical flaws as this image and in this one they're much less severe. She's sailing through on unanimous support, so the reaction here is surprising. Will do another edit. Durova³³⁹ 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded edit 1. Durova³⁴² 04:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Sorry, still I can't support the nom because the raised concern is not rectified.--Caspian blue 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't see what the medal is, blur on the hand, weak crispness is several places, shadow issues. Overall, cannot support this. Sorry. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 16:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support nomination, Support Edit 1, prefer the contrast adjustments made in the latter. Restorations restore original works. There are inherent limitations to what modifications are possible. –blurpeace ^(talk) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but some images, no matter how modified, will not make the cut for FP. This may be an example of this. It has unfixable issues. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPC criteria allow for a balance of esthetic value versus encyclopedic value, particularly with shots that can never be retaken and for which no improved version is likely to become available. The glass plate photography medium gave photographers one chance to shoot a particular scene, unlike roll film. And early photography was not good at handling motion, hence the slight blur in President Coolidge's forearm. This is currently WMF's only illustration of a Medal of Honor bestowal ceremony. Durova³⁵¹ 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit1 - The small flaws can be overlooked, as it is highly unlikely that we are going to get a better picture of this. NW (Talk) 16:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can opposers please clarify whether the edit addresses their concerns? --jjron (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the edit. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 19:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose both. Not quite what I was looking for, but better contrast in the edit. Zoo Fari 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For reasons others have mentioned. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]