Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/IOQuake2004

IOQuake2004

Indonesian refugees gather under an approaching U.S. helicopter to receive food and supplies after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.

This is a rather stunning photo of people devasted by disaster reaching for the sky asking for help, and catching it as it falls on them. There's quite a range of facial expressions visible - gratitude, anticipation, physical exertion, alarm, and what looks like desperation. There is some motion blur, but that may actually add a bit to the dramatic and dynamic feel. Caption says this is a U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate Airman Patrick M. Bonafede.

Nominate and support. - Beland 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there must be some sort of copyright issue here, wouldnt those people have to had signed some sort of form (which i doubt they did) Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like it was taken by a photographer during the line of duty, which would make it public domain (I assume?) The original photo on the Navy website is 2100x1500, shouldn't that image be used instead? --Marumari 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The people can be said to have been out in public. Although I agree that it is generally ethical to get permission, we should also recognise that this is documenting events in a historic context that cannot be recreated in a more ideal world. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Consent is not a copyright issue. It's possibly a legal issue in other contexts, but not copyright. As a photograph of a newsworthy event, I doubt they would apply either. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like there's already a featured image on that article - I don't know what the policy is about having two featured images from the same article. --Marumari 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any policy against it, but just as a point of information the other photo is actually a Commons featured picture, not a Wikipedia one. It might be worth nominating the other picture as a Wikipedia FP; it's certainly an incredible shot and more illustrative of the article than this image (its resolution is a bit low, and the composition isn't what it would be if the shot had been planned; but its significance might be enough to overcome these). TSP 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weird - I also see it here, so maybe it was a FP in both Commons and the general Wikipedia? --Marumari 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh! Yes, you're right. It's also on Wikipedia:Featured pictures; there's just no Featured Picture label on the picture page itself. On a quick browse, there seem to be quite a few FPs (most, possibly all, from Commons) without the FP label on their own pages. TSP 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it just doesn't seem to have that featured picture quality about it. Also, I know it's an action shot, but there's still a lot of motion blur. --Cyde↔Weys 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Slightly underexposed? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks more like it reached the dynamic range limit of whatever camera was used. There's blown highlights (a little bit) in the white t-shirts, as well as black blacks in the image. --Marumari 14:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. This image doesn't strike me as especially noteworthy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do no think that this photo adds significantly to its accompanying article.--Pedit 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]