Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/JFK motorcade

JFK motorcade

John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 22, 1963. Photograph shows a close-up view of President and Mrs. Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally and his wife. Simple crop of the archival scan, approx. 9 megapixels

Reason: Only free image found so far that depicts the motorcade moments prior to the JFK assassination. I feel that the encyclopedic value of this photograph far outweighs any concerns over its artistic merit or technical quality. Originally uploaded to the commons as Image:John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas.jpg. The original archival scan is now available at Image:John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas.png or in .tiff format at [1]. Current image processing software employed in MediaWiki prohibits posting a thumbnail of the original scan as it exceeds 12.5 megapixels. The crop is just a preliminary suggestion, I'd love to see some FPC regulars take a crack at cleaning up the scan.
Articles this image appears in: John F. Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, John F. Kennedy assassination, several others
Creator: Copyright by Victor Hugo King. Mr. King has since placed the photograph in the public domain.LOC record

Support as nominator --ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Taken from a unique vantage point to all others I have seen of Kennedy's motorcade through Dallas. The quality of the original is quite poor though understandable for an image from that era. Capital photographer (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are definitely better quality shots of the motorcade, unfortunately they are all protected by copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After the Brandeis portrait, this is rather poorly restored. I'm willing to pardon composition and detail but the dust, speckles, etc. are inexcusable given the excellent restoration abilities of some Wikipedians.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not that confident in my restoration abilities :) I apologize as this nomination now appears to be a bit premature, since the cropped scan exhibits a number of fixable blemishes. I'd appreciate it if Durova, or any other FPC regular, take some time to see what could be done to improve the quality of this photo. Perhaps in the meantime it is best to move this nomination to a more appropriate forum, like WP:GL or WP:PPR. Nonetheless, I believe that this photo is a substantial asset of our free content community. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this image is about half as old as the Brandeis image, technical and circumstantial factors are quite different. The Brandeis image is a formal portrait taken under studio conditions, and that had extensive damage that took roughly 20 hours to restore. This is a snapshot taken on the day of President Kennedy's assassination, and the photographer has released it to the public domain. On a technical level these two images are not very comparable. I might be able to do something with the image file (no promises), but really suggest weighing the special historical nature of this photograph. Better portraits of Kennedy may be available, but would they carry such meaning? Durova^Charge! 07:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but this image is still inferior to what it (not some other picture) could be. I will gladly revise my vote if a well-restored version is presented, and I won't judge how well is "well-restored" based on Brandeis.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily withdrawn pending request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#JFK_motorcade ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please don't simply remove a nom from the FPC page. In a case like this where holding off for a bit might produce a better picture, the nomination can be moved to the suspended list. Removing the nom from the FPC page completely is just asking for it to go missing. Also, I was giving the cleanup a go myself and then thought I was going nuts when I couldn't find the nomination anywhere (here or on PPR, I wasn't 100% sure where I saw it). Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was not aware of the proper procedure for suspending noms. I can assure you that this one will not go missing, it's too good of a learning experience for me for things to avoid should I ever nominate a picture again :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Comment despite suspended status...I don't really understand why the image needs to be revamped...if the goal is to promote an image that makes you want to "read its accompanying article," (which I think this image certainly does), isn't that enough? This photo really encapsulates recent American history (in my opinion), and I think photoshop work to an original image would detract from it. I make this statement keeping in mind the fact that this picture was from the 1960s, when photography wasn't what it is today. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I could give a better answer or one that didn't come so close to an npa violation but the truth is that voters (and despite the wording saying that it isn't a vote that's what they are) on FPC by and large and with little exception are shallow. They'll oppose for the silliest and most inconsequential reasons, they will demand that an image be redone and/or digitally corrected and then find something else to complaina about or complain that the image isn't real because it was digitally corrected. I won't rant any more on the topic because this is not the place but I honestly blame this attitude for the fact that we don't have many long term high quality contributors anymore. Cat-five - talk 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~Comment - Unfortunately. Its certainly unique, but the quality is not very good at all. I see it is being revamped, will re-evaluate my vote once this happens. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 14:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done a partial restoration (not ready for prime time) with some but not all of the artifacts removed. Image:Kennedyb.jpg. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok are we going to make a decision? Holtville (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Give it some more time, the restoration process still has a little ways to go. I'd like to thank Durova for her efforts in restoring the image. As for listing, I see no hurry, this nomination could just as easily be transcluded to the July 2008 list :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest that these votes given during the time the nomination has been suspended until it is un-suspended be treated as comments unless the commentor comes in after the nomination is started again and affirms their vote since otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of suspending the nomination since we have gotten two votes (1 support 1 oppose) since the suspension as far as I can tell. Cat-five - talk 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. One of those votes was me, I have struck my opposition, now just a comment. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 10:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about we just renominate it when the restoration is complete? NauticaShad es 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We usually remove nominations from this area if they're taking too long [2] - what's different about this one? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Especially seeing as it's been marked "stale" at the graphics lab, I think this should be closed—for now. Thegreenj 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree. I'll close it tomorrow if no one can come up with a compelling reason to leave it here any longer (or unless someone else closes it first). --jjron (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]