Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jacinda Ardern by Kirk Hargreaves

Jacinda Ardern after the Christchurch mosque shootings

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 16:28:48 (UTC)

Original – Jacinda Ardern after the Christchurch mosque shootings

Reason: Huge encyclopedic value. The extent of the photo's significance to the events has even been written about in e.g. The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald. Seems like a good example of EV outweighing some elements on the technical side that would typically prevent an image from being promoted. See also the Signpost.
Articles in which this image appears: Christchurch mosque shootings, Jacinda Ardern
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Kirk Hargreaves, uploaded by Giantflightlessbirds

Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support provided that the OTRS permission is verified. Photo has become notable in its own right. MER-C 17:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should wait until the OTRS is cleared. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very poor image of an important event. There are dozens of better ones around. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a case of the picture of itself being an item of interest - and this is partially because of the technical imperfections. The nominator's claim of high EV holds up. --LukeSurl^{t c} 08:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose – This depicts an emotionally charged recent event, and the image captures that. However, I wonder how much the original image was manipulated for effect – the hands for instance. Color? Saturation? In other words, is this a picture of how things really were? – Sca (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Keep in mind, Ms. Adern is a currently sitting politician. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hear your concern, but I would argue (as others have) that the EV of the image outweighs those technical concerns. However, if you still have outstanding issues, what solution would you propose? Cwilson97 (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2019

From the Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald stories above we have a pretty detailed account of how the image was taken. "The photo, which first appeared on a city council Twitter feed, appeared as taken with barely any touch-ups or editing." —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are opposing because of ... a feeling of wondering if something is manipulated? The hands in particular? What evidence do you have for this (and/or that the accounts in the publications are lying/misleading)? Are you saying the hands are copied in? Or just that the saturation was changed (as it has been for many or even most FPs, to some degree). Oppose because you think the technical specs are more important than the broad press coverage this has received reporting on the significance of the photo to the events, or because they're wrong, but not because of some hunch of bad faith on the part of the photographer or some allusion to [over-?]post-processing. There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose this one -- it's the quality is not typical of FPs, after all -- but this one I don't get. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the picture does not really describe either of the main topics, but is tangentially related to both, so I do not see strong EV for this artistic photograph. Mattximus (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the photo of Jacinda Ardern in one of her most important public appearances is only tangentially related to Jacinda Ardern. And the feeling here in NZ is that photo is absolutely an important part of the mosque shootings aftermath. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Through a window blurred with reflections? Mattximus (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What does the technical quality have to do with whether it's an important photo or not? Have you read the linked articles about the photo? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't get it, but the evidence convinces me this image is iconic of the event. I suspect, if it doesn't pass, coming back in a month with evidence of its enduring importance will make it pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 01:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – there are sufficient sources on the photo itself that it would be notable even in the absence of the surrounding context, which I think suggests sufficient EV; it's great to have a notable news photo available to Wikipedia straight after the event. TSP (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the OTRS permission? Do you have the ticket number? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, but could we perhaps hold off promoting until permission is confirmed with OTRS? I am definitely excited that we have an image that has been so widely commented upon, but I think the EV could be better grounded if one or both of the articles discussed the photograph, even if it's only a line or two - hence the "weak". Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd DEFINITELY support suspending this until OTRS clears, but only after the voting period is over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 16:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, Conditional support pending OTRS permission, I added some details to the image caption in her article. Bammesk (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll suspend this nomination, for a maximum of two months, until OTRS permission is confirmed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giantflightlessbirds: Do you have any additional information about the OTRS status? If you were involved in the email to permissions, perhaps you've seen the ticket# that we can get someone to check on? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, OTRS seems really backlogged. If no problems have arisen in the two months, I'm happy to promote this, instead of junking the FP status. I think it has enough supports for that to happen? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 22:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why we shouldn't wait the backlog out. That said, I posted an inquiry on the Commons OTRS noticeboard. MER-C 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"maximum of two months" Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 02:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden I can leave this in the suspended section longer, but currently without the conditional supports this isn't succeeding. (5,5 support and 3 opposes = 64%). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this picture seriously considered for promotion when half of her face is covered by weird lens glare. This photo has meh EV at best, and is intended for "artistic" purpose. I have a hard time believing that an editor with enough interest could not get permission for something like this that is way more visual without appealing to "artistic" artifices. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:NZ PM Jacinda Ardern - Kirk HargreavesCCC.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After the OTRS permission was verified the image has 7,5 supports and 3 opposed, which is enough for promotion.
Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]