Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

The march

An image that very clearly displays the size of the protest and the location, is very striking following some minor clean-up from moondigger, and is used to it's full encyclopedic value IMO now that I've added it to a couple other articles. Worthy of the featured picture tag, IMO.

Note: This was the 1963 march.
Nominate and support Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! it touches our history. Support --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This image combines three traits rarely seen in one photo: historical significance, high quality, and exelent composition. --Pharaoh Hound 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The only thing I don't like about this photo is the immediate foreground; I find the hat a bit distracting, though I acknowledge that it is otherwise of good quality Tewy 00:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might I ask you reconsider your vote? I ask because WP:WIAFP clearly states for requirements 1 and 7 (Be of High Quality, Be Pleasing to the eye) that "The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer its content, the less aesthetically-pleasing it may be." This image is of a 1963 March (clearly impossible to get new content, coupled with the high resolution making it rare) and very historically important as the site of one of the most famous speeches of modern times. If your opposition is weak and based only on that one style element of the photo, I would ask you consider the WP:WIAFP. Thanks either way! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, "lol," you convinced me to change it to a Weak support. Like i said earlier, I really do like this picture: it's quality, it's significance, etc. BUT, that hat...it's just a bit much. That's the only thing. So don't get me wrong, I do like the picture, "but that hat!" I would give it a Support, maybe even a Strong support IF IF IF the hat wasn't as prominant in the photo. I'm not sure if that can be cropped out though. It would probably take away from the photo significantly. Is it possible there are any alternate versions? That might be a possibility. But then again, this all might just be me, (not liking the hat). Tewy 05:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good historical significance and resolution. G.H e 00:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Historically significant and pretty good quality for its age. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though that's a huge hat. ;) --Golbez 09:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, historically significant, and the angle makes you feel like you're there in the crowd. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-19 15:00
Support. I uploaded the original, knowing it definitely belonged on WP. I like moondigger's fixes. Davepape 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Tewy. TomStar81 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport. It has a lot of historical significance. --Geoffrey Gibson 04:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A featured image of the 1963 Washinton march should show Martin Luther King. This is were he held his famous I have a dream speech. There are pictures with both the crowd and MLK on it, like this. I could not find a version though which could be published on wikipedia though. Maybe we should just make the video featured, although that probably has license issues too.Janderk 10:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We can have more than 1 FP on a topic, as we already do for other topics. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 08:16

Weak support despite the big hat. I do believe we're on the stage (steps of the Lincoln Memorial?), not in the crowd as someone said above. My main negative is that going by the number of empty seats up front there, this is either somewhat before or after the speeches have happened, and possibly the entire crowd is not at its full. Still pretty good. Remember also that King wasn't the only speaker so I don't really think he has to be in the pic. --jjron 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support regardless of the hat, I think it is featured article material.Dark jedi requiem 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a nice pic. But I think we've all seen this so many times, well at least those in the US, and I just don't find it interesting. --Hecktor 09:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crop it! - no, I know that would be sacrilege. But the photo would be better cropped to remove the two big heads at the bottom (or at least make them less dominant). And it would still easily meet resolution requirements. Stevage 08:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support you really get a sense of being in the middle of the crowd, including with somone obstructing your view. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It's historical, a good picture, interesting, and encyclopedic. It's a good lead-in to the major article but can stand on it's own. Highly supported. -OldMajor 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The hat is distracting, sure, but it meets the exception criteria for featured images, as it is of great historical significance. Besides, cropping it would remove a large portion of the crowd from the image. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The heads/hats really add to the image aesthetically and really give you a sense of being there. I think cropping would really ruin the overall feel of the image. --Mwhorn 06:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! I really like it - composition's great, historically important. Should definitely be an FP! Arco Acqua 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That hat may be a wee bit distracting, but without the hat it would just be another dull photograph with lots of people, no matter from where and when. The hat is aesthetically pleasing and gives an original touch to the picture. It just wouldn't be the same without it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anonymous__Anonymous 21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and don't crop it. It feels like one is actually there with the two heads prominently featured in the background. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as is. Great find!--ragesoss 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:March on Washington edit.jpg Raven4x4x 04:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]