Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oklahoman boy during the Dust Bowl era

Oklahoman boy during the dust bowl era[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 16:03:15 (UTC)

Reason: This is a historically important image. It doesn't have amazing placement in the article but it does a good job of showing a person of the area as well as the dust storms.
Articles in which this image appears: Dust Bowl
FP category for this image: American History
Creator: Arthur Rothstein, for the Farm Security Administration.

Support as nominator --Cat-five t c ---- 16:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as EV. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine portrait of a small boy during an event of historical importance. Iselilja (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've another FP and it seems the boy is same in both pictures. J Kadavoor J e e 05:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not finding a lot of EV, especially given that article already has at least two FPs which much better convey the situation as it occurred (as Jkadavoor has also pointed out, one of which, taken by the same photographer at the same time, already shows the same ankle-biter); this therefore becomes not really not much more than a portrait of this boy. As a portrait I'm personally not particularly taken with the composition, and quality for such isn't great, even considering the age. --jjron (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This shows a dust storm in the background which is what gives it EV, whether that's enough is up to each voter I guess. I'm pretty sure we've promoted pictures in the past with the main article topic being in the background (fires, floods, etc...), although no specific noms come to mind off the top of my head. Cat-five t c ---- 00:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the image quality and other factors I don't think it does show a dust storm - honestly it's hard to distinguish between what may be dust and what's just I suppose film grain, although I'm not sure it's even just grain rather than other degradations in quality (compare the 'dust' on the boy who's very near the camera with the 'dust' further back in the image; there's not much difference). And while I don't doubt that there's a bit of dust blowing around (I certainly wouldn't call it a storm) it is much better shown in several other images in the article, including the lead image which is already an FP taken at the same time and place as mentioned above. Maybe if the boy was cowering from the effects of the so-called dust storm, covering his eyes, turning his head away from it to protect his face, hunkering his body down, etc, his reaction to the depicted storm may give it EV, but not what we see here (ever been caught in a really strong wind on a beach for example where you start getting sand blasted? An adult, much less a small child, wouldn't stand there calmly like this). --jjron (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was just going off the original caption (which is the same caption I used for the nomination) in saying that it was a dust storm. I guess we have no way to really know whether it's just noise or whether he's really in front of a dust storm although if it's the former and someone comes up with a good way to back it up then that image should be moved to 1920's, great depression, or some other article that's time period not event specific. Cat-five t c ---- 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this photo adds EV in its current placement in the section "U.S. Government response". --Pine^✉ 23:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The section placement may be unfortunate but the image adds EV to the article in that it shows a person of the period with one of the dust storms in the background. I have to assume the placement has more to do with only putting one picture for section than anything else since the higher sections on the article, with the exception of causes, already have one picture per section. If I were to change that now I'd be rightfully accused of changing an article just to support an FPC as well as screwing up the formatting. Cat-five t c ---- 00:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could make a stronger argument for this photo's EV if it was in the section "Influence on the arts" especially if the caption noted that the photographer was from the Farm Security Administration since the article credits that agency for documenting the Dust Bowl era through photography. I can justify changing my vote to at least "neutral" if the photo was placed in that section. If this nomination fails then I suggest that you move the image, wait a week, and re-nominate. --Pine^✉ 04:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and just move it, explaining the reason in the edit summary. Because there's no other image in that spot already and it doesn't substantially change the article I don't think it was a controversial thing to do or likely to get any response, much less a negative one. Cat-five t c ---- 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now please do something to the caption in a way that demonstrates the photo's relevance to the section "Influence on the arts". --Pine^✉ 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the caption from the article, if you can think of a better one feel free to suggest it or change it yourself but that's a basic description of what the image shows. Cat-five t c ---- 15:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried doing this myself but I came across this current FP which I think is better suited to the article in the place of the nominated image, so I'm going to stick with my oppose vote. I feel strongly enough that the Migrant Mother image is better that I plan to replace the nominated image with the Migrant Mother image after this FP nomination closes unless this nomination passes which seems unlikely. --Pine^✉ 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose almost no EV. — raeky t 23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. A good one for Commons, less so for here. J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]