Comment – A historic moment, certainly, but I'd rather see a shot showing at least
some of Ms. Malone's face. And contrast issues here lessen EV.
Sca (
talk)
15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Copyright issue is understood, of course. I'm not saying the pic shouldn't be used at all, just that it doesn't seem quite up to FP/Main Page standards of clarity and EV.
Re "the stand," I don't see George Corley Wallace here.
Sca (
talk)
I don't know absolutely, of course, but I don't think so. I remember
Wallace quite well from the Civil Rights era (and the
1968 election), and back then he always wore his hair drenched in
Vitalis or some such and slicked back, 1950s U.S. style. This guy's hair is shorter, combed differently and not greasy.
Sca (
talk)
17:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree it's not a perfect photo, but we generally make reasonable exceptions in the face of historically important photographs, and I think this one has reasonable cause for consideration under those exceptions. It gives a feel of the event very well, even the flaws arguably highlight the chaotic nature of it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)18:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Awkward composition, main persons either not in picture or shown almost from the back. With all those photographers there, there surely are better photos of this incident? --
Janke |
Talk18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support – It shows a historic moment well. This has all the elements: the door she was forbidden to enter, law officer, deputy attorney general, the escort, the media. The significance of the moment is in the story, not the individuals or her face, this image tells the story well. (Wallace had left and wasn't around for this shot
[1])
Bammesk (
talk)
02:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support – I hear the objections, but think the array of press is rather interesting in contrast to Malone's obscured face. A civil rights pioneer, yes, but she was also a symbol. The photograph both returns her to anonymity while instructing us that the historic struggle was bigger than hers alone.
Vesuvius Dogg (
talk)
03:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – A historic moment, certainly, but I'd rather see a shot showing at least
some of Ms. Malone's face. And contrast issues here lessen EV.
Sca (
talk)
15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Copyright issue is understood, of course. I'm not saying the pic shouldn't be used at all, just that it doesn't seem quite up to FP/Main Page standards of clarity and EV.
Re "the stand," I don't see George Corley Wallace here.
Sca (
talk)
I don't know absolutely, of course, but I don't think so. I remember
Wallace quite well from the Civil Rights era (and the
1968 election), and back then he always wore his hair drenched in
Vitalis or some such and slicked back, 1950s U.S. style. This guy's hair is shorter, combed differently and not greasy.
Sca (
talk)
17:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree it's not a perfect photo, but we generally make reasonable exceptions in the face of historically important photographs, and I think this one has reasonable cause for consideration under those exceptions. It gives a feel of the event very well, even the flaws arguably highlight the chaotic nature of it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)18:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Awkward composition, main persons either not in picture or shown almost from the back. With all those photographers there, there surely are better photos of this incident? --
Janke |
Talk18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support – It shows a historic moment well. This has all the elements: the door she was forbidden to enter, law officer, deputy attorney general, the escort, the media. The significance of the moment is in the story, not the individuals or her face, this image tells the story well. (Wallace had left and wasn't around for this shot
[1])
Bammesk (
talk)
02:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support – I hear the objections, but think the array of press is rather interesting in contrast to Malone's obscured face. A civil rights pioneer, yes, but she was also a symbol. The photograph both returns her to anonymity while instructing us that the historic struggle was bigger than hers alone.
Vesuvius Dogg (
talk)
03:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply