Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Buchenwald-J-Rouard-26.jpg

===Image:Buchenwald-J-Rouard-26.jpg Not featured===

•  Nominate

Historical report -- Luc Viatour 10:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

•  Support -- Luc Viatour 10:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- YolanC 11:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Shizhao 02:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rama 08:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's alright that we also have pictures like this. But what should I find excellent on a pic with a brutally killed man? Composition?! --Ikiwaner 18:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a Historical section. I am afraid that with a reasoning as this one there have only images of butterflies and beautiful flowers in "Featured pictures"! This photograph is a strong historical testimony of discovered camp of Buchenwald, soon there will remain only these pictures as testimony because the actors of this sad story will be departed! Luc Viatour 08:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully people won't forget about WW2 if we don't support this picture. We vote for great pictures here, that means "technically" aswell. Despite the fact that it shows an important part of history, this one is bad. --Cutter 10:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Luc Viatour especially that there's a "big babys eyes" effect in FP. But despite of this I think we should not push images of dead or tortured people outside articles they fit in (what FP does). I feel incapable to judge over technical aspects of this image too. Is it an argument to oppose that the face cannot really be seen? Discussions like this would get zynical. --Ikiwaner 18:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I find it regrettable that criteria and arguments other than technical one should come into play. I support this image because I find it violent and hideous, and by being such, it illustrates very well the horror of what it is depicting. The shadows, the man upside down and visually cut by the barbwire are very eloquent on this respect; the divisions (and diagonales) given by the barbwire, the dark and light zones make a very good composition, technically speaking. Now, it is my own reading of the photograph; Gorgo, for instance, is not agreed and this is fine). But refusing the image because it is not Hello Kitty is quite off the mark, if you ask me. Rama 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

thank you it is really my opinion but my English is really too bad to express me Luc Viatour 20:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

•  Oppose the picture itself is not great at all -- Gorgo 08:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Cutter 10:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC).
•  Support the emotional content, the stories told, and the historical significant make up for any problems with clarity or composition. --Quasipalm 20:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Support This image is truly horrible. It makes me sick and sad. Despite I really don't like it I support, because it illustrates very clearly the horror in the 2. World War. --Malene Thyssen 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose The topic is certainly very important, but the quality of the image is very bad. From a distance, it's even not evident what the depicted subject is. David.Monniaux 13:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Neutral NoJhan 15:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
•  Support I had to look two times to understand what is pictured here, and as I understood it, it shocked me! This pic is a very well illustration for its historical context. --Bricktop 00:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

5 Support - 6 Oppose - 1 Neutral -> Not featured -- Fabien1309 13:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)