Oppose - Tender and beautifull picture, ruined by an unfortunate crop. With the both feet visible and more space above it would be almost perfect (although dad's bag is ugly!) - Alvesgaspar18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIn my opinion it is the crop, which makes the picture so touching, tender, beautiful and powerful. The subject of the picture is the girl.--Mbz119:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose The composition renders the image ununderstandable. The subject of the image is the interaction of the girl and the grunt, not a little girl clutching to fatigue pants from which something green is hanging. Rama20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully beg to differ. The subject of the image is not the interaction of the girl and the grunt, but the childs emotions as her father leaves to fight a war. The child is the subject. Smokizzy (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The child would not be doing this for any pair of camouflage pants, she's clutching at them because her father is inside. An image for "war-torn child" would be the child sitting alone with some military background. The introduction of the father in the image not only changes the subject into the relationship, which is then poorly rendered, but also makes the image less readable because of the "near-human" nature of the father (as he is framed) and the bottom of his bag, which is not immediately identifiable. Rama08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For Rama> The little girl as tall she is only catch on his father leg. This enlarges the drama of situation: the girl looks very little with his emotion at the big world big troubles, his father's leg symbolize the WAR, the FEAR, the SACRIFICE (for me). --Beyond silence02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what ? Can't the grunt duck to level with the girl ? If that thing symbolises anything to me, it's the dehumanising which produces faceless people unable to look at their children in the eyes.
But the point on featured picture review is not what things represent, it's more whether it's a good idea the make portrait of people which cut them at their crotch. Rama08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I am not immune to emotions convoyed by photos of children torn by war, at the image on the right shows. But you can witness that this works better when 1) it looks less cheesy 2) the grunt is shown as a human being whose humanity shows through the uniform, rather than just the bottom part of a combat droid. Rama08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you oppose every military-themed pic based on that rational? If yes, fine. If not, please explain why you think it is "an artificial composition by the USAF". Smokizzy (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a staged photo, the angle would be less lousy. It is probably a candid, and yes it is propaganda, which is fine in itself. The problem is that it is cheap and mediocre propaganda. Rama08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bag is a bit unfortunate, but the hand on her head is beautiful, and the expression on her face is wonderful. ~ Riana ⁂01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the bag, the feet of the grunt and the teddy are cut, the background is disturbing, and the composition is lousy. Sharpness and lightning are passable, hooray! Rama07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's powerful, even if it is propaganda or posed. I'm not sure why posing would be a problem: most portraits are posed, but they often make good FPs. -- Ram-Man03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To whoever says the picture is "propaganda", this picture could probably be used by either pro or anti-war people. I.e. "Honor the sacrifice of our military and their families" or "Please don't harm military families by sending them off to an unjustified war." Hard to call something propaganda when it has no clear bias. Smokizzy (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with Smokizzy in that the meaning of an image is always depending on the context it is presented in, and how it is interpreted. However, to me this image feels staged, overromantic and somehow like a "cliché". That is what makes me associate it with propaganda. This does neither mean that the image actually is any of that, nor that it was intended in such a way or that no other interpretation would be possible. Sorry if I offended somebody. --Christoph Michels00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly dubious message for most of the world. Only the poor little girl looks understandable for everyone, she ought to have 90% of the subject.--Benwik21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The interesting aspect about this picture is, that it can be interpreted as pro-war or anti-war. I tend to anti-war. However: the picture makes you think. A few pictures are able to do this. Metoc19:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suspect it's not posed, otherwise the crop would be better, and the 3rd person would be left out. Either way, it has emotional impact. Ben Aveling 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Voting time was allready over --Simonizer17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr., TSgt, USAF (image from US Defense Information School) - uploaded by Smokizzy - nominated by Smokizzy --Smokizzy (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Support --Smokizzy (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Tender and beautifull picture, ruined by an unfortunate crop. With the both feet visible and more space above it would be almost perfect (although dad's bag is ugly!) - Alvesgaspar 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
CommentIn my opinion it is the crop, which makes the picture so touching, tender, beautiful and powerful. The subject of the picture is the girl.--Mbz1 19:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
