Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Killian documents animated gif

Killian documents animated gif[edit]

Charles Johnson's animated GIF comparison of purported 1970's era typewritten Killian memos with 2004-era MS Word document using default settings.

Reason: On the one hand, this animated gif powerfully illustrates the case that the so-called "Killian documents" (alleged documents that were presented or came to light in the run-up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election that related to George W. Bush's Vietnam-era military service) were forgeries. On the other hand, 450 × 202 pixels and "PD-BECAUSE" licensing. Still, I think the nom is worth discussion.
Articles in which this image appears: Killian documents authenticity issues, Killian documents controversy, Little Green Footballs, Charles Foster Johnson
Creator: Charles Foster Johnson

Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too much recentism and systemic bias for me. Is this image still going to be notable in 100 years? Not likely, IMO. Apart from it's current notability, the image doesn't have any other compelling qualities. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Since it's generaly accepted not to be a work of the US federal goverment the copyright status is highly suspect.©Geni 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no concerns about recentism/notability- if it has a place in an article, it has every right to be here. This just doesn't seem to be much of a featured picture to me- there's not really much to it, and I personally find the animation a little annoying. I'd rather compare the two alongside each other. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. The main attraction of an FP for me is when i look at it and instantly want to know more about it - I can't even be bothered to read the text in this as it's very uninteresting looking and as mentionned by j milburn the annimation annoys me... Gazhiley (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response: the content of the text is really beside the point. The principal EV offered by this image is in the Killian documents authenticity issues article. The main trust of that article is that this document (among others) was purportedly prepared with an office typewriter at a National Guard facility in the early 1970s (and Dan Rather and CBS News published reports which relied on this); but the animated GIF demonstrates that it appears much more likely that the document was prepared on a contemporary version of Microsoft Word. The animation shows the similarity betwen the purportedly 1970s document and the result that would have been obtained with Microsoft Word. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks for your reply... But I still think it's really uninteresting and thus I can't see how this can be considered a featured picture... But each to their own... Gazhiley (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing featured about it. Tim1337 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This kind of images should be nominated at the valued pictures, not here. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]