Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Margaret Hamilton

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 15:00:30 (UTC)

Reason: Arguably the best-known photograph of her, as well as a fairly iconic photo in its own right.
Articles in which this image appears: Margaret Hamilton (scientist)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: Draper Laboratory, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
question I like this image, but voters here seem to only like images that are the main one in the article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: Admittedly, I'm coming back after a six-month absence, but historically, being further down hasn't been a problem as long as the image is significant to or in some way uniquely illustrates the subject. Take Aida (opera), which has - if I'm counting right - five separate featured pictures, each illustrating a different aspect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never expressed such a view. Mind, the headshot is great in this case, but unless we get a bigger version it's not FP-able. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was the comments (not yours Chris) on this candidate that prompted my comment. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh was talking about the use of the image in a gallery; that's quite a bit different than having running text illustrated by an image. Use in galleries tends not to be considered enough EV for FP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: Done, though, of course, User:Crisco 1492 doesn't use the captions here for writing the POTD things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back, Adam! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Marvellous Spider-Man 12:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meaningful and historical significance. --Gnosis (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Historically important. --Janke | Talk 07:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great photo with strong EV: as well as showing Hamiliton's achievement in an interesting way, it also depicts how young she was for this role. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How old were programmers in this era? I would be surprised if 33 wasn't a common age. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure, but to be a team leader for an important part of a flagship national project in a major (and rather hierarchical) agency it seems pretty young, especially for a woman in the 1960s. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - escapes me why I didn't already. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Margaret Hamilton - restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]