Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2009: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 8
Nezzadar (talk | contribs)
4,609 edits
added {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Trent Reznor}}
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FPCArchiveBar}}
{{FPCArchiveBar}}
<!-- ↓ Below this line, please. ↓ -->
<!-- ↓ Below this line, please. Newest at the top. ↓ -->

{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Trent Reznor}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pilatus Agusta A109 Flug.jpg}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pilatus Agusta A109 Flug.jpg}}

Revision as of 17:15, 2 November 2009

Featured picture tools

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Trent Reznor

Original - Musician Trent Reznor, the frontman and only official member of the industrial music project Nine Inch Nails.
Reason
High quality and illustrative of subject.
Articles this image appears in
Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails, The Slip (album),
Creator
Taken by Rob Sheridan

Not promoted --Nezzadar [SPEAK] 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to withdraw.


Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam

Original - A panorama of the Erasmus Bridge and the River Meuse in the Dutch city of Rotterdam.
Reason
Major bridge, iconic for Rotterdam; important 20th century architectural design. Good representation of context. Good composition and lighting. Meets all FPC criteria.
Articles this image appears in
Erasmusbrug, Rotterdam, Nieuwe Maas, Ben van Berkel
Creator
Massimo Catarinella
  • Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a fan of the composition at all. I'd say too much water. but it's a bridge, so that would be silly. What I will say is that the bridge isn't prominant enough in the image. First off, the building with the odd outward angled wall caught my eye too soon, second the main support, which has the highest EV, is small compared to the photo. Taking good pictures of long objects is hard, yes, but it can be done. If you live in the area or know someone who does, I suggest attempting it from the other side of the river, near the luxor building. This will enlarge the support beam and cut out the weird building.   Nezzadar ☎   05:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The picture illustrates four articles, not only the one on Erasmus Bridge and its architect but also the articles on Rotterdam and its indeed wide river.Elekhh (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this is a valid reason to oppose? The only "problem" there is concerning the levels, is that the image could be made brighter. This induces more noise though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about geometry, rather than brightness. Distorted straight lines are a misrepresentation of the scene and therefore not encyclopaedic. A restitch should be able to fix it with vertical control points. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Elekh: I feel honored that you nominated a picture of mine. Thank you :) .
  • @ Nezzadar: This is an encyclopedia. If a building is part of the scenery you shouldn't exclude it just to make a picture look prettier. Taking this panorama from the other side of the river....good look with that. The bridge tower is very high...that high you couldn't even make a vertical panorama from there. The only alternative location to take a photograph from of this bridge is the top of the Euromast. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or perhaps from a boat. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that would work. You see, with all due respect to your photography, when taking shots of objects with non-standard geometry, all reasonable effort must be made to get an accurate shot. This would mean capturing the shot from an angle that minimizes angle distortion. In simpler terms, it doesn't look like is should, so consider taking a shot from dead center on the river. It will look better. Also, I still say the building in the left is distracting and does not contribute to the articles the image is on, especially the bridge and the architect pages.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. New sig![reply]
  • Support at first it looks like the image is tilted but it's only the crazy architecture.--Avala (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that, but to correctly capture said craziness, it needs a better angle and ideally would be closet to the subject.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Agusta SAR helicopter

Original - A rescue helicopter type Agusta A109K2 leaves mount Pilatus after having recovered a patient
Reason
I like this one because of three reasons: 1st the image looks dynamic because the rotor's movement is visible and the helicopter is strongly leaning to the front and to the side (accelerating in a curve). 2nd you see the mountains where Swiss SAR helicopters operate. 3rd I had the chance to take the picture on a viewpoint which is about the same hight than the helicopter so you see plenty of details. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
AgustaWestland AW109, Agusta
Creator
Ikiwaner
Your considerations are perfectly true. The helicopter landed on the moutain top where the image is taken. The destination was a hospital in the flat country. Thus it did not matter that the vehicle lost hight while accelerating. I always have this uneasy feeling when I see those pilots in the alps. In this picture you see him a few seconds before. The co pilot on the left was holding the door open and looking backward so the pilot could turn the machine without touching the wall with his tail rotor! -Ikiwaner (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pilatus Agusta A109 Flug.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



1950,Chinese stamp

[[:File:Chinese stamp in 1950.jpg|thumb|right|260px|Original - Stalin Mao Zedong historic handshake]] [[:File:Chinese stamp in 1950 edit 1.jpg|right|260px|Original - Stalin Mao Zedong historic handshake]]

Reason
High quality and EV
Articles this image appears in
Stalin; Mao Zedong ;Postage stamp; Economic history of modern China
Creator
Mbz1
  • Comment Great to see you nominating at en:wiki, Mbz1! Feel free to contact me in the future if you want assistance with English captioning, etc. I'm not fussed about the background, but--please correct if this is mistaken--there appears to be slight chromatic fringeing on this image? Durova342 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind offer, Durova! I did my best with removing CA. If it is still not good, maybe somebody else would like to give it a try.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this should be OK. Now it is 2009, the stamp was made in 1950 that is more than 50 years back.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're linking to the same thing I am: Commons:Template:PD-China, which says nothing about state-owned works. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've nothing to add about copyright of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Antigenic Shift (Second Nomination)

Original - A diagram showing the process of Antigenic shift, the mutation process leading to H1N1, our current friend.
Reason
High EV and high quality illustration. Failed first nomination due to what appears to be a lack of a quorum. It appears that the accuracy of the diagram has been verified.
Articles this image appears in
Antigenic shift, Swine influenza, Influenza A virus subtype H1N1, 2009 flu pandemic in Canada
Creator
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Ask the CDC, they are the ones that control how they publish their work. I think it is plenty big enough, and looks good enough as a thumb. But that's me.   Nezzadar ☎   17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not loving the big blocky lines around the person and the duck. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I had that link on my clipboard but forgot to put it in. (Debating where and got distracted...) Thanks.   Nezzadar ☎   03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose It is good for a FP but that means that is big and you have to open that big picture to access the information because, at least I, can not read much of the text in the thumbnail. Now, when you read it, you notice that what is said is not more than what is said in the first 3 lines of the article (at least to two types of viruses in the same host combine and you get a new one with the antigens of the original ones). The picture makes the article being an-article-with-a-colorful-picture (that is good, I like books with pictures) but only that because the information given has accessibility problems and is redundant (with the article). So, after having to open the picture and going around the diagram (a graph with 5 vertexes and seven edges. It takes a while) you realize that they are telling you the same you read in the first few lines of the article. Franklin.vp  21:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but just looking at the cells with the arrows has high EV without the text. It is taking an abstract concept (genetic recombination) and putting it into picture form so that anyone could understand it. Considering how most Wikipedians are not geneticists or microbiologists, this is hugely useful in explaining cross-species transmission.   Nezzadar ☎   05:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:AntigenicShift HiRes.png --jjron (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Daniel O'Connell

Original - "Daniel O'Connell: The Champion of Liberty" poster published in Pennsylvania, 1847.
Reason
Daniel O'Connell was a major figure in the history of nineteenth century Ireland. Restored version of File:Daniel O'Connell.jpg. Very high resolution; will supply a compressed courtesy copy upon request.
Articles this image appears in
Catholic Association, Repeal Association, Daniel_O'Connell#Political_beliefs_and_programme, Irish_nationalism#Early_nationalism:_Grattan_to_O.27Connell, Ireland_(1801–1922)#Act_of_Union_and_Catholic_Emancipation_.281800.E2.80.931830.29
Creator
Hoffy

Promoted File:Daniel O'Connell2.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Scrap salvage propaganda poster

An American propaganda poster from World War II produced under the Works Progress Administration which displays the anti-Japanese sentiment of the time.
Reason
I was surprised to see no proper quality propaganda posters. This displays the racism (Japanese as snakes, the buck-tooth thing, etc, etc) and artistic style (the heavily stylized eagle) of American propaganda in WWII.
Articles this image appears in
American propaganda during World War II, Propaganda in the United States#Domestic, Anti-Japanese sentiment
Creator
Phil von Phul, edited by Staxringold and Durova
@Avala. I donate one free "O" to you. If you need more vowels, I sell them. Now you can support properly.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (I hope you know I am joking with you, not insulting you)[reply]

Promoted File:Salvage Scrap propaganda poster crop2.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Tuskegee airman

Original - Portrait of Tuskegee airman Edward M. Thomas by photographer Toni Frissell, March 1945.
WITHDRAWN - Crop - Removed much of the metal plate.
Reason
"The Tuskegee Airmen were the first African-American pilots in United States military history; they flew with distinction during World War II. Portrait of one of the airmen by notable photographer Toni Frissell, the official photographer of the Women's Army Corps. Restored version of File:Tuskegee airman.jpg."[1] The image was nominated in early January 2009, but was not promoted due to a lack of votes.
Articles this image appears in
Tuskegee Airmen, Toni Frissell, Military history of African Americans
Creator
Toni Frissell, restored by Durova
  • Support. Interestingly enough, I somehow found this image without even talking to Durova or knowing that she had restore it. It seemed to just catch my eye as I browsed the article on Toni Frissell, which I found from our featured picture on Jacqueline Kennedy. Maybe this is a good sign; featured pictures might be penetrating the encyclopedia a bit more now, to the point that you can find some without even trying. Great! --NW (Talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One of the harder restorations technically, but a moving portrait. A very pleasant surprise to see it caught Nuke's eye. Durova339 03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The composition bothers me. The subject is detracted from by the giant, uniform, metal wall on the left. Also what the heck is in his hand on the right?   Nezzadar ☎   16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - not withstanding "distracting metal walls" or whatever the subject is holding his his right hand (seriously...? I mean, seriously?) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC) For crying out loud, it's a cigarette![reply]
Hmm, I'm sorry if my opinion does not coincide with yours, but I see having a metal slab cover a third of the image as poor composition.   Nezzadar ☎   05:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I said "his hand on the right" not "his right hand." On closer examination it appears that the thing it his hand on the right is his other glove. The odd shape of the thumb made it look more like a grenade than a glove, so I was confused. He eh.   Nezzadar ☎   05:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see :-) Sorry for lashing out like that. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Good image, I think the highlight on the wall is somewhat distracting...but nevertheless this is still a quality image. ~ Arjun 20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded Crop, Support Crop Alright, does this solve the problem?   Nezzadar ☎   05:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original Quality shot, as you'd expect from such an accomplished photographer. I can kind of see the urge to crop but apart from ruining the composition it robs the image of value. There's undeniable EV on the other pages but value to the Frissell article is significant enough that I'd want to see the whole frame, as shot, per EV accorded to images on all photographers' pages. In case anyone's interested, you can see more of her work here, including (I believe) the camera she used to take this shot... also, that's clearly a wooden door, not a "metal wall", and the thing in his hand is his other glove... he's smoking a fag, fer chrissakes... --mikaultalk 11:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original and against the crop. Not every historical pictures are worthy of Feature pictures, but altering the original significantly for reviewer's taste is not what FP defines FP. I'm not distracted by the walls, but rather feel less satisfaction with the tight crop of the bottom. --Caspian blue 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original Artisticlly there is nothing wrong with the composition. Toni Frissell is a more than competent photographer, STRONGLY oppose modifiying any of her compositions. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original per raeky. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The wall at left is plywood rather than metal. It took quite a bit of work to restore its wood grain (the original print was probably deficient in fixative). To my eye that wall gives a sense of place to the shot: a hastily constructed wartime outpost. The context helps to communicate that this is a tired war hero. His name was Lieutenant (later Captain) Edward M. Thomas. Wasn't able to find quite enough information about him to start a biography, but republished the full text of his award for the Distinguished Flying Cross.[2] Durova342 16:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original, oppose crop. The artistic composition of the shot shouldn't be modified. — Jake Wartenberg 19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I regret to say that I agree with Nezzadar but still support the original. That dark wall in the original is for me an ugly choice. On the other hand I was looking to some other photos by Toni Frissell and in many there are those wide dark spaces usually used successfully in the composition, while in this one it makes the photo (I my humble opinion) unbalanced. It is just a possibly-hastily-madē-but-poorly-donē-historically-important photo by Toni Frissell. Franklin.vp  21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original. If this were illustrating the subject, I'd say use the crop, rule of thirds be damned, but I still wouldn't Feature it. However, the image is included as an example of the work of the photographer, and as such alterations such as cropping or, god forbid, flipping to face into the article, detract from the encyclopedic value as opposed to adding to it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose crop per GeeJo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original this is a great photo which meets the criteria, and there's no need to mess with the composition. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this picture is relevant.. I do prefer to keep the pictures as original as possible. Cropping is imho not a good idea. GerardM (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original per GerardM. --Banzoo (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~Withdraw Crop~ More a formality than anything else. Pwned by the community (but I'm okay with that.)  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Durova, have you seen the picture by the same photographer in which there are two afroamerican pilots loking up with the wing of a plane in the background? Can you find a good copy of that one? Although this one is already going to be promoted, if I counted right, in that one you can see better that they are african american (I had to be told in this one) and that they are pilots (also had to be told, although if it is clear the hat is of a pilot and not a tank driver).AlexanderMegarrido (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tuskegee airman2.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Get fat

Original - An 1895 advertisement for a weight gain product.
Reason
A good piece of graphic art and a hilarious demonstration of how beauty standards can change with time. Restored version of File:Get fat.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Weight gain, Physical_attractiveness#Proportion_of_body_mass_to_body_structure, Advertising#History
Creator
The Gribler Bank Note Co. from photo by Bakers Art Gallery
What is this?
Edit 1
Edit 2 Attempt at eye restoration
  • Support as nominator --Durova333 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those are kind of odd skin tones. I'll have a poke at the colour adjustment - learned a bit when I did the Grant nom. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Amazing to learn how the notion of what is fat has changed over time.. I would not be surprised when this is to be seen in the light of malnourishment existing at that time. GerardM (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support See below... Well now, that's the ugliest eye ever. I agree that the colors need some work, unless it is the poster itself that looks that bad. Seriously, that eye disturbs me. Is that a wink or a horrible mutation.   Nezzadar ☎   19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a conspiratorial wink; the implication is that she's sharing her beauty secret. And--erm--could we have a little more decorum with edit notes and captions, please? Durova333 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed the caption. Also, regarding the wink, that is about the most messed up wink I have ever seen. During a wink, the eye is closed and the eyebrow dips. This looks like a figure three eyelid, an excruciatingly painful birth defect which renders the eye unusable. People frequently zoom in on FPs, so I'm a bit worried about scaring people. I know WP isn't censored, but still. That eye is disturbing.   Nezzadar ☎   20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if it were used at the wink article it would probably have low encyclopedic value. Its encyclopedic use is as an illustration of how body mass index ideals have changed in a century, and as an example of historic advertising. Particularly in terms of the former, it would be difficult to obtain a better example. Durova333 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is the colour so varied behind the text? It distracts from the text itself... J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Skin tones completely off and greyed out, the eye under discussion has some damage in the original, which more careful repair could provide an improved result for. Text block shows signs of uneven fading which are completely uncorrected. Durova's work since she announced she was going to make a final push for the Wikicup has been fairly slipshod and well below her previous work, but I have attempted to provide fixes in order to protect the restorationist causes. Now that she is actively objecting to this, on top of an incident I will post to WT:FPC, I think it's time to just oppose. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 18:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting image, but I have the same question on the color beneath the texts which do not look like a gradation by the artist's intention even though the image has a slight pick touch all over the image. The left black part beside her neck has some dusts that should be clean out. However, I don't agree with the the skin tone is greyed out or any damage is done. The original image has an once "white" back sheet (faded out through times), so fixing the white balance seems to be based on that. Restoration works should carefully be done to enhance the quality without dramatically altering the original for editors or viewers' taste.--Caspian blue 18:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Edit 1, on the right, the blue area underneath her elbow, there are a few dust and scratch marks. Also, the colors have been dampened since the original nomination. –blurpeace (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pretty darn high EV. — Jake Wartenberg 05:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poster is over a hundred years old. Durova is likely the single best restorer we have. If she says she has done all she could, I believe her. The colors were off in the original, look at the bottom of the poster, behind the text. I doubt it will ever be perfect, but it's better here than anywhere else.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that a normal human eyelid cannot assume that shape, I would go with that he is fixing a distortion in the image. It is likely that such a bend was due to poor scanning or a damaged poster, rather than artist intent, although this may me WP:NOR territory.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1The problem with the color behind the text looks mostly solved. The skin color is a more subjective question. I prefer not to base my vote in this. About the eye, if the original were not like that it would be a major problem. If we only knew the image will never be used in something beside the two articles in which it is now and not also in one in which the original add is the subject then I would see well the restoration of the eye. But it is hard for me to make statements about the future that easily. Therefore I prefer the edits with the original (mis)shape. My reason is that these kind of mistakes in printed items are very important for collectors. And there are collectionists of advertisements, collectionists of posters as it is supposed to be expected. Although these conllectionists are probably a small minority it is good if the encyclopedia also take their interests into account. Franklin.vp  05:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Corbis has a version with presumably undamaged eye: [3] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too small to tell. Let's get off the eye folks, alright? –blurpeace (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Advertisement showing young woman with package of Loring's Fat-Ten-U.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



1937 American League All-Stars

Original - Seven of the American League's 1937 All-Star players, from left to right Lou Gehrig, Joe Cronin, Bill Dickey, Joe DiMaggio, Charlie Gehringer, Jimmie Foxx, and Hank Greenberg. All seven would eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame.
Reason
A high quality and resolution image of SEVEN Hall of Famers on a single All-Star roster. And that's not even counting Rick Ferrell, Earl Averill, and Lefty Grove (another 3 AL HoFs on that team not pictured). And another eight on the National League team. This was a really good All-Star Game, talent wise.
Articles this image appears in
1937 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, Major League Baseball All-Star Game#History of player selection methods, Griffith Stadium
Creator
Harris & Ewing (original), restored version from this version by User:Staxringold
Edit 1.
  • Support edit 1. Put about eight hours of work into that tweak. Most of which probably doesn't show up unless you view it at 200% resolution. ;) And Nezzadar, it's impossible to reshoot this so small flaws in composition aren't such a big deal as they'd be in a shot of this year's all star team. Durova340 05:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:1937 all stars crop FINAL2.jpg --ZooFariBoo! 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Blind man carrying a paralyzed man on his back

Original - Disabled men ca. 1889
Reason
A photo from the Levant ca. 1889, It sheds light on the life of disabled people during that period of time.
Articles this image appears in
Disability removed by   Nezzadar ☎   removed by Kaldari
Creator
Tancrède Dumas, Restoration by Banzoo
  • Support as nominator --Banzoo (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This, aside from being insulting to the disabled, his just about no EV on the one article it appears on. If you were to remove the image, the article might actually improve, as the image is distracting. The image also suffers from compostition issues, such as the fact that it is exceedingly blurry, and has no clear focal point at all. Is it the face of the paralyzed man, because that seems the crispest part, but it has blur too.   Nezzadar ☎   22:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think when you assert that by showing a picture of a disabled is "insulting to the disabled" people can be understood as an insulting suggestion by itself. It's somewhat surprising to see the article about disability avoiding to show any disabled person in photos. About the blur you are referring to, it's an albumen print, whose quality degrades over time. So I suppose for albumen prints that old, you would not expect better quality if not preserved correctly. --Banzoo (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it do you? This image was designed to humiliate the disabled. Why else would they be in those poses, which are entirely un-normal. Much like the concept of "midget tossing" people tend to ignore the cruelty of something if it can be precieved as "funny." Want a picture of the disabled, get an image from the special olymics, they tend to be high quality, free licence, and depict people in normal pursuits, not this. To imply that I am being insensitive is, for lack of a better term, shallow and stupid. You offend me by both submitting this and questioning my intentions. I don't stand idle when people are being attacked, and I see this image as a blatant attack on the disabled.   Nezzadar ☎   04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a photo that can be put on disabled that isn't morally wrong.
I didn't expect to be offended that many times in one discussion, for this reason, I would prefer to continue a less aggressive discussion in a more civilized way. Thank you for calling me "shallow and stupid", this shows clearly how you "don't stand when people are being attacked" excluding when you are the one attacking people! You think it's all right for you to question my intentions, while showing your one sided intentions as the only ones that can hold? Anyway, the paralympics is a good picture, yet it doesn't provide a complete picture behind the life of the disabled, throughout history and different cultures. I don't think you understand the photo, they were not just posing for the photo, rather they live and take care of each other this way. I do not believe that anyone with clear mind would perceive such photo as "funny". Thank you. --Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my posting below in "update."   Nezzadar ☎   07:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not for voting - an example of a photo of the disabled that is not insensitive, insulting, degrading, or otherwise inappropriate for modern society. --  Nezzadar ☎  
Would you include your signature in the caption of the photo you posted, so that it wont be understood as it is being submitted by the nominator.--Banzoo (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I said it was not for voting, and said that I posted the image. That is all that is required.   Nezzadar ☎   16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a signature should be present (I added it manually), especially when you are including judgments and your own personal opinion in the caption.--Banzoo (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible if you elaborate more those concerns?--Banzoo (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The file is only used in one article, with no direct relevance to the text. –blurpeace (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this. The image is very disconnected from the article. On the other hand I want to make some observations that should not be taken into account because I am not an expert. I will say them with the hope of catching an expert's attention willing to do/say something. I think that the potential of the picture is very underused. Clearly it shows an interesting symbiotic colaboration between a blind (so they say) person and a paralytic (they say so) person. There are other things that I believe I can see there too. The one that is blind has also polydactyly (although not well shown) some of the fingers are clearly over grown and for sure that has some technical name and hopefully an article in wikipedia. The guy that is paralytic has the facial features of a person with William's syndrome (here the expert has to say if it is really true). Of course, if the picture is going to be added to the William's syndrome article (which needs images) it better be a crop showing only the face of the guy that is paralytic. If it is going to show polydactyly it better be a crop of the hand of the guy that is blind. All of this only if a person really knowing does it. For the moment I support the oppose since I also think the article in which it is right now doesn't need this image right now. Of course, some editing of the article can solve that. ;)  Franklin.vp  23:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why was the albumen print grayscaled? Also, the edit notes are insufficient.

Durova339 02:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a color photograph, there is no relevant reason to keep the original tone. How much details should be included in the edit notes? Including the original photo is not enough for comparison? I would value your comments, as I am not an expert like you in restoring old photographs.--Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An Argentine gaucho, 1868. Albumen print with colors hand-balanced and partial desaturation.
Tancrède Dumas worked in albumen; another medium that was in popular use during the same time was glass plate photography. The latter is naturally grayscaled so absolutely desaturating a Dumas could mislead casual viewers about which medium this is. I've had better results hand-adjusting the colors and supplementing that with partial desaturation. Viewers usually react better when a little warmth remains in the tone--more humanizing--even if on pure technicals your decision holds together. If you've saved an intermediate edit before the grayscaling and histogram changes then I'd be glad to give it a look. And regarding edit notes, the following is an example. Durova340 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fully restored version of File:Kenyon Cox nude study.jpg. Cropped. Dirt, stains, and smudges removed. Variances in brightness and saturation corrected. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced. See also File:Kenyon Cox nude study1.tif (partial restoration) and File:Kenyon Cox nude study2.tif (full restoration, uncompressed).
Oops! I didn't know that, I'm pretty much a beginner apparently, I started the restoration after grayscaling the image :-(. Is there no way to recapture the original tone from the actual restored image? Do you have some wiki-page with some guidelines on restoring old photographs, that would help beginners like me.--Banzoo (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little starter guide at Wikiversity a while ago. If you'd like coaching email me for my Skype ID. It's a good client for collaborative media editing. Durova342 02:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article can have place for both photos. Or is it irrelevant to show anything in the era before the paralymics.--Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only place this could possibly have a legitimate contribution would be an article on the historic abuse of the disabled. This image shows nothing else. An image like this has no place outside of /b/. Yes I said it. It is of that low caliber of useless crud. I wasn't going to be that explicit, but since you keep pushing, I might as well speak my mind.   Nezzadar ☎   07:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is nothing natural about the photo. It is clear from the composition that the photo is staged. This raises serious concerns about what actually occurs off camera.   Nezzadar ☎   07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not good manners in the middle of a nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Nezzadar's Behavior I have to say I am strongly against Nezzadar's behavior here. Why should it be introduced so much prejudice in the evaluation of a picture? Is it possible avoid involving subjective perceptions in such a strong manner? In my opinion this picture is not offensive in the least of the ways. It shows disable men helping each other. I don't see much difference between this an a picture of a blind man and a Lazarillo dog. I am not claiming on the other hand the picture having value. I simply don't have opinion about this. For eons disable people have used aides in many ingenious ways, dogs, walking sticks, wheel chairs, Lazarillos... It is actually nice that in this case what is happening is collaboration between two human beings. Somethings that is needing this discussion. I encourage the next reviewers to try to avoid seeing the picture in the eyes of the previous discussion. Franklin.vp  13:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree with you. It's a historical image. There are many articles and images with offensive subjects to modern society, but that should have absolutely no bearing on featuring them (or not) for their historic value, because we recognise that standards have changed. It's like not allowing education about the Holocaust because genocide is offensive, or Apartheid becuse racism is offensive. It happened, it was documented, and we can learn from it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to put the image back in, that's fine, that's what consensus is for, but at least address my comment that it should be put in context, i.e. in a section on the history of the quality of life of disabled people. I might have acted harshly, but it is out of a genuine belief that this image is staged and is in bad taste.   Nezzadar ☎   16:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks like it already is back in. I completely agree that it should in better context in the article though, but I don't think that anyone is going to assume that it's how disabled people are typically treated in this age. Having said that, I don't know for sure if that isn't realistic in many other parts of the world, where there are no social services and families can't or won't look after their disabled. Remember that Wiki should encompass a world-view, not just disability as it relates to prosperous western countries. What makes you so certain that it was staged? It might be a posed portrait, but there's nothing to suggest that they took two different disabled people and pretended it was their reality... It's possible, but you're making a pretty rash assumption without any basis IMO. The fact that the person on the right is held in position by a strap suggests that he was carried in that way, whether by the blind man, or someone else. It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that perhaps the blind person was directed by the physically disabled but alert and well-sighted person. That doesn't sound offensive to me, it sounds like a cooperation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Historic depictions of difficult subjects are often ambiguous. We don't really know whether Dumas's intention was exploitive or sympathetic and the intentions of the subjects are also unknown. The actual attitudes could be surprising to twenty-first century sensibilities, but parallel examples would be digressive. It might possibly be that Banzoo's decision to grayscale the image--which is technically valid but conveys emotional connotations of coldness--inadvertently touched off a strong reaction in one reviewer. Let's chalk that up to the power of photography in the hands of a master artist. Restoration is a difficult task and the learning curve can be bumpy. as I well know Durova342 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I just don't see any EV here. What exactly is it illustrating? If it's just illustrating disabled people, we have plenty of images on Commons that would work better (i.e. are more up to date). There's nothing in the article discussing life for disabled people in the 1800s, or anything related to this image specifically. Without better context, the use of the image in this article is also a bit shocking. It would be like using an image of concentration camp victims as a generic illustration for the article Jewish people. Yes, they are Jewish, but we should use more generic images to illustrate generic topics, not the most extreme images available. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the poor use of the image in the article. Now (and please read my first post above not to have to repeat it here) there are reasons why this image is quite interesting. And just removing it is a loss. It would be better to expand the article instead and also use the image in more places, if valid. The point in which I disagree with you is in the unhappy example of the concentration camp. In this picture these two men are not morally, or physically degraded (at least not beyond their own medical conditions). Well, I am wrong. There is one exception. They are wearing rags but well, the image is old and they are from Lebanon (I guess, or some other poor country), although even this kind of misfortune (poverty) can be seen even in richer countries. My goal is not to make you change the nature of your vote, which I think it is essentially correct, but to change a little the reasons for more constructive ones.  Franklin.vp  19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a section on "history" or "disability and poverty" were added to the article, I would probably change my vote, but as it stands, I just don't think the image is appropriate in the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Just...no. Per Nezzadar. -- mcshadypl TC 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's fair for me to place this vote. I am offended by the picture and the fact that this is being used to represent disabled individuals, so I can't give this a just vote in regards to its EV and quality. I just wish that the article did not use such a crude picture. -- mcshadypl TC 06:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am glad that you are voting (or not voting as the case may be) with your head and not your heart. The argument that there is insufficient EV as it stands in the disability article is certainly very fair, but whether you take offence should have no bearing on the nomination. IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A shame we don't have an appropriate article for this; the photographer's article is just a stub. The elephant in the room here is our systemic bias failing to provide the proper context for images like these. The sort of collaboration depicted here was far from uncommon and certainly not "staged", as some here have suggested. Anyone who has travelled in north Africa or the Middle East will be familiar with the very different cultural attitudes to disability there. This is an important image with huge value, just not of any value to en:wikipedia :-( --mikaultalk 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm also rather surprised to see arguments that this photo lacks EV. To my eye, this photo illustrates the utter marginalisation of disabled people in the past. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to add fuel to the fire, but this time an admin removed the image. I guess that the two options are to level the same comments placed on me onto an admin or declare the nomination moot until such a time as the image gains a place in an article.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  04:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I would tend to suggest that the reason given in the edit summary speaks again of a personal value judgement on this image, to quote: "removing image - it has no context in the article". While this may be true, in short, how does the wheelchair basketball photo have any more context than this? It doesn't, yet that one was left there. --jjron (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually the wheelchair basketball image does have more context, it was just posted at the wrong section (now fixed) and that's not the case for this one. The proper place might be a history section, except it has a quite localised social/cultural context possibly beyond the reach of the article; the only historical thing here is the fact that it's an old photo. It's a tough one to place, basically, in an article drawn from an explicitly modern western perspective. OTOH the subtext of your question provokes the response, because some people are disturbed and/or offended by graphic depictions of human deformity. How/if/whether this should be looked at from a WP:CENSORED angle is probably a bit much to debate (even) here, but there are similarities. --mikaultalk 19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, has more context where you've moved it now, but not where it was left. FWIW I have actually seen other images similar to this in the past, and suspect, at least in a historical context, it's not as unusual or staged as many seem to think. Yes, that answer would seem to be correct - my question was somewhat rhetorical (in view of comments already posted here) - but my basic point was that in terms of an FPC candidacy this has hardly had an unbiased run. --jjron (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An admin is just a Wikipedian with access to restricted technical features, which means that his/her edits are not necessarily more or less valuable than the contributions of others.--Banzoo (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request suspension until the article is improved with a history section.--Banzoo (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you intend to do so in the next few days that would probably be worthwhile. If you mean suspend until someone just happens to come along and improve it, then not. --jjron (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO it probably makes more sense to close this with no consensus for now, especially since there were no support votes other than the nominator. A new nomination will clean the slate once the EV is improved, unless, as Jjron says, you intend to do it immediately. It might take some collaboration and time to bring it up to speed though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not an expert, so I'm not sure how long will it take to do a relevant research on this subject. I also agree with Diliff that this task requires collaboration. Are there any rules on how long a suspension would last?--Banzoo (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There aren't really any rules AFAIK. Nominations have been left suspended for months in the past, although I don't really see any good reason why. Unless you want to keep the existing votes (there are no supporting votes other than the nominator, most of the opposition was a bit irrational, leaving few genuine relevant votes), it just seems far cleaner to create a new nom once the EV is improved. You can link to the previous nomination to provide background. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are the other options if we wont suspend the nomination? Should we simply wait until voting period is over?--Banzoo (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could just let it expire as per normal and it would not be promoted. Then you are free to re-nominate it when circumstances change (normally we discourage re-nomination shortly after, but for this one, it probably has a good case for re-nomination with more EV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI - I found a book that apparently discusses these pictures by Dumas through some internet searching. (See Focus East: early photography in the Near East (1839-1885)‎ - Page 107 - Nissan Perez - Photography - 1988 - 256 pages - ISBN 0810909243, 9780810909243 - Link to book) Unfortunately the snippet view from Google books provides only a hint about the (perhaps explotative) history of these pictures ("A second image by Dumas, which he titled Aveugl Portent un Paralitique (sic) (fig. 90), is a straight studio photograph featuring freaks and circus-type..."). If someone could check this book out, they may be able to find out the history of this picture and related pictures. Remember (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rest of the paragraph: "In this Dumas illustrates the cliche of the time that equated the Orient with all sorts of degenerations, both mental and physical. The photograph reinforced the European notion that the Orient was a zoo; how superior a Westerner could feel confronting such a scene." I question this opinion of the author especially when French poet Jean-Pierre Claris de Florian had a fable with a story of a blind and a paralyzed helping each others, or this drawing by Auguste-Barthélemy Glaize. No "degeneration" nor a "superiority" in this fable, but only a moral. I wonder if the book's author is familiar with the work of these French artists before giving this assumption.--Banzoo (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, yes. If I had the time or the will to do so I could find you a dozen wonderful academic papers with my access to JSTOR. However I have an academic paper of my own due tuesday, and as such you are on your own. Jjron's comment still stands though. Unless you can get the context in quickly, I suggest that for now you move this to suspended nominations or withdraw it.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well at least he is doing something productive. Even if the nomination is withdrawn or suspended. Editors can find here some references. Why you can't behave nicely. A good number of wikipedians are also academics themselves and even having to do research take some time to edit wikipedia. If you have to write a paper do so and come back afterward to illuminate wikipedia with what becomes known of your results. But even when you are busy you find some time to come and fill every single nomination with nothing (scroll dawn and you will see that the number is not small). If you have nothing to say listen, and listening you always learn something. You are trying too hard showing us all your ignorant side and if you keep doing it we are going to get convinced that is your true nature. Wikipedia is a place of learning. Look how many interesting things we have learned with this unsuccessful nomination: About a photographer, about a poet, about medicine, about costumes. Let us all wake up next day willing to listen and to learn from the other. It won't make us less. Franklin.vp  01:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Sorry. moving to the appropriate talk page. Franklin.vp  03:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well if the comment is going to stand, I might as well respond to it in the clearest way possible. Shut up. If you took the time to read my comments, you would realize that I don't contribute "nothing." I see that as a personal slight, and have made it clear that I do not respond kindly to those. Your comment is summarily discounted, and I see no need to ever communicate with you again. Please, for both our sakes, do not ever try to speak to me again. It will not end pleasantly. Nezzadar [SPEAK]  23:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's maintain decorum here, please. Durova351 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --ZooFariBoo! 05:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In honor of Halloween (...yes I know it's November 1) I present: CANDY CORN!

Original - Candy Corn is a popular candy given at Halloween in the United States.
Reason
A good image of sufficient size, illustrative of candy corn. Was looking for a holiday submission, found this three (seven) hours late though.
Articles this image appears in
Candy corn and a lot of userpages
Creator
From Flickr, uploaded by willc2
  • No, that's me too.

WITHDRAWN It seemed like a good idea, but it's November and the image is crap. Ah well.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Nezzadar [SPEAK]  17:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


John Shea

Original - Emmy award-winning actor John Shea, known, among other things, for his role as Lex Luthor in Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.
Edit 1 - Crop to centralise subject
Edit 2 by jjron - Tried to recover skin tones; cropping a bit truer to original composition
Reason
Another professional quality publicity shot released freely through the image submission system. This is an adult releasing an image of himself, and I contacted the subject to get some explicit details on the author, as this was raised as a potential problem in my last nomination of this sort. As such, I hope that all discussion will be kept to a discussion of the technical merits of the portrait. Furthermore, this is a slightly more well known actor, which is another concern that has been raised in conjunction with these images before.
Articles this image appears in
John Shea
Creator
Photograph produced by Michael Calas in his studio in LA listed under Michael Calas Photography. Work owned by John Shea, who has released it.
  • Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Original, Weak Oppose Crop and Edit He fades out of focus way to quickly. It's one thing if the background is blurry, but the person himself falls out of focus as well, such as at the neck and the jacket.   Nezzadar ☎   15:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fulfills the criteria well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Edit 1, Weak Support Original I like the original composition better in the original, it's not a standard portriat composition, so it stands out, looks nice in my opinion. After closer inspection the flash has washed out the normal skin tone on his face and he could of used a lint brush on his black shirt before the shoot, so weakly supporting due to some technical issues. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Edit2. --jjron (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Note: redid my edit off the original to try to get better quality and gave slightly different crop. --jjron (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose atm. The crops work better in the article, so did an edit based on that. However while doing the edit to try to bring back some skin tone (looks too flashed in others) I noted quality issues due to excessive downsampling. In particular there's quite bad artifacting (look at his shirt, especially the shadow areas). If it's possible to get a higher quality original to work from I would probably weak support a version equivalent to Edit2, but we would not accept the current quality from a Wikipedian, so why have different standards? --jjron (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Switch to full oppose on further consideration - in for a penny in for a pound...there's a few issues on quality, but as noted above would reconsider a less degraded version. --jjron (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original, oppose both edits Centering isn't necessarily a good idea. Or to be more specific, the seam in the concrete wall balances the composition and gives a gritty feel to the setting. Without that element, the background behind the subject's right cheek becomes distracting. Durova333 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original, weak support edit1, oppose edit2. Maybe it is just me, but edit1 has lost some of the neat background that adds something to the image. However, the skin tones in edit2 make it seem a bit too different from how Mr. Shea usually looks. NW (Talk) 16:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admittedly Edit 2 is overdone. I originally edited off the first crop, but then redid it off the original with the same settings. Looking at the original and crop it seems his skin is further washed out in the crop, thus my re-edit off the original went too far. Didn't bother redoing it as none of them meet technical expectations, but would redo off a better quality original. --jjron (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit or Crop Meets criteria limo. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit 2 per NW and jjron. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:JohnShea.jpg --ZooFari 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Ash Dunes near Tarvurvur Crater

Original - Volcanic ash dunes next to Tarvurvur Crater at Rabaul Volcano, Papua, New Guinea
Reason
Spectacular image. Saw this over at Commons and added it to the article. Excellent EV and good technicals, too.
Articles this image appears in
Rabaul caldera, Stratovolcano, Volcanic ash
Creator
Tarotastic (flickr user)
I don't see what you're mentioning. I see some minuscule areas where its not sharp, but they're not the focus. ceranthor 21:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Nezzadar [SPEAK]  05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I voted neutral on this, which should not disqualify me for COI reasons since neutral is essentially the same as commenting. If my assumption is incorrect, please contact me at my userpage.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/November-2009&oldid=323500395"