Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lies Noor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lies Noor[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 06:28:25 (UTC)

Original – Lies Noor, an Indonesian film actress, in c. 1956
ALT - Name removed
Reason
High quality image of this promising young actress who died at a young age.
Articles in which this image appears
Lies Noor
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Djakartawood Studios, restored by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Signature on photo, mediocre detail at full res., contrast issues, promotional. (Target article = 480 words, raising question of notability.) Sca (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Moderate resolution": I don't know what world you're living in, but 10.4 megapixels for a postcard-sized photograph is far from "Mediocre". This was scanned at 900 PPI.
"Contrast issues": What, exactly, are you referring to? There are no blown highlights, nor are there any clipped shadows.
"Promotional": For an actress who has been dead for fifty-five years? Really? Are you going to oppose a picture of Notre Dame next, because it's also used for tourism?
"Questionable notability": Cover of multiple magazines (Varia, Minggu Pagi, etc.), demanded - and received - large wages for the time (I have a menu from c. 1955... Rp 10 would have gotten you a full meal at a good restaurant. Multiply that by 750 or 1000), coverage in numerous contemporary sources, including obituaries from two sources cited in the article alone, funeral attended by A-list Indonesian celebrities. She clearly passes WP:N. The "Sca bar" you wish to implement is, thankfully, not policy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for article length: 480 words is longer than the article for Parthenos sylvia (317 words) and The Accolade (painting) (340 words), yet I don't see you claiming either of them is non-notable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't speak Indonesian, but a search for Elisa Firmansjah Noor and Lies Noor on Indonesian Wiki failed to find an article. Quick Googling of her name yielded one hit – the English WP article targeted here.
Contrast: Poor contrast with backdrop, inky shadowing of hair.
Promotional: "Indonesian actress Lies Noor (c. 1956) in a photograph from Djakartawood." – Sca (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • She died in 1961, and Indonesian film history is not well represented online, particularly for people who died before Misbach Yusa Biran began actually trying to catalogue that history. The Indonesian Wikipedia is certainly no measure: less than 0.5% of the editors there are willing to actually go to a library and crack open a book (hence why the majority of their Featured Articles are translated from ours). Their articles on numerous actors from the '50s are far below ours in terms of quality (compare A. Hamid Arief and id:A. Hamid Arief, or Indriati Iskak and id:Indriati Iskak). Your inability to use the internet (the majority of the sources cited are online; you need only follow the links) does not render her non-notable.
    To the best of my knowledge, Djakartawood has been defunct since the late 1950s. Crediting them on the image page (not in the article - indeed, they aren't credited in the article) is simple acknowledgement of the photographer, and is no different than crediting Mathew Brady for images of Civil War-era generals. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now answer me this: what policy did you draw your "480 words? notability is questionable" metric. It certainly can't be from your own best editing practices. Four of your last five articles (Janina Altman, St. Nicholas Church, Stendal, Arnold Lyongrün, and Johan Otto Hesselbom) would have "questionable notability" using that metric. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Sca – Jobas (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with Sca on all their points (it has great contrast/resolution, good EV, not promotional) but I agree about the signature, I also find it distracting. Considering the page is not about the photograph itself, but about the actor, would it be acceptable/possible to remove it? If it was about the photograph then of course I can see the argument of leaving it as it was intended. Mattximus (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be possible, and I will do so (reluctantly) as a separate file. I subscribe to Adam Cuerden's approach of leaving well enough alone (I've only seen him remove a watermark once, and that begrudgingly).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Captivating image. Not everything is to do with resolution. No comment on the other issues. 109.146.248.82 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – about promotional: we do have promotional (or publicity) FP images [1], [2], [3], [4]. Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the restorations but the dark areas look dusty still. I don't like the pose and wish the shades of gray were more distinct, but can't ask for everything in a historic image. Looks better without the signature. My concern is the dusty dark areas. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pose is pretty standard for her publicity stills (see the category). I'll touch up the shadows when I get home. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT Even if promotional, this is type of portraits I can accept, unlike some modern generic promos churned out by PR agencies. Also improves coverage on such little-known women. The only thing that bothers is her missing birth year. I suspect it's the 1940s. Brandmeistertalk 09:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem with judging her age based on her being in school up through 1955 is that, during the Japanese occupation (42-45) and revolution (45-49), a lot of students were delayed. I'm still attempting to track down a biography outside of Varia (I have several editions of the contemporary film magazines Film Varia and Dunia Film, but my collection is spotty). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the watermark/signature issue... I think we have to ask what the picture is showing. If the picture is to display a work of art, removing the artist's signature would be deeply problematic, as it would change the nature of the work. Similar if it was to display the likes of a film poster. If, however, we have an image which, for our purposes, is fundamentally a picture of the original work's subject, rather than the work itself (as we have here), then I think we have to ask whether these signatures/watermarks are adding/detracting from the image. Given that we are (quite reasonably) so opposed to watermarks on contemporary images, I'm not sure I understand the anxiety about removing them from older images. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the watermark on the ALT. I think removing a 60+ year old watermark is significantly different than requiring that contributors of photographs to not include watermarks in the first place (I can't think of any examples where a Flickr user's watermarked image was send this way), particularly since the names appear to have been printed with the photograph (note how the hexagon pattern of File:Ermina Zaenah c 1955 (portrait) - before restoration.jpg is also found on her name). I am concerned about misrepresenting the photograph as a physical object. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt looks noticeably better, so I'll cancel my opposition. (I guess this amounts to weak support for Alt.)
I'm not going to reopen the old debate about notability, except to opine that in featuring any photo we should ask the question, why are we featuring this picture? Put another way, why would our audience, the readers of English Wiki, be interested in this picture and associated article?
I'll not say more about this nom. Sca (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, I am interested in featuring images to educate viewers; to make viewers understand that there are more things in heaven and earth than their philosophies can imagine; to ensure that nobody, in the future, has to say "sometimes you can feel lazy and think we're so big we don't have to really know anything about other people". That's my reason. And it's clearly not shared by everyone. Hence why we use the criteria and not individual editing philosophies for determining featured pictures. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt meets all the criteria and none of the non-criteria used above as reasons for opposition or for watering-down a support convince me in the slightest. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt - Godot13 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support alt, neutral on original. I find Sca's arguments unconvincing; there is no reason for us to be worried about the fact that that this is a promotional photo given that the subject is long dead, and the claims about notability do not seem to be based on any formal guidelines. The subject is not famous in the English speaking world, but that is certainly not a reason to oppose featuring a picture of her. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you the one who was banished to the wilds of Canada? Sca (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lies Noor (c. 1956), Djakartawood (no name).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lies_Noor&oldid=1141918317"