Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Emma Goldman
- Reason
- A featured article deserves a featured picture, when possible. Replaces 16kb Image:Portrait Emma Goldman.jpg as lead image at the Emma Goldman article. Photomechanical print from the portrait at her book Anarchism and Other Essays, one of her more famous works. Restored version of Image:Emma Goldman unrestored.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays
- Creator
- T. Kajiwara
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 21:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Yet another, another, etc., excellent restoration. —Ceran [speak ] 22:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to neutral. —Ceran [ speak ] 20:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support kind of a small image but definitely historical, high EV. Fletcher (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful image and historically significant. Epson291 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Even though the portrait depicts an important figure, that does not justify the poor quality of the image itself. The image is too blurry, and the overall tone could've been adjusted to warmer tones given the image is a historical one.(brownish tones etc) A feature article deserves a featured picture, when possible -> If we're lucky, that would be great for readers, but I don't believe this image deserves to be "featured picture". Just because of the fact that the picture is placed on the featured article does make the picture a "feature picture". --Caspian blue 03:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The color balance of this image has not been altered (compare to the original). It wouldn't be in keeping with the purpose of restoration to introduce sepia tones where none existed (generally one tries to reduce that in images where it does exist). Regarding the rest, there were technical limitations to photomechanical print reproductions 98 years ago. This isn't an etching. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know it is not an etching work, but details are missing in the image. Yes, many old pictures have excessive sepia cast, but well, that would be my preference. If you, instead nominated another portrait placed at the top of Emma Goldman even though it is more blurry than this image, I would support you because that is more "interesting" and "artistic" as well as capturing her character well. Also it is not used on the mentioned article.--Caspian blue 06:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Arguing that historical EV does not make up for the image quality is a valid objection, but arguing we should doctor images to make them look old is not, IMO. I don't think we should add sepia or B&W software filters as those are artistic effects (which have their place), but this is an encyclopedia. Fletcher (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, you misunderstood me. I'm not happy with the cold and pale tone of the image which could be adjusted as adding warmer tones. --Caspian blue 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Arguing that historical EV does not make up for the image quality is a valid objection, but arguing we should doctor images to make them look old is not, IMO. I don't think we should add sepia or B&W software filters as those are artistic effects (which have their place), but this is an encyclopedia. Fletcher (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know it is not an etching work, but details are missing in the image. Yes, many old pictures have excessive sepia cast, but well, that would be my preference. If you, instead nominated another portrait placed at the top of Emma Goldman even though it is more blurry than this image, I would support you because that is more "interesting" and "artistic" as well as capturing her character well. Also it is not used on the mentioned article.--Caspian blue 06:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The color balance of this image has not been altered (compare to the original). It wouldn't be in keeping with the purpose of restoration to introduce sepia tones where none existed (generally one tries to reduce that in images where it does exist). Regarding the rest, there were technical limitations to photomechanical print reproductions 98 years ago. This isn't an etching. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is very poor. It might have a better chance at VPC Muhammad(talk) 08:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm with the opposers. Good EV and well integrated in the artcicle, but the image itself is not good enough to reach FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Questionable EV: it's not used in Emma Goldman any more, and IMO it doesn't add much to Anarchism and Other Essays. Also, quality concerns per Muhammad and Alvesgaspar. Makeemlighter (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reluctant Oppose - Although the restoration is excellent, the original image is rather poor. As you can see from an alternate version of the image[1] (which is also poor but for different reasons), the contrast on this image is blown and many details are missing or intentionally blurred (compare the edges). Both versions of this image that are housed by the LoC seem to be poor reproductions of an earlier image that is lost. Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. We need some standards on "old" images. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawing nomination. Thanks for the reviews, all. DurovaCharge! 20:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)