Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Whistler's etching of Zaandam

Whistler's etching of Zaandam[edit]

**Original** - Zaandam, the Netherlands, c. 1889. Etching by James McNeill Whistler.

Reason: Here's a chance for another FP for a significant artist: a high resolution etching by James Abbott McNeill Whistler of Zaandam in the northern Netherlands, with a view of some of the many windmills that city had during the late nineteenth century. Restored version of File:Zaandam.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: James Abbott McNeill Whistler, Zaandam
Creator: James Abbott McNeill Whistler

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and EV. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to sort out the white balance issue I think this and other similar noms have, before I can support. See question posted at Pulaski, New York, 1885 up the page. I've posted an edit here, based on the page white of the original uncropped scan, which I think is probably closer to the true colour of the artwork. mikaul^talk 11:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the paper grain. Whistler had this printed on an unusual paper, possibly to give the etching the appearance of an original sketch. Papers of that grain would have had a distinct brownish tint. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's an unusual paper, how has it faded to the same hue as other LOC scans? The original file has a white border, possibly from a scanner but certainly not the same paper, which has the same hue. I can't imagine why an archivist would choose a yellow-magenta paper for this purpose, so I'd conclude the scan has a cast, possibly due to mis-calibration somewhere, which should be corrected for historical accuracy. mikaul^talk 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is becoming disruptive. Mikaul supposes that a scanner was miscalibrated at the Library of Congress, and even though the hypothesis does not fit the evidence within the collection where he first hypothesized it he now extends the notion to completely unrelated material. If anyone is confused, please do refer to the other discussion. Durova^Charge! 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I'd wanted to be disruptive, I'd have commented on more than two noms. The hypothesis fits the evidence as far as I can see. If you don't want to see a problem, fine. Just don't twist it into some kind of personal vendetta. The crux of the issue, fwiw, isn't here, it's on my talk page. mikaul^talk 20:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zaandam2.jpg MER-C 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]