This is an archive page for featured picture status removal debates. These debates are closed and should not be edited. For more information see
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2022 at 12:51:39 (UTC)
Reason
I think the photographic decisions reinforce a narrative, and it's not one I like: Not photographing the face is a photographic decision that reinforces the dehumanisation of the victim. The hat - seriously, why would he still be wearing a hat after a violent lynching - hides any evidence of beatings prior to the lynching. His neck is hidden by the collar, hiding the actual lynching except for a short bit of chain. His arms are tied, but that isn't particularly visible. It feels like this photograph was staged, the body arranged to lessen the violence, and hide the humanity of the victim. There's also an extreme lack of documentation for this image. Other than knowing it comes from 1925, we don't know where it happened, we don't know who it happened to. And, I hesitate to say this, but the lack of documentation means we don't even know for certain this was a real hanging: stage rigs for fake-hanging someone aren't particularly complex. (Obviously, lynchings happen, but that would go some way to explaining some of the other features of the image).
You have good points and I remain undecided on this. Just a question: why is it "not possible" to have one's arms tied? I don't understand the rationale behind that statement.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Bammesk: ...I think I got autocorrected. I meant "particularly visible". Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 16:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for delisting the image, and it’s still used in
Lynching.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I will say background contrast is better in JJ's, but it's limited by the bird itself being so many fewer pixels. I'd be inclined to try to keep this one as a secondary photo in the article, though I think Charles' has to be the lead. It's at least a different angle that shows other details. It's unused at present, though, so unless something happens, it's not going to matter much Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 11:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Just to make this fun I've reprocessed from the RAW and reuploaded with full resolution. Now the old FP has more pixels, more detail and doesn't have a distracting background or half the head noise reduced to blur.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 22:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)reply
That... is a challenge. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 13:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Aye. By me. I figure it's worth considering. There's three images in the article, and, admittedly, that's probably too many. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 15:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comparing the two, the busy background of the new FP isn't ideal in this case, IMO.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
If it sticks, consider this nomination withdrawn.
MER-C 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 14:33:49 (UTC)
Reason
I'm willing to stand up against censorship, but I'd like the image to be of FP quality first. This is just not a good reproduction. The restoration's decent as far as it goes, but the scan wasn't great and the colours are terrible.
This version might be acceptable, if we can get it downloaded.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2022 at 03:55:47 (UTC)
Reason
Not quite sure why this was cut off in the original restoration; I presume in imitation of a magazine I found, combined with some really nasty damage to the tie that was... quite a restoration work.
Delist and replace — Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 03:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist and replace - Yes, it was the tie damage that I didn't have the expertise to fix. However, I think the contrast correction (or did I turn up the shadows, I forget) was in the right direction, even if overdone. The original and this restoration are a bit dull. ---
C&
C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist and replace –
Bammesk (
talk) 00:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist and replaceAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.2% of all
FPs. Currently celebrating his
600th FP! 07:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I wonder which one shows the truer colors? Looks like they are photographed with different
color temperature lighting... --
Janke |
Talk 19:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There's no one true reproduction; brightness of light, sunlight v. artifical, and many other things will make it vary. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.2% of all
FPs. Currently celebrating his
600th FP! 02:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree with Adam that there is no true reproduction. However, two things convinced me the replacement is better:
If you zoom really close at the barn in the replacement image, you will notice the foreground wall of the barn remains unpainted. You can also see streaks from brushstrokes painting the sky that reach down into area of the barn wall. In the delist, these notable features are not clearly rendered. The unpainted barn wall also looks more yellow than an off white color you would expect from the unpainted canvass. The sky also has unnatural yellow streaks which are a more natural brown streaks in the replacement. This all indicates to me that the lighting in the delist is too yellow. Similar things are noticeable when looking at the bottom left corner as well where the canvass has blank spots allowing your eye to adjust and see the delist for the low quality image it really is.
It is possible to virtually tour the painting in the museum setting
here. While it doesn't complete prove this is the "best reproduction", the Google tour shows that the replacement colors are much closer to what it appears like in its exhibition setting.
Delist While I don't think we should delist historic FPs just because they're of resolutions too low for modern FPs, this hits a number of problems beyond that, like the unneccessary black and white. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.8% of all
FPs 16:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist. With no historical significance to this particular image, it would be easily replaced by a new image of appropriate quality. A different version of the same image appears to be available at double the resolution at
File:Deuces Wild (44276782).jpeg but that is still low by modern standards and doesn't affect the other issues. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)reply
While the discussion is bellow qourum, this unused image can't retain its featured picture status and is delisted.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist if it matters at this point (any image not in use at the end of a delist nom is delisted automatically) Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.8% of all
FPs 21:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2022 at 17:00:38 (UTC)
Reason
Quite simply, the Library of Congress has rescanned this, it's now far, far better quality than the one we used to have, and thus a much better restoration can be done. Also, given it's used on Chromolithography, cutting out the colour check on the right - which shows the inks appearing in it and provides a quick check that all of them were printed - seems counterproductive when it only adds value. A defining feature of Chromolithography is the number of inks used in the high-end stuff, which this demonstrates.
On the restoration, I've checked, and in other paintings of the same scene he made he put a paint spill on the ground about where there's a blotch in this one, so I think that blotch in the shadow between her and the easel is meant to be there.
While the discussion is bellow qourum, this unused image can't retain its featured picture status and is delisted.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist, though it's probably academic at this point. There's basically zero chance of it returning to use. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 13:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)reply
While the discussion is bellow qourum, this unused image can't retain its featured picture status and is delisted.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 18:37:43 (UTC)
Reason
Legs appear heavily photoshopped (where are her knees?), butt proportions seem way off, spine should likely have cracked.... Honestly, I think this was a reasonable FP for when it happened, and it should have been on the main page years ago. But it's far, far too late for it now.
Delist – EV, i.e. I don't see much in her article that relates to nudity in her career.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist Not a horrible photo, but not featured quality. Looking at it, i fail to see any educational value.
The helper5667 (
talk) 03:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I think best case scenario, it's a photo of her, in her job as a model. However, it's also not even the lead image in her article. I have the vague idea it used to be in
glamour photography, which I think would do a lot to justify it, but it's not there now. And then there's the... simply terrible usage from the original nomination.
[2]. I somewhat feel bad nominating it, because I feel as POTD co-ordinator I should be a little more dispassionate, but it's also clear people are willing to spend three pages complaining about how bad of an image it is without taking any concrete action, so perhaps I can justify the nomination on the grounds of "I'm speaking up for people who will not listen to advice on proper forum to deal with the objections they're making". Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually, if the objection is, as it was there, that the image isn't good enough for featured picture status, this 100% resolves the question. If there's anything else worth objecting to in the queue, I'm 100% sure I'll hear about it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
That comment from a single user did not refer to the image's status as a featured picture. It referred to suitability as an image to be POTD.
Polycarpa aurata (
talk) 23:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
This, not POTD, is the most appropriate venue to deal with quality issues. Other issues are irrelevant if quality isn't there, because quality alone can block it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist - poor quality image, a poor example of the genre, an inaccurate likeness of the person, little if any educational value.
Levivich 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist per nom, and per Levivich: this just isn't a good photo, and the EV is very low.
Nick-D (
talk) 09:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist Although, since it's unused, it's basically automatic unless someone can find A. a good enough identification that we can use the image with confidence (Sasata's message may well be enough), and B. a place to use it. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 17:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist – unused and uncertain identification.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist pending correct identification and actual use in an article. At least the image itself is of high quality. -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)reply
To be fair, it is identified, sort of, but as a provisional species. Which means that until it's made an official species, it's in a limbo. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Is
this a good enough source to add it to
List of Amanita species? There are other species in that list indicated as indefinite, and there is room for the image. I'd rather not do so myself, since the only thing I know about mushrooms is not to eat ones found anywhere except the grocery store.
blameless 21:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: The name has definitely made its way into the literature, but (just from some quick googling) it looks like the species hasn't been formerly named yet. For example, it has an entry in
this book, which is from a university press. (The lead author is a prolific mycologist.)
This seems to be the original (but not formally published) description; at least, it's cited in at least one scholarly paper. But this isn't a straightforward situation.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)reply
That is rather bad digitization on my humble opinion. And its watermarked. I am often opposed cloning out trash from photos, but cloning out a watermark from the painting is basically equal to conservation/restoration. Not acceptable under any circumstances. --
Andrei (
talk) 22:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Fair point. It's better, but maybe not there. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.9% of all
FPs 22:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Per MER-C, I would support a delist and replace nom.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I mean, if it's not used in any articles, it's an anti-Semitic at time of closure. Delist if it matters Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8% of all
FPs 16:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
We shouldn't delist FPs every time they are replaced with higher quality versions of themselves. The image is used in articles (just not the older version).
Bammesk (
talk) 17:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
It happens, though. Have to renominate Love and Duty, for instance. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8% of all
FPs 17:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, I introduced the newer version, Support delist and replace.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
...and replace is fine with me. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8% of all
FPs 18:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)reply
While the discussion is bellow qourum, this unused image can't retain its featured picture status and is delisted.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delist, although, unless it's added to articles, it's basically an auto-delist at this point. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.2% of all
FPs 03:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
While the discussion is bellow qourum, this unused image can't retain its featured picture status and is delisted.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply