Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2018 at 10:55:49 (UTC)
Reason
Never done this before, but I figured I'd give it a go. Found this a while ago while digging through a few hundred, maybe a thousand or more images from this LOC dump on Commons. Just a visually striking image of the type that made me super interested to figure out who this guy was, and then wound up writing his article, and a then a bunch of related articles. Turns out he wasn't just a native but was widely described as the native par excellence, and often lauded in the period papers for his striking physical appearance and stature (
the guy was huge). Wound up being the archetypal physical appearance of a native on the 1922 stamp and the five dollar bill, and would have been notable only for his physical appearance even if he had not done a whole bunch of other really interesting things. The image is a completely unedited scan with the exception of a slight crop to remove artifacts of the original glass negative.
Part of the Library of Congress
Harris & Ewing collection, almost certainly taken in Washington D. C. in either 1905 or 1913 while Hollow Horn Bear was present for his participation in the respective inaugural parades. Unable to absolutely verify this beyond the context of the biography, and the original LOC description, along with the context of the collection, which is largely made up of period politicians and taken in Washington.
Support as nominator –
GMGtalk 10:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support – Quite a few scratches and dust spots; support when/if they are removed. --
Janke |
Talk 12:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Hmm...Good point. I'll look at doing more in depth touch-ups tonight.
GMGtalk 12:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Full support after restoration. --
Janke |
Talk 06:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support – (Conditional Per
Janke.) A face with character. High EV for a Native American leader who seems not widely known today despite his prominence in 1890-1910.
Sca (
talk) 13:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - Excellent.
DonFB (
talk) 23:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Okay
Janke,
Sca, I threw a few hours at it and I think I've gotten it cleaned up pretty well. Lemme know what you think. I'll be honest, I haven't fired up GIMP since college, and it was definitely interesting retraining myself how to fix these kinds of things. But hopefully I did alright.
GMGtalk 23:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)reply
⇒ Looks mighty good to me for a century-old photo.
Sca (
talk) 14:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 16:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Lots of empty space at the bottom. Might be worth cropping. Also, I'd prefer a non-crossbred specimen to illustrate Viburnum. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 01:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my nomination Personally, I like the composition, contrasting the colors and the sharp lines of the leaves in the background with the softer subject. That said, it's a good point that the composition doesn't add to the EV (probably lessens it, since the leaves are from a different plant), and that the EV is hurt by it being a hybrid. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - To me this is a good example of an image that might not make FPC on Commons, but which has very high EV such that it feels like a good fit here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
B dash (
talk) 09:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Nice picture, but I'm not sure I see any EV on either of those two pages that you linked.
Mattximus (
talk) 14:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per
Mattximus. Plus, all colored-lights-on-structures pix seem gimmicky to me. (Pic. is three years old, so not current poltically.)
Sca (
talk) 15:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Mattximus and
Sca: I have add the article about social policy of Obama, passing the same-sex marriage ruling is a notable policy of Obama. --
B dash (
talk) 15:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Fine, but the rainbow-colors illumination of the White House isn't mentioned in the text of said article, only in the caption below this picture (which appears to have been added to the article in April 2017). So EV does seem lacking.
Sca (
talk) 20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I can't see the EV, since there is no mention of this particular event of lighting up the white house in the article, and if added won't really be significant.
Mattximus (
talk) 19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with Matt; there needs to be more discussion for EV. Is there something about the practice of lighting up buildings in commemoration/recognition of things? That seems to common enough these days to deserve an article. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 07:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Such as the
Brandenburg Gate being lit in French colors after the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. Nice gesture, but ephemeral and lacking significance.
Sca (
talk) 14:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC) →reply