Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edison and Phonograph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Edison and Phonograph

Thomas Edison and his early phonograph. Cropped from Library of Congress copy. Probably taken April 18, 1878.

Edit 1, dust removal by Janke

Edit 2, further dust removal by Arad

Edit 3, Arad's edit with adjusted lightness

Reason: A high-resolution image of Thomas Edison with one of his most famous inventions. I think it is very encyclopedic and informative, as well as good photograph.
Articles this image appears in: Thomas Edison
Creator: Levin C. Handy
Nominator: Jellocube27

Support edit 1 — Jellocube27 09:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Either Historic importance + Quality = Featured Picture --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. Agree with Antilived, in the focus this pic has an extraordinary clarity. Plus it's the portrait of a geek ;-). --Dschwen 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 1 Historical significance, great quality. Question: Should we do dust & spot removal, or leave as-is? --Janke | Talk 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- At least dust removal would be justified, as the dust isn't part of the original picture and constitutes a technical deficiency of the digitization process. --Dschwen 13:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Original Great pic! We need more geeks/nerds, this is an encyclopedia. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Suppot This is a wow image, historical significance and per the fact that it is of high quality...even for back then! — Arjun 14:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support historical photograph. Noclip 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support, this picture is historically significant, and it has good quality, which is amazing, considering its time. --RandomOrca2 16:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - Would suggest not doing dust removal except for that which is particularly distracting, such as the two large black spots and the smudge right of his head. —Dgies^t c 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment (edit conflict) I did a "tactful" dust removal, see edit 1. However, I left the specks that are obviously defects in the original, but removed the "painted in" black spots. --Janke | Talk 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 1 only. Good job on the dust removal. This is probably way too picky, but the dust removal seems to have removed some things that were on the original photograph, such as the reflection on his lowest shirt button, the white gap just to the left of it, the reflection on a (rivet?) closest to the handle where his hand is, and the shadow on top that hand. Normally I'm not this picky, but I've got two tabs open where I can see all this, and this is featured pictures. --Tewy 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Janke that edit 2 removed too much. --Tewy 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 1 Everyone really already covered what I was going to say. It's really a good historical photo. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original. Dust specks on a 128 year old photo really don't bother me. Very nice photo of a subject of maximum enc value. ~~--207.38.206.107 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)~~ --Bridgecross 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Edit 1 There isn't one thing wrong with it even as an older picture. Why1991 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support both. Beautiful image, historical significance. thuglas^talk|edits 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support either. High detail and very historic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-07 18:01Z
Support Edit 1 Very encyclopedic and culturally significant. Ackatsis 03:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems like a very good picture, with high enc. (also I never knew he was so attractive). Terri G 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 1 strong, historic photo, with adequate dust removal/clean up.--Andrew c 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 2 OK, i did another edit. Hope it helps. Plus this one is in commons which is more accessible --Arad 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to say so, but I think you went too far. You removed some defects which clearly are in the original negative (i.e. some splotches and marks), so you in fact did more than a dust removal - you altered the original. This is a matter of taste of course. (The fact that you uploaded to Commons is of no importance - any version can be moved there in a jiffy... --Janke | Talk 08:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Of course it easy to put it on commons, but for now, the second version is up for FP on commons. --Arad 04:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Any. I'm fine with the original, and the edits do a pretty good job. Janke has a good arguement against edit 2, so I won't decide between them. NauticaShad e s 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Edit 3 added with some lightfixing. No reason.