Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Dream of the Fisherman's Wife
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 08:05:30 (UTC)
| Erotic artwork. NSFW. Click to show. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
 |
- Reason
- Frankly, it's a terrible scan. Checking the history shows it's taken from a very low-quality copy, which was then extensively restored. Colours are bizarre, whole thing is blurry... and it's not like it's high resolution; even just big enough to fill a screen will show a lot of artefacting. It's below current standards, and barely passed the ones of the time. I just don't think this can be considered amongst the best of Wikipedia's work. There's lots of subjects I'd love to have a featured picture of. But the solution is not to find something sort-of-alright and then say it's amongst the best of Wikipedia's work because it's on an interesting subject.
- To be perfectly clear, the work done on it is exceptionally good at turning a near-unusable image into something useful. That's certainly deserving of praise, but is not the same as creating a featured picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- Dream of the Fisherman's Wife et al.
- Previous nomination/s
- WP:Featured picture candidates/Tako to Ama
- Nominator
- Adam Cuerden (talk)
- Delist — Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment (actually leaning keep, but I may not be unbiased). This is, or at least at the time of nomination was, the best version of this (individually notable) print on the internet at the time. As the nominator says, it is downright useful, and the restoration work was done well. Although I admit that the resolution is a little on the low side, I don't think that in its own is enough for delisting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not just the resolution, though. It's also a question of accuracy. The colours seem a bit strange, for example. Now, that's no guide as such, but I don't see any colour adjustment from the very good copy to the final, so it doesn't appear any work has been put in on colour accuracy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)- Better argument: THIS copy is 3000x4000 px, has much more natural colours, and only needs a little work to be fixed up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- If we're going D&R, I'd probably support that version. I don't think I can straighten it very well, though (they scanned it on a flat scanner by the looks of it). If you can do it, well... I'd say I implore you, but I'm afraid that would be too reminiscent of the Red Queen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
