Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Theodore Roosevelt on broken glass
I found this image on LOC, and though it could really be useful as an FP, though it would need to be included in an article first. The image is almost totally unaltered from the LOC original, the only thing that has been done is a removal of the white background and a minor crop. I think it's a perfect example that photos cannot survive forever.
- Nominated by
- →AzaToth 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- There's another portrait of Teddy Roosevelt on FPC right now getting positive responses. What would this add? Duplicates of the same subject come under harsh scrutiny when I nominated a portrait of Gen. Sherman, which got featured on Commons but didn't fare well here on Wikipedia. If this is a portrait of Roosevelt I suggest cropping, but am skeptical about its chances. If it's a document of glass photography deterioration that might fare better, although I suggest making its purpose clear in your nomination. DurovaCharge! 03:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's about the detoriation (as I tried to state). →AzaToth 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm.. the worst thing is that it's not on broken glass, it's the emulsion on the back of the glass which has deteriorated. The image appears at Collodion process, which is probably how it was made, and while it adds value there and there's a modicum of historical interest, I can't see anything outstanding about the image which might make it FP-worthy. It might have more enc value in an article about image deterioration, but even then it's probably not strong enough in itself to be promoted. --mikaultalk 09:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, I knew "broken glass" was totally wrong word, but I couldn't find the correct one. Why I think this image could be FP worthy, is that it shows the deterioration process pretty clear, but in the same time shows a known subject that people can refer to. →AzaToth 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm.. the worst thing is that it's not on broken glass, it's the emulsion on the back of the glass which has deteriorated. The image appears at Collodion process, which is probably how it was made, and while it adds value there and there's a modicum of historical interest, I can't see anything outstanding about the image which might make it FP-worthy. It might have more enc value in an article about image deterioration, but even then it's probably not strong enough in itself to be promoted. --mikaultalk 09:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's about the detoriation (as I tried to state). →AzaToth 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you used it in an article yet? Or even add it and some additional information to the article? Watching these whatever they are for approval to have your images put in a special gallery and displayed as an Image of the Day -- I am sorry that I started to do this because I used to just enjoy those images and now when I see them, I am thinking more of desperation and vote hacking. I am also a little sorry about my attempt to contribute here because on the rare occasion that I can read a good article with a great illustration, I am trying to consider how the (probably) single author kept the dozens of editors away but I am also very impressed to see a great image in a great article. Is 'stymied' the best word for my confusion about the desperation for approval? I could run the software to see the places where the image is being used -- it is far more interesting to hear from the submitter of the image though. -- carol 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think that it is a very fine image of Theodore Roosevelt, a Frock-Coat, and charcoal striped trousers and it has a lot of quality and depth. I think it should be made a FP because of these qualities, and that it illlustrates the Collodion Process very well.--Iamyourdoom61 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)
- Seconder