Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Battle of Jerusalem, 1917

Battle of Jerusalem, 1917

Reason: The British capture of Jerusalem in 1917 was one of most far-reaching events of World War I. Up until now Wikipedia has had no featured images of that war's Middle Eastern theater. Proposing this photograph of the British camp and artillery for encyclopedic value, and it's not a bad piece of photography. Restored version of Image:Capture of Jerusalem 1917.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: World War I, History of Jerusalem, Battle of Jerusalem (1917), Middle Eastern theatre of World War I
Creator: American Colony (Jerusalem)

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nice historic photo, good encyc. value. Nice restoration, as always. Though I doubt that this is "one of most far-reaching events of World War I." Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for original version only, see below.--Pete Tillman (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Consider how important this was to the creation of the state of Israel, and how much Israel's existence has affected international politics for the last 70 years. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Pity there's not a better version of Image:Allenby enters Jerusalem 1917.jpg available. Maybe you can find one? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for its quality and EV. Good find, good restoration. Fletcher (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three versions, though my personal fav is the original tone color on the second pass restoration I did on Durova's work. I mainly changed the cropping a bit and cleaned up the levels some more. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I rather doubt that the picture displays actual artillery dispositions during the assault on Jerusalem, as it looks to be just an artillery park. It hardly encapsulates its name "Capture of Jerusalem". That's not to say that the capture of the city wasn't important, however this picture hardly illustrates that. It could be a collection of guns anywhere from Palestine to Mesopotamia. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why they would space the guns this distant from each other, if the only purpose was to park them? Durova^Charge! 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Upon closer inspection I can see the boxes of shells and charges next to the 60-pounders, so it would appear to be a firing line. I stand by my point however that on the face of it it relates in no way to the capture of Jerusalem.--Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The picture may have good EV ~~(although even that is in doubt)~~, but the poor quality is inexcusable for the time period. NauticaShad es 15:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only Further edits bring out grain in shadows. Quality is good, and unless there's some real evedence that this isn't what it says it is, I don't see any reason to doubt EV. Thegreenj 00:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur in preferring the original. Edit 2 ('Second cleanup original tone') is really bad in full res. Plus it has an odd, distracting sepia cast (on my monitor, anyway) --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the uploader, that second edit retains the shade of the unrestored digital file. I desaturated during my restoration (the original nom.) because the source file was a scan from a print that had yellowed with age. The grain of the source photograph makes this hard to sharpen effectively. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aye. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, uninteresting composition, total lack of wow. Clegs (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this looks more like a camp, nothing relating to the actual battle, so EV is pretty low actually. diego_pmc (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

These two, if cleaned up somehow, say something more than a picture of 60-pdr guns. Unfortunately these (from Google Books) are likely the best quality available offhand.--Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much I can do with a file that's only 98KB. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 04:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]