Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The First Thanksgiving cph.3g04961.jpg

The First Thanksgiving

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 17:57:10 (UTC)

Reason: An important painting from American history, very influential in how we perceive Thanksgiving today. Colors adjusted and dust removed by myself. Intended for POTD on Thanksgiving Day.
Articles in which this image appears: Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, Thanksgiving (United States), Thanksgiving
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks very... dotty. What's going on there? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but this is the scan of a print. For a featured picture I'd expect a reproduction of the original, not the reproduction of a reproduction, especially if the rasterization is so very visible. --Dschwen 18:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original is no longer publicly available. Per [1], the paintings are in the possession of the artist's family. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is sad, but not really an excuse. We'll just feature a different and high quality image then. --Dschwen 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As well, it's a scan of a print, we can clearly see the halftone pattern from the offset printer... — raeky T 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I actually like that this has such high quality you actually can see the halftone pattern. To me that suggests that the person who digitally reproduced the print really knew what they were doing because they managed to get all the detail out of what they had. Meanwhile, I scan a drawing, white paper comes out yellow, so I respect the technique, but is this historically accurate?--I'ḏ ♥One 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not historically accurate at all [2], but that's not the point; this painting was instrumental in establishing the modern romanticized US view of the first Thanksgiving. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't mean this personal (as far as this is possible), but this comment (such high quality you actually can see the halftone pattern) and your earlier suggestion to "upsample an image in GIMP or some online service" to meet the resolution requirement make me think that you should maybe work on your imageprocessing-related background knowledge. I thought FPC was supposed to be a constructive discussion by knowledgeable people rather than a "me likey!"-vote. Yeah, I know there are no beurocratic rules about this, and no, there is no entrance exam for FPC, but I would hope that people try and assess their own level of expertise before entering discussions like this. Yeah, well, now go ahead and dismiss me as some arrogant elitist prick ;-). --Dschwen 21:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel allowing this to be a FP to have it featured on the holiday, would devalue the project. I agree it's a very important image for how American's see the holiday, but it's unfortunate it's a scan of a print and not the original. Also is a shame it's locked away in a private collection and not on loan to the Smithsonian or some other institution. But if we lower our standards here it would be hard to justify opposes for this very reason on other art images. If we want a Thanksgiving related image for a POTD then we should look for other options. — raeky T 22:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't nominating this for the sole purpose of putting it as POTD. howcheng {chat} 01:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dschwen, my point is that it's been better digitally transferred than the majority of images on we have on Wikimedia, as stated in the next like without which allows you to take my statement out of context and make me sound like a hick. That's what I actually like about it, the painting itself I could take or leave, I probably wouldn't decorate my house with it, I certainly don't find it "eye-catching" even though Ferris was talented. Raeky, what can we do? It's apparently already going to be picture of the day. I sort of feel the opposite way: That we should show more REALISTIC depictions of what actually happened, I could oppose this for that reason. --I'ḏ ♥One 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD has to be a Featured Picture as far as I know, so if this doesn't pass it can't be the POTD. — raeky T 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, fine then. --I'ḏ ♥One 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~You might be wrong, this was POTD, doesn't look like it was ever featured and is half toned. --I'ḏ ♥One 01:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, that was never POTD. It did have a Main Page appearance as the image for the featured article on 2010-01-15. howcheng {chat} 01:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was going to undo that comment. --I'ḏ ♥One 01:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you that you were trying. However, upsampling is not helpful at all. At worst it could be considered gaming the system or trying to deceive the reviewers, at best it adds nothing to the picture. The minimum size numbers are not just there as a bureaucratic measure, there is a reason for them. And that is to filter out images that do not provide reasonable amounts of detail and clarity. Upsampling adds neither detail or clarity. --Dschwen 12:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]