Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Charlie Gardiner

Charlie Gardiner

Reason: This is the main image of a WP:GA. It can not be recreated and is high EV. EV is based solely on primary use.
Articles this image appears in: Charlie Gardiner (ice hockey)
Tiny Thompson
Creator: unknown

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may not be able to be retaken, but presumably the original exists therefore a better scan could be acquired, and presumably there was more then one photograph of this person taken therefore another image could be sourced. 300px is way to small. — raeky T 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought it was quite common to make the article for notable deceased people that an image is hard to replace. Yes this guy was a professional athlete and was photographed often. The question is whether there are other images in the public domain. Also, I am not sure how size applies to VPs. I did not think there was a limit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There isn't a set size minimum, but 300 pixels is really asking a lot, it better be the absolutely most irreplaceable highest EV image you could think of for the article. And I don't see that here, as a professional there is bound to be better images out there, might be something we have to wait a few more decades for for them to enter PD, or someone might have to do some harder searching, or find the source of this image and get a better scan... — raeky T 21:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In terms of size any image that is over 250x250, is at or above the size that will be used in WP. Since we are evaluating images for their value to WP. Size should only count against a VP if it is less than 250x250. I am not an expert on what irreplaceable means in this context, but many images that are of rare subjects are considered irreplaceable. I don't think there is much that we are likely to find in PD space.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You'd at least want to fix the tilt and improve the crop. --jjron (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting a slight clockwise rotation and then cropping to center the goal in the image. This is a pretty small file to crop, but I could do it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not so sure about cropping because the goalie is centered even though the goal is not. I will try to tilt and post an edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The tilt is better. I see what you mean about the crop - so not sure on that one actually. Overall TBH I'm hardly wowed by it. Technical's aren't good, composition is very so-so, EV is OK but not huge (due to size and frankly pretty boring composition, I'm really only seeing that this is some guy in a hockey suit, can't even tell much about what he looks like, etc). Looks like about the only pic specifically of this guy we have, but I'm still not really convinced I'd regard it as 'valued' given all it's shortcomings. I would tend towards Neutral at best probably. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]