Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1783 medallion
- Reason
- A crisp and clear scan of an attractive antique artefact. It's in nice shape for its age too.
- Proposed caption
- Dutch medallion commemorating the blockade of Gibraltar, 1783, and the loss of the HMS Royal George, 1782.
• Obverse: View of the Rock of Gibraltar and ships engaged. Legend: T GEBLOQUEERDE GIBARALTAR. Exergue: 1783 (Gibraltar blockade).
• Reverse: The Royal George sinking. Legend: ROYAAL GEORGE ADMIRAAL KEMPENFELT ('Royal George' Admiral Kempenfelt). Exergue: 1783.
HMS Royal George (1756) sank in 1782 at Spithead, England, taking 800 lives. The incident remains the worst single peace time disaster in the history of the British Royal Navy. - Articles this image appears in
- Richard Kempenfelt, HMS Royal George (1756), Portal:Numismatics
- Creator
- User:Chris.B
- Support as nominator Chris B • talk 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Question There appears to be a highlighter-yellow blotch on both sides. Why is this so?--HereToHelp 23:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is something known as "toning" in numismatics; basically tarnish on the actual coin. -- Chris B • talk 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support With the "toning" explained, I see no further reason to oppose.--HereToHelp 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is something known as "toning" in numismatics; basically tarnish on the actual coin. -- Chris B • talk 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I can accept the toning. But there seems to be some small spots of neon green on the coin which I am now reasonably certain are scanner artifacts. Also the scanner cover and the platen seems to be dirty in many places if you really study the image. If you can clean the glass and cover and rescan, and find some way to get around the neon green spots, I would support an image of this fantastic medallion. One other minor thing, the caption has what I assume is the formal numismatic description. This is fine for the image page but makes for a nearly unreadable caption by a layman. Try converting the description into normal prose; dedicated numismatists can go to the image page or main article for the full description. Probably should mention the material, is it bronze? Jeff Dahl 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at it more closely, the only reason it meets the size requirements is because the two sides are put side-by-side, which is a little bit of cheating. By itself it looks like it would only be about 900 px wide. If you can rescan at higher res, It would be better. Jeff Dahl 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, the coin is bronze gilt. Thanks for your suggestions - a better scan is probably a good idea. -- Chris B • talk 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose basically for the same reasons as Jeff. I can see numerous dirt marks from the scanning. As for the green neon (see centre of the right hand coin), is this an artifact or actually on the coin ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The green thing is on the coin itself; "toning" as I said. The dirt marks, however, are the result of scanning very small items! -- Chris B • talk 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- With respect to the green spots, are we both looking at the same thing? I think these are things which should be fixable, if you have the ability to scan the coin again it would be worth it. Jeff Dahl 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I was looking at the wrong thing. In fact I had no idea those were even there, I thought you meant the tarnish/toning. I must re-scan - I'll see if I can fix it. -- Chris B • talk 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at the alternative. It looks a bit better to me. -- Chris B • talk 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I was looking at the wrong thing. In fact I had no idea those were even there, I thought you meant the tarnish/toning. I must re-scan - I'll see if I can fix it. -- Chris B • talk 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- With respect to the green spots, are we both looking at the same thing? I think these are things which should be fixable, if you have the ability to scan the coin again it would be worth it. Jeff Dahl 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The background is cleaner, so no objection to that. And the resolution is better, which helps to reduce the artifacts somewhat. But I am still not satisfied by the scan because of the green neon spots. Studying the image I also am starting to have a concern about the large flat areas which were directly in contact with the glass during the scan, because they appear unnaturally lit. I suppose they could be photoshopped out, but I'm not sure that would be a satisfactory solution either. The FP criteria say that an image should be of high technical quality. This image is pretty good technical quality, but I think a photograph would be a better solution. Take a look at Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg which exemplifies a Featured Picture of a coin. Jeff Dahl 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The green thing is on the coin itself; "toning" as I said. The dirt marks, however, are the result of scanning very small items! -- Chris B • talk 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)