Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg

Agassiz statue

Reason: It is a historically significant photograph, of reasonably high resolution, and is very eye-catching.
Articles this image appears in: 1906 San Francisco earthquake
Creator: W. C. Mendenhall
Nominator: Readro

Support — Readro 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not great quality, but is fair enough for a 101 year old picture, and is interesting. It isn't going to happen again either. I think... · AO ^Talk 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject is extremely interesting, and it is a great historic representation of the effects of the earthquake. The age of the image explains its poorer quality. Royalbroil^T : C 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support either version, although I prefer trialsanderrors' version. The image demonstrated the destructiveness of the earthquake, so it should represent the 1906 SF earthquake article IMHO. Royalbroil^T : C 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support the alternate version too, but I like Edit 1 more. One of these three should be featured in any case. Royalbroil^T : C 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality ok, but the substance of the image is stunning. Could use some retouching on the upper left corner to remove the white cast there. Asiir 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image is not currently in any article. Image:Agassiz in the Concrete.jpg appears at Louis Agassiz.Circeus 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fixed. Readro 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. Eyecatching. --Tewy 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit Rarity, age and importance for the day. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would like to support a better scan of this - it looks a bit like it has been scanned from a printed source. Also, the shadows are inky - no details. --Janke | Talk 07:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a different version from the Stanford website: agassiz.jpg. Stanford asks for permission for its images, but this would be {{PD-Old}}, no? ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PD-old requires that the copyright holder to have been dead for 70+ years. Fortunately, this was published before 1923 making it PD-US. Even more fortunately, it was taken by the USGS, making it PD-USGov-USGS. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support If an agreement can be made over it illustrating an article. Currently disputed whether this or Image:Agassiz in the Concrete.jpg should be in the Agassiz article.Circeus 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support Edit 1 or Alternative This is eye-catching alright and good for Commons, but the very fact that the building is unrecognizable (and the pedestal is not visible) makes this image less enc than most other contemporary versions (see e.g. cdlib.org), so I agree it shouldn't be used in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake article. ~ trialsanderrors 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm derived from a San Francisco family, and know from family lore that this image is quite iconic of the earthquake. Not that I can cite that... Debivort 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image or the subject? There are any number of versions of the subject in the online libraries, from a variety of angles. This one is a pretty poor one, and I also believe it gets most of its visual attraction from digital enhancement. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good distinction to draw. The subject is iconic. I'm not sure the building is more recognizable in the alt version (it is missing a roof line for example), but seeing the pedestal helps. Debivort 08:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the alternative, both have their advantages, so I'm indifferent between the two now. ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support Debivort 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the current version on the USGS website and created a restored version from the largest available copy. If anyone else wants to attempt their own restoration efforts, the orginal is in the edit history. My comment about lack of enc stands. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support for the picture with the alternative perspective if it's cleaned up since it better portrays the effect of the earthquake than the original: viewers can picture that statue falling off the pedestal; the original seems like an accident.--BirdKr 13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 -Serious "Wow" factor -Nelro
Support edit 1. —Dgies^t c 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 - I'm changing my vote to support the first edit. I did not know that there was a better version out there, and I would rather the better image was used. Readro 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for the alternate version. I really like the additional context provided by the zoology building and the statue's old platform next to the other statue. I Oppose the original or its edit. Basar 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]