Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Birds eye view of Detroit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2013 at 05:26:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- An interesting old image of Detroit. Perspective map not drawn to scale. I just found a copy that has very high resolution that may qualify as a Featured Picture. The original is 30 x 50 cm. and resides in the Library of Congress Geography and Map Division, Washington, D.C.
- Articles in which this image appears
- History of Detroit
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
- Creator
- Calvert Lithographing Co. (Detroit, Mich.)
Support as nominator--Diannaa (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)- Crop's too tight; if the image is a little off square, a tight crop emphasizes that - though this is understandable, given the weird crop of the original scan. I'd probably add a little paper at the top, since the paper is almost certainly there. Pencil marks in lower right; some marks on it. Think this one'll be a quick restoration, though, so I'll set to work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adam! There's also some pale while lines that may be the result of folding the document. I don't know if anything can or should be done about those. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- First one in a bit I've managed to do to the FPC schedule. Not a perfect scan - it could stand to be a bit sharper, but the good resolution makes up for that, and a little sharpening fixed it up further. It's a good example of a somewhat under-represented style of Victorian lithograph. For the record, scans have a tendency to yellowshift when scanning slightly yellowed paper; further, the LoC is known to use uncalibrated scanners. Adjusting the yellowed paper somewhat blued up the colours a bit, which I believe is likely more accurate, but if anyone would prefer, ask me for a colour-unadjusted version. Support Alt Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The restoration is lovely :) I like what you've done with the colour. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to help! It's a great image, and I like making sure that lithographs and engravings look as good as possible =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt -- Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to help! It's a great image, and I like making sure that lithographs and engravings look as good as possible =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The restoration is lovely :) I like what you've done with the colour. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- First one in a bit I've managed to do to the FPC schedule. Not a perfect scan - it could stand to be a bit sharper, but the good resolution makes up for that, and a little sharpening fixed it up further. It's a good example of a somewhat under-represented style of Victorian lithograph. For the record, scans have a tendency to yellowshift when scanning slightly yellowed paper; further, the LoC is known to use uncalibrated scanners. Adjusting the yellowed paper somewhat blued up the colours a bit, which I believe is likely more accurate, but if anyone would prefer, ask me for a colour-unadjusted version. Support Alt Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adam! There's also some pale while lines that may be the result of folding the document. I don't know if anything can or should be done about those. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 00:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)