Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Movable type

Movable type

Image by stock exchange user wilhei66 Used in Typesetting, Sort (typesetting), Composing stick. This image was the picture of the day at the commons and is a FP there. I am partial to this image because I studied typography at school, and we had an oldfashion letterpress shop. The image is sharp, high resolution, illustrative, and otherwise, in my opinion, fulfills all requirements.

Nominate and support. - Andrew c 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very encyclopedic, illustrates the subject well, good quality. --Janke | Talk 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very encyclopedic, and one of really the only ways to do an FP quality shot of this subject (other than maybe paper as it's being lifted off type, but that wouldn't show it's mobility as much as the troughs of type here do). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is exactly what we should strive for here... good composition, good quality, and most importantly, you learn a little something :o) tiZom_(2¢) 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent. I especially like that the writing is upside down, so we aren't distracted by the words. Redquark 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that is the way typesetters used to work, upside down and backwards. Where do you think "mind your Ps and Qs" came from? Lowercase p looks like a lowercase q, and vice versa, when it comes to metal type (same for bs and ds).--Andrew c 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. We had one of those at school too! My only minor criticism is that I would have liked to have seen more of the case. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Caption should explain what's in the boxes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now, it's the letters, but the actual characters aren't visible on them, nor are the sides of the letters in the frame visible, so it's hard to tell that the blocks in the frame and the blocks in the boxes are actually the same things. Weak oppose because the angle makes it hard to tell this, and a slight change so that we're not looking directly overhead and instead can see the side of the mounted blocks would fix this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the imput. It is very informative. Being familiar with what is being depicted removed my objectivity. I know what a type case is (I have one hanging in my apartment), I know what lead type looks like (I own some), its good to have an outside perspective from someone who doesn't recognize this stuff. This image is a little busy because it includes so much stuff. However, I still would like to see it featured as a good snapshot of letterpress materials.--Andrew c 03:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Relatively good quality, very encyclopedic. NauticaShad e s 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Night Gyr; it's difficult to tell what those pieces are without prior knowledge, and the angle could be improved. --Tewy 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I want to see the letters in the boxes. I think this simple change would improve it greatly. For example, look at [1]. howch e ng {chat} 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That, also, is a good photo, but it is illustrating a different subject: wood display type. Those blocks are most likely 5-10cm tall (or over 200pt), where the metal type displayed is probably 12pt text type or 5mm. Furthermore, this photo illustrates a type case and the use of a composition stick. As I said above, maybe it is too busy and has too much stuff. Criticism noted.--Andrew c 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support A great picture, very encyclopedic! Jellocube27 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Encyclopedic, well exposed, nice composition. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Encyclopedic, but it looks a little grainy to me. BeefRendang 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support As per above, but kudos for the mention of Hermann Zapf in the text as well as "The Quick Brown..."• Le on
Question If you look at the text on the metal type, there's a possible POV issue (the end of the text reads 'Hermann Zapf, the most famous of the'). Is this a problem? (Leon... appears to think not given the comment above.) --ais523 13:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I assume it's going to go on to say "of the Zapf family". Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hermann Zapf is probably the most famous typographer of the latter 20th century, who ironically was an early investigator of digital typography. I don't think it's POV because articles like Ludwig Wittgenstein describe individuals as e.g. "ground-breaking" without hesitation. I don't think the text itself is *especially* relevant; I was merely commenting that in this case, it's a nice touch that it concerns the subject. However, he is also probably the most famous :-) • Le on 22:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as above. enochlau (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Metal movable type.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]