Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tin Woodman

Tin Woodman

Reason: A high resolution (1,283 × 2,913 px) image of the Tin Woodman from the first edition of the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The blue shading is retained from the original.
Articles this image appears in: Tin Woodman
Creator: The Man in Question

Support as nominator --— The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lots of stray dots around and undocumented restoration. MER-C 03:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the stray dots. What do you mean by undocumented restoration? All I did was remove the blueness that filled about half of the background (attached to the chapter heading).— The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 05:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you didn't get them all (still see five, three near the bottom of the image). If you edit a historical image, you must disclose what you did on the description page. MER-C 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed all the dots I can find. I have added "with blue chapter plate and stray dots removed" to the description. Is this picture good enough to be a featured picture? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 20:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, per Durova. It seems illogical to leave out the final stroke, and I agree that it is (more likely) cut off unless convinced otherwise. MER-C 13:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not good enough, no problem. But I'm very certain the foot is not cut off. A close look shows that the "cut" line is not a straight cut, and that the outlines thin as though the pen were lifted from the page. This picture was not taken from a first edition, but it was taken from a very good edition, and I see no reason they would have cut the foot off. (In addition, the foot did not appear near any point on the page that would easily inspire its cropping.) Durova suggests that a better scan can be obtained. If so, than I'm happy to have this opposed. But what would be better about this proposed scan? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 21:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. Cut off at the foot, and we can get high quality color scans from the first edition. Durova²⁷⁵ 04:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the foot was never drawn. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's what we've got already. If you'd like to work from the same source material I could get you a link. Durova²⁷⁵ 03:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete foot.[1] Although this image seems preferable.[2] Durova²⁷⁵ 03:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I restored the foot and, based on the above picture, removed the blue. And maybe I'm off-base, but it seems like the one I scanned is of just as high a quality – the slight blurriness is just because of its size. But all right. I don't want this picture featured if it isn't worthy. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry to keep commenting, but why is that second image preferable? Since this picture illustrates the Tin Woodman article, shouldn't it be of only the Tin Woodman? (Also, the second picture is of the Tin Woodman frozen, as opposed to animate, and there's a plant going across his leg.) — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the page you provided, I have made a much sharper version. I don't know what difference that makes. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 05:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't thumbnailing. Try resaving without progressive compression. Durova²⁷⁸ 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working now? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Would prefer the other image. Thanks for fixing the foot. Durova²⁷⁸ 02:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]