Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tuberculosis poster

Tuberculosis poster

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2011 at 01:22:52 (UTC)

Reason: High quality scan, gently restored. Good EV. I replaced a lower quality and less useful image at Tuberculosis a couple days ago.
Articles in which this image appears: Tuberculosis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator: Federal Art Project, restored by Jujutacular

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I find that one confusing. Not sure what all the yellow is doing. I find the debonair fellow with the spit rag more useful for public health education. [1]. TCO (reviews needed) 01:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded on the caption here and in the article. Hopefully this addresses your concern. Jujutacular ^talk 02:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - MUCH BETTER with caption explanation. I'm sorry, but I still have to oppose. Going to force myself to vote up or down. I just think the peice is too abstract to even be a good public health poster. I can't tell if those are grapes or bacteria in the cluster of yellow stuff.TCO (reviews needed) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting for historical reasons. Good quality scan. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 03:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having a hard time seeing how this has better EV than the image it replaced. The article talk about anti-spitting campaigns but there is nothing about a getting proper sleep campaign. The previous image was perhaps not FP quality but I don't see replacing it as an improvement. I'm including the old image for comparison.--RDBury (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-spit picture came out because of a (now proved wrong) concern about the rights. I think most article writers would prefer the more clearly understood picture than the cryptic sleeping-eating one. I see it going back into the article, to be honest.TCO (reviews needed) 14:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about this one? Not that I have loads of time for restoration these days... Jujutacular ^talk 15:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better than the cryptic yellow sun one. Because it is clear, the message. That said, as an article guy, ignoring any need for you to have an FP home for your pic, I would still choose the spitter just to optimize the article. The baby is a bit too cutesy.TCO (reviews needed) 16:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Art Project just has one poster at the moment, so perhaps the "Rules of Health" could go there. The archive linked above has dozens of examples of WPA art which I presume is public domain, so I'm thinking a gallery might be in order.--RDBury (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one image at Federal Art Project is enough at the moment, in my opinion. Adding another (or multiple) would be over-illustrated, given the length of the article. TCO: I'm only concerned with providing the best illustration for the article. Given that the poster of the fellow with the spit rag is not up to snuff in terms of quality, I thought it might be possible to get a better illustration that was worthy of FP. It's fine with me if your opinion is otherwise. Jujutacular ^talk 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that in terms of graphic design, color, quality of scan, etc, the WPA image is better, I'm just missing the EV. I'm just trying to think of better ways to use the image. Using too many posters at Federal Art Project might be misleading because the project did much more than that. But that archive is like a treasure trove of free stuff, it would be nice to find ways of using it.--RDBury (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. It's a great scan, but the original poster isn't very compelling. It seems quite jumbled and confusing, IMO. My first impression was that it was a picture of a woman passed out from drinking and taking lots of pills :) Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]