Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wwii woman worker-edit.jpg

WWII woman worker

Reason: This picture had a peer picture review without opposition. While the above is the original image, I support the edited version that removes the spot above the worker's head.

Calliopejen1 nominated the picture for review and said in the nomination "Good encyclopedic value, and beautiful picture--love that her red lipstick matches her red tool. Also love the contrast between her blouse and the armband/leather gloves. A nice complement to the Rosie the Riveter poster at FPC now. Background/hair might be considered too dark, but I like it because it highlights her paleness and delicate features."

I think the image is of good quality and it's quite historical, having been taken in June of 1942.

Articles this image appears in: United States home front during World War II
Creator: David Bransby, photographer.

Support as nominator — AutoGyro 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Support edit. There's a lot I like about this image--it looks like a painting, and must've been taken with a pretty impressive view camera--and there are a lot of FP criteria it fits, probably "Is of high resolution" more than any other. *G* And it does a great job of illustrating the article, how women without prior experience were sort of rapidly thrown into fields like this that were traditionally dominated by trained male workers. That "UFO" got me thinking, and some tinkering around with Photoshop (I'd show you what I made if I knew how to upload it to WP the "right" way--the upload interface is pretty intimidating to new users!) confirmed--there's a lot of detail lost to the shadows, like reflections on her hair, a big difference between her hair and the background, and lots of stuff in the background itself like shelving on the left, more tables/benches in the distance, and a light/reflection of some sort (which survived as the UFO). For artistic value, I have no problem with that remaining underexposed, but for an encyclopedic/technically exemplary image, I think it'd be better to not chuck the background altogether as this is practically doing. Nevertheless, I don't think that should keep it from being an FP, so I'm giving it weak support for now. Any more experienced Photoshoppers (on hardware that can handle a file this big!) want to take a swing at upping the background exposure without blowing out the subject? --Peter 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks better on a brand new, bright, high contrast LCD than a four year old blurry CRT. Who knew! (Actually I knew there was a difference; I'd calibrated both displays to minimize it, but it's still a lot more than I realized. A lot of detail I considered important, such as the woman's hair, shows up well enough on the better display.) --Peter 02:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support edited version - I love this image, and I think it's very enc for women workers of WWII. The background being dark doesn't bother me, but I would probably support any contrast-enhanced version that anyone cares to try. Full disclosure: I did the UFO-removal. --TotoBaggins 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, I like it! ^8thstar 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Beautiful image. I can see why you'd want to remove the UFO, though I'd keep the original available, lest information be lost. I'd like to see an edited version that brings out the background a bit, though I'm not sure if I'd actually support it: The darkness is a nice effect. Since we're probably going to be asked which one we prefer in the end, so that which one to promote comes out - I prefer it sans UFO. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either - I tried my hand at adjusting the contrast a bit; I don't think we're missing anything with the current version and I agree with Calliopejen1 that the darkness serves to highlight the woman as well. I'm not sure what that UFO is, but it is a bit distracting. Matt Deres 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Great encyclopedic value (even though the subject is clearly posed) and good quality. I was going to complain about the hair-background contrast, but read Peter's comments and realized that it is me who needs a new monitor. Aside: Any idea what the tool in her hand is ? Abecedare 07:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either - a good image with historial value about the changing role of women. Love it Lofty 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit, normally I'd prefer the (marginally) defective original, but if this does get on the main page, we'll probably have people wondering what the "UFO" is. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Spikebrennan 18:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted World War II woman aircraft worker, Vega Aircraft Corporation, Burbank, California 1942.jpg MER-C 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]