File talk:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg

Storage format
A storage format conversion would be a good idea, I think. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the term. What process are you talking about? Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That means to store in some other format than JPEG. JPEG is for things like photos or paintings - letters and lines do not go well with this, they will be blurred. Correct would be something like GIF, PNG or TIFF (not or lossless compressed). Also generally these other, lossless compressed, formats are more efficient for non-photos (not in this case since part of the image is a photo). There are two ways to get to a better solution:
 * Reedit of the original, if it is not a jpeg or if it at least has higher reolution.
 * Deblurring of the JPEG.
 * In this case however it seems to be more trouble than it's worth: The online-original already is the same bad JPEG. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Somebody who was really into it could purchase a poster from the source and scan it... that does not describe me.
 * If it is simply the words that are to be sharpened, this could be a much easier process. They could be blanked out and reformed in some kind of vector format. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Illegible
This image has been reduced so far that it is illegible. Please revert to the original resolution. Elizium23 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps can be of some assistance here. Elizium23 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With my eyesight, white letters on a black background will always be somewaht illegible no matter what the size. It might be better to add the quotation to the image caption. If you don't think this idea will work, consider uploading a bigger version and tagging . Here's a good image of the poster. — Diannaa (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Assertions of fact were unsourced
I reverted because the assertions about Feminists for Life's intentions and motivations were unsourced. It seems the only sources provided were FFL's hosted PDF. Elizium23 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The intentions are discussed in Laury Oaks 2009, and the misinterpretation is discussed in Mary Krane Derr 1998. The Derr paper was removed from FFL's website after I used it as a reference here. I guess I made someone mad at FFL, by pointing out their own research showing the quote not to be about abortion. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)