Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alice Manfield

Alice Manfield (Guide Alice)
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 14:46:59 (UTC)
 * Reason:Seems to be a systemic bias against mountain guides at FPC; in particular against female mountain guides from the early 1900s. Actually, this is possibly the only such photo on Wikipedia. And, to be serious, there's a lack of FPs of females in general, especially outside of 'traditional' female roles. Great insight to not just this individual, but the type of equipment, etc, of the time (she had to custom design her own clothes because none were available). High-res, and well restored (the original 50MB tiff can be found here if anyone's interested; given it only got to the SLV in 2003, the glass slide was a bit battered). I believe quality is easily on par with other FPs from the time, especially given the size (the exact date is unknown, but I estimate 1900–10).
 * Articles in which this image appears:Alice Manfield, Mountain guide, Knickerbockers (clothing), Trekking pole
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Unknown. Original is held at the State Library of Victoria. Restored by jjron.


 * Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm getting an internal server error when I try to look at the original. Do you have it?  Can you upload it to Commons, or convert it without the restorations to a jpg and upload that?  Chick Bowen 17:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It works for me. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh. Weird.  I tried it in both Firefox and Chrome and got the same result, and Chrome crashed. Chick Bowen 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The clothes and what I presume are effectively gaiters are most interesting. I don't have the same error as Chick Bowen. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very good EV and high quality.  Jujutacular  talk 02:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Superb.  Spikebrennan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Shame about the overexposure on the left side of her face and her hand. Otherwise good and great EV.   Mae din\ talk 19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The EV is good, quality not so good. Stilted pose, and overexposed on the face and hand. The side of her face that isn't overexposed has an peculiar bumpy texture. Compare e.g. this photo (low res, not FP quality) from a similar era to see what could be achieved then. --Avenue (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)