Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bison Skull Pile

Bison Skull Pile
Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 15:51:01 (UTC)
 * Reason:Previously featured (recently delisted for resolution) for its high EV and impact nothing has changed except its size.
 * Articles in which this image appears:American Old West, American bison. Bison hunting. Environmental racism, Plains Indians
 * FP category for this image:Animals -- Mammals
 * Creator:Photographer unknown, restored by PawełMM

If you have not already done so, please state your preference. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: We have been wanting this for a long time. I haven't checked the restoration by PawełMM, but Kaldari who uploaded the original (File:Bison skull pile.jpg) was happy with it.
 * I checked over the restoration before I nominated this and found it was very well done. Cowtowner (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Weak support with some reservations. I might have preferred a less radical restoration.  The sky here is almost completely constructed, which is understandable since there wasn't really any detail to preserve there, but it looks a bit odd in places where visible details meet the sky, such as the top left side of the pile.  I also think the contrast is a little too high, leaving it rather bright at the top and rather dark at the bottom (more detail in the face and clothes of the fellow at the bottom is visible in the original).  Still, a glass plate in this bad shape leaves relatively few good options, and, as said above, we did say when we delisted it that we would support a higher-resolution version with more detail. Chick Bowen 22:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1. Chick Bowen 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added alt 2, a much more conservatively restored version. I support that as well, of course, but I'll leave the above and let the closer sort it out. Chick Bowen 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support JJ Harrison (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd say this belongs in American history rather than animals. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are artifacts along the top of the skull pile that need to be cleaned up. Kaldari (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, There’s a halo around the pyre and man standing atop: it looks like image compression artefacting (although I’m certainly no expert). I’m not totally convinced this restoration has made the image any clearer (although of course there are scratches and dirt that have been removed). I would support the original file File:Bison skull pile.jpg instead, it meets all of the 8 criteria, except for maybe number 1 which we could overlook given its age, and that it’s a fantastic otherworldly bit of history. TehGrauniad (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They're not compression artifacts; they're the pixels leftover from the restorer's attempt to recreate the line between the skull pile and sky. I agree with you and have added the unrestored version as an alternate. Chick Bowen 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Chick Bowen, thanks for adding the original as an alternative. I don't want to offend anyone, the person who did the restoration is obviously very talented with this type of digital media, it's just that my preference is for the original. TehGrauniad (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1 (unrestored version) for the reasons given in my post above. Both are great, but I prefer it with less/no restoration. TehGrauniad (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also support alt 2 (the more conservative manipulation). TehGrauniad (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Should never have been delisted. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt 1, the restoration is not perfect, but it is definitely an improvement. Cowtowner (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 –- great picture, pleasing to finally see it in high-res. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Any. I thought this day would never come. Nautica Shad es  15:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too cluttered I feel Hariya1234 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain? Cowtowner (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be flippant, but isn't clutter rather unavoidable for a pile of skulls? Nautica Shad es  13:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support I wasn't feeling strongly about this, until I read Hariya's comment. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Aaadddaaamm, you might want to read the section on how to comment. I can spell it out for you: "Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person." Hariya1234 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it was a little bit rude, but I was really shocked when I read your comment, as Cowtowner seems to be as well. Can you expand on how and why you find the image cluttered? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops just realised I voted twice. My bad! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't this nomination be pretty much just a formality, since it is a former FP that was delisted on size constraints, now that there is a very high resolution version of it sourced, it should only be a matter of picking which version to put back as the current replacement for the FP. It's notability, and everything else related to why we vote on a FP was decided long ago in favor of the image. I don't see any reason how a nomination like this could "fail" and general opposes for all the candidates shouldn't even be valid in this scenario. Do we have any past examples where a FP was delisted on size reasons SOLELY only later to have a high resolution version sourced and the FP reinstated? — raeky  t  23:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Counting the votes it seems pretty unlikely that this will fail. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at this from a procedural point of view, I don't recall anything specific about denoms on size that later fulfill the size requirement from a new source? I presume from this we're just going as if it's a new nom, I was just point out that such a procedure may be moot due to the circumstances of why it was delisted. As for the version I'd prefer as a replacement from the old FP is probably the unedited original in lieu of a very conservative professional restoration on par with our previous high-resolution historic restorations. The dirty scan of the plate is sufficient to satisfy the FP criteria and replace the old small image, and later if/when we get a very high restoration a delist & replace nom can be handled to switch to the new restoration. I haven't really looked in detail at the "conservative" restoration listed here, but on this matter there is no reason why we should rush a restoration, just getting the very high resolution scan of this original glass plate was the biggest challenge. Luckily it was eventually sourced, thank god for the internet. — raeky  t  00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (prefer Alt 2) - valuable high resolution historic image. I think the conservative restoration is the best option of the choices. Kaldari (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support unrestored original (alt1) I don't think the Alt2 conservative restoration is good enough, still plenty of visible scratches and defects. There is no reason the unedited original can work until such time as a restoration is made that is on par with some of our past restorations of this magnitude. I don't see any reason to settle. — raeky  t  01:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose unrestored original: Some restoration is going to be beneficial here. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would concede and support the conservative restoration, but I still think this picture is deserving of a much more carefully done restoration. — raeky  t  17:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alt 2 from me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine is also for alt 2 (my edit). Chick Bowen 15:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alt 2 has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)