Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Jesse Owens1.jpg

Jesse Owens in Berlin 1936
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 11:07:05 (UTC)


 * Reason:A very valuable image of a historic event, which is used in many articles, with nice composition and dynamism that adds to the EV. Relatively high technical quality for a historic image.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Jesse Owens, African American, 1930s, Jesse Owens Award, List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients, Ohio State Buckeyes, Timeline of African-American Civil Rights Movement
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Sport
 * Creator:Unknown


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course, also support alt Tomer T (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- There's more resolution in that LOC TIF. If restored and cropped, the resulting file should be much larger than the currently nominated image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support edit, oppose original -- Much nicer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral on Original. Pretty iconic image, but agree that I'd like to see a re-edit. The hi-res TIFF isn't particularly great quality (due to print quality of original source), but it looks like more could be done with it. I'm not sure if this is available from another original source with better print quality. The blacks on this restoration have also been made too heavy. In fact I'd probably be more inclined to support a fairly simple edit of the TIFF with little more than a crop and straighten. --jjron (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you suggested, I've added an alt. Tomer T (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support Alt. Could probably do with a bit of a dust and scratch removal on the Alt still, and not sure there wouldn't be a better original print around to scan, but other values compensate. Please count as 'full support' if this comes down to a borderline decision. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where's this TIFF you're talking about? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here. The alt I've added is a conversion of this TIFF to JPG format, plus crop and straighten. Tomer T (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Edit only. Good scan of a very historic photo.
 * Preceding support added by Clegs with this edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the crummy things about working nights is that sometimes one forgets to sign his posts. Grr. Clegs (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the image pass? Tomer T (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - great photograph. Maybe it's my computer, but I like the original better. I'd like the edit better if it were darker like the original. But either, really. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think an attempt should be made to filter out the half-toning from Alt 1. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Too late to oppose, I guess, but I really don't think this is up to snuff. I'd support the original photograph in a heartbeat, but a scan of a mediocre reproduction from a book isn't good enough for me. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't close noms usually, but if we're going by vote counting there's only 4.5 of the necessary 5 supports. Clegs (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider what Jjron said: "Weak Support Alt. Could probably do with a bit of a dust and scratch removal on the Alt still, and not sure there wouldn't be a better original print around to scan, but other values compensate. Please count as 'full support' if this comes down to a borderline decision. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (emphasis added)"
 * I count five votes if jjron's comment is taken into consideration. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to a request to comment on my talkpage by Crisco to clarify my vote, yes, count mine as full support (I can hardly retract now); I'll strike the weak to make it easier. I still maintain that it could be tweaked to improve it, or possibly a better copy could be found. However I did a quick web search and can't find anything noticeably better - anything that potentially looked to be higher quality in thumb was far too small. If a better version comes along, a D&R would be easily done. --jjron (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

--Julia\talk 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I take note of the comments made, the numbers are fairly clear and this is, with reservations, a promotion. Julia\talk 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)