Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Get fat

Get fat

 * Reason:A good piece of graphic art and a hilarious demonstration of how beauty standards can change with time. Restored version of File:Get fat.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Weight gain, Physical_attractiveness, Advertising
 * Creator:The Gribler Bank Note Co. from photo by Bakers Art Gallery


 * Support as nominator -- Durova  333 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Those are kind of odd skin tones. I'll have a poke at the colour adjustment - learned a bit when I did the Grant nom. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Amazing to learn how the notion of what is fat has changed over time.. I would not be surprised when this is to be seen in the light of malnourishment existing at that time. GerardM (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support See below... Well now, that's the ugliest eye ever. I agree that the colors need some work, unless it is the poster itself that looks that bad. Seriously, that eye disturbs me. Is that a wink or a horrible mutation.  Nezzadar   ☎   19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a conspiratorial wink; the implication is that she's sharing her beauty secret. And--erm--could we have a little more decorum with edit notes and captions, please?  Durova  333 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed the caption. Also, regarding the wink, that is about the most messed up wink I have ever seen. During a wink, the eye is closed and the eyebrow dips. This looks like a figure three eyelid, an excruciatingly painful birth defect which renders the eye unusable. People frequently zoom in on FPs, so I'm a bit worried about scaring people. I know WP isn't censored, but still. That eye is disturbing.  Nezzadar   ☎   20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if it were used at the wink article it would probably have low encyclopedic value. Its encyclopedic use is as an illustration of how body mass index ideals have changed in a century, and as an example of historic advertising.  Particularly in terms of the former, it would be difficult to obtain a better example.  Durova  333 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but I never said it had no EV, just that it was hideous...  Nezzadar   ☎   16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is the colour so varied behind the text? It distracts from the text itself... J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Skin tones completely off and greyed out, the eye under discussion has some damage in the original, which more careful repair could provide an improved result for. Text block shows signs of uneven fading which are completely uncorrected. Durova's work since she announced she was going to make a final push for the Wikicup has been fairly slipshod and well below her previous work, but I have attempted to provide fixes in order to protect the restorationist causes. Now that she is actively objecting to this, on top of an incident I will post to WT:FPC, I think it's time to just oppose. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 18:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This was uploaded in May... Xavexgoem (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting image, but I have the same question on the color beneath the texts which do not look like a gradation by the artist's intention even though the image has a slight pick touch all over the image. The left black part beside her neck has some dusts that should be clean out. However, I don't agree with the the skin tone is greyed out or any damage is done. The original image has an once "white" back sheet (faded out through times), so fixing the white balance seems to be based on that. Restoration works should carefully be done to enhance the quality without dramatically altering the original for editors or viewers' taste.--Caspian blue 18:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Edit 1 per the improvement of the uneven colors beneath the texts.--Caspian blue 03:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Edit 1, on the right, the blue area underneath her elbow, there are a few dust and scratch marks. Also, the colors have been dampened since the original nomination. –blurpeace (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support pretty darn high EV. —  Jake   Wartenberg  05:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're aware that there is more to featured picture candidacies than encyclopedic value. Do you have any comment on the problematic sections I've found? –blurpeace (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The poster is over a hundred years old. Durova is likely the single best restorer we have. If she says she has done all she could, I believe her. The colors were off in the original, look at the bottom of the poster, behind the text. I doubt it will ever be perfect, but it's better here than anywhere else. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  21:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support edit, weak support original The edit deals with the glow-y text nicely. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose original, weak oppose edit The whole color thing is getting to me. The edit didn't fix it well, and the original is just bad in that respect. We might need another source if we are ever to get that text area uniform. Sad, but I have to oppose here. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  16:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit1 - No major issues with the restoration that I can see, and the EV is high. NW ( Talk ) 17:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment edit 2 added, with some eye restoration, based on edit 1. Maybe shoemaker can comment on whether it's going in the right direction. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Restorative procedures aren't meant to distort the original work. –blurpeace (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that a normal human eyelid cannot assume that shape, I would go with that he is fixing a distortion in the image. It is likely that such a bend was due to poor scanning or a damaged poster, rather than artist intent, although this may me WP:NOR territory. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Edit 1The problem with the color behind the text looks mostly solved. The skin color is a more subjective question. I prefer not to base my vote in this. About the eye, if the original were not like that it would be a major problem. If we only knew the image will never be used in something beside the two articles in which it is now and not also in one in which the original add is the subject then I would see well the restoration of the eye. But it is hard for me to make statements about the future that easily. Therefore I prefer the edits with the original (mis)shape. My reason is that these kind of mistakes in printed items are very important for collectors. And there are collectionists of advertisements, collectionists of posters as it is supposed to be expected. Although these conllectionists are probably a small minority it is good if the encyclopedia also take their interests into account.   Franklin.vp   05:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Corbis has a version with presumably undamaged eye:  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Too small to tell. Let's get off the eye folks, alright? –blurpeace (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)