Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Governor Davey's Proclamation to the Aborigines (sic)

Governor Davey's (sic) Proclamation to the Aborigines

 * Reason:A great example of the power of pictures with high EV. During the early British settlement of Australia there was a genuine (although ultimately unsuccessful) intention for peaceful relations with the Aborigines from those in power. These posters were created in Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania) around the time of the Black War to try to convey the message of friendship and equal treatment. The original drawing was reproduced onto boards and mounted on trees in remote areas where Aborigines would see them. Some of these boards were recovered many years later and saved - this is one of them. Though smallish, it is above size limits; originals weren't big and I don't know of any bigger versions available. I don't believe a 'restoration' is in order as part of the history is that they hung in the wilderness for many years to convey their message - the hole in the top is where it was nailed to a tree, other wear is due to ageing in the bush (I have seen another one of these 'in the flesh' and it was in similar condition). Have however included an edit with adjusted levels which possibly displays better on screen.
 * Articles this image appears in:Black War, Military history of Australia
 * Creator:Government of Van Diemen's Land, original conception by Surveyor General George Frankland (c 1828-1830)


 * Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either, per nom. The Huon Pine alone would be worth a fair bit these days. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This is a really tough one. Undeniable EV, but it's just so small. The lack of detail really kills it for me. If you could find a bigger version, this would be an easy support. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to your opinion, but re size remember this is only 35.7 x 22.6cm in real life (as I said I have seen one, and it's only just a bit bigger than an A4 sheet of paper) - at a typical screen res this is viewed close to life size, and there's probably not a lot more detail to see. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Weak support edit 2 Really informative and interesting and probably worth featuring even if repro was less than perfect. The fact is, quality is quite low – I can imagine how the actual piece looks but neither the Original here (too flat/dark) nor the Edit (brighter, but shadows over-compressed) are stand-out reproductions, AFAICS. Bigger would obviously be nice but I'd settle for a decent edit (Sorry jj..) --mikaultalk 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Added Edit 2 with less 'squashed' shadows. Leave to it you to decide if that does it for you. --jjron (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Better. It's really not your fault, it's just borderline FP in so many respects. I'd be happy to see it featured purely for it's historical value and compelling subject matter, if others ended up agreeing. --mikaultalk 09:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either edit. Very informative image and good quality.  The difference betwen the edits is pretty subtle so no comment there, I prefer the edits to the original.  Good call on not restoring this, absolutely no need. |→ Spaully τ 11:38, 23 June 2009 (GMT)
 * Weak support for either edit, slight preference to first edit. A shame about the size, but I take jjron at his word that the missing detail is minimal. Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2 is preferable. -- wadester 16  18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)