Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/I Did Not Raise My Girl To Be A Voter

I Did Not Raise My Girl To Be A Voter

 * Reason:Two of the leading political debates of the United States in 1915 were whether to grant women the right to vote and whether to enter World War I. The song "I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier" linked the two issues by suggesting that war could be ended if mothers on both sides of the front gained political power.  The song's popularity inspired numerous imitators and parodies including this example.  Restored version of File:I did not raise my girl to be a voter.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier, Parody, Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States, Progressivism in the United States
 * Creator:Author not named in bibliographic data, indecipherable signature


 * Support as nominator -- Durova  320 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Nice restoration; seems soft at full rez though, which keeps me from fully supporting.  upstate NYer  17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Sufficient quality, high enc. value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support the edit. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Really blurry when you zoom in, so no, despite EV. 18:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Poor scan/photo and as a result the detail is not what it should be. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 05:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted - no consensus. --jjron (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Oppose I really wish it would be sharper zoomed in. Not the fault of nom, we can only work with what we got, but it just doesn't "Got" enough to be credited. SirFozzie (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak Support on Edit 1. Sharpness seems to be improved SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. GerardM (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC) nice early feminist reaction ...
 * Reopened on special request pending new edit - give it two more days for feedback? --jjron (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit 1 uploaded, Full support Edit 1.  There's a few tricks for editing engravings and related line art media. The most important is to make sure your black lines really are black: Grey lines look blurry, no matter if they are blurry or not, and the black point was a decent ways left of the darkest point in the image. Fixing this, and a little extra love to the text (which never comes out right even on the original prints) can really improve images of this sort. I believe this is a photogravure, lithograph or some related process - the grey washes on the image are likely require one of those, though there's a couple other less likely possibilities, such as very high quality half-toning - so this should be pretty much what it would look like in person. The text at the bottom still looks a little blurry, but I believe that's due to the resolution: anything that has elements thinner than the pixels that make it up will appear blurry. Comic books generally print text at much higher resolution than the art, and I believe this demonstrates why: The thick-lined art looks fine, but there is no way to sharpen the text more than is seen here at this resolution.  Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 07:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you strike previous vote please. --jjron (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's enough to change my vote. It's a big improvement to perceived sharpness, and I don't see any significant drawbacks to the edit, but it's still not a great reproduction - resolution is still fairly low, detail still isn't particularly sharp. I do think the edit should replace the original in the article(s) though. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I've been able to raise the bar quite a bit on British works, but we have noone able and/or willing to do the same in America, nor, indeed, in most other countries. As it is, we can only work with what the only major American group providing high-quality scanned works (the LoC) provides, and very little beyond that. This means we're losing out on some major topics. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But this particular image is from the LoC, so what's their excuse for the poor scan? ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The LoC has over 14 million images in their collection. They've been digitizing material for about 15 years, but the work is far from complete.  So the older material reflects historic digital technologies.  Durova  325 23:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And, given the amount they have, they probably aren't going to get to any individual image again soon. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 00:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not sure how large this document was originally, but I remember having a cheap scanner (~USD$100) almost 15 years ago that did a far better job than this. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand this rightly, me changing to full support tips the balance. That said, I'd rather have some more comments, if they're forthcoming. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 07:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even know how closers judge nominations anymore, given all the confusion over the last 6 months or so! But I have heard it mentioned a couple of times the closers often disregard strong and weak votes as being worth more or less than a normal vote.  &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did try to propose some guidelines, but the FPC community has been pretty adamant in saying closers should not even have guidelines to work from, so god knows what anyone does. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 09:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either - both look fine to me. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No preference really. Weak support both. Still soft, even in the edit which is, of course, not the fault of the editor. But I do have to agree with Diliff, too.  upstate NYer  14:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing above vote to Neutral. High EV, still not that great on crispness. I won't mind either decision, but won't get behind either as well. User:Nezzadar (speak) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Really wishing the source file had been a better reproduction. Still an excellent illustration of the political context that linked first wave feminism to WWI era pacifism and the progressive movement.  Adding to Progressivism in the United States, which had no illustration.  Supporting the edit with thanks to Shoemaker for the assistance.  Durova  325 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)