Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mesa Verde - Cliff Palace in 1891.jpg

Image:Mesa Verde - Cliff Palace in 1891.jpg




Historic picture of the Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde, in its "original" form in 1891 before restoration.

High quality with high resolution (2126x1543). On of the few high quality pictures from the 19th century.

Photo by Gustaf Nordenskiöld

Appears in:
 * Mesa Verde National Park
 * Gustaf Nordenskiöld
 * Richard Wetherill
 * Frederick H. Chapin


 * Nominate and support. - Petri Krohn 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment great photo, but it seems a bit dusty. I'll try and remove some of that stuff.--Andrew c 05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It's a bit too dark for my liking. Would it be possible for someone to catch a color shot of this? - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are color photos available at Cliff Palace (see Image:Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde.jpg). This photo however has historical value in showing the "palace" as it was when first discovered by Europeans. -- Petri Krohn 10:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the picture shows damage to many of the buildings. In modern pictures many of buildings have been repaired or rebuilt. It is not known whether this damage is the result of centuries of decay, or the work of graverobbers. -- Petri Krohn 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment the edit seems to have made the shadows on the buildings darker - in my mind the opposite direction they should go. It seems a curves tweak to lessen the total contrast would be most useful. -Spyforthemoon 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Incredible picture. Sharkface217 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The color picture will have to wait a couple of years until the funding cuts have reduced the Cliff Palace back to rubble. ~ trialsanderrors 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1. Encyclopedic, historically significant, and good quality. Perfect. Nautica Shad e  s  07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Excellent.  howch e  ng   {chat} 01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original. The contrast on the edit is maybe a little too much.  I like the feel of the original, giving a better sense of the historic nature of this photo.--DaveOinSF 05:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose way too much of the image is wasted on the cliff --⁪froth T C  06:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I find the Cliff an important feature about the photo. It really puts the village in a geological context.  It's difficult to imagine that people built this place so long ago and lived there with this huge imposing rock over their heads.--DaveOinSF 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a good FPC because you're right, the cliff needs to be there taking up most of the image, but it's inappropriate for a featured picture's subject to be dwarfed by its context. The edit does do a good job of eliminating that oppressive blurriness but there's still a lack of detail. Also the scratches on the image (I assume this is a scanned photograph) are still visible. --⁪froth T C  20:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hardly dwarfed, and including the context adds to the encyclopedic nature of the photo, not detracts from it.--DaveOinSF 22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is a "scanned" photograph. It is most likely produced from the original glass plate negative. The correct phrase would br "digitized", not "scanned". --Petri Krohn 23:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Great subject, historical value, technically great for the time. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Edit 1. Per HighInBC --Fir0002 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * support either - the cliff, by the way, is critical to the image. Debivort 08:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either, impressive photo. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)