Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Japanese river boat

Japanese river boat, 19th century

 * Reason:Old, original, being an example of a Japanese river boat as well as being a presumed photograph taken by Adolfo Farsari.
 * Articles this image appears in:Commons gallery of Adolfo Farsari, Sampan
 * Creator:Presumably Adolfo Farsari


 * Support as nominator. I'd like to nominate dozens of images in that gallery, but this is a good start. --Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not used in any real wikipedia articles --Muhammad (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could perhaps be used in Sampan. I think it might be such a boat type. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose GerardM (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The picture is PD and the text says that atribution is required.. Licensing info is incorrect
 * Oppose per above. In addition, I believe this is a scan? I may be wrong, but the dust, scratches, borders, and that scribbled "A" looks a bit suspicious.  Zoo Fari  02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How else do you propose to get it into the computer? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My Point is that the original image was mistreated and had particles on it that the true image would not have (dust, scratches, "A"s), therefore I would prefer a scan of a cleaner version.  Zoo Fari  00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this condition is above average for an unrestored image c. 125 years old. Compare to this which is about 30 years younger.  It took considerable effort to restore to featured condition.  And attempting to clean a historic original before scanning would be a serious mistake: that can damage the original permanently.  Durova Charge! 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not an "A", that's a stick sticking out of the water. rspεεr (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs some work - blue spots on the right, green blurs behind trees, the dirty smudge on the lower left, dust & scratches, maybe some color adjustment, etc. Sasata (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about that, maybe part of the EV is that it's a painted photograph whose colors aren't accurate? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Source information is inadequate. Scanned photo from what publication?  This has potential, though.  First the uploader needs to correct the sourcing and licensing statements.  Then select an image with clearly encyclopedic use and get an uncompressed version for restoration.  Based upon the current filesize, an uncompressed TIFF would be about 6MB--on the small side but enough to work with.  10-20MB would be better if possible.  Ping me if there's serious prospect of this moving forward.  Durova Charge! 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)