Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keypunch

Keypunch
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 03:07:34 (UTC)
 * Reason:Historic image of the way computations used to be done
 * Articles in which this image appears:Keypunch, United States Census, Herman Hollerith
 * FP category for this image:History/USA History
 * Creator:Unknown or not provided (image from National Archives and Records Administration)


 * Support as nominator --—Eustress talk 03:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The image page caption needs work. I don't think punching the cards turned the data into statistics - it just allowed a computer to do so. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've updated the image page caption accordingly. —Eustress talk 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Support High quality for such an old picture. Support only if caption edit is used. Clegs (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Support. Agree that it's high quality, nicely composed and has historical value. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Clegs and Mathew. I thought it's 1940s or 1950s. Brand meister  t   00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Chick Bowen. The date span in the source is indeed large. Brand meister  t   19:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support -- Great image! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. --jjron (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support good black and white photo with EV Pinetalk 09:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support High quality and encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no information about when the photo was taken. National Archives website says 1890-1950. For this to have any EV we need at least the year. O.J. (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * She's using the Hollerith keypunch, which was only used to tabulate the 1890 census; but the caption says "c. 1890" because we don't know the exact date. I think that's reasonable and still very informative. —Eustress talk 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although she's using the pantograph keypunch from the 1890 census I'd guess that it is staged for the photograph and was taken much later. The cards she is using aren't the 1890 cards and her clothes and hairstyle aren't from 1890s either. Maybe some fashion expert will appear to date it more closely. Yomangani talk 15:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't vouch for hairstyles, but the cards look correct to period. There's a smaller reading board at the top of the machine and the actual punch card under the operator's hand -- both indicative of the 1890 census (see Columbia University article). (Note: The Early Office Museum discusses this photo, not indicating a date but saying it is the machine used to tabulate the 1890 census.) If you're concerned this photo may have been staged later, perhaps we can modify the caption accordingly (e.g., "The Hollerith keypunch was used to tabulate the 1890 United States Census—the first time a census was tabulated by machine."). However, I doubt this is staged, since it appears to be an authentic work environment: paper punch outs lie on the desk and a coworker appears at a desk in the background. —Eustress talk 16:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you compare the reading card template in this picture to the 1890 template photo in the Columbia University article you can see they are are different; this one has several short lines of punch holes while in the 1890 one they are all the same length, so she's almost certainly not tabulating the 1890 census. I don't think staging precludes some dressing of the set, and it may even be an authentic photo of somebody working on a punch card using a Hollerith keypunch, but I'd be very surprised if this photo was taken any time close to 1890. To be on the safe side I'd adjust the caption as you suggested (if you are sure that no other census had been tabulated using a machine). Yomangani talk 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Caption updated —Eustress talk 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support extra 999  ( talk )  09:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support High EV, great quality picture for its age. Dusty777 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose without some kind of solid indication of date. I've spent a lot of time looking at a lot of photographs from 1850 to 1950. I've never seen an indoor photograph this sharp from before about 1920.  Not to mention, as noted above, her hair and clothes--but also, look at the furniture, look at the half-frosted-glass, half-wood cubicle partition in front of her.  Look at the lighting, too--the sun is shining in from the back windows, hence the shadow on our side of the desk in the background.  What is shining on the subject's face is a high-quality electric photographer's light, not an Edison bulb.  This is not a 19th-century photograph.  My guess would be 1930s. If it's featurable anyway, fine.  But those above supporting because of "high quality for such an old picture" might want to reexamine this. For me, if we could get some information about what exactly we're looking at, I'd support, but without it, I don't feel able to. Chick Bowen 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The census form she has on the roll is not the official 1940 census form, but it is so close that it is either a prototype or a variation, so the date must be well after 1930 (late 30s or after). Unfortunately the title is blurred under the shadow of the bottom of the wrapped around form so I can't read it, but if anybody has one of those zoom/enhance programs from CSI or Blade Runner we should be in business. Yomangani talk 01:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The machine is from the 1890 census, but the photo is not. Women did not dress like this in 1890; as noted previously, the hair and dress are wrong. The earlier guess of 1940s or 1950s seems reasonable to me. There is another photo of the same woman in the same dress (here). There, a second woman is next to her, with a machine from a different census. That web page suggests this was a demonstration of old machines, which seems reasonable to me. --Beth63 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice sleuthing. Whether or not is was staged later, I think the photo still conveys significant EV for the articles listed in the nomination, and the alternate caption helps ensure the photo is viewed in an accurate and informative context. Cheers —Eustress talk 00:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

--Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the date as a showstopper. It would be a slightly staged situation whether taken in 1890 or 1950, and one can debate over whether they really would have used citizens' filled in census forms for the photo-shoot. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: date estimate has been changed to "circa 1940" per discussion at Commons:File_talk:Card_puncher_-_NARA_-_513295.jpg; further discussion there is welcome -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)