Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Machine gun corps, Tell el Sheria Gaza line, 1917

Machine gun corps, Tell el Sheria Gaza line, 1917

 * Reason:Another fine World War I image from the American Colony Jerusalem photographers. Restored version of File:Machine gun corps Gaza line WWI.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Second Battle of Gaza (1917)
 * Creator:American Colony Jerusalem

So I guess it's edit 2 then...? MER-C 07:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit - Very fine image. I also added the LOC-image template to the original on Commons. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 Wonderful image of a historic battle during the taking of Palestine. I'm confident that the location is 31.24139°N, 34.84194°W accurate to within about half a mile based upon several different battle accounts, including a map found here.--Chasingsol(talk)  08:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Original, Oppose Edit 1, Support Edit 2 Edit 1 is too contrasty - particularly at thumbnail. Since this is meant to be a restoration I don't see why it should be so tinted - sure retain a bit of the "aged hue" but it doesn't need to be so conspicuous. --Fir0002 09:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original, weak support edit 2, oppose edit 1 Edit 1 looks too dark, edit 2 kind of looks washed out. --Muhammad (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fir0002 did an excellent edit. Durova Charge! 07:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. There's still dead space in the histogram. Oppose all existing versions. Can someone please try again? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * MER-C asked for opinions, and that is mine. Let's not quarrel.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 02:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Opposing for "dead space" in a histogram is extremely ignorant. That's like saying that all images should have at least one blown highlight and one clipped shadow. Many but not all images are improved in terms of overall lighting and aesthetics by some minor clipping; but it's certainly not a requirement for a good image. Check out the histogram on this and other historic Getty images if you don't believe me... --Fir0002 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately this needs to be noted. Edit 1 was done by Papa Lima Whiskey.  PLW, is there a reason you submitted a proposed alternate to this candidacy and then later opposed all versions?  It would really be better to openly acknowledge that you are opposing your own work.  Durova Charge! 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you check the edit history, you'll see that "edit 1" was originally titled "edit suggestion" and was never meant to be voted for. Unfortunately, nobody took up the suggestion. @Fir: Yes, all images should have decent contrast. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then your intention was unclear. It seems like some of our FPC candidacies have played out on a general level (how a histogram ought to be managed, what should be FPC requirements), and that gets a bit frustrating for all sides.  Ideally, individual candidacies should be about individual images--and our tastes may differ.  But meta-discussion creeps in sometimes.  Would you be willing to try mediation for the meta-issues?  Durova Charge! 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would another support for edit 2 swing it? It's a great image, nicely restored, only needed a little sharpening and the tint removal is a bonus. mikaultalk 14:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 03:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)