Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rosie the Riveter

Rosie the Riveter
I was pleasantly suprised to see that this image was in the public domain, since it is one of the most enduring WWII home front images ever made. With the men being sent overseas to fight in Europe and the Pacific there came a need to replace the US work force, so the U.S. began a campaign aimed at getting women to work in the factors in place of the men. They were known by the popular press of the time as "Rosies", and became the driving force behind the US war machine.


 * Nominate and Support TomStar81 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I love the picture but the quality is a bit low, there has to be a better scan out there of this picture. Posters.com is selling a 39x54inch version so its defintly out there. -Ravedave 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a little a digging for a higher resolution, and found three sites (@ and @ ) that have the image in hi-res, but it seems that the higher this images resolution is the lower the overall quality becomes. This is not the case with the this image, but the resoultion is still below 1000px. TomStar81 04:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that as a historical image the largest size available should still be found but I think historical images where a 1000x1000px image can't be found are exempt from that FP guideline to a certain extent. Thygard  -  Talk  -  Contribs  -  Email   04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They are. In rare cases the historical signifigance of an image takes precedent over Wikipedia’s usual minimum size requirements; however, that should not be an excuse to railroad a bunch a low quality FPs through the system. In this case I do believe that the size limitations could be set aside in lew of the overall historical integrity of the photo, but other can (and often do) take a different view. TomStar81 05:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if it is set aside that shouldn't be used as an excuse for us to put a low quality tiny image up I agree but noting the fact that the biggest possible image can and should be found if that is put up (which will hopefully be done in this case) then the size limitation can be waived. Thygard  -  Talk  -  Contribs  -  Email   05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The picutres you are find probably all came from the same source and are just resizes of it. This pic can be provided in much, much higher quality. The 'original' of this item is probably at least 24 inches tall. It's not like the ancient black and white photos that are 4x3. The historical waiver is for items that can't be made any bigger and this one ovbiously can. -Ravedave
 * I uploaded two of the color hi-res versions for show. Of these, version 1 falls somewhat short of size requirements, but is larger than the current photo we have onsite. Version 2 meets the size requirements, but does not capture the entire image (parts of the sides are cut out, as though it was zoomed in) and the entire image desperately needs a photoshop overhaul before being placed in the race. TomStar81 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose un til better quality found. Not only is it low resolution, there are glaring JPEG compression artifacts all over the image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral One of the FP criteria goes: "It should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." I guess this image is not really "exclusive" on wikipedia.--K.C. Tang 07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats true, this photo is not unique to the net, but some of our greatest FPs are photographs that have become legendary, to the point where they are litterly priceless. I believe that this is one such photo, a picture that has become a cultural icon. That, I do believe, makes this picture worthy of an FP star. TomStar81 07:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose This picture... to me it's just ugly...Nnfolz 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose not because it's "ugly" but b/c of it resolution (per ravedave)--Vircabutar 22:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Ravedave and Night Gyr. -- Tewy  04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the picture, but the first 2 have terrible jpg artifacts(even the png) and the other is very blurred. HighInBC 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose exactly per HighInBC. First two are full of artifacts, third has serious motion blur (and needs color touchups at the least). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mikeo 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)