Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sherlock Holmes (play)

Sherlock Holmes (play)
Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014  at 11:47:26 (UTC)
 * Reason:High EV - promotional poster of an important and influential play and early adaption of Sherlock Holmes, from 1900. Quality and scan are quite good.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Sherlock Holmes (play), William Gillette (added now)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Theatre
 * Creator:Metropolitan Printing Co.,


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support edit Tomer T (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- in its present form. The colours have been adjusted so that the definition between the colours of the yellow/buff ink and the red/pink ink have almost disappeared, rendering the red/pink orange and brownish buff instead of clear red and pink.  A close examination of the shade on the light indicates the extent to which the subtleties of colour separation have been reduced. I want to be able to see red/pink ink, yellow/buff ink and cyan ink. Amandajm (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I attempted a restoration of this image using the original, without the unusual colour alteration. I'm not sure if it addresses your concerns, I just used my own judgement. I was unsure whether the pinkness of the paper (and scanbed?) should be neutralized to some degree, but global changes left the whole image looking a bit iffy to my eyes. In the end I treated the edging separately, which usually indicates that something is amiss. Let me know what you think. nagualdesign (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems that the original uploader didn't appreciate the edit. I tried uploading a derivative using DFX but it just throws up an error. I'd much rather spend my time doing things that I know how to do than navigating through inumerable obstacles in the upload process and getting nowhere. If anyone wishes to see my edit they can just look in the file history. Feel free to upload it separately if you think it's worth it and can fathom the upload process. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You can upload separately by just linking to the source image. That's what I've been doing. DFX is busted and should be removed from the upload page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is I have no idea how to get through the upload process without having to answer endless questions that I don't really understand. If I were permitted to just upload the image (without all the faffing) I could easily edit the file description page by copy/pasting from the original. nagualdesign (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd just use the basic upload form. That's how I've been uploading derivative works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL - I'm such an idiot! I can't tell you the amount of time I've sat blinking gormlessly at one drop-down box after another, getting frustrated, when I could have just used the basic upload form. Thank you, Chris, and Happy New Year! nagualdesign (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the pinker version. It retains the original colour separations. It is a terrific poster, full of character. And a good sharp reproduction of the image. Amandajm (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support edit, solid reproduction of the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I note that a new nomination may be required, seeing how this one's time is almost up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support edit - Since I wasted so much time due to my own ineptitude I'm willing, on this occasion, to forgo my own rule of voting for my own uploads. It is a terrific poster, and I did very little to it really. nagualdesign (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 12:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)