Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Mystery of the Leaping Fish

The Mystery of the Leaping Fish
Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2014  at 23:09:58 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is a weird film, with it having cocaine be used as its main comedic tool and an ending that comes out of nowhere. But beyond that, I do think that this has high EV to the article its on. As well as it being an entire film in public domain being used on the site is pretty fine in of itself.
 * Articles in which this image appears:The Mystery of the Leaping Fish
 * FP category for this image:Probably Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
 * Creator:Distributed by Triangle Film Corporation


 * Support as nominator – GamerPro64  23:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hmmm. I'm not sure about featuring an entire 25 minute long film. Yes, we feature video, but a 25 minute long video isn't very accessible or a good hook to read the article. I know that's not necessarily a good reason not to feature it, which is why I'm undecided. Anyone else's thoughts? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The featured video Experiments in the Revival of Organisms is twenty minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That video is really disturbing. I watched as far as the severed dog's head responding to stimuli...... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. *shudder* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Technical quality could be nicer (seems to be some compression artefacts) but this is a really interesting film. EV for the plot is through the roof. I think of it as a painting or something: if the subject is notable, and we have a good reproduction of the subject, it's got enough EV to go through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. You convinced me Crisco. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Support. Thanks for considering my upload. I have replaced it at Commons with a slightly better and longer version (the two first intertitles were missing). Cheers, &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;&#9993; 11:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC) changed 05:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the video got replaced, and a concern was raised at the FPC talk page, You should probably take a look at the film again to see if you still support it.  GamerPro64  22:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's only 20 seconds longer. No significant differences, it otherwise looks about the same. Not particularly high quality video, but sufficient to appreciate it given its age. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  23:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh. Its always good to make sure at least. For all we know, someone nominates a video and then it turns out to be a screamer. GamerPro64  23:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's fine. Be awesome if we had a better reproduction, but that's a very difficult wish for such an old film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: This is an amazing cult film. Actually, I found it really disturbing, especially after I researched the fate of the adorable actress. But being made in 1916 is especially valuable. Sort of like the Reefer Madness of its day. The quality of the film was fine for me. Has me speechless.  Decidedly EV.  Fylbecatulous talk 22:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reefer Madness, huh? Now that may have to be my next nomination. GamerPro64  00:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support:managed to borrow an other computer. Hafspajen (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 23:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)