Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg

Racist campaign poster
Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 20:20:08 (UTC)
 * Reason:Frankly, I was shocked to see this was one of Durova's nominations, and can only presume that the very small size (1.34 megapixels) stymied someone used to much larger scans. Between the horrible condition of the original, and the very poor scan of it, this image, while certainly encyclopedic, is well below our best work.
 * Articles this image appears in:Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era, Hiester Clymer, John W. Geary, Racism, Sociology of race and ethnic relations
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Racist campaign poster
 * Nominator: Adam Cuerden (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you referring to the torn edges, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not just that: There's a bright line across the middle of it, and a dark patch going down towards the centre. It's also pink, which I really doubt is the original colour. It's also fairly blurry, over-exposed (Victorian ink is quite a bit darker, and doesn't fade like that), and the resolution is very low, although not so low that it couldn't have passed at the time. The thing is, I vaguely remember this nom, and I don't remember it being this bad; and Durova's philosophy generally involved trying to make something look as it did when it was new So I don't know what's going on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have the bits at Commons? Maybe you could check to see if there's a deleted version, or if a page has been redirected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't unfortunately. I, like several admins there, resigned them in protest when Jimbo was deleting all historical paintings and engravings that contained nudity, in an attempt to placate FOX News. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Best not go into that bit of Wikihistory. Noone looks good =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm vaguely aware of it, hence the curt reply . I'd much rather read about the deletion of the main page or VFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For now, Delist pending clarification of any possible "ghost files" which may have disappeared somewhere. The crease mark is blatant even at preview size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist if that's the current view of this file as it stands. Although as you can see I chose not to vote in the original nomination I do remember it and I am quite sure this is the same file. People were impressed at Durova's efforts to repair the hole in the middle of the original scan, so that's why they supported. To be honest, there are a number of digital restorations from that era we might reconsider; standards are definitely higher now. Chick Bowen 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, good to have that mystery cleared up, anyway. And don't get me wrong: It's a good filling in of the hole; if it was a better scan by the LoC... Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist. A worthwhile and valuable image, but not FP quality. --jjron (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: based on Picture peer review/Racist campaign poster I don't think there's anything funny going on. I think the file as currently viewed was the one that passed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 20:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)