Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Jesse Jackson 1983

Jesse Jackson 1983
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 16:00:37 (UTC)
 * Reason:At the original nomination, concerns were raised that this had been overly downsampled. I think those concerns were correct. There is plenty of information in the original that was lost. The fact that the film grain is visible does not mean we have reached the point where there is no more information; film grain, after all, is not uniformly colored. I have started over from the original LOC file, cloned out all dust, and cropped to the borders of the exposed part of the negative. I rotated it according to the original negative frame; the original photograph is tilted, and lining it up with the pipe on the wall at right as a frame of reference would mean either including a sliver of the negative frame in the image or cutting off more of the good reverend's shoulder.
 * Articles this image appears in:Jesse Jackson, Rainbow/PUSH, many more
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983
 * Nominator: Chick Bowen


 * Delist and replace &mdash; Chick Bowen 16:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a lossless version? You left a few dust specks that'd be worth editing out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went over it again and uploaded it over the top. Chick Bowen 15:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I noted a single speck more, but it really doesn't matter. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just logged into Commons for the first time in a while and saw your note there--I've uploaded another version over the top again. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * D&R per the above. Cat-five  t  c   00:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to note, since there's been no movement on this for a while, that Adam Cuerden decided to list it in the main FPC list in addition to the delists, since it's a significant revision to the original, and that I have no objection to this, but I wanted to explain it, if it confuses people why it's there. Also, in addition to what I note above, I'd add that my crop is a bit more generous, and I think this improves the composition by placing the face in line with the rule of thirds (roughly). I'm not trying to beg for votes here, just wondering at the lack of interest. I recognize the changes here are subtle, but I do think they're significant if you look closely. Anyway, sorry to belabor the point--carry on. Chick Bowen 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 16:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)