Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:VanityFair-Darwin2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:VanityFair-Darwin2.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2009 at 21:25:31
Info created by James Jacques Joseph Tissot - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:VanityFair-Darwin2.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Durova (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)- Support -- GerardM (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. It would be nice to have it featured in time for his bicentennial birthday. Jonathunder (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 07:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I don't find this a very pleasant image of him, or that artistic in the first place. What about featuring a photograph, such as the one recently featured on en wikipedia? --JalalV (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- You mean the other one I also restored? It's a rotograph of a not very well known photo. But then, if any photography beats out other types of images, it's not surprising to see that suggestion. Durova (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was actually thinking of the one you restored when I made the comment. It isn't whether its a photo or drawing that is important. I just think that there are better images of him than this one (and the other good drawn images of him I saw on Commons were only thumbnail size). The problem is that reproductions of old works need to be judged on two grounds. One is how valuable and striking the original is. Two is how well it is preserved/restored. Not every historical piece of art needs to be featured, just as not every photo needs to be featured. Only the best of both. --JalalV (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually only about 1 in 1000 archival images has the potential to become featured, no matter how much work goes into it. Another volunteer brought this to my attention a couple of days after the other restoration was done. Am hoping images such as these will coax the British archives into digitizing more of their collection: it's a shame that such an important landmark in British science has to scour foreign archives. Obviously, their best material would outdo either of these. With luck, if more of this becomes featured, the attention will help open doors in other countries. Durova (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was actually thinking of the one you restored when I made the comment. It isn't whether its a photo or drawing that is important. I just think that there are better images of him than this one (and the other good drawn images of him I saw on Commons were only thumbnail size). The problem is that reproductions of old works need to be judged on two grounds. One is how valuable and striking the original is. Two is how well it is preserved/restored. Not every historical piece of art needs to be featured, just as not every photo needs to be featured. Only the best of both. --JalalV (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- You mean the other one I also restored? It's a rotograph of a not very well known photo. But then, if any photography beats out other types of images, it's not surprising to see that suggestion. Durova (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose and doesn't he look shifty! -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice and funny image. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Crapload (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as JalalV. -- Lycaon (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
