Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wright brothers (set)

Wright brothers (set)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 June 2015 at 02:24:00 (UTC)

Original – Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, 1905.

Alternate – a more balanced set. (withdrawn by nominator)

Reason

Image of well-known inventors.

Articles in which this image appears

Wright brothers, Wright brothers patent war, +3 others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering

Creator

photographers: Orville and Wilbur Wright, [1], [2]

source: Library of Congress, [3]

restoration: Scewing, Bammesk

• Support as nominator – and Support ALT. Bammesk (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Who was the original photographer for these works? Also, I think the photographer missed the focus in the Wilbur Wright image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the LoC, the photos were by the Wright brothers themselves. This really should be on the file information page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above, also, IMO, too different to form a set. --Janke | Talk 12:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - Fixed attribution. Added an alternate set. Wilber Wright image is soft, but a better portrait is unlikely and the encyclopedic value is high. Excluding scientists and NASA crew, we have very few engineers. These two are prominent. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• With all due respect to Janke, looking at [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] softness is not a sufficient criteria for opposing historic images. Wilber image is in par with many others, when viewed at the same magnification. Even if it wasn't, softness is not an overriding criteria. As far as the two images being "too different to form a set", after rethinking it, this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine or a photo book. There is no editorial luxury here to redo historic images, so I am withdrawing the "alternate set". The two images are a set in as much as the two subjects are a set. As far as any display related issues, Template CSS image crop allays that. Bammesk (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt - I'm not happy with the idea of changing a picture away from its natural state in such a way that kills a lot of the visibility of the detail, and crops a large part out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This will not fully address Adam's concern, but for the "alternate set" we can replace Wilber's image with one that is cropped as shown (from the "original set"), without manipulation. Bammesk (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adam, addressed. Bammesk (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Bammesk (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]