Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Join or Die

Join, or Die

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 03:51:01 (UTC)

Original - Join, or Die, Benjamin Franklin's famous 1754 political cartoon encouraging the American colonies to join together, based on the then-popular superstition that a snake which had been cut into pieces would come back to life if the pieces were put together before sunset.

Reason: While not a fantastic artwork, this is one of the key images of the American Revolution. I'm really rather shocked we haven't featured it already - I can only presume the LoC only recently uploaded the large version. This is a fairly conservative restoration: I thought the ink blots and messiness added to the historic value: Franklin couldn't have ever expected this image to ever be as iconic as it was, notable two and a half centuries after he published it. Paper colour is always difficult if you don't have it in front of you, I used the colour cubes and my best educated guess - I have a book from 1732, and paper doesn't yellow as much as you'd think it would, if it's of decent quality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: Join, or Die, American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin, History of the United States, Albany Congress, Colonial history of the United States, Robert Rogers (soldier), Gadsden flag, American nationalism, History of Albany, New York
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: Benjamin Franklin

Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Join, or Die. Very strangely, your newly restored version is now showing up as the original version there. However, it was most certainly not the same picture when it was nominated, and very strangely, I don't see deletion logs for the file. I did a restoration at the time and was unhappy with it. Yours is clearly superior. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Long story short: I used the mass replace tool, because it was used so many places, and it's a little dumb, including some uses it shouldn't really replace. I've fixed it now so it links to the file then being voted on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh! Thanks for making it short :) That makes sense now. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support. Iconic image. The scan still isn't great (very unsharp), but it'll have to do. NauticaShad es 09:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sharpness issues are at least explicable: The original LoC image has text around it (not enough of the text to be worth salvaging - see links on image description page, and even presuming fairly large text, I'd find it hard to believe this was much more than 4" wide in the original. This is zoomed in a LOT, and the type of scanners used by the LoC don't really have that great of zoom: I believe they're effectively digital cameras, mounted above the place you set the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two questions- firstly, how big was this image originally, and, secondly, what do each of the letters stand for? I can guess some, but I don't know others for sure... J Milburn (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I estimate between 3 to 6 inches (~8-16cm), with my best guess being about 4inches (10cm), based on the text visible around it in the LoC scan. Secondly, the letters are basically the colonies, with south on the left, and north on the right, with some oddiities: in order, left to right: South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England. New England was four colonies, and Delaware and Georgia are missing - but then, I don't imagine Franklin ever expected for a moment that this would become as iconic as it did. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's quite easy, the scan is at 1200 dpi by the LOC, and using the ruler tool in Photoshop we get the engraving is 3x2. It's small. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per NauticaShades (I think the EV is good enough for full support). Fletcher (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice EV on this image... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Neutral I think its historic value does not compensate for the bad quality of the engraving ~~(and perhaps the scanning)~~. --Desiderius82 (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it was handmade in 1754 colonial America probably accounts for the quality of the engraving. And the reason for the "bad scan" isn't because it's a bad scan, it's a high quality scan from the LOC at 1200 dpi. It's because the object is so small. It's only 3in. x 2in engraving scanned at 1200 dpi. The scan is MORE THEN sufficient for a 3x2 original imho. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but this doesn't change the core of my opinion. Desiderius82 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your core complaint? The quality of the engraving (handmade woodcut die that was used to press leaflets making many copies, so quality will degrade quickly more prints they make, it was a small add in a newspaper) or of the scan (scan anything at 1200 dpi and I challenge you to get a sharper result. for a 3x2 inch original. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of what I see. I guess that could be called the quality of the engraving-artwork. Did not mean to complain on anyone's scanning abilities; someone else mentioned scanning, that's why I repeated it - preceded by a "perhaps". Desiderius82 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion this is a sub-par hand-carved wood stamp from 256 years ago? Do you have an example of another 256 year old example of this that would be better? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out this is the example for the Join or Die political cartoon, the actual scan from the actual 256 year old publication. This is clearly a case where you can not expect the quality to be on par with modern printing, so I don't really get your objection here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more artistic wood engravings from the period, e.g. my next planned FPC. But they didn't play a major role in the American revolution, don't have entire articles on them in multiple Wikipedias, and aren't by Benjamin Franklin. You couldn't use that one in Join, or Die. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats my point, this isn't a piece of art like that, this is a probably at the time very low budget political cartoon from colonial america, it's not met to be judged on it's technical aspects but it's educational and historical aspects. It's a perfectly acceptable scan and probably very typical to above-average example of that print. I'd imagine the LOC holds probably one of the better examples of that piece. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do have some points, so I'm changing to neutral. Desiderius82 (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. Obviously the historical value is unquestionable, but that's the only thing this image has going for it. The print is poor quality and not very interesting or compelling by itself. Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that like theres better versions out there, this is the Join or Die print, it is one of the most iconic images of the American Revolution... I don't get the objection on print quality... It was never met to be art, or when he made it, iconic. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<vote withdrawn> Maedin\^talk 09:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Benjamin Franklin - Join or Die.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]