Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910.jpg

Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910, Ottoman Palestine

Original - Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910, Ottoman Palestine.

Reason: Used in a huge number of Palestinian related articles.
Articles this image appears in: Palestinian people, Palestinian refugee, 1948 Palestinian exodus, etc. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine
Creator: American Colony (Jerusalem). Photo Dept., photographer.

Support as nominator Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Resubmit - I hope no one will object that I deleted their comments on the previous version. New version deals with size issues, and is a cleaner version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think it's considered good wikiquette to delete comments - they're usually, when invalid, striken through by the commenter. cheers. --Mad Tinman _T _C 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose picture is washed out and not sharp at all. Aside: I don't see how a picture of a family c. 1900 adds value to an article about 1948. Clegs (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's value in the other articles is surely clear though? The nominator was simply answering the form about which articles the pic appears in, not advocating its specific use there. de Bivort 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose poor quality photo (even for that era, we have many much better images) and the subject isn't particularly interesting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not interesting? there is a ton of cultural detail here? de Bivort 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support historical photo of an area of the world that is under-illustrated in WP. Counters systemic bias. Resolution is so high I have no great quality complaints at this point. de Bivort 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think countering systemic bias is a strong enough rationale--this comes from a collection of 20,000 photos of the Middle East in this era, any of which could counter systemic bias. I just don't think this one in particular stands out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - aah - good to know. I hope we can have more noms out of that collection then. de Bivort 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I much prefer the original archive version. The sepia toning had a wonderful charm which has been corrected-out into an over-bright rendition of muddy grays and blacks. Subject-wise, it is nice but I'm not inspired to rush off and upload a better version. I'd revert to the other version and settle for a good quality illustration, which it certainly could be with a more sympathetic cleanup. --mikaul^talk 10:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll maybe add a version with the original color sometime tom. Cleanup focused on bringing out the detail from the people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think given that the Palestinian people are still around that a color photograph would do them much more justice than a grainy black and white photograph. --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I generally don't care for these "family photo" types as primary sources. Hundreds of years from now, I don't think historians would be getting a very good glimpse of todays culture by looking at one of my family portraits where everybody is made up and dressed in their best clothing to pose for the camera.Rudy Breteler (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]