Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:I want you for U.S. Army 3b48465u edit.jpg

File:I want you for U.S. Army 3b48465u edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 19:59:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:I want you for U.S. Army 3b48465u edit.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:I want you for U.S. Army 3b48465u edit.jpg

•  Info created by James Montgomery Flagg - uploaded, restored and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support a nicely restored iconic image GerardM (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, this image is below the 2 Megapixel minium for an FP.--Snaevar (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not a digital picture. Applying a rule that makes sense fpr digital photography is plain wrong. GerardM (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Good point. I change my vote to:  Neutral Uneven brightness value (dark frame at the top and bottom, and bright at the centre).--Snaevar (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A digital restoration is intended to keep the features as they are. The point of a restoration is to remove the blemishes and to restore it as much as possible to its original state. The original does have this "unevenness" in the original. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Obviusally, you are going to argue about every single sentance that contradicts your own opinion of this picture. Unfortunatly for you, though, I have other more important things to do.--Snaevar (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is AFAIK no special rule for 'nicely restored iconic images'. Too small is too small. W.S. 12:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • the fact that the rules do not consider something does not mean that as a consequence they apply. Also rules are not supposed to prevent you from thinking. GerardM (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Spanish (sorry) Imágenes como ésta no pueden ser imágenes de la portada de Commons por presentar, a mi parecer, ideología. No es una imagen neutral. Será mejor o peor, pero si aparece en la portada, siento vergüenza. Not 2 mp.--Miguel Bugallo 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Info English images like this should not be images appearing on the commons mainpage, because in my opinion they represent ideology. this is no neutral image. this might be good or bad, either way i would feel ashamed to see such image on the commons mainpage. not 2mp. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  CommentTo Miguel (sorry I understand a bit spanish, but I cannot wright): It is an historic picture from 1917, and it has a very high historic value. It is not "propaganda" for today, but for (almost) a century ago, the goal was to enlist US people for the WW1...--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose This version (already featured on two Wikipedias) is bigger, and the quality is better. --Lošmi (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lošmi. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others.--Claus (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment-- A line of the frame was removed instead of reconstructed. A restoration would either put arms to Aphrodite of Milos or leave it like that (this last the most widely used practice) but not to remove the head of it. The repeated patterns of red and white or blue and white stripes in Uncle Sam depictions is a reference to the American flag. It is not clear to me that destroying this pattern by only leaving one red stripe in the frame is a good restoration practice. It should be investigated, but in principle it could be subtracting semiotic content. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)