Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:"Wind Mountain" Columbia R - NARA - 102278851 (page 1).png

File:"Wind Mountain" Columbia R - NARA - 102278851 (page 1).png, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 23:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
  •   Info created by unknown- uploaded by US National Archives bot - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment - Hi. The identification of this photo is incomplete, so I cannot judge the photo yet. From https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305488, the link that is given in the file description: "These records are manuscript watercolor views along the northwest boundary between the Rocky Mountains and Point Roberts. The sketches were created by James W. Alden who accompanied the survey party that, during the 1860's and in compliance with the Treaty of 1846, was responsible for recording characteristics of the northwestern boundary of the United States." This information is also provided there: "Specific Media Type: Paper". So "Author" is not "Unknown or not provided" but James W. Alden, and the medium must be specified as "Watercolor on paper". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Can you examine the NARA template properties and set the appropriate parameter to remove the "Please do not overwrite this file" warning -- this is a restoration file, rather than an original. Also the "This file was provided to" licence text isn't correct for this file either, since this file is a derivative. What makes you think the original backing paper was neutral grey, and the painting from 1850s on pure Xerox white copy paper? Look at the white swirling cloud on the right and the leftmost edge of it. In the original, the artist has given the cloud a bright white "silver lining" but in your restoration it is a cold blue tint. I think it is one thing to repair damage but quite another to change the colours of an artwork, without any reference. It will have yellowed/aged over the years, but is unlikely to have been a modern white. Also I don't understand why the border has got slim black/transparent triangles -- it's as though you rotated the whole image after cropping. But the original border/background paper is huge so the background can be cut square. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Regretfully, I agree with Colin, but I would go back to the original and see whether a more subtle restoration is possible that's a little more true to the original. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very good now, thanks.   Support clearly. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Redone, only removed dust spots Ezarateesteban 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment - That seems to look better, and you should ping those who voted. And you fixed the problems I laid out above. But what's with this notice in Metadata? "Copyright (C) reserved" Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The metadata and the copyright is copied from the original that was uploaded as PD so it isn't an issue IMHO
@Cmao20: @Colin: @Ikan Kekek: Ezarateesteban 13:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it an issue for the metadata to contradict the copyright status? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Copyright (C) reserved" Who reserved that copyright? It may added by the camera. Furthermore the artwork is made is made between 1857-1862 so is in PD in USA. There is nothing to doubt about copyright Ezarateesteban 15:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.   Support, but that notice should be deleted, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 04:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media