Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eggs
Stumbled across this when looking into Easter eggs on DVDs. I think it's a very clear and decorative image; It appears in the article Easter egg (quelle surprise).
- photo by Carl Fleischhauer, 1981
- source: http://www.loc.gov/folklife/images/Ukrainskie pisanki.jpeg
- Nominate and support. - bodnotbod 18:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- comment. Nice picture indeed, but is there a higher res/better color version available, perhaps from the photographer? The current version has been brightened and color corrected a bit from the original, but without a higher quality version I fear this nomination will fail. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what is the copyright status of the image? Simply because it was originally posted on the Library of Congress website does not mean the author has released it into the public domain. CapeCodEph 21:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- comment. Yeah, will certainly need a higher quality image. Raven4x4x 00:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- comment. OK, I've invited the user that uploaded the later version to respond as I have no involvement with the image. --bodnotbod 21:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I know nothing about the original image. It was sorta greyish so I downloaded it, tinkered with it, and uploaded it again. Sorry. Can't help. I'm not the photographer. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- 'D'oh:' - I went off to chase up the chap who uploaded the image originally (not, I should make clear, Mr Dpbsmith of the previous comment). Looks like there could be problems with the user's whole image background, see the bottom of his talk page, seems there's a lot of stuff of his that has been removed. Annoyingly, my enjoyment of the image may well lead to its removal from Wikipedia. At any rate, I made my nomination as a newcomer to the page - and accept that it is much lower resolution/detail than is normally seen as fit for a featured picture...and he doesn't seem to be around to provide an improvement or help us. --bodnotbod 04:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I know nothing about the original image. It was sorta greyish so I downloaded it, tinkered with it, and uploaded it again. Sorry. Can't help. I'm not the photographer. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- comment. OK, I've invited the user that uploaded the later version to respond as I have no involvement with the image. --bodnotbod 21:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- comment. Yeah, will certainly need a higher quality image. Raven4x4x 00:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- support. It's gorgeous and original. Nixdorf 22:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. The different patterns are quite intricate and delightful to look at; however, the size and relatively low colour depth act against it. Enochlau 11:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Great picture, but too many jpeg artefacts. --jacobolus (t) 20:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unconvinced the copyright problem has been addressed (see my comment above), and without improved color and resolution, the quality is far too low. CapeCodEph 20:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk + new 16:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)