Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egyptian camel transport3.jpg

File:Egyptian camel transport3.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2010 at 22:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Egyptian camel transport3.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egyptian camel transport3.jpg

•  Info created by American Colony Jerusalem - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Egyptian camel transport.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Info Egyptian camel transport on Mount Olivet near Jerusalem, 1918.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This is the type of historic image I love to see --Muhammad (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I am happy enough to support this, evocative and well worked image. At the risk of encountering vast arguments is it worth downsampling at little as 1:1 the quality (understandably) is lower? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nikopol (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Question Instead of just opposing. May I ask, what is so particularly interesting about a 1918 photo of a caravane of camels, where nothing much but contours are seen of the camels and people? Due to the light, only a rough idea about the clothing (which could be historically interesting) and building in the background is seen. Evidently I am missing a point. What is the point? I am willing to listen and learn. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Esthetics, mostly. It's a lovely composition. Durova (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. First of all, Duraova, if you think this rather lengthy post takes too much focus away from the nomination feel free to move it to a subpage... I agree it is esthetically pleasing in the FPC preview but seen in full screen I think it has a dissapointing detail level - also considering that it is a 1918 photo. I am also curious to know more of the location of the photo. "Olivet" is mentioned, and in searching for that I had a look at The History of the Canterbury Mounted Rifles 1914-1919Chapter XV. How the Regiment Went Up to Jerusalem and Through the Wilderness to Jericho., where I found the following quote:

      Bethlehem was reached at 5 o'clock on the morning of the 23rd, after passing through the village of Bethany and on round the shoulder of Olivet, where on the clear dawn of a winter's day there burst upon view, with her long battlemented walls and her towers and domes silhouetted against the sky, the city of Jerusalem, seated upon her hills. This view, above all seen of the Holy City, will our men ever remember.

• • • According to the English Wikipedia, Bethany, today known as al-Eizariya is located on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives. Apparently, Olivet can also refer to the Mount of Olives. If anyone can confirm that, it would probably be worthwhile to specify a location of about 1 km to the East of Jerusalem in the image page.--Slaunger (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The photograph was taken by an organization called American Colony Jerusalem, which consistently captioned the Mount of Olives as Olivet (Olivet is one of its alternate names). Compare to this caption in the same handwriting where "Olivet" is adjacent to "Mount Scopus". Mount Scopus overlooks Jerusalem. Durova (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, Ok. Thanks for the reference to that other caption. Given that I used quite a long time figuring out what Olivet meant, and assuming for a moment that I am not the only historically ignorant user here, unfamiliar with this (for me peculiar) synonym for an in fact very notable place (the photo is more than just esthetics for me now), who could be confused as well, would it not be worthwhile to add this explanation explicitly to the file page including some wiki links to save others from doing the same investigations? --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Feel free to add to the file page if you think it can be improved. Durova (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
            •  Done --Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral Has some esthetic qualities and is from an interesting location and time. However light obscures historically interesting features such as clothing and features of buildings, and overall image quality somewhat dissapointing in full screen - even for a 1918 photo IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support rare historical shot and good restoration --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Great silhouettes --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical