Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:JudgeMagazine19May1894.jpg

File:JudgeMagazine19May1894.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 06:32:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:JudgeMagazine19May1894 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:JudgeMagazine19May1894

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
•  Info created by Judge [Bernhard Gilliam] - uploaded by PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC) - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Info Slightly modified to remove the Google watermark.
•  Support -- Testing the waters to see if people think the Judge covers are high-quality enough for FP status. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Technical quality is OK (though not astonishing), but the whole thing is kind of pointless as it is now. Political caricatures are unlike most other kinds of visual arts in that they not only benefit from but essentially require knowledge about their context. I don't expect the description to explain the whole situation to me (although that would be great). But it should at least tell me who these people are supposed to be and what the general context is. I shouldn't have to use Google to find out about the en:Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act. --El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with this. A great image but not a huge photo, but regardless of whether it's nominated here or at COM:VIC, background information is needed in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also be happier if it wasn't relatively low resolution, and had a more sensitive adjustment. It feels like autolevels. This is little more than a fat joke at Taft's expense, and I'd want to tweak the colours, but it's better reproduction quality. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• This might also merit consideration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Support More resolution would be nice, but quite interesting and FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Question This appears to be a page scan. PDMagazineCoverUploading, do you know if the scan is 1:1, so that the cover was actually this size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Information should be on the HathiTrust page PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I had already looked on their site without it being evident at what ratio these pages were scanned or otherwise digitized before I asked you what you might know. By the way, I notice that every page says "Digitized by Google, Original from University of Michigan". Shouldn't you include that on the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears accurate to other covers of Judge I've seen, if you don't include borders. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think this is a great image, so I  Support but that's kind of conditional on the information about the original and who digitized it being added along with a link to w:Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, with the point being made that that's the subject of the illustration. Cool, PDMagazineCoverUploading? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, I've had some difficult issues in my personal life and have had to take a break from the wiki for a few days. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that and hope things improve. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose I judge the image and not the meaning conveyed. And the picture has no "wow" for me unfortunately. --Stepro (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)