Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Last Tasmanian Aborigines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Last four Tasmanian Aborigines
- Reason
- Seems appropriate in a week when the Australian Government finally said "sorry" for the Aboriginal Stolen Generations (see here).
- Between European settlement in 1803 and the death of Truganini in 1876, the Tasmanian Aborigines were entirely wiped out as a unique people. This heart-wrenching image shows the last four survivors in the 1860s, clearly having been dressed up by their 'conquerors' in European finery for the photo - the misery and humiliation of these proud people is palpable.
- It's just below normal size 'requirements', and admittedly image quality isn't fantastic on modern standards (remember this is taken in 1860s frontier world though), and those grumbles seem pretty irrelevant here anyway.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tasmanian Aborigines
Tasmania
Truganini - Creator
- Unknown
- Strong Support as nominator jjron (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support The size can be neglected for such a picture. Such sad expressions on their faces:( --Muhammad(talk) 11:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support - What an incredible, and moving, photo. I had no idea that there were photos of Tasmanian Aborigines, I'm very glad you brought this to my attention. --liquidGhoul (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support All doctors say that size doesn't matter... ;-) Of course, if a better scan is ever found, this one can be replaced. --Janke | Talk 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- question - couldn't this be greatly improved with a levels adjust? de Bivort 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tried it, but that accentuates the grain. The soft contrast is suggestive of daguerrotypes and albumin prints, so I wouldn't change it. Actually, the photos on the DT page are all too contrasty. Few people today get to see actual DTs... --Janke | Talk 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Support, but I wish we had a better quality version. This, for example, is a pretty good quality photo of the lady in question (though I don't know about copyright status). Matt Deres (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) I've been considering the opinions and points below and come to the conclusion that I just can't sustain a 'support' argument, however much I'd like us to have one of Truganini. Please consider me a very reluctant oppose. Matt Deres (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- That should definitely be PD, so I uploaded it as Image:Truganini2 crop.jpg and put it in the Truganini article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great historical value trumps less-than-ideal technical aspects. faithless (speak) 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose I downloaded it with an eye toward restoration, but that's not grain we're looking at here. There's a serious problem with the file. Have a look at the thing at 300%. I'm tempted to call it lossy compression, but it's got an almost tile-like regularity that pervades the entire image. Surely there's a better version somewhere of this. My heart's with the nom, but I can't support it in this state because if I do then I'd have to nominate about a thousand other equally important images whose technical problems are less serious. If you get a better copy of this I'd be honored to help in a restoration. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Tasmanian Aborigines were a genetically and culturally isolated population for over 10,000 years, from the end of the last ice age when Tasmania was separated from mainland Australia; this is about the same time for this one small island as the native populations of all the Americas. This was wiped out in a little over half a century. This is a remarkable picture of the last four individuals, and one of the few pictures depicting them at all. And you have a thousand other pictures that are equally as important? Maybe there's a better version, who knows, but these sort of photos aren't as readily available in most countries as in the US. And since when do we judge pictures on how they look at 300%? --jjron (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Although images don't need to be judged at 300%, that's a good resolution for judging certain aspects of digitized degradation the minimum resolution I work at for restorations. This particular file cannot be restored. That's a function of its digitized state, not any comment upon its encyclopedic value or photographic meric. The comment above about other images is a function of having reviewed nearly 200,000 files with an eye toward restoration, not a denigration of the subject's importance. A better version of the same photograph almost certainly would be featurable. DurovaCharge! 07:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Tasmanian Aborigines were a genetically and culturally isolated population for over 10,000 years, from the end of the last ice age when Tasmania was separated from mainland Australia; this is about the same time for this one small island as the native populations of all the Americas. This was wiped out in a little over half a century. This is a remarkable picture of the last four individuals, and one of the few pictures depicting them at all. And you have a thousand other pictures that are equally as important? Maybe there's a better version, who knows, but these sort of photos aren't as readily available in most countries as in the US. And since when do we judge pictures on how they look at 300%? --jjron (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have seen better quality versions of this image, better quality images of Trugannini and of other Tasmanian Aborigines alive in her lifetime - Peripitus (Talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I attempted a quick edit but as with Durova I soon decided that I couldn't really make too much out of it --Fir0002 10:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support The size does not matter for me. I think Fir002's edit is better, so I support it. But if due to the edit, the picture's value decreases, then support for original. H92110 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for reasons already given. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Gotta agree with Durova on this one. Clegs (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Reasonably good copy of extremely important photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The quality's not terrible by any means, but Durova claimed that a better version could be found, so I have to say not this one. нмŵוτнτ 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No consensus MER-C 12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
