Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cocacola-5cents-1900 edit1.jpg

Coca-Cola

Reason: A very good image which does a good job of showing 19th century advertising.
Articles this image appears in: Coca-Cola, Hilda Clark
Creator: The Coca-Cola Company

Previous Votes before Restoration Work

* Support as nominator --Bewareofdog 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent Thisglad (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Yeah that is pretty hilarious - but the image could do with a bit of a touch up to remove the white flecks in the hair of the model. The other thing is the face supposed to be so soft? Compared with the Coca Cola logo thingy it seems almost as if it is suffering from some kind of blur... --Fir0002 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely details and colour. -bodnotbod (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose This image could use some Photoshop work, per Fire0002, after which I would certainly support it. Also, since the caption is a FP focalpoint, I wonder if it is really necessary to say what the image says, when it is already so obvious? smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose, for now Would like to see this get a clean-up first; there are lots of white spots and streaks throughout. Clegs (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend per fir0002.Greener Cactus (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify; Fir 'weak supported' and didn't suggest suspending. --jjron (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Lots of dust spots and age spots are visible in the picture than can be cleaned up quite easily. I think some attention to the border is also warranted. In general, the image needs to have some restoration work. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support though a cleaning wouldn't go amiss. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Holiday. Rj1020 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can this be PD, is it even eligible for FP? It includes a logo trademark which is still protected... --Janke | Talk 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Coca Cola logo is old enough to be out of copyright, and is indeed PD. It is protected as a trademark in some countries, but that does not affect the PD copyright status. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clean up white spots, please. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspending pending cleanup... MER-C 06:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presented this image to the Graphic Lab, and will post here when update is available. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Support This is a good image, and it had a very large effect on Coca-Cola's history. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Six hours later I am done restoring this picture. Changes include: Cloning out spots tears creases, Removal of border, Replacement of top background to remove excessive wear on the photograph. I tried removing some of the glare that came from scanning this photoraph(evident on the letter) but it's a tight area to work. Anyone willing to try their hand at a restored version to fix the border just contact me and I'll hand over a jpg or psd. I never want to see a coke logo again. User:victorrocha (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we begin again, then? MER-C 04:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 2 Although it is slightly unauthentic as edit 2 vs edit 1 removes the yellowing of the image (presumably due to age) Edit 1 is just for lack of a better word ugly due to the yellow aging tint. Great work removing the white spots btw. Cat-five - talk 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I need to clarify to anyone that I have the cleaned up image with the border if anyone prefers it. I was leaving the nomination suspended to get some feedback, sorry for the extra work MER-C. User:victorrocha (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 It looks great now. I'm not sure about edit 2, though; I'd think the LOC has their scanners pretty well calibrated, and none of us has any idea how the original looked, so correcting the white balance of a painting really is a shot in the dark, IMO. It's plausible the original painter chose a warm scheme on purpose. Thegreenj 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Looks more natural. Nice job on the restoration. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Bewareofdog 07:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I suppor the 1st edit, but this picture is intriguing. Clever, even. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1, but am pretty neutral between Edit 1 and 2. If Edit 1 is the more authentic we should go with that. Fletcher (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2. Warmer color-scheme seems natural enough. Without seeing the original messing with the white balance is inappropriate. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either one. Just a thought: could this go on advertising also, in the history section? It talks about advertising in the early 20th century. It could probably also go on some of the other marketing articles too... great job anyway! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cocacola-5cents-1900 edit1.jpg MER-C 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]