Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian Federal Labour Party, 1901

Australian Federal Labour Party, 1901

**Unrestored version** provided for comparison.

Reason: Group portrait of all the inaugural Australian Labor Party members of parliament in the year Australia gained independence. Includes future prime ministers Chris Watson, Andrew Fisher, and Billy Hughes, among other notable politicans from a formative period. (This photograph was taken before the Australian spelling change from labour to labor, so the title spelling is historical.) Restored version of Image:LabourGroup.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Australian Labor Party, Andrew Fisher, Billy Hughes, Chris Watson, Frank Tudor, King O'Malley, Australian labour movement, William Spence, Gregor McGregor, Watson Ministry, William Higgs, Hugh Mahon, Lee Batchelor, Australian federal election, 1901, Fred Bamford
Creator: Barroni of Barroni & Co

Support as conominator --Durova^Charge! 20:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as conominator Gnan garra 00:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut off arms. Age is no excuse for sloppy composition --Fir0002 01:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as it's not very likely we'll be able to manufacture a time machine and pop back 107 years to ask the portraitist for a better composition, would you grant leeway for encyclopedic value? Suppose the United States Declaration of Independence had a coffee stain... Durova^Charge! 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what you're saying but IMO it's just one of those images which was almost there but not quite FP level. Otherwise you get to the point where any historic photo can be promoted to FP regardless of it's photographic attributes --Fir0002 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original, Weak Support for Edit 1. Bad composition and a poor scan. Why are there colored pixels in a black and white image? NauticaShad es 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original was a scan of a print that had yellowed with age. Sometimes histogram and color correction reveals staining. This was relatively mild and covered an area that would not be practical to address manually. If it would make a difference to your decision I could desaturate the image. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not talking about yellowing. I'm seeing green, red, and purple! I don't know if desaturation will help, but you should definitely try. NauticaShad es 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a ten second fix, fortunately. The staining occurred at upper right. I wasn't sure which you were talking about. Durova^Charge! 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, that's much better. I'm still not completely satisfied of the composition and the scanning quality, though. I upgraded to Weak Support for the edit. NauticaShad es 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good image with outstanding encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Compression artifacts, per Thegreenj. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support A fantastic restoration of an image with incredible encyclopedic value. For non-Australian editors, the Australian Labor Party is Australia's oldest major political party and the only one to have had had elected members in parliament since the federation of Australia in 1901. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support desaturated edit. Nautica is right about the upper right hand corner having minor colour issues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it has such high EV value (included on so many pages!) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit1. Great one. - Darwinek (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really would like to support this one. Its EV is really high, and the restoration is great, but the scan quality is simply atrocious. The amount of visible jpeg artifacts makes this look like a puzzle, rather than a photograph. Thegreenj 18:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad scan quality led to bad artifacting. Clegs (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]