Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Louis-Emile Durandelle, The Eiffel Tower - State of the Construction, 1888.jpg

File:Louis-Emile Durandelle, The Eiffel Tower - State of the Construction, 1888.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2014 at 14:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Louis-Emile Durandelle, The Eiffel Tower - State of the Construction, 1888.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Louis-Emile Durandelle, The Eiffel Tower - State of the Construction, 1888.jpg

•  Info created by Louis-Emile Durandelle / J. Paul Getty Museum - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Quoc-Phong NGUYEN -- Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support — TintoMeches, 15:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment High education value, but 1. the image should restored, 2. it should be in grayscale. See File:Louis-Emile Durandelle, The Eiffel Tower - State of the Construction, 1888, grayscale.jpg, a very crude edit, with contrast ajusted, but I think it is already better. Yann (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  IMO the quality it's pretty good (to be a picture taken in 1888). Secondly, Yann, you made the same comment also here, but I really don't get the point. If the original picture was printed in sepia tone, why should we change it? — TintoMeches, 18:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  As I said, it was a fashion to print images in sepia. There is no reason today to do so. At the very least, contrast should be improved. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  But it's not a today's picture; it's easy to criticize a 19th century picture with a 21st century technology and different aesthetic canons. In my mind we should judge old pictures from a historical point of view. — TintoMeches, 23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Support imo the image is perfectly fine as it is. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support per Martin Falbisoner. Nikhil (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --P e z i (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think I've ever commented on a FPC before so please correct me if I don't follow protocol. I was scanning through the listings and have to strongly support the promotion of this image and also counter the suggestion that it be modified to fit today's standards. This is a WONDERFUL image of high quality, both artistic and historic. As an image from 1888, we should present it as it would have looked new and pristine. The image was never designed to be displayed in grayscale and changing it would be a disingenuous modification and an overzealous restoration. Themfromspace (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• IMHO, we need not change the "reality of that time" for historical works. Jee 03:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Halavar (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical