Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Esplanade Avenue, New Orleans

Esplanade Avenue in New Orleans, 1900[edit]

**Original** - Esplanade Avenue, New Orleans in 1900

Reason: It is an excellent image depicting one of the most famous avenues in New Orleans during the very early 20th century. There are many interesting things about this photo. First, the trees are painted white for reasons that are greatly debated amongst historians. The two prevailing arguments are either that they were painted white for better vision during night, or that it is actually some sort of insect repellent to keep the bottoms of trees from becoming rotted. Secondly, a streetcar is seen coming in the distance, with the four people in the foreground obviously waiting for it. This encompasses and epitomizes all that is New Orleans, even 110 years ago. Third, the buildings in the photo still stand today (http://maps.google.com/maps?cbp=12,304.77,,0,-5.2&cbll=29.965140,-90.062643&ll=29.965140,-90.062643&layer=c) and the image serves as an excellent comparison to how the city looked then and now.
Articles this image appears in: New Orleans
Creator: Detroit Publishing Company photo via Library of Congress website

Support as nominator --Gonk (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, the image is used to illustrate a section of the article titled Twentieth century but apparently was taken in and depicts the 19th century (the last day of which was December 31^st 1900). Wouldn't the image have greater value if some of the above information were included in an article or at least the at the image description page? Guest9999 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the last day of the century Dec 31st 1899? I'm sure I celebrated the first day of the 21st Century on Jan 1st 2000, and thus Jan 1st 1900 would be the start of the 20th Century?! Or was I celebrating a year too early?! Gazhiley (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I agree with you that the definitive turn of the century didn't come until January 1st 1901, I feel that the common belief (especially amongst people who don't know the exact science behind) is that most consider the beginning of the 20th century to be January 1st, 1900. It is this reason why I don't believe having the photo in the 20th century section is wholly inappropriate or unreasonable. I think there are definitely more people who'd be confused having the 1900 photo in the 19th century section as opposed to the 20th century. Gonk (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an encyclopedia, we strive for accuracy. So I find it inappropriate to follow a misconception, even if it is a popular one. On the contrary, Wikipedia should help debunking this myth. This is a small mistake, easily corrected, but you could justify many bad ideas by saying "people often think this is right". I wouldn't want Wikpedia to go down that slope. Ksempac (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless, images within Wiki articles don't always have to coincide with the section they are placed in. I could post a plethora of articles as examples. As long as the image is in an article to which it's related, I don't see this as an issue. Gonk (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per criteria, the copyright notices have to be removed. This should have been done (or arranged for, if you will) before nominating. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of featured pictures have copyright notices though? Removing would compromise the picture, in my opinion. Gonk (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for compositional reasons. Yet the assertion about copyright notices is a misreading of FP criteria. Wikipedia has historic featured pictures whose copyright notices appear, and it would be somewhat strange and dogmatic to insist upon their removal. All that we require is that an image not actually be in full copyright, which is necessary for legal reasons. Durova³²⁰ 19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain the compositional issues? No one is really addressing why the image itself isn't up to par enough to be a featured image. The only two real issues here that have been talked about are the placement within the New Orleans article (which I feel is debatable), and the copyright on the image, which plenty of other featured images have and should not be held as reason for opposition against the image. Please, judge the image on its merits as a photo, please. Gonk (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]