Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2024 at 19:29:07 (UTC)

ALT 1: Original, TIFF
ALT 2: Original, edited, JPEG
ALT 3: Crop 1, JPEG
ALT 4: Crop 2, JPEG
ALT 5: Crop 3, JPEG
ALT 6: Crop 4, edited, JPEG
ALT 7: Crop 5, AI enhanced, JPEG

Reason: While it is a rather blurry photo, it is the only we will ever have of the single encounter between these two historical figures.
Articles in which this image appears: Civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, ,Civil Rights Act of 1964, African-American history, Black suffrage, The Meeting (play)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: Marion S. Trikosko

Support as nominator – ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the cropped one, though? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uncropped original isn't present anywhere in the English Wikipedia. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this AI-enhancement brought anything useful. Beside this, File:MLK and Malcolm X USNWR cropped (Remini enhanced).jpg is sharper. Yann (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if it's AI enhanced, straight Oppose. There's probably cases for AI usage in restoration - to generate a missing bit of paper texture, say - but the AI tools are not meant for "hit button and you're done" use on archival imagery, and the lack of documentation thereof is a problem Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware the nominated image was AI enhanced in any way. In that case, we could merely replace all instances of the image with the uncropped original. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, Adam Cuerden, and Howardcorn33:, the nom image is not the AI enhanced version. The AI enhanced version is File:MLK and Malcolm X USNWR cropped (Remini enhanced).jpg and it is clearly distinct when viewed at full size. FYI, on 8 June 2022 an AI version was uploaded Here, but shortly after a few hours it was correctly reverted to the previous non-AI version. I have gone on and uploaded the original TIFF file from the Library of Congress Here, and I have updated the "other versions" fields in all of our now seven versions of this photo. Bammesk (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer This crop, or similar. It is the least distracting. I would vote support if it was created from the full resolution TIFF original (possibly with some adjustments to contrast, etc.). Bammesk (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose. I think File:MartinLutherKingMalcolmX.jpg is better. Why not feature the original version? I changed the ~~gallery~~ nom's category. Yann (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure User:Yann meant, diff, the "nomination's category", not "gallery", so I fixed it. Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Yes. For me, a category is in the Category namespace. Yann (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedia should not feature cropped archive images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken it upon myself to include all variations of the photo and shown it in the gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardcorn33 (talk • contribs)
Comment Personally, I prefer the uncropped image, although I take Howard's point that it can't be nominated if it isn't used in an article. Another problem, not yet mentioned, is that all the versions, including the edited and enhanced ones, still have quite a bit of dust, hair, and other blemishes that need to be cleaned up before they meet the standards expected of most historical FPCs. In my opinion all of the enhanced versions are unsuccessful, partly because they don't address this problem, and partly for other reasons. The Remini AI version, in particular, is a monstrosity from some kind of hell dimension, with its weird blue halos around the eyeglasses and its unnatural juxtaposition of noisy textured surfaces and waxy smooth surfaces. (My opinion, which I admit has no support in policy, is that this kind of vandalism of historical photos ought to be banned from the Commons as having no conceivable educational purpose.) I wonder if better results might be achieved by going back to the original tiff, cropping the black borders, increasing the contrast by a small amount, carefully removing all the dust and crud, and leaving the rest alone. Choliamb (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the AI-enhanced version. Please nominate it for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]