Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nikola Tesla, Colorado Springs Laboratory

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2022 at 06:01:54 (UTC)

Reason: A photo of Nicola Tesla's work, a pioneer in AC electric power generation and distribution, and co-inventor of the Induction motor. Also known for Tesla coil, Tesla (unit) and Tesla (car). In this photo he is sitting in his laboratory in Colorado Springs, U.S., next to his magnifying transmitter. This photo is still used in books and articles [1] [2] [3]. The photo was shot in multiple-exposures (i.e. the film was exposed with and without him present). This is probably the most iconic photo of his work. At the time, the photo was used to promote his work.
Articles in which this image appears: Nikola Tesla, Tesla Experimental Station, Science and technology in the United States, + other versions in several articles
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: Dickenson V. Alley, restored by Bammesk

Support as nominator, either version – Bammesk (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was proposed before, but with the writing retouched out. Did is pass or not? --Janke | Talk 12:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No because it needed restoration [4]. I have restored it now. This version is used in 8 articles (3 listed here and 5 here), the edited version is used in 2 articles (listed here and here). Bammesk (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a version with the handwriting removed. --Janke | Talk 17:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced an Alternate. If it gets a few votes, I will remove the handwriting and upload a separate file. Bammesk (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do I understand that the photo could exist without the writing, but the example that was scanned did have writing on it? And the writing is removed presumably by cloning the floorboards? My feeling is that the writing and signature are part of the interest, and keeping it is more honest and really more interesting. ProfDEH (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About your first sentence: not totally. The image was captured in a 1899 photo shoot. (On a sidenote: a different version from the same photo shoot was published in June of 1900 in this magazine figure 8.) The nominated version (with Tesla in it) was produced in multiple copies, distributed or published variously for promotion of his work. For example, the copy nominated here was inscribed for and sent to physicist William Crookes (see Tesla's inscription on the image and it is signed 1901). Here is another copy inscribed to/for someone else (if you zoom in, certainly the handwriting is not identical to the nominated copy), it's a different copy. In short, there are more than one copy (or one print) of this. I have seen this image many times, my recollection is mostly without the handwriting (as in the 3 examples linked to in the reason section). The copy nominated here is a high resolution, well preserved copy, and it is the William Crookes' copy (he must have been a good archivist!), and it's published by a reliable source [5]. There is no reason to assume the handwriting is fundamentally inherent to the image, it is not. We can keep the image as is in order to preserve the provenance of this particular copy "on the image itself", or we can remove it to depict the actual image which was circulated in various forms at the time. I support either way. Bammesk (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Britannica example is a cropped view, but click on the magnify icon and it shows the full image with handwriting. ProfDEH (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About your second sentence "cloning the floorboards": If you look closely here, the floorboards aren't cloned. The handwriting in dark ink is cloned, not the floorboards. It is not an easy fix, but that's what User:Lošmi did, and that's what I will do. Bammesk (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support one with writing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The writing was not originally on the 1899 photo. --Janke | Talk 22:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I understood that the writing is Tesla's which gives it added encyclopaedic value, doesn't it? Like an autographed First Edition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Tesla had prints made with the lower part "dodged out" to make the space lighter and suitable for writing? Thus, it is a "doctored" photo, and I prefer the original without text. --Janke | Talk 14:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that. I'll abstain. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support either' It's really quite normal for old photos to be writtenon, but it varies as to whether it's worth keeping. Ggiven a preference, I'd go with writing here. As an aside, the amount of information I've found out by trying to read the writing is immense, like date of the photo. I it's often mirrored because of the side of the negative available for writing, so if I can't read it, I do a flip. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the date written is not the date of the photo - 2 years off! --Janke | Talk 21:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Seeing the discussion and realising I haven't actually voted, I'm in favour of keeping the writing. ProfDEH (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]