Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Propaganda

US Propaganda

Original - Poster for Thirteenth Naval District, United States Navy, showing a rat representing Japan, approaching a mousetrap labeled "Army Navy Civilian," on a background map of the state of Alaska.

Reason

Good quality image showing anti-Japanese propaganda by US.

Articles this image appears in

Propaganda

Creator

WPA Art Project (U.S. government)

• Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry for being blunt, but this is just part of a POV/POINT spam nomination series by a user that should spend some more time reading WIAFP, checking out the history of previous FPC, and coninue nominating in maybe one month or so. --Dschwen 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't think your vote was based upon the quality of the image, but instead upon an opposition to the recent activities of the user.D-rew (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The quality is bad, but your are right, I extrapolated as I didn't want to waste anymore time with his nominations. Checking just confirmed that suspicion. --Dschwen 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The nommed image was just added to the Propaganda article today, where it joins many other propaganda images. Time will tell whether the image "adds value" to that article; but I don't think that it's possible to fairly assess that yet. The image is also kind of blurry-- is this the best scan that we've got? Spikebrennan (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Actually I noticed the size problems with the previous anti-Japan propaganda two noms. down and located this larger alternate from the Library of Congress site. Gave it a quick 15 minute restoration (it didn't need much). Tried a few ways to sharpen it and this was the best balance. It was the only image of this type I found in an hour of searching. Suggestion to nominator: please withdraw other two candidacies. Could find a place at Anti-Japanese sentiment and similar articles. Durova^Charge! 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support excellent example of period propaganda Shifthours (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor quality and fairly uninteresting as propaganda posters go. I also agree with Dschwen point, this guy is being a complete douche bag. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Eek, Have people been filing their teeth to bite the newcomers extra hard? This is someone who's brand new to this and seems to mean well. His first two noms were a little off target so I helped him out. Not sure whether this one will fly, but it seemed like the right thing to be friendly and offer a helping hand. Chew on my ear if you disagree, please. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hear hear. WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and all those other things that we should all know by now. SingCal 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the guy that made about 20 failed noms last week, including some highly questionable subject matter? (See here for starters.) I think there were a number of polite prods made last week for him to spend some time here learning the ropes before jumping in again, which may help explain the less polite reaction seen on these. --jjron (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • A particular user being annoying doesn't give someone else the right to break the no personal attacks rule.D-rew (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I don't know why I put that here, you obviously weren't attacking him. You were just trying to help, sorry if I sounded accusatory.D-rew (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That's true - I was just trying to point out that Durova's comment about him being 'brand new' and this being his third nom weren't actually right, and that some people are possibly questioning whether or not he really does 'mean well'. --jjron (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, I apologize if that was inaccurate. The basic idea of this type of propoganda poster is a good one. Perhaps the FPC criteria should be updated to give people a realistic idea of how much leeway voters actually give for historic material. I've seen other people read that page, trust what they saw, and make noms that were out of step. Made the same mistakes myself, at first. Durova^Charge! 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Low quality, adds no value to the article, and not a famous propaganda piece. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-28 14:28Z
• Weak oppose High enc, but quality is too far under the FP bar for my taste. SingCal 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support The guy may be a douce bag, nevertheless I think its an interesting photo. It's eye-catching, and it adds value to the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please refrain from personal attacks. They don't add anything of value.D-rew (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• You're right, I apologize to the nominator. I just think there should be a rule against nominating more than two photos on the same subject in the same day or even week. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)