Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carmen Miranda

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2023 at 18:17:50 (UTC)

Reason

A good quality 1940s picture

Articles in which this image appears

Carmen Miranda

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

author unknown (20th Century Fox)

• Support as nominator – Vinícius O. (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good photo, but it looks like the whites got blown out in the white balancing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 17:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of rebalancing them. Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A brief thank you for the improvement you have made to the picture. Vinícius O. (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinícius94: Oh, glad to! It's minor, but a little better. I should warn you that, since it took a while for the rebalance and copyright check, there's a chance this may need renominated. And I should probably put the research below on the file page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 06:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think so too. Vinícius O. (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinícius94: I've detailed all the research on the file page; does look like it'll need a renom since it took a bit to sort; I'd suggest waiting a bit (I'm going to give The Colonel a month, but there weren't active issues with that, just a slow period at FPC that meant it doesn't look like it'll reach quorum. They happen. This one, however, had some issues which are now sorted, so can probably be renommed a lot quicker.). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 11:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Have we had a chance to see the front and back of the image to ascertain if a copyright notice was included? I'm not seeing it in the file history, and AFAIR Doctor Macro tends to only upload the image portion.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, it's at the period where there'd presumably need to be a copyright renewal. Can we check for that? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 20:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be doable as well, though I'm not sure how it would appear in the catalogues if it was renewed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crisco 1942: Well, check my work: I've searched 1968 1969 and 1970 - both halves of the year are included in the Internet Archive uploads - and then re-searched for Havana https://archive.org/details/catalogofco1968322711libr/page/238/mode/2up?q=Havana] [1] [2]. I suppose we could check further, but I'm seeing no evidence of renewal. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 17:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crisco 1492: I also checked 1941 - nothing relevant for Havana, and for a Miranda search, nothing relevant again. The film itself, for comparison, does show up in the appropriate section of Dramatic works/Motion Pictures: 1941 1969

  Now, there's a possibility of bad OCR, but this seems reasonably convincing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 17:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Now that that's out of the way, this is a very definite Support on my end. Glad to see some early colour images come through.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – suits the article well. Bammesk (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]