Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plan 9

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2011 at 12:12:20 (UTC)

Reason

High encyclopedic value, good resolution; image was a Valued picture before VP was disbanded. One of the few film posters that are PD that I've seen. The film itself is quite notable.

Articles in which this image appears

Plan 9 from Outer Space, B movie, Z movie, Tom Jung

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Distributors Corporation of America

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Resolution is a bit low - a better scan is feasible. This is one of those movies that is almost so bad that it is good. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've managed to dig up a higher resolution version. It's about 500px bigger at the larger side. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Full support if someone can explain what those diagonal lines are. As far as I'm concerned, PD movie posters would make great FPs, and bonus points for the somewhat iconic nature of this film. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking the texture of the paper, but this poster makes me wonder otherwise. Somehow the poster linked above (which I'm trying to upload separately) has different colours. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the other as an ALT. It seems to be closer to the original. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ALT you uploaded doesn't appear to be the same as the version you link to off-site. The coloring is different, and there are creases and artifacts. (If you uploaded the version that you link to, it would receive my strong support.) Fallingmasonry (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's odd, because I had uploaded it from here... probably my st*pid connection, compresses everything. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until a better version can be provided. The original version is of higher quality and has better detail. The alternative feels overprocessed to me. Both versions suffer of too high jpg compression. Ottojula (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I updated ALT1 to the highest quality version from the same source. I also removed some of the most severe artefacts. Now I think the quality is of acceptale quality. Ottojula (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT1. Ottojula (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]