Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rembrandt - Joseph and Potiphar's wife

Rembrandt - Joseph and Potiphar's wife

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 02:48:54 (UTC)

Original – Joseph and Potiphar's Wife, a 1634 etching by Dutch artist Rembrandt. It measures 91 mm × 114 mm.

Reason

High quality, notable work by a notable artist

Articles in which this image appears

Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching), List of etchings by Rembrandt, Potiphar

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Rembrandt, derivative work by Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Although it has good EV due to being a Rembrandt, it is not an especially striking artwork. Although the forms are evocative, the execution is little more than a sketch, especially on the right half of the etching. I would rather see something like File:Rembrandt self portrait.jpg featured. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• This etching is notable enough to have its own article and is a good technical reproduction. Regarding the original image itself, I agree with J Milburn, who argued at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Gross Clinic by Eakins that "if reputed art critics have discussed the piece in publications, then we should not be declaring it "unworthy", regardless of our own opinions". Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't add much to what Crisco said above- we're here to judge the quality of the image (in this case, the quality of the reproduction) not the quality of the content. It's the same philosophy that allows any subject to reach FA status; MissingNo, episodes of The Simpsons, musical albums that did not chart. However, in this case, I'd like to see more info on the image page- one of those boxes which is often added to fine art (detailing the media, artist, dimensions and so on) would be a good start. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The content is actually a consideration for FP, see FPC #3. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You mean "It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer."? I fail to see how any other image could better represent the main subject here (i.e. Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching)) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • @J Millburn: I've updated the info on the file page. Is that what you were looking for? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I've updated the size to better match the source. The article seems to have been limited by a template issue. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, now the info's been added. Sufficiently high resolution to see all the details, clear EV in the article on this piece. Our own opinions on the piece's artistic merit are irrelevant when we have reliable sources discussing it; equally, I wouldn't oppose pictures of supermodels who I happened to consider unattractive or buildings which I happened to consider poorly designed. I don't much care for certain genres of art (I'm generally not interested in the Young British Artists or graffiti) but that doesn't mean that I'm going to oppose nominations of notable pieces used in a way that gives them clear EV. That would be awful. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd really like more resolution for this sort of artwork. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• At 91 by 114 millimetres (3.6 in × 4.5 in)? You voted a full support at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tako to Ama, where the source image was almost twice the size as this but the scan was only one and a half times. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• That isn't very small, as far as digitisation by scanner or photograph goes. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)