Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The lady from Mycenae

The Lady from Mycenae

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2014 at 22:01:04 (UTC)

Original – The lady from Mycenae, fresco, height: 53 cm. 1300-1200 BCE. From the acropolis at Mycenae.

Reason: good quality picture of a famous fresco
Articles in which this image appears: Mycenaean Greece, List of Aegean frescos, National Archaeological Museum, Athens
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
Creator: unknown artist

Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, this looks like a bookscan. It has the kind of pattern usually occurs in printing. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IP; obvious halftoning (and, thus, this is clearly a book scan). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a valid reason for opposing? It is QI at Commons, so I suppose the quality is good enough, and it is the best we have of this mosaic. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is. FPs almost always demand that the image be of the original. The best we have is not the same as the best we could have. And being a QI image on Commons has little bearing here (if anything, it may be an indication that the quality is subpar). TownCows (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - LoL. Nitpickers on Commons will appreciate. Yann (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anyway I did see that rule anywhere. Could you give a pointer? Yann (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first criteria of a high technical standard makes it pretty obvious to me "It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies.". Half-toning would be an example of that kind of "anomaly". Feel free to read them all here. TownCows (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        At what size the image should be reviewed? Because if scaled down to 1500px in height, then no half-toning can be seen. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If this is a scan from a book, by all rights it shouldn't have passed QIC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        They should be reviewed at the maximum possible resolution. At 1500px this is unlikely to pass given the size of the fresco. The only time a book scan like this would be acceptable, for me, is when the artifact no longer exists and no other reproductions are available. TownCows (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If this is a scan from a book, how come the image on Commons includes EXIF meta data such as focal length which typically are associated with photographs taken with someone's camera? If the uploader/ nominator is also the original photographer, why is this here? And if the image does in fact come from a book, then shouldn't the "source" information indicate as much? Please explain. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 01:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        All that information is there. You just need to read it. Yann (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I withdraw my nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]