Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pierre-Auguste Renoir

Pierre-Auguste Renoir

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 08:05:11 (UTC)

Original – Aging Pierre-Auguste Renoir, c. 1910

Reason: Very nice composition and expression, good restoration, high EV. Nice portrait of the aging Pierre-Auguste Renoir, used on the article on the "Later years" section. FP and VI in Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Pierre-Auguste Renoir
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Dornac - photographer. Upload, stitch and restoration by Jebulon.

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to me that there are some hairs and scratches left (hair on his cheek stands out really bad). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hair on his cheek appears to me to be just that, a whisker on his cheek. A loose hair from his beard was lying on his lapel. I notice that it was removed, in the clean-up of dust on the image. I don't know that that type of "cosmetic improvement" is legitimate. It is the sign that no-one had brushed his coat. Amandajm (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the old photographs that go through here are digitally restored, at least a little flyspecking. For instance, I would have likely tried to deal with some of the dust on the left-hand side and bottom right, as well as that lone hair (it's pointing the wrong way for a natural hair, in my opinion). However, the people who do digital restorations generally don't touch paintings. That is because the paintings often get their EV (encyclopedic value) from being a digital reproduction of a single physical artifact (as they may be the subject of their own article), whereas photographs tend to get EV out of their representation of the subject of the photograph. This could also be tied to the nature of photographs generally being easier to reproduce and (a probably unrelated factor) fewer photographs being considered notable as physical artifacts to the point of having articles. The only FP of a notable photograph (i.e. a photograph with its own article) I can think of is Situation Room (which was not digitally edited by Wikipedians, at all), whereas there are dozens of FPs of notable paintings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that I agree that the mark on his cheek is a scratch of something. It's a most appealing photo. Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree about the quality of the picture. Weak support. There are, as I said, some small bits which could use touching up, but I think this would be fine for pretty much any usage of the photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a note: there's also the famous photograph American Gothic, Washington D.C. It doesn't have its own article yet, but it should (in Hebrew the article exists, I wrote it). Tomer T (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found another one the other day, Earthrise, but I didn't have time to point to it earlier (was at an event near Borobudur with no internet). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]