Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Bohemian

Reason

Good scan of a very good image . It has a its own article unlike this featured picture

Proposed caption

The Bohemian is a painting by William-Adolphe Bouguereau completed in 1890.

Articles this image appears in

The Bohemian

Creator

William-Adolphe Bouguereau

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 01:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 02:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Support Very high res and clear scan. Encyclopedic. Jumping cheese 11:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose looks washed out (but this could be the way the painting actually is, I dunno). But my real concern are the obvious halftone artifacts in the hair and other places. I think the original from which this was scanned probably wasn't high enough quality. Debivort 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I agree with Debivort. The halftone artifacts are subtle enough to appear to be the texture of the canvas but I doubt it is the case here.. I suppose we'd have to see a higher resolution image elsewhere to compare. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This image has a en-wikipedia image page but appears to be hosted on commons...only noticed because the No Script extension in Firefox flagged it as "cross site scripting". Seems odd. vlad§inger ^tlk 16:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Commons images can be viewed from the En Wiki. Look directly under the image and it tells you it is hosted on Commons. Or are you refering to something else and I'm confused? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the URL of the full sized image is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%201825-1905%20_-_The_Bohemian_%201890%20.jpg#9558619781663987567, unlike the other images on this page such as the top one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/George_IV_bust.jpg.). No Script doesn't like this for some reason and I get a 404 error and I can't see the full sized image. Shouldn't be a problem for people not using No Script. vlad§inger ^tlk 19:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Regarding the image itself, it seems to be a faithful reproduction with only minor technical flaws. vlad§inger ^tlk 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. We can hope for better than a scan of a print reproduction, and the halftone artifacts are not subtle.--ragesoss 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. As a general policy comment, it seems to me that a lot of fine art scans that get nominated for FPC but fail end up failing because of "jpg artifacts" or "halftoning" or other scan quality issues. Is there a primer somewhere that can help potential FPC nominators spot these issues so that they can evaluate whether a fine art scan suffers from those problems? Spikebrennan 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about here?--HereToHelp 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]