Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radha and Krishna in the boat of love - Google Art Project.jpg

File:Radha and Krishna in the boat of love - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 23:04:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Radha and Krishna in the boat of love - Google Art Project.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radha and Krishna in the boat of love - Google Art Project.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
•  Info created by Unknown artist / Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very high resolution of a traditional miniature from the Kishengarh school of paintings from Rajasthan. Radha Krishna are collectively known within Hinduism as the combination of both the feminine as well as the masculine aspects of God. See Radha Krishna for the details. -- Yann (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'd like to vote for this picture, but I find the documentation insufficient. A date or at least approximate date and, so far as is known, place of composition should be mentioned in the description. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support As it concerns Radha and Krishna, it cannot be a physical place on earth, but it is meant to be a mystical one, maybe Shangri-La? So I imagine, the picture expresses more a state of the soul. Like a dreamland. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm not asking what place is depicted; I'm asking when and where it was painted. That, or at least as near as we can tell, should be included in the documentation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK, updated from GAP. Yann (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, and  Support. I still have a question, though: It looks like there is writing in Urdu or another Arabic-based language on the bottom of the painting. Do you have any idea why, given that this is a pointedly Hindu religious subject? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure (I don't read Urdu), but Urdu was the lingua franca for scholars in India until the 1920s (or even the 1940s?). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Hubertl 09:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- EVDiam (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Exquisite. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Owain Knight (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Owain Knight: Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment - The figures are too small in the overall composition. - Owain Knight (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Owain Knight: we can't change it. This is a 360 years old work. Yann (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
        • User:Yann, I don't expect you can change it. The question is whether it should be featured? You mean that all older works have small figures that make them almost unrecognizable? - Owain Knight (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Owain Knight: Did you realize that this is file nearly 700 megapixels? This is more than 20 times the picture size of an average camera. You can very well recognize them. Yann (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
            • User:Yann And how many people are going to click that? The picture is going to be featured on multiple Wikipedias in smaller version than here that we vote on. - Owain Knight (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
              • Owain Knight: This is telling. The simple fact that you didn't review this in its original resolution invalidate your vote. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
                • User:Yann, how does it invalidate my vote - my argument is that the figures are too small in the overall composition, which makes the picture unsuitable for display as feature picture. Maybe if you print it and display it in a large gallery, the figures would be recognizable, but here it is not the case. - Owain Knight (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
                  • The argument for the vote is that the figures are too small in the overall composition. You did not dispute that, said you cannot change it and offered the excuse that it is an old picture. Now you say that non-clicking on the full size of a picture invalidates one's vote. How does that make sense? This is a public organization with public responsibility - in the case of FP, responsibility to the millions that see them when they are made Picture of the Day, and this should be primary motivation when voting for a candidate. - Owain Knight (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media