Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Haeckel Actiniae.jpg

Image:Haeckel Actiniae.jpg featured

• Nominate and support Ragesoss 07:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• in the English Wikipedia Roger McLassus 10:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Support--Shizhao 07:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Support--No-w-ay 09:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Support--Rhaessner 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose---Poppy 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC). I just don't like it.

 Comment Ummm, are we now voting on paintings from the 19th century?!--Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of featured pictures already that are old maps or diagrams or other non-photographic images. Why wouldn't we vote on a 19th century lithographic, if it's interesting, attractive, and historically significant? It's about to become a FP on English Wikipedia, 14 to 0.--Ragesoss 05:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok well it's just that there's a ton of lovely lovely paintings here on Commons by the great masters and the not-so-well-known masters - would it be okay to start nominating them or will the angry mob crush me if I do? Well, not that I am absolutely going to, now that I think of it - it's kind of pointless, isn't it... oh well. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly be likely to support such images, if they are hi-res and high quality. But I'm pretty new to this process; maybe there really is a policy or consensus against that/this kind of thing.--Ragesoss 05:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I raised this question at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Pictures_of_art and received precisely zero comments. pfctdayelise 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a short reply there. Come on people, let's have some opinions on this. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

•  Support This is a typical encyclopedic illustration of its era. Beautiful lithography! --Janke | Talk 08:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral Before I decide I'd like to learn about these horizontal lines in the centre. Are they scanner-artefacts or part of the picture? Since only one of the many objects on the picture is scratched in this way, they probabely were already on the scanned print. But they make no sense to me. Calderwood 09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are either artifacts of the original lithographic process or actually part of the original template. In any case, they are not scanner artifacts (and neither is the diagonal pattern that can be seen when you view it at full resolution)--Ragesoss 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I found that other scans elsewhere, from other copies, also have those horizontal lines.--Ragesoss 03:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, the techniques used for lithography were truly amazing, sometimes a dozen stone plates were prepared for as many printing colors, and the artist had to do the colour separation in his mind! The lines are the actual handiwork of the artist - sometime they used tools, like finely toothed steel knives, to scratch in details of their design. --Janke | Talk 08:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

•  Support Samsara 02:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Support awesome. pfctdayelise 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose the lines in the middle are distracting (if people will submir historica stuff I will criticise it). Also scans should be higher resolution as there is no reason not to. Justinc 10:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Rodge500 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Strong support totally cool --Groucho 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Support  Strong support Jossifresco 23:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral →  Calderwood 07:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)