Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2009 at 03:16:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created by Mary Cassatt - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Under the horse chestnut tree.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Simply fantastic! Finally something human, the subject captures so many realities and emotions of human existence (parenthood, childhood, joy, care, motherly love, happiness all in one). Besides that, its a fine art work of an outstanding painter. --Zakharii 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As above. Plus: good restoration work. To my eye, you were able to remove dust specks, &c., without compromising the authentic appearance of the work. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral excellent restoration work as always but I really don't like the piece, sorry --ianaré (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Oppose Still missing {{Retouched}} template. Lycaon (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All edits performed are fully documented in the other versions section. I'm no fan of that template; with this sort of work it obscures the links to intermediate versions and confuses the reader with arbitrarily different layout as they navigate between unedited and edited versions of the same image. But you're welcome to add the template yourself if you feel that strongly. Durova (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fee strongly about it for reasons outlined below. But it is up to the author to add it, as he alone knows what has been altered from the original. Lycaon (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually as stated above, the alterations have already been documented in the other versions section. Best practice is to document all such things, and I do. You are welcome to copy and paste that if you feel so strongly. Nowhere in the featured picture standards, however, is such a template required. If you wish to introduce novel standards please discuss the proposed innovations at talk. Durova (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it was a requirement I would have FPX'ed or opposed (I still might, actually). As it is now it is just common practice do use this kind of templates. Lycaon (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It comes across as very odd that you appear more interested in templating than in the fact that we've obtained a very high resolution image by an important artist. Especially since the file itself is fully documented and the template would be redundant. If you wish to learn restoration and find out what works in terms of documentation I'd be glad to help you get started. Otherwise the feedback and input you wish to give on this subject is likely to be counterproductive, even with the best of intentions. Durova (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Talking about counterproductivity, I don't understand why you adamantly refuse to add all the kind of information/documentation that is possible. There are more ways to access info on an image than reading the image description. Multi-approach categorization, which is supported by the use of templates, constitutes a large part of how Commons works. Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I do not think that you can talk about "retouched" when you consider a restoration. In a retouche I would expect the original to be equal to the derivative. In a restoration the derivative aims to show what the original looked like at one time.[reply]
  •  Support —kallerna™ 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose one reason & one reason only; i agree with lycaon, there needs to be a template on this file for "retouched" or "restored"; i'm flexible as to which (or both), but when an image is altered in any way from its original form, that change needs to be documented & marked into the file info accordingly. not doing so is bad archival practice & leads to confusion. keeping careful track of changes, & having that change-tracking information available in such a way that it is immediately clear to anyone looking @ the filepage is necessary; both for art, & for historical documents. anything less risks "changing" history, whether that is the intention or not. ten years from now, how easy will it be to for an inexperienced person to backtrack & figure this out? get the template issue resolved (with changes documented & noted) & my vote changes to "support" :) Lx 121 (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Under_the_horse_chestnut_tree2.jpg&oldid=21195622"