Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Along the River During the Qingming Festival, original Song Dynasty painting

Along the River During the Qingming Festival, Song Dynasty original

 * Reason:This is a fairly high quality image of the 12th century original 'Along the River During the Qingming Festival' by Zhang Zeduan. There are several pictures of sections of the original painting and even a featured picture of the 18th century Qing Dynasty (Which looks very different) copy but there are no other images of the full Song Dynasty original on wikipedia except for this. I know that the quality is not perfect but it is fairly decent considering it is about 900 years old and it is quite large and it is a very rare picture of the Song Dynasty original so I am hoping people take this into consideration
 * Articles this image appears in:Zhang Zeduan, Qingming Festival, Along the River During the Qingming Festival
 * Creator:wikiuser

Promoted. -- Meld    shal   15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in spite of the lossy compression this is spectacular enough that I'll make an exception. Good find!  (Any chance of stitching those seams?)  Durova Charge! 02:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems already featured... MER-C 02:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this picture is not already featured. The picture that you are talking about in an 18th century Qing Dynasty replica and it is very different from the 12th century Song Dynasty original that I uploaded. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I'm conflicted, because it's an amazing composition (more interesting in a lot of ways than the Qing Dynasty reinterpretation) and there is much more detail than in a typical FP, but the reproduction falls way, way short of the level of detail in the actualy painting.  It's unsatisfying because, as good as it is, most viewers will wish it was better.--ragesoss (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It's an absolute masterpiece; certainly one of the most important historical visual mediums to come out of China, let alone a brilliant piece of medieval art.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 05:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I'm mesmerized. It does have encyclopedic value on top of that, but I just adore it.  How will this look on the main page, though?  I didn't even see the thumbnail the first time around, it's not compelling to click on.  --Blechnic (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support very nice and encyclopedic to boot. Cat-five - talk 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment is it just me or is the thumbnailing system choking on this image, I wonder if it's because it's such a large image. Cat-five - talk 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support While it's certainly a masterpiece, one might wish for a bit more resolution, and at only 7 megabytes for this resolution, you could probably get it to 800, 1000 px tall before Commons got upset at you. However, I accept that the ideal is not always what's possible =) That said, can we get some of those details from that site it's taken from, as a compensation prize? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well I did make a copy that is 1000 px tall, but I am worried about it's quality. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspend nomination If you upload it, I'm sure the image restorers here can help out and fix some of the quality issues =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose now. I thought the original looked great, but the color changes you've made have burned out the image. Please upload such changes under a different name so that they can be compared side-by-side and voted on separately. Support original. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-08-04 20:43Z
 * Yep, agree with Brian. I didn't realise a new version had been uploaded over the top of the old one. I did think it looked too different (not in a good way) and didn't quite know why. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the original per uploader request and struck out my vote. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-08-04 23:12Z
 * If you just want to revert to the original version, I can do that for you (doing it now). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-08-04 23:10Z
 * Comment No, I want to delete the image (I have already marked it for deletion) and delist the nomination. After it is deleted and delisted I want to re-upload and renominate the original. I want to start fresh with the votes because some people voted for the new version and the old version so the support for the image is sort of messed up. Also I don't want somebody else taking credit for my upload, which is one of the reasons why I want to start all over. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the original text of this nom and moved it back to its original place in the list of candidates. Remember: when in doubt, don't do anything :) &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-08-05 14:20Z
 * Oppose 608 pixels for a vertical resolution is quite low, considering the large size of the original painting, and it is a low quality scan Thisglad (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose sally. Better resolution is absolutely essential for this image. M.K. (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)