Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Armenian illuminated manuscript

Armenian illuminated manuscript
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014  at 04:49:35 (UTC)
 * Reason:Solid scan of an illuminated manuscript by Toros Roslin. Great EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Armenian illuminated manuscripts, Toros Roslin
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Others
 * Creator:Uploaded by DcoetzeeBot Painted by Toros Roslin


 * Support as nominator --Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Appears to be skewed (particularly, the horizontal lines). Brandmeistertalk  14:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, that may be true. However, I don't think that's from the scan and is likely from the painting itself. For example, it appears skewed in some places but not in other places. Nevertheless, the scan itself is of exceptional quality which is what matters in terms of FP criteria. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Things can warp with age. I'm guessing this'll be on vellum, so... Support, anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is a very good scan, but my problem is with the EV. The manuscript itself does not have an page and it appears somewhere buried in the first and in a gallery of the second. So the EV at the moment is very minimal. Would support if the manuscript in question had a wiki page. Mattximus (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Adam Cuerden is correct. It is on vellum. Being a naturl organic material of varying thickness, it shrinks in an irregular manner, causing warping and buckling. It is an excellent scan. Regarding the educational value, it's presence in two articles ought to suffice. However, it has just been upped in importance because I took the liberty of putting it as the lead picture in n Armenian illuminated manuscripts where it replaces a similar image, which was of low resolution and over-intense colouring. Amandajm (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a very nice illustration, useful in the articles, but I question the value of the crop. Yes, the focus is on the illustration, but this become misrepresentative of the shape of the actual manuscript itself and this illustration. The illustrator considered it better to leave a fairly large margin, and that margin (though empty of additions) shows the wear and tear the vellum has undergone through the ages. My (admittedly very shallow) understanding of philology is that this change has severely damaged the value of the digitization for further study. I think the crop should be reverted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I second Crisco. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the crop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support uncropped version only per my above comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support In full res it is really quite a delight to see the detail. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)