Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bracteate from Funen, Denmark (DR BR42)

Bracteate from Funen, Denmark (DR BR42)
This bracteate represents a number of concepts unfamiliar with many but rich in information and I believe it meets all of the quality requirements. The bracteate is about the size of a large coin, and I believe this is a faithful and very detailed photograph of an object from around the 5th century the size of a coin.


 * Nominated by: bloodofox: (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded by: Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is my first try at moving an image from WP:PPR, forgive me if I messed up a little
 * Support, prefer Original The colours, while dark, are probably about right for gold of that age. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. While it's my own work, I think it's most appropriate for a featured picture in that not only do I believe it meets the technical specifications required, but also that it has heavy encyclopedic value: many people would find this otherwise heavily under represented subject matter of interest. bloodofox: (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it can be brightened. Poor exposure. Otherwise a good image. The subject is the coin, not the display lighting. —Pengo 05:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added a brightened version. Is that an improvement? (Just so nobody gets confused, it's also technically not a coin but a bracteate.) bloodofox: (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. This image shows one of the finest bracteates from the time, and is of high quality. The concepts represented on the bracteate are, as bloodofox said, unfamiliar for many; a great reason to enlighten people. I think the contrast between the black background and the warm gold creates a very good tone. –Holt T•C 07:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor exposure. It must be possible to obtain a better photo of a bracteate. smooth0707 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment have people never looked at the coin and medal displays in museums? This is the colour they become. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am also confused about these comments of the image being "blown out", and, frankly, I don't see how a photograph of a bracteate could much better unless it were shot with an increased megapixel coint, if at all - especially when shot through glass and with 10x zoom. Perhaps some further background on the object is required: this is exactly what the object looks look. The object is from the Migration Period: all those details you see are on an object the size of a coin from around the 5th century, originally worn around the neck, somehow escaping being melted down, then either dug out of the ground or in a private collection for who knows how long and under who knows what conditions until ending up in a museum collection - so it's not going to look like mint. There's nothing obscured here - this is exactly what this ancient Migration Period object looks like - it is not a reconstruction. bloodofox: (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support either. Excellent detail. Assuming the patina is intact, the color should be darker than normal, as it is here. The photo was a little underexposed (no features in the darkest crevices), but the damage is minimal. We have promoted images with more blown highlights/shadows than this. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-07-10 16:39Z
 * Support either. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either. Brightened looks pretier, but the original is more, errrmmm... encyclopedic? Anyway, both are great. Druworos (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It doesn't seem to show enough detail.Becky Sayles (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could you be more specific? Do you realize this is an object the size of a coin? There's no more detail to show - this is it. bloodofox: (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Original, neutral edit the original is too dark, but the edit isn't a great image.Dwayne Reed (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per smooth Greener Cactus (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 