Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fields Medal

Fields Medal
Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 14:42:01 (UTC)
 * Reason:A high-quality, rights-cleared image of the medal, front and back. Set nomination - I see no reason not to feature both sides.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Fields Medal
 * FP category for this image: Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
 * Creator:Stefan Zachow


 * Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Hmm, for such a prestigious award the detail is not as smooth as I would've thought - great quality images, but can't we just merge the two into one image? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  16:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not with how they're used, really. Plus, it'd look awkward: there'd be a definite border. Also, they're not exactly the same size, which might be noticeable after the merge (might just be a different crop). Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as for it not being smooth: I'm not quite sure when the design was finalised (there was a 14 year gap between the first award and the second), but it's similar to other mid 20th century designs, so I believe that was just the style in vogue at the time. Art deco, maybe? I'm not really an art historian. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I thought the reverse was crooked at first, but it appears the banner just isn't square. Cowtowner (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Copyright status link is at, by the way. There's currently a protected copy on en-wiki, so I can't update it in a way that'll let it be seen just yet. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent images, no reason to oppose.  upstate NYer  20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose White or black background. (Consider a scanner for images like this.) Gut Monk (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a solid rationale as to why a red background like this is inappropriate? Cowtowner (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot use a scanner for three-dimensional objects. Further, as it happens, I haven't won a Fields Medal for outstanding achievement in mathematics, so don't have the option of redoing this myself with a different background (plus, I'm not sure I'd have the right to release the image even if we did: we have these because the group responsible for passing out Fields medals specifically arranged for it to be released without copyright. Had they not done so, I don't think we could use any image of the medal designed in 1933.
 * Why would you say that? Of course you can use a scanner for 3D objects, especially ones with limited depth like this medal. We have plenty of examples for that on commons. --Dschwen 18:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, cutting images out to add a new background - particularly in situations like this, where it changes the context from a presentation box to floating in space without the edge of the medal visible - always looks horrible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I just saw the fuzziness around the coin and thought a scanner would clean this. Gut Monk (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's atypical. Most objects have a white or black background.  White or black contrasts best. (Shadows are aloud, though.) Gut Monk (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see being atypical as a drawback (it might be if this were cartography); as for contrast, the medal is in no danger of blending into the background. Cowtowner (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. Cheers for consensus. Gut Monk (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers to that indeed. A second round to a support vote ;-) ?Cowtowner (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Good quality images, and I think the background adds to the EV. --Avenue (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting image. Interesting subject. Greg L (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Avenue. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC) and --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)