Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kufic script

Kufic script
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014  at 19:38:04 (UTC)


 * Reason:Image is of high quality and resolution, subject is in focus. It illustrates the kufic script in detail.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Kufic, Quran
 * FP category for this image:WP:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, WP:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Religion and mythology
 * Creator:Akif Sahin


 * Support as nominator – Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ mail  19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this is meant to illustrate Kufic script, wouldn't a written example have more value? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume that you are meaning handwritten, yes it is. If you are referring to a scanned image, I have including an Alt. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk  ✉ mail  14:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what Crisco 1492 is talking about either (not dissing him; I just don't understand), but the original is much the better of the two pictures. Unfortunately the bleed-through from the reverse of the page makes it a bit indistinct. Belle (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bleed through might be expected on a handwritten manuscript. Anyway, the contrast is high enough to outweigh the bleed somewhat. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk  ✉ mail  19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fauzan appears to have understood just fine. Since the source says handschrift, I guess you're right about it being hand-written. Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A fine image for illustrating the script. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A fine handmade image illustrating the Quran, one of the most important religious scripts. Hafspajen (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose original, weak support alt 1 I don't like the angle and unsharp focus throughout the image. It's better to present the entire page, which alt 1 does, but it's slightly below the minimum size requirements. Brandmeistertalk  08:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - re: Original, beautiful script for sure, but it would be great if we could get a photo of an original rather than a photo of a print/book reproduction of an original - Tokugawapants (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't the original image a photograph of an original? That gold leaf doesn't look like something that's printed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Just to clarify, I'm referring to the original as in :, not File:4.8-17-1990-Guld-koranside-recto-og-verso.jpg. The gold leaf from File:4.8-17-1990-Guld-koranside-recto-og-verso.jpg looks authentic. Anyway, I'll concede that I'm not 100% sure that : is a photo of a reprint/reproduction, but I strongly suspect it. If you zoom in 100% (or see File:Quran_Kufic_script-closeup.jpg), you see a pattern that strongly resembles the pattern seen in offset printing (example). It's possible that the pattern is actually the texture of the paper, but the resemblance to the pattern (shape- and color-wise) is uncanny, and although I don't know much about the material that this kind of calligraphy would appear on, I have a feeling that it wouldn't have a coarse, canvas-like texture like this. The source of the image is a Flickr page, and that page doesn't give any information about the actual source. I anyone else could weigh in on this it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Tokugawapants (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Image description of alt contradicts the article about whether Kufic could have originated in Kufa or not (image description says, "erroneously believed to have originated", but article has a reference from the British Museum - reliable source?). I think this should be resolved. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 19:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)