Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/L'Innocence

L'Innocence
thumb|250px|Alternate 1 - An innocent man having his hat blown off. Huge, simply tremendous EV, very nice piece of art, illustrates the subject well.
 * Reason:A beautiful image of cultural and historic value. Well known and pleasing to the eye. Good use in articles.
 * Articles this image appears in:Innocence
 * Creator:William-Adolphe Bouguereau


 * Support as nominator, Oppose Alternative -- Jor dan  Contribs  18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a large enough image, given the size and level of detail in the painting itself.--ragesoss (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question How big is the real painting?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 39 1/4 x 20 5/8 inches, according to the Art Renewal Center (which is probably the source of the image, as well, although it's marked as unknown source)--ragesoss (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support ...Which means that it has about a 1:2 ratio with the original. I'd like it to be bigger, but take it out of Good and Evil and it will do.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment--I'm wondering about the encyclopedic value of this image. It's use in Good and evil is kind of dubious, given that "good" and "innocence" are two distinct philosophical concepts and this is explicitly only one of them. Isn't there another image somewhere that illustrates "good" more directly? Chick Bowen 01:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, I think I'll suggest Image:Good Samaritan (Watts).jpg at the talk page there. Chick Bowen 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Chick Bowen. Art needs to stand on it's own, these abstract concepts of "innocence" and "good" can not be used to add EV to it. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I does add a lot of EV to the otherwise unillustratable (?) article Innocence (the painting is named L'Innocence, for crying out loud), but unfortunately there is a problem with its placement in Good and Evil. Might I suggest removing it from that article? It might have more of a chance only in Innocence. But that's just my opinion. Good picture nonetheless. You can even see some of the canvas fibers. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Response The image has been removed from the article Good and Evil, as per apparent consensus. Jor  dan  Contribs  18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it has good EV in Innocence. We'd be hard-pressed to come up with another image that illustrates a philosophical concept like that so well. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I see a frantic looking woman stealing a lamb and a child, far from innocent. Thats the cool thing about art and abstract concepts: anything can be accurate as it is all up to the interpretation of the reader. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. would make a nice FP PYMontpetit (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.94.54 (talk)
 * Support. I think it meets the criteria Tokugawapants (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Just above the halfway mark (vertically) and immediately right of her left elbow, there's an odd paleness in the shadow that looks like a wear mark or something. Is this part of the painting or a problem in the reproduction or scan? Should it be fixed? Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on art, but based on other online copies of the painting, it seems that the white streak is part of the original. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Very good EV., and ofcourse oppose alternative. — Nvineeth talk 06:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Excellent encyclopaedic value for the article "Innocence", but I am concerned that the image is unsourced on its description page at commons. Oppose Alternate 1 - everyone knows that a man with a black hat is never innocent. Melburnian (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate 1 as per caption :) Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Any Alternative 1 is unfortunately on the small side... -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original - Excellent image and excellent EV, pedantic discussions of imagery and semiotics remind me of high schoolers in a basic ethics course (but kudos to those who use tongue-in-cheek humor!) — Noraad 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anytime. Jor  dan  Contribs  18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha now we can blame you next time we get off topic ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I'd best watch out. If I'm not careful, this might devolve into a humorous conversation relation to various obscure and abstract ideas about art. I think that this should be avoided at all costs. Of course, if anyone wants to start up a similar conversation to the previous one, I'd be sure to oblige. Jor  dan  Contribs  09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But you're such an expert in an intangible concept like "innocence" that you are qualified to evaluate the encyclopaedic value of this submission eh Noraad? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Very pretty picture. The artist has captured the essence of innocence very well. Priyananda (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see "very pretty" on the list of requirements for FPC... --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)