Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Meninas (1656)

Las Meninas (1656)
Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014  at 16:31:20 (UTC)
 * Reason:High EV, iconic image from the 17th century
 * Articles in which this image appears:Las Meninas, Diego Velázquez, List of cultural icons of Spain
 * FP category for this image:Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Diego Velázquez


 * Support Alt as nominator –  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support ANY Great painting. As it is said: Las Meninas has long been recognised as one of the most important paintings in Western art history. True. Las Meninas” (1656) by Diego Velázquez is the masterpiece of Spanish painting, and one of the most important paintings in the world. And all serious art books say exactly the same... 100 (0) most famous paintings in the world's museums(German) And a really big file too... and the article is a Featured article on the picture, well, what do we want more? Yes, it is great. Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Question - Why's this being used over the source? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm really just not very good at this at all, am I? Can you tell me how I can fix it, please ?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on why that image is not being used... if it's because the image is too dark, for instance, what we can do is different than if some editor decided the colours looked off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Crisco is thinking about an even bigger file, not a Google file but a Google Earth file. Look at the picture file, down there it say: description, author, Source File:Las Meninas, by Diego Velázquez, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg. Not 3,475 × 4,000 but holy smoke, that is 26,065 × 30,000 pixels! (I don't think it is dark, though). --Hafspajen (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I said: why is the lower resolution version being used over its source file, the massive Google image. The nominated version appears to have been lightened considerably, but why not work from the original image? It's more valuable like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably just simple ignorance. Changed it, I think the original image is much more valuable, yes. --Hafspajen (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope it sticks.` — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But it was in the article from the beginning. It looks like the person who removed that image in article got blocked. Hafspajen (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, can I change this nomination to the google earth file, and if so, how do I do it? The google earth image seems to be used in lots of articles: 1656 in art; Baroque painting; Court painter; History of painting to list just a handful that it's been in for a long time ... or should I just withdraw the nomination?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  09:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to download the google earth file via the link twice, and get the message "The image [file ref] cannot be displayed because it contains errors". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably because it is too big... Eh, now - is there anyone who will start supporting it? Truly this is a masterwork. We should have this image as a FP. Or is it too small, this one? One can't open an art history book  without being nose to nose with this painting. Hafspajen (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Support alt Landmark painting. Large scan shows technique and condition very well. (well my "optical fibre" connection stops at the end of the street, maybe I'd better go take a look, see if it's too big to go through the copper wire ) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some strange white dots down the bottom half of the right hand side on the largest version I can see ( without moving out of my lovely house in the countryside for the sake of faster broadband; I prefer to be a bumpkin ). What are they and are they in the humongous version? (Or are they just my PC trying to be funny? Hahaha PC, very good; why don't you grow up?) Belle (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The edge of the frame (also visible at the bottom)- the "bump" decoration reflecting light. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdraw – Thanks for your supports, Hafs and Xanthy and I apologise for having wasted your time. Obviously I made a mistake and I withdraw the nomination.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  05:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What mistake? Very good nom... just wondering why the huge Google image is not used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good nom. Seem to be able to download the GE version successfully now. I'm not sure why the frame is visible- the left and top edges of the painting seem to have a shadow cast by the frame. I suppose the Google team's desire to include the whole of the painting over-rides any aesthetic considerations regarding cropping. In the lower right corner there is an example of pentimenti- the ghost of the original position of the child's leg. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that what earlier was mentioned att the Wikipedia:Featured picture talk, it should also apply here - not only to the person mentioned there but actually EVERYBODY - people, please try not to make to many jokes that can be misunderstood, please. Whithout knowing it, people can get hurt. Try everyone to keep comments at a professional level, at the point, SRITCTLY SO: Yes, she is upset, because the words: (without moving out of my lovely house in the countryside for the sake of faster broadband; I prefer to be a bumpkin) - might very well refer to her, because she lives in a very old big house that is several hundred years old in the Scottish Highlands and her  broadband is slow, so please stop joking. I don't know WHAT point this remark was meant to prove when mentioned here, but it clearly hit the nominator. This is the definition of the bumpkin, NOT NICE  I would be much obliged if it would be striken or removed. Also, if we would just try not to be overly humoristic, one never knows who might missunderstand it.  Thanks.  (Also, an apologize would be quite motivated, I wasn't affraid of apologize to Belle when I made a stupid remark about ... well, a thing.)  I would hate loosing Phil as a contributor at FP. The nomination has three supports already, it would be a shame to withdraw it. Hafspajen (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've struck that and apologised (though I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to myself, that apparently wasn't the case) Belle (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support alt (added above). The (undocumented) edit looks much too bright compared to other scans of this painting, and our old FP (File:Las Meninas 01.jpg, straight from the Prado) supports that. We absolutely should have a version of this painting to feature. Definitely not a waste of time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * YES; File:Las Meninas 01.jpg - it say: This image was previously a featured picture, but community consensus determined that it no longer meets our featured-picture criteria. If you have a high-quality image that you believe meets the criteria, be sure to upload it, using the proper free-license tag, then add it to a relevant article and nominate it. I think this is a very wise nomination, Phil. Well done. Hafspajen (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support alt: per nom. Thanks Sagaciousphil. Fylbecatulous talk 15:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 16:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)