Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Napoleon

Napoleon
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 06:47:52 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution, good image, notable painting, free... and, of course, it's Napoleon.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Napoleon, The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries, etc.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Political
 * Creator:Jacques-Louis David


 * Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt as well, actually prefer it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The painting is definitely showing it's age, bringing forth the argument as to whether a minor cleanup would be a good thing or sacrilege against a work of art, but otherwise it's quite nice. I almost feel like we need a Belgian to oppose on principle though.  Cat-five  t  c   06:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of sacrilege: it's just that a painting is a material object that exists in the present, and thus should be represented as it actually is, unlike a photograph or a poster, any given print of which is just an instance of an inherently repeatable ideal image. Chick Bowen 04:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I could actually see editing photographs of paintings to remove reflections sometimes - occasionally you get a situation where there's a lot of little reflections on the paint, particularly if it's cracked a bit, but these are completely dependent on angle the flash comes from, so not an inherent part of the painting. Never done it, though; it's way too easy to get that wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, in this case, there aren't any unemphasized cracks that would justify de-emphasizing the ones that are visible. So they shouldn't be edited, and I support alt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarifying that I am supporting the alt as well. --King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose [original] Please forgive me, but this image is missing part of the top and a lot of the bottom of the painting, which can be viewed at File:Jacques-Louis David - The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries - Google Art Project.jpg. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 03:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Added as alt. Chick Bowen 04:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll support alt. I was originally disappointed with the resolution of the painting (yes, it's big, but not massive) and would be neutral about even the alt version, but according to the Commons category, it seems Google Art accepted what they could get, which means this is probably the best scan of the painting available to anyone outside of the gallery. I compared both images and the Google Art image and the colors and resolution seem to match perfectly. (I'm curious how the image was taken from Google Art, and I'm not finding any explanation on Dcoetzee's talk pages yet.) – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 05:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Coetzee has his bot download the individual tiles, then stitch them together. I've done it manually (tool assisted in GIMP) with an image, although I forget which... different site though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, here it is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's definitely a concern of mine, if this is taken from screen captures or actual scan files buried in the Google Art source code. Because to be honest, I can't tell. At Google Art, I can zoom in and take a screenshot and I'm pretty sure it'll look exactly the same. Alt is showing as 96.52 pixels per inch, which seems rather low for a scan. I'm not sure if there's a standard for FP either? (150 ppi or greater?) – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 06:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FP? only gives number of pixels, not PPI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I wasn't sure if there was some "underground" rule on that. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 09:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: There are two support !votes indented above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 06:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)