Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Napoleon III

Napoleon III
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016  at 20:14:16 (UTC)
 * Reason:An interesting figure in French history. The EV is good. Quality is good. Painted by a famous French painter, Alexandre Cabanel.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Napoleon III
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Alexandre Cabanel


 * Support as nominator – Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support  lNeverCry   23:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – we don't know the source of the last upload (original upload source is a personal website and has a wider image ). sidenote: this is not a reason for oppose, there is a very different version, actually a different painting, here, . Bammesk (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC) . . . added to and revised sidenote Bammesk (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose while the sourcing issue remains. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the source is so important with an image that holds with absolute certainty the license of PD-ART|PD-old-100-1923. This is Napoleon III, so publication at the time of the painting is unquestionable. The painter died in 1889. There's really no legal issue here whatsoever.  lNeverCry   02:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * INC: we need a reliable source that establishes the integrity of the image (criteria 6), things like color rendition, contrast, sharpness. Art galleries and museum websites generally display accurate images which can establish the integrity. Other websites aren’t necessarily reliable. We It also need helps to know the size of the painting, so we know how many pixels per inch the capture is (criteria 2). Bammesk (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, pixels per inch has nothing to do with criteria 2. It only states a minimum pixel count - 1500 at this time. (A super-detailed satellite photo wouldn't even be one pixel per inch, but still acceptable...) The scan or photo looks ok to me, so I disagree with the reason for the opposes. A painting looks quite different depending in what lighting it is viewed (daylight or artificial, low or high brightness etc.) so it is impossible to judge any digital depiction without actually having seen the original. --Janke | Talk 20:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Janke, this is more about the criteria than the nom, so I replied on the nom's talk page, here: . Bammesk (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 20:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)