Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Venus de Milo Debay drawing

Venus de Milo


From the Venus de Milo article. I think this image is very clear an clean. The art is great and when you read the article, you can't help to constantly look at this image and compare it the other "missing arms" depictions.


 * Nominate and support. - --PYMontpetit
 * Oppose Per, low detail, stitching error near her waist, missing portions in the lettering. HighInBC 19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for lameness Aye-Aye 21:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dull, this [] picture illustrates the subject more clearly.Nnfolz 22:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of low detail, dullness, and because the text below the picture would be unreadble on front page. --Ineffable3000 23:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - I have to say, some of the above justifications pain me. "lameness?" The detail seems relatively high to me - how much larger would you like to see that cross-hatching? I think the lettering was missing because it was found missing - or am I wrong about that? Readability on the front page? Dozens of labeled FPs have failed that criterion. Debivort 14:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Debivort, though an image without the arms cut off would be nicer :} Gnangarra 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I didnt notice the stitching error, support the edited version Gnangarra 09:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the stitching error at the waist is more than ample reason. Can that be fixed? gren グレン 04:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 &mdash; I have uploaded a new version without the stitching problem. My version also cleans the image a bit and darkens the lines, which helps with legibility in particular. ♠ SG →Talk 08:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why run a drawing of the sculpture for FPC when you actually have a photo?Nnfolz 17:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of this remark? We are being asked to vote on the drawing, not on a photograph (even though photos exist) - Adrian Pingstone 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason why this drawing rather than the photo, is because this image illustrate the sculpture as it was originaly found. Notice that the left arm is not completly missing as it would on any photo you might see. The text (witch is complete) says: "discovered in the Milo Island, in the month of febuary 1820, given to the King the 1st march 1821, by the Marquis de Rivière, his ambassador in Constantinople". The mystery of its missing arms as been a constant subject in popular culture. PYMontpetit
 * Support - Very nice picture, it would make a great FP. Metabaron5 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. The sharpness pushes it over the top nicely. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, call me uncultured but it's a boring drawing to me, regardless of the technical quality. —Pengo talk · contribs 06:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.255.126 (talk • contribs) (Anonymous)
 * Support - The stitching error noted above is original to the drawing. It was intended to display the meeting point of the two larger blocks of marble that form the torso and draped legs of the statue.  As for the technical quality of the drawing, while it is not essentially great art itself, it is a valuable document that shows the statue as it appeared freshly reassembled before it went on public display, including the enigmatic missing inscribed plinth and the now detached upper left arm. This drawing is also crucial to illustrate how the statue has actually been changed in just the short period of time from its discovery until it went on public display. - Jerry7171 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 04:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)