Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2015 at 08:24:49 (UTC)

Support as nominator – PetarM (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – this image could improve sculptor François Dieussart's page Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's going on with the background? Is it faked? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn I made background to extract sculpture in better way. I don't agree with Crisco, if you compare with original museum background this one is much better. Otherwise I would left it of course, and spare few hours of work.--PetarM (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the background is quite distracting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quite like the background, it's regal. — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Regretfully, in part for the background issues mentioned above. But also, at full size, the edges of the bust are sharp and jagged (as if it has been cropped from its original background). In some areas it seems like the background color appears to slightly bleed onto the bust.--Godot13 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godot13 Could you show me that areas with note, I did handle edges carefully. What you see as bleed if diffraction of original red background. --PetarM (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to highlight the area with a notes box because it is much of the space where the marble edge of the bust meets the background. It is more pronounced around the curvature of the head. I've highlighted three example areas.--Godot13 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, not done. Blurred in a few locations, but the rough/jagged edges (at full size) remain...--Godot13 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Background is ok for me. --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the background issue. I think it's a bit weird that people are so obsessed with fake backgrounds at the Commons FPC process. It should be resisted here. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Soundwaweserb (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – FP criteria 8 says "correcting". Removing and replacing a large portion of an image is more like "transforming" rather than correcting – unless the original had a similar (blank) background. Side Note: there is an unnatural line on the base pedestal, right side toward the back, it shows at 200%. Bammesk (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bammesk at 200% ?! I suppose people can open it in 100%. So what can you bring in 500% ? I cant see nothing when opened normal. --PetarM (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PetarM, it shows at 100% too, but it is easier to see at 200%. It is Ok to enlarge images for inspection. To be clear, this is not why I opposed, this is a side note. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC) (It is a bright line 1px wide 100px long on top surface of the top pedestal close to the right-back corner)[reply]

@Bammesk You were right, that was from my smudge tool (doing edges before as per some requests). Now corrected. Thanx. --PetarM (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per background issue. sst✈^discuss 15:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is only a 63.63% support, which isn't enough for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]