Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Christopher Columbus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 16:39:16 (UTC)

OriginalPortrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus, completed by Sebastiano del Piombo in 1519, is thought to be a post-humous portrait of the Italian explorer Christopher Columbus, who was long considered the first European to reach the Americas. His voyages initiated the Spanish colonization of the New World.
Reason
Considering I named myself after him, I can't really turn this down. High quality scan of a useful image. Note that no contemporary portraits of Columbus are known, allowing this to have high EV in his article.
Articles in which this image appears
Christopher Columbus, Catholic Monarchs, History of Puerto Rico, Liguria, The Last Voyage of Columbus.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering, perhaps?
Creator
Sebastiano del Piombo
  • Comment. (edit conflict) I would never oppose this type of nomination, although as the one who reverted this file's inclusion in the article on Columbus, I have serious concerns about this image. It is darker and grayer with less contrast than the status quo image in the article. Since most of Wikipedia's readers are non-experts in the worlds of art and professional photography, they probably won't grasp the aesthetic value of the "inner beauty" of this candidate and would opt for the "better appearance" of the existing .png image in the article. I very much appreciate the high values of Crisco 1492 both in terms of this choice of candidate and his distaste for an unproductive edit war. I would welcome that contributor's launch of an RfC on the talk page of the Columbus article. That way we would be better able to determine which of the two images is more appropriate for that encyclopedia article, and perhaps for any other article as well. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFCs are a bit of overkill for anything like this. The issue with digital manipulation (which the PNG has, for certain) is that it almost always modifies the color of the work to an unrealistic level. There are no pure whites in the real world, certainly not 255/255/255 like Columbus' collar. The loss of detail there is frightening. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paine Ellsworth: The Google Art Project is a reliable source for information on what paintings look like. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We cannot actively mislead readers on the actual appearance of a key early document, any more than we could arbitrarily change the text of an early source while presenting it as the original. It is never, ever an improvement to actively mislead our readers: Paintings are one-off objects; They aren't like photos where different prints can have radically different levels. Where are you seeing Crisco saying you're right? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "right direction", not right. I much prefer the (presumably accurate) Met scan, but if Paine insists on having an edit, something that doesn't blow out the highlights is indubitably "the right direction". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the right direction, so you agree that there is a better direction to go. I don't feel we're misleading readers if we highlight with discretion so they can at least get a better view of the subject, in this case a great painted portrait of who is most likely Columbus. I suppose the point is moot, now. Joys to all! – Paine  17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]