Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gypsy girl mosaic of Zeugma

Gypsy girl mosaic of Zeugma

Reason: A Roman mosaic fragment that was rediscovered in excavations during the winter of 1998-1999 in the Turkish city Zeugma.
Articles in which this image appears: Zeugma (city), Gaziantep Museum of Archeology
Creator: Commons:User:Nevit (original photograph) File:Antep 1250575 cr.jpg. Editing by Durova and Xavexgoem.

Support as nominator --Durova⁴⁰³ 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photo could be better but it's a great subject. Could this be put in any other articles? Seems like it's not meeting its potential. upstate NYer 21:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tough call. We don't seem to have an article for the ancient Roman city that modern Zeguma was built over, and the museum doesn't have an article (yet). Am up to my ears this week with Tropenmuseum work; also a Stateside institution donated something--it's a proof of concept situation and I want to turn that around quickly. So good ol' article writing is taking a backseat for the present. Durova⁴⁰³ 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment corrected spelling of city name in rationale and caption. We'd have a better sense of articles in which the image could go, if we had an era for the mosaic; the oldest artifacts at the site are described as "early bronze age," but I couldn't find anything on the web that said whether the mosaic is likely to be that old. Chick Bowen 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This one from the same site is given a date of 2nd century A.D., which sounds about right. Too bad we don't have an article on Roman mosaic. . . Chick Bowen 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think some tilting is needed to straight the image. Brand[t] 08:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created an article for the museum. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The museum is in Gaziantep, not Zeuguma! Meowy 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Meowy 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - 's what I get for multitasking. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The photograph is unusual in that it is detailed enough and sharp enough to show all of the tesserae (unlike many of the images on the mosaic article, so maybe it should be on that article too). However, one problem with it might be the colour balance, it seems a bit greenish. Meowy 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless these issues and the possible colour cast issue are solved. Taking a look at the original, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Antep_1250575_cr.jpg, reveals flaws in the altered image: the extreme right andextreme left has been cropped, there is some blurring along the bottom edges that is not on the original and does not occur at the top edges, not all of the surrounding material has been removed. The needless cropping of the original kills it for me as a featured picture candidate. Meowy 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to correct for the perspective distortion from the photographic angle it was necessary to do a perspective crop. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original looks almost free from distortion - I'd keep that small distortion if removing it means some blurring and a loss of part of the original. Meowy 01:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if white is the best background. Being lighter than the standard wiki background I find it slightly distracting, even more so viewed on a monitor. Have you tried other options, which might make the background more neutral? Elekhh (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Different WMF projects have different background tones. Durova⁴⁰³ 01:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware of that. I meant something neutral to the image, like a light-grey tone picked out from the mosaic, something like this, so that the random edges are not so distracting. Elekhh (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not that it affects my vote, but why remove the background at all? upstate NYer 01:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]