Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Immaculate Conception

Immaculate Conception

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 04:51:59 (UTC)

Reason: High Ev as lead image, good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Immaculate Conception, etc
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Bartolomé Esteban Murillo

Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this one better? Tomer T (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's much better. Particularly, there are Holy Spirit and the serpent of sin, being trampled by Mary. Brandmeister^talk 15:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added it as an alt as it is better. Spongie555 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tiepolo's is closer to Francisco Pacheco's ideal (not that that necessarily makes it better, of course) Yomangani ^talk 12:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, why are we considering two different paintings made 100 years apart in different countries? Chick Bowen 16:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To determine which one depicts the Immaculate Conception better :) Brandmeister^talk 10:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The alt is much better, but I saddly can not view the image on full size. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think File:Bartolomé Esteban Perez Murillo 021.jpg is the best from all three. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed the image in Photoshop CS, it displays the image well after about 1 minute of loading. Brandmeister^talk 11:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both I'm not sure how the original is illustrating the Immaculate Conception. The original looks more like a generic painting of Mary despite its title. I don't think that the alt is a particularly encyclopedic illustration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it seems to show other parts of beliefs about Mary. These images might get FP for placement in other articles, but I don't think either of them should be featured for their use in Immaculate Conception. Pine^✉ 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any doubt that they are paintings of the Immaculate Conception. They follow (to greater or lesser extents) Pacheco's idea of how to represent it. The Annunciation was rather easy to depict - Gabriel turns up, Mary looks shocked, mouths "You're kidding" - but the moment of immaculate conception caused problems until they hit on this representation. Yomangani ^talk 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we must have one or the other as an FP for their use in the Immaculate Conception article, I prefer the original since the alt depicts Mary crushing a snake, which I think relates to beliefs that have little to do with the Immaculate Conception. I think the alt is a better depiction of beliefs about Mary in general so I might support it but I wouldn't support it for its use in this particular article. Pine^✉ 00:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt, very symbolic, although the colors are a bit dull. Brandmeister^talk 08:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is the EV supposed to be here? The alt isn't in Immaculate Conception. It's in a gallery and a museum page, where it has very little EV, and an artist page, where it isn't even mentioned. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The EV is for the Immaculate Conception page. The alt was put up so we can decide between the both of them, which one has the most EV so we can change the lead image of the Immaculate Conception article with the winner. Spongie555 (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - FPC doesn't decide what the lead image in an article is. We'd only replace an image with an edited version of it, not an entirely different image. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt first needs to be placed for the minimum period in the articles where EV has been claimed, and a new nomination created for proper assessment. Julia\^talk 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]