Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mona Lisa

Mona Lisa

It seems self-evident that the Mona Lisa should be included in Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork. It is probably the best-known painting of all time. If someone finds something wrong with this version of the file, it should be easy to upload a better quality image.

Nominate and support. - Arctic Gnome 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~Support - ~~I'm amazed it took this long; good catch.~~ Redquark's right, the image quality isn't amazing, but I still support it becuase it appears to be the main image for the Mona Lisa. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Iriseyes 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Heavy JPEG artifacts and too small. I would support if the entire image was of the quality of this closeup of face (though I would prefer even higher quality than that). If it's easy to find a high-quality scan, please do so. Redquark 18:43, 14 December 2006 (
Oppose We can do way better. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed, too small. Would support a large, good scan. For this particular subject, I think we should even insist on more then the minimum 1000 px. --Janke | Talk 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're right; it probably is too small. I've found some larger images, but the colour is slightly different in each of them. Someone with better knowledge about the painting should find the scan that best represents it. --Arctic Gnome 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose horrible image quality. Clear artifacts, low resolution. We should be able to get some comically huge scan of this image somehow. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose It should be trivial to get a gigantic, microscopic-detailed version of this, but please someone find one cause ol mona should definately be featured --⁪froth^{T C} 22:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on image quality. The infamy of the image you speak of is exactly why quality is especially important here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the owners are preventing freely licensed high quality scans from being made. There are amazing scans out there, but copyrighted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copyright is dubious on an accurate scan with no creative effort. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. says such scans on old artworks are PD under US law at least. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is this then: [1] HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damn, 12800 x 8800 pixels. That's almost as big as Image:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg. Someone want to beg them for a copy? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, but I think the fact that they scanned the painting using technology they created and nobody else shares allows them to copyright the results, not as a painting, but as results of a creative device... Not sure, but they are limiting licensing of the results on their webpage. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A great portrait; a lousy photo. Get a better, hiDEF image, and I'll support. Sharkface217 04:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo does not do justice to the original painting. Try again pls =) -Advanced 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above.--Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the Mona Lisa may be a famous painting, but it needs to be high quality to be a featured picture. --RandomOrca2 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: A higher-quality reproduction of this painting is now available at File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg if anyone is interested in nominating it. Also, since 2006, the PD-Art policy has made it clear that this kind of reproduction is free of copyright problems. Dcoetzee 20:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]