Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great Wave off Kanagawa2.jpg

File:Great Wave off Kanagawa2.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2009 at 20:02:36

•  Info created by Katsushika Hokusai - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova, restored from File:Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg by Durova -- Durova (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Good representation of Japanese art. →Diti the penguin — 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Georgez (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Question - Before the obvious support to one of the most beautiful images of all times, I need some clarification. What is the date of this particular printing? And what is its relation with this other one? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Library of Congress bibliographic notes were nonspecific about the date of the printing. To the best of my knowledge it bears no particular relation to the image you linked. Actually I located this version as a suggested replacement for the other, which is featured at en:wiki but failed FPC and VI here. If you review the VI nomination you'll see my objections. Was lucky to spot a very high resolution TIFF at LoC. Best, Durova (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice picture and could be featured, yet commons is not about promoting already promoted internationally known pictures, but about promoting a new work. Or unknown work. Simply contributing with new or not known well media. This is the same case like the guys having a break on a girder in NYC. --Aktron (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment FP is about showcasing the best available on commons, not necessarily promoting new/unknown work. QI fits your description better. --ianaré (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support one of my favorites, nice to have at this resolution --ianaré (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Aktron. --Karel (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kanonkas_(talk) 11:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with the Aktron's principle, but this is an very high quality scan. We should really have a "fast-track" for technically perfect scans of internationally known artwork. We can't evaluate them the same way. Or should we try? Should we ignore the fact that this is a well known painting and try to evaluate it's effectiveness in illustrating the ocean? Or do we evaluate the technical quality of the scan? I think there should be an entirely different process then FPC for this kind of image. In the meantime, I will abstain from voting in this discussion. --J.smith (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually the scan wasn't quite technically perfect. That's one of the reasons I put hours into restoring this. On a file this size restoration takes a lot of labor. Ideally that labor should seem invisible to anyone but another restorationist, so I'll take that abstention as high compliment. Durova (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Haros (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment As per J.smith. Abstaining on this one. I think a separate "historical" section might be good. Where more emphasis is placed on the quality of the scan, etc.

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)