Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bracteate from Funen, Denmark (DR BR42)

Bracteate from Funen, Denmark (DR BR42)

Original A Migration Period Germanic gold bracteate featuring a depiction of a bird, horse, and stylized head wearing a Suebian knot sometimes theorized to represent Germanic god Wōden and what would later become Sleipnir and Hugin or Munin in Germanic mythology, later attested in the form of Norse mythology. The runic inscription includes the religious term alu.

Edit 1 Brightened per request.

This bracteate represents a number of concepts unfamiliar with many but rich in information and I believe it meets all of the quality requirements. The bracteate is about the size of a large coin, and I believe this is a faithful and very detailed photograph of an object from around the 5th century the size of a coin.

Nominated by: :bloodofox: (talk) ~~06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Seconded by: Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my first try at moving an image from WP:PPR, forgive me if I messed up a little
Support, prefer Original The colours, while dark, are probably about right for gold of that age. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While it's my own work, I think it's most appropriate for a featured picture in that not only do I believe it meets the technical specifications required, but also that it has heavy encyclopedic value: many people would find this otherwise heavily under represented subject matter of interest. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless it can be brightened. Poor exposure. Otherwise a good image. The subject is the coin, not the display lighting. —Pengo 05:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added a brightened version. Is that an improvement? (Just so nobody gets confused, it's also technically not a coin but a bracteate.) :bloodofox: (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This image shows one of the finest bracteates from the time, and is of high quality. The concepts represented on the bracteate are, as bloodofox said, unfamiliar for many; a great reason to enlighten people. I think the contrast between the black background and the warm gold creates a very good tone. –Holt T•C 07:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor exposure. It must be possible to obtain a better photo of a bracteate.smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have people never looked at the coin and medal displays in museums? This is the colour they become. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am also confused about these comments of the image being "blown out", and, frankly, I don't see how a photograph of a bracteate could much better unless it were shot with an increased megapixel coint, if at all - especially when shot through glass and with 10x zoom. Perhaps some further background on the object is required: this is exactly what the object looks look. The object is from the Migration Period: all those details you see are on an object the size of a coin from around the 5th century, originally worn around the neck, somehow escaping being melted down, then either dug out of the ground or in a private collection for who knows how long and under who knows what conditions until ending up in a museum collection - so it's not going to look like mint. There's nothing obscured here - this is exactly what this ancient Migration Period object looks like - it is not a reconstruction. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support either. Excellent detail. Assuming the patina is intact, the color should be darker than normal, as it is here. The photo was a little underexposed (no features in the darkest crevices), but the damage is minimal. We have promoted images with more blown highlights/shadows than this. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-10 16:39Z
Support either. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Brightened looks pretier, but the original is more, errrmmm... encyclopedic? Anyway, both are great. Druworos (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't seem to show enough detail.Becky Sayles (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you be more specific? Do you realize this is an object the size of a coin? There's no more detail to show - this is it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Original, neutral edit the original is too dark, but the edit isn't a great image.Dwayne Reed (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per smooth Greener Cactus (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]