Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Napoleon III

A reply, criteria for paintings

This is a continuation of a thread on the nomination page: [1] and [2],
@Janke: caution! I tried to be complete, so it is wordy, (with a "d"!)

• My reply was about paintings only (art galleries, museums, "size of the painting"). More about paintings. . . . True we don't have a pixel per inch requirement, but it helps when judging for: "sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction". However, criteria 2 doesn't define what a "quality print reproduction" is, so I understand if anyone disagrees with the following. . . . Here is my opinion: an image should capture the details of the painting well. 1500px is not always enough. Some paintings are very large and also have lots of details. Some paintings are small and don't have much detail. So each image (scan) should be judged individually. Knowing the capture's pixel per inch rate is not required but it helps: a capture which breaks each inch into 100 pixels will grab a lot more detail than a capture which breaks each inch into 10 pixels.
• About your comments "looks quite different" and "it is impossible": Let's narrow it down to notable paintings and/or paintings by notable artists. The intent of criteria 6 is to verify. If a painting is notable enough to be FP, then chances are there are depictions of it by sources, some more reliable than others. If there are no depictions of it by reliable sources, then our votes would rely on not-so-reliable sources and/or user opinion, which goes against the intent of criteria 6 (I suppose in some cases there can be consensus on the integrity of an image without a reliable source). Also when there is a discrepancy between various versions then we should resolve the discrepancy first.
• About my oppose reason: We have two uploads. They differ in horizontal skew (expansion) and in color, plus one upload is from a source neither known for its accuracy or lack of (it is a personal website) and the most recent upload has no source. My vote is based on establishing confidence in the nominated image. Sidenote: the painting is life-size, so I figure at least 6 feet tall, 2,530 pixels and 953 KB is not a lot, so in this case the image is "technically" not that good.
• I changed: we need to know the size, on the nom page.

Bammesk (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)