Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giovanna Tornabuoni: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:22, 6 December 2009

Portrait of Giovanna Tornabuoni

Reason: One of the finest portraits of medieval blonde women, nice outfit, the Latin inscription is annotated.
Articles this image appears in: House of Albizzi, Domenico Ghirlandaio
Creator: Domenico Ghirlandaio

Support as nominator --Brand[t] 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wonderful to have this at good resolution. Durova³⁷¹ 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ephemeral Oppose~~ The image is not well linked to the content of the article. It is only portraying a member of the family that is never mentioned. I will try to fix that myself but if I can't or if no one else fix it then I think the oppose will have to stay. The image looks fine to me. franklin.vp 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she is the daughter of Giovanni Tornabuoni if I find a refference the image could be used there as well. franklin.vp 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry [1] it says she is the wife of his son, Lorenzo Tornabuonni. franklin.vp 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about as an illustration for the Ghirlandaio article? There's only one true portrait shown there, and I think this is a far superior reproduction. Think it could be switched out? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Of course! added. ~~I Support now~~. franklin.vp 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and franklin. Elekhh (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ for Ghirlandaio article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that support edit (shameful for an art historian not to realize what's missing...) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why has the border been removed? Shouldn't the picture be true to the original? As you can see in this photo of the painting as it hangs in the gallery, there is a brown border around the painting which I guess is the wooden panel it was painted on. In the art book I own the painting also has the border like this version. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to crop it out. Brand[t] 08:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit has come. Brand[t] 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which version do you prefer? Snowman (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the panelled one since it indicates the natural borders and adds some EV, while the cropped version fits best for articles. Brand[t] 14:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit as in the original you alway wonder if it is a fragment of a bigger piece. franklin.vp 14:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as an example of the artist's work (I don't think it adds much to the "family" article) but I do think it could benefit from a little restoration. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there photographic problems? If not, I don't think digital editing of the flaked-off bits of paint would be necessary--there's no reason not to represent the painting as it currently exists, since no restoration is going to restore it precisely as painted anyway. Chick Bowen 00:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support original good quality portrait. The edit detracts attention from the real focus of the painting. |anon| —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chsh (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspend. The original has a serious problem. The current image was uploaded over the Yorck Project image instead of uploaded as a separate image. All of the info on the image description page refers to the Yorck image. The image needs to be reverted and the new image uploaded as a separate image. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted the original, uploaded the new version under a new name and switched out the file at the top of the nomination. Hope that doesn't disrupt anything. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Now that the original has been moved to it's own filename. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward oppose original, support edit. Certainly the unpainted area of the panel is not very interesting. But this is not a canvas painting in a frame, but a panel painting: essentially an architectural element intended to be part of a wall. So context seems important. Chick Bowen 00:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the source in both images is given as a bare link only, so it appears as [1] in the visible text. Surely, this should be written better than this in a way that shows the reader where the link leads too; in this format [http://www.name.name.html Name Museum]. I think that the current format is inadequate for a FP. Snowman (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both versions. Brand[t] 19:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit more like a finished product now. Snowman (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support framed version ~~Support unframed version~~: I found it interesting to inspect the detail of the surface of the painting and I almost think that I could improve it by fixing the cracks and spots with digital enhancements (but that would spoil the actual details shown). I am slightly in favour of supporting the unframed version. At first I was in doubt why only half a hand is shown, but links to the framed version are now added to "other versions", which makes it clear that it is the full painting that is shown. I think that generally borders are removed for showing on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the same size of 30.32 by 19.29 inches is given for both the framed version and the unframed version, so one must be wrong presumably. It is probably worth putting the size in cm too - perhaps in the German part of the image description. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the cropped version is incomplete and should not be promoted. Notice that the end of the last page of the book is missing and to show it the image necessarily must include the brown part (which is part of the painting). Also cracks and texture of should not be removed since they serve for identification purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 13:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that imperfections on the surface of the painting should not be removed. I see your point about the last page in the book and that the painting is incomplete without the frame. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support framed version. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 * '''Comment''' the cropped version is incomplete and should not be promoted. Notice that the end of the last page of the book is missing and to show it the image necessarily must include the brown part (which is part of the painting). Also cracks and texture of should not be removed since they serve for identification purposes.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Franklin.vp|Franklin.vp]] ([[User talk:Franklin.vp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Franklin.vp|contribs]]) 13:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :*I agree that imperfections on the surface of the painting should not be removed. I see your point about the last page in the book and that the painting is incomplete without the frame. [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 14:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Support framed version'''. --[[User:Silversmith|<font color="A29EBA">'''Silversmith''']]</font> <small> [[User Talk:Silversmith|Hewwo]]</small> 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 <!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
 {{-}}