Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fabergé egg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "Third Imperial Fabergé egg"[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 09:10:45 (UTC)

Original – The long-believed-lost "Third Imperial Fabergé egg"
Here goes: on technical grounds, this diagram of a Fabergé egg is freely-licensed, is W3C valid, is raster-free, and contains only correctly-scaled (em-based) freely-licensed font with alternate sans-serif font family which should render correctly in any browser. The text has been correctly aligned and justified on each side of the object. It has been included in the corresponding article for more than seven days without objection. On artistic grounds, this image depicts with (I've been told) almost photographic realism (check it out!) one of the long-missing eggs for which no freely licensed image (other than a very poor photograph from the turn of the century) currently exists. No single photo could depict the egg in both its closed and open positions, as shown here— between this unique characteristic and its highly accurate (yet entirely vector-based) rendering of its subject matter, I believe this image qualifies as worthy of being considered a Featured Picture. Am open to suggestions for improvement if any are made, please indicate below (and as a special request, please do not vote "Oppose pending a minor technical request" of some sort— it is much more encouraging to be told "Support pending some minor technical request", yes?). I've chosen the category "History/ Others" for its category, but am not sure that "Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle" or "Diagrams, drawings, and maps" aren't better. You decide. Also please consider that it is not a bird, flower, or insect, which by itself makes it stand out!
Articles in which this image appears
Third Imperial (Fabergé egg)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
  • Support as nominatorKDS4444 (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – An extremely well-executed svg, but slicing a Fabergé egg in two kind of kills it for me... I might support a version just showing it open, but would definitely prefer a real photo (I found the photo I assume you used as a basis for your svg, but it is of course copyrighted...) PS: What's with the two "glowing" rivets on the bottom ring? --Janke | Talk 09:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Arg. Those two rivets weren't supposed to be glowing— that is a result of the difference between an .AI image viewed through Adobe Illustrator and an SVG viewed in a browser: Illustrator makes this highlighting look quite subtle, but as you can see, this isn't how it turned out here. I can easily decrease the intensity of this, and will do so. Also: you would prefer to see the entire clock? This can also be done. And I agree with you regarding a real photo— except there is none to be had, and I feel pretty confident about this because I looked really hard and found none anywhere.
Now, my last Fabergé egg image was declined on the basis that it should have been a photograph— although no freely licensed image of that egg exists anywhere either. By showing this egg with one half closed and one half opened, I felt I had done what no photo could do— and that therefore it wouldn't be opposed on that basis, at least. If I show the entire clock, then don't we end up with another image that "could have been" a photo (even though it isn't), and therefore we should await the appearance of such a photo? (even though a freely licensed one is almost certain never to appear). If that's the case, I am stuck in a corner: the half-and-half split kills it for you (and possibly others), but a whole and accurate SVG egg can never be better than an [unobtainable] photo of it. Help! KDS4444 (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Still undecided on the image's merits as an FP, and apologies to KDS4444 for nitpicking again, but the perspective looks a bit off. The annulus appears horizontal, indicating that it's at eye level, but the cross section where the egg opens is shown as if it's beong viewed at a slightly downwards angle. Also, I think I'd be more comfortable with the closed/open split if there was a line or small gap dividing the two halves of the image, helping indicate that it's showing two different states. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think the perspective is correct, since the edge of the lid is not horizontal, see: [1]. --Janke | Talk 16:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Ah, I see. I wonder if there's a way for the image to better represent the fact. Having seen that photo, though, I'm now quite inclined to think that a view slightly angled to the side might be better than a straight-up front view... --Paul_012 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]