Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jacob van Strij - Het jacht van de kamer Rotterdam begroet een Oostindiëvaarder.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 12:23:53 (UTC)

Original – The yacht of the Chamber of Rotterdam for the Dutch East India Company salutes an East-Indiaman and a Dutch man-of-war on the roadstead of Hellevoetsluis. By Jacob van Strij - 1790

Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - A wonderful naval painting. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retract - I am not as comfortable with the photo overall following Crisco 1492's concerns. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not only is the source dead, but Google searches for "van Strij" and "Jacob van" don't give any results on the webpage. Images without proper sources are not "the best" of what Wikipedia has to offer (I'm also concerned about the fidelity of the scan; there are no pure whites [RGB 255, 255, 255] in painting, suggesting that this has been digitally manipulated) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can search in the collection of the Maritime Museum Rotterdam via an external website about the collections of several maritime museums in the Netherlands. This painting can also be found there: [1]. – Editør (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The artist page is very weak stub, which is troublesome (at least to me). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:39, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source used to be present when I downloaded it 7 years ago. An alternative description is https://rkd.nl/explore/images/31490. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blasted shame that file has watermarks. It does show my concerns about the colors were accurate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with the second part of your comment? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That digital manipulation was done which blew the highlights on the painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you really would have inspected the image you would have known why this reproduction is not candidate for a featured picture. (And you can't derive that from the copy at RKD.) Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which image? This one nominated here? I did. Or is "I'm also concerned about the fidelity of the scan; there are no pure whites [RGB 255, 255, 255] in painting, suggesting that this has been digitally manipulated" not clear enough? The link to the RKD just confirmed my suspicions. Or do you mean the source you linked? The watermarks obviously render it inappropriate for FPC. Before you assume bad faith, try reading the discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if there's another reason for not featuring this, aside from the unnecessary digital manipulation and dead source, feel free to say it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]