Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hiroshige II - Kishu kumano iwatake tori - Shokoku meisho hyakkei.jpg

File:Hiroshige II - Kishu kumano iwatake tori - Shokoku meisho hyakkei.jpg, featured edit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 22:12:26

Info created by Category:Hiroshige II - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The streaky appearance is caused by paper texture, and is normal for ukiyo-e prints. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question The date, 1860, is the year of the printing, the year of the (pre-woodblock) drawing or both? bamse (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The year of the printing, as far as I'm aware - I'd be extremely surprised if it referred to anything else, given the Ukiyo-e print is the "finished" work; most preliminary work, is, as far as I'm aware, done as a sketch directly on the uncarved woodblock. That said, the date is specifically the one given by the Library of Congress for the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying. Still a general question to "Featured picture candidates": the voting in such cases is for the scan, not the original piece of art, correct? In any case I vote with Support bamse (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it's a mixture - if the scan and/or restoration was terrible, you should probably oppose, but the art itself should also be of historic, artistic, and/or encyclopedic merit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case I'd like to give two support votes: great restoration/scan. BTW, the (png version restored) you linked to in the image description does not exist (yet?). 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
        Drat! Thought I got all of them. I'll upload that now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Starscream (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually a very nice print (and scan), but unfortunately you've cropped the lutescent frame. It would be okay, when the corners weren't rounden, but in this picture the corners look very unaesthetic. --KaterBegemot 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]