Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Private Diwan (Court building) of Shah Safi I of Persia.jpg

File:Private Diwan (Court building) of Shah Safi I of Persia.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 08:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info uploaded and nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 08:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 08:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Question what exactly are we looking at? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Falbisoner: It's a painting which has been drawn by an Iranian artist in Safavid period.This is for Shah Safis privet court which he considerd public matters.At the moment this monument doesn't exist and destroyed many years ago.-- Sahand Ace 14:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please write that info on the file's page, in English so it will be accesseble in the right place. --cart-Talk 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Sahand Ace, when was the file photographed? I'm guessing it must have been an analog photo, correct? Because my reaction to it is that it should be sharper, but I understand this is probably a scarce, maybe even unique photograph of a work of art that no longer exists. However, I don't think we have enough information yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: I have written the information in english.
@Ikan Kekek: The most productive sites are filter in Iran,this is the cause that i could not apload appropriate photos.I have sent the address of the site which contains the information of this painting

Comment - OK. They don't indicate this artwork no longer exists, nor do they state when it was photographed. Are you sure the Rijksmuseum no longer owns this work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not as sharp as we've come to expect of other painting digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel and my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]