Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Statues on the gable of Linderhof Palace

Statues on the gable of Linderhof Palace, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2024 at 13:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

"Agriculture" and "Trade"
"Atlas"
"Science" and "Industry"

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info The gable of the middle section of the South facade of Linderhof Palace is crowned of Atlas as a central figure. On the left side of the gable are standing two statues, representing "Agriculture" and "Trade", on the right side the statues "Science" and "Industry". For the whole gable see here; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret. I was ready to support this because it's really interesting and a correct use of the set nomination mechanism. But the middle image of the Atlas statue is just not sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a set. Other statues missing. And the centre image is not to scale. It is larger than the others. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Irrespective of whether this is a proper set, Atlas is not sharp enough and wouldn't get my support if that picture were nominated individually. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: Allegoric statues on the gable of Linderhof Palace edit

"Agriculture" and "Trade"
"Science" and "Industry"

Info According to the comment of Cmao20 --Llez (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 15:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This cannot be a set as there are many more statues on the facade, including the one deleted (which was not to scale). Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But this are the only allegoric statues (see the title of this alternative set), the others are "normal" angels and putti, and Atlas, a mythological person (see here) --Llez (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO this works as a set because it shows all four allegorical statues of the façade. Their names form also a (at that time common) summary of the most important kinds of business, so they are complete. @Llez: I have marked three dust spots on the left image (see image notes on the file description page) and would suggest to fix them. --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the review and the hint --Llez (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't detect WOW anywhere here. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Aristeas' supporting statement. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In both pictures the tiny part of the pillar visible at the left or at the right is ruining the composition. Also bottom-up angle of view is not so appealing. Insufficient wow factor to outweighs these two problems in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the new versions with architectural elements removed are fake representations of the reality. Retouching such images by removing temporary elements (like a distracting plane for example, or litter), is generally acceptable, but not permanent elements which are structural parts of the site, in my opinion. Misleading images, all the more as {{Retouched}} is missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Retouched}} in the file description --Llez (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile. I don't approve of these deletions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support these if the parts of the pillar were removed. Yann (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thanks for the suggestion, I removed it --Llez (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and deserving set to me, though the faces look at bit sharper in the one on the right. I don't know what the alternative to a bottom-up angle would be, but I'm fine with it, because it's a normal view a person would be likely to see from life. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. --Yann (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree, sorry, wow-lacking nom. Furthermore I'm not sure if this nom can be considered a set Poco a poco (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 08 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors

The chosen alternative is: [[:File:Linderhof Palace 09.jpg and File:Linderhof Palace 10.jpg]]