Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Limas Monument 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Las Limas Monument 1

Las Limas Monument 1, an important iconic representation of the Olmec belief system. Carved between 3000 and 2500 years ago, this statue shows a youth holding an apparently-lifeless were-jaguar baby. Incised icons on the youth's shoulders, legs, and face are considered by many prominent archaeologists as archetypical representations of Olmec dieties.

Edit 1 by Chabacano

.

Reason

First, this is a very striking picture. The statue itself is very expressive and the light pool surrounding the were-jaguar baby gives it an otherworldly glow. Second, this statue is very important archaeologically, and a drawing or photograph of this appears in nearly any book on the Olmec culture. Third, the clarity is such that, at highest resolution, the incised icons on the statue can be clearly seen. In summary, this is the best photo I've seen of this statue, and one that Wikipedia is very fortunate to have. It's less in focus in the chest area than the face, and I myself wish the glow were a little less bright. Nonetheless, I do think the combination of its encyclopedi-osity and striking beauty makes this a fine candidate.

This photo was taken by an amateur photog from Mexico at the Museum of Anthropology in Xalapa, Veracruz, where the statue is on display. I saw it on Flickr and contacted the photographer, who graciously allowed me to upload it under CC 2.5 Attribution. For comparison sake, here is another photo of the same subject.

P.S., I also think that the subject matter is a nice counterbalance to the many wildlife, landscape, and cityscape shots we see here in FPC. Thanks, Madman 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Olmec and Las Limas Monument 1, as well as the Spanish and French Wikipedia Olmec articles.

Creator

Cadeva

Nominator

Madman

• Support — Madman 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. It seems nice to me. Basar 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it needs some editing to remove the lines and dots in the background. It may still be too low resolution and I'm not sure why such lighting is best to illustrate this sculpture. I'd probably oppose after editing but I think it could help. gren グレン 21:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding background, I will have to depend on the kindness of strangers to do this, but I'm sure it can be done. Regarding the resolution, the criteria states that one side must be at least 1000px, and so this does qualify. And, I'm not sure that this lighting is the best to illustrate this sculpture, but the lighting does emphasize the religious nature of the statue and perhaps shows why this statue was venerated in modern times as a Madonna. Too often artifacts like this are shown in a dead, antiseptic light, and that's what makes this photo exciting to me. In addition, museum photos are difficult since amateur photogs do not control the lighting, placement, etc., and often risk getting chased out by the authorities. The results usually end up like this.

Thanks for your comments, Madman 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever enc you lose is more than made up by by the composition. I would support an edit to remove the non-black patches, and to make the black blacker. The idea is there, but a bit of editing can bring out the full potential. I will abstain until such an edit is created.--HereToHelp 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay...but somehow the sharpness is lacking. Alas, I have been spoiled by Diliff, Fir, etc. and their professional equipment. I still congratulate the photographer, though.--HereToHelp 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that the folks at the Graphics Lab take a shot at these fixes. Thanks, Madman 15:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That was fast! Check out Edit #1. I have used the Graphics labs folks in the past to improve several photographs. As mentioned, it is very difficult to get good shots of archaeological artifacts and they are really brought out the detail in this shot of Maya glyphs. Madman 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Distracting lights in the upper-right corner. Also the the lighting doesn't exactly help enc --froth^t 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, great subject, not a terrible shot, but the image quality just isn't that amazing. Seems... not very sharp? And to continue the argument above, the subject itself is only about 710×970 pixels, which would barely qualify. Would be great if someone with a high-end camera got a shot of this using a tripod. —Pengo 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support once the background is fixed.·Maunus· ·ƛ·

09:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

CommentThe edited one is much better. I don't think the concerns about bad lighting are justified, on the contrary the lighting adds to the picture. I believe that there are good reasons for using effectful ligthing when taking a picture of a three dimentional artefact, inbstead of always using a straight flash or a diffuse lighting. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

oppose-bad lighting User:penubag 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag

• Oppose Lighting, no size reference. -Fcb981 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am puzzled by the comment. I am unaware of Featured Picture which has ever had a "size reference". Madman 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose what Fcb981 is saying is that there is nothing in the picture to give an indication of scale - the statue could be 1 foot tall or 20 feet tall, the picture is no guide. However, the picture needn't be a guide as to scale, that information could be in the caption and/or the article, which ought to be sufficient. Pstuart84 Talk 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think any additional size reference would distract from the quality of the image. It may be sufficient to write the size in the caption/comments of the image -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support This picture definitively intrigues me, catches my eye, and makes me want to read more about its article. The quality is quite good and seriously I can't really see the difference between both the original and the edit. Bernalj90 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - No doubt it is a bad lighting, with blown parts and harsh shadows, affecting the clarity of the image and its enc value. However, without this type of lighting the mistery is lost... Alvesgaspar 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2, satisfies my featured picture requirement -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly because of the blown highlights right in the middle of the subject. It really detracts from an otherwise compelling image.--ragesoss 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)