Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Statue of Liberty.svg

Image:Statue of Liberty.svg - not featured

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Vis Unita Fortior -- Vis Unita Fortior 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Derivative work from Image:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg. I had initially been trying to make a simple piece of clipart but thanks to the level of detail it came out much more nicely than I'd expected, primarily due to the skill of the original photographer Derek Jensen (Tysto). Also, I'm not sure why the thumbnail is showing it with a white background, the background is actually transparent. -- Vis Unita Fortior 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Vis Unita Fortior 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Although the image is nice, I think it's too dark. Expressional/facial features are wiped out. -- Bthv 09:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough detail in face... shading in torch doesn't fit with high contrast of body... and in general it isn't that polished... looks like an autotrace without any fine tuning. – flamurai 13:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don´t like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 May 2008 UTC (UTC)
•  Oppose Does not look so good to me. The yellow torch looks out of place when it's yellow and the rest black. /Daniel78 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don´t like, too dark --Econt 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 05:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Support An excellent monochrome SVG image, very suitable for printing on almost any sort of background in the way that a photograph or grayscaled SVG would not be. Good use of shadow to highlight form while de-emphasizing features. Use of a yellow-black gradient on the torch is effective mimicry of the actual gold-leaf torch and having the torch as the one spot of color in the image is an obvious and effective parallel to the RL contrast between the golden torch and the greyed bronze statue. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disclosure - I have an affiliation with the creator here, but I figure it doesn't matter if I'm standing against five "Oppose" votes anyways and not tipping the balance or anything. I think you guys are judging this as if it's a photograph, not an SVG illustration that's explicitly purposed to be clip-art rather than a reproduction of the original photo. Aspects that are being called out as flaws are obvious intentional details.
  Also, I think that Flamurai may be thinking of potrace. It's potrace that's the tool which only does monochrome, the description of this image says it was made with autotrace which actually requires a fair amount of effort and pre-flight raster work to turn out good monochrome traces. But in either case, you would not just dump the original photograph into a tracing tool and get out an image like this - anyone who thinks so does not do much tracing. But I definitely do. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I meant autotrace generically, not the specific program. My point is that this looks like it came straight out of an automatic pipeline without any significant cleaning up to make it truly be an "illustration". There are a lot of areas in this image that could use cleanup, and even then I don't know if it would be high quality enough for FP status. It looks like it has a grunge aesthetic... intentionally xeroxed many times to create contrast and destroy detail. – flamurai 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• This is of course highly subjective, but I do not like that so much detail is lost in this image, the face looks terrible. The large black areas looks bad and make it harder to recognize the familar statue. I would prefer something closer to this. /Daniel78 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank-yous to Flamurai and Daniel78 for responding to me. I appreciate what you're saying; for example, Daniel78 is saying that he'd prefer to see a line drawing instead of an illustration like this which might be more suitable for creating a woodcut or some other printmaking technique. I'm just reacting to what I've seen repeatedly here in featured picture candidates, an extremely heavy and unconcealed bias towards a certain type of image that was made through a certain type of process (i.e. photography). I'm not saying that this particular image is some pinnacle of artwork or something - as VUF said he practically created it by accident - I'm just annoyed that the criteria being applied to it are so blatantly mismatched to the type of image it is. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Another thing - you know how Justice, holding the scales, is frequently depicted with her face covered by a cloth? That has a symbolic meaning of both blindness and anonymity. The face of the Liberty here being obscured by shadow is probably not accidental. (Of course, it's easier for me to recognize that since I know the creator and his history personally. As some of you were probably able to guess, part of the reason I'm all uppity is because I encouraged VUF to nominate this and I now feel a bit embarassed due to the resoundingly negative response. Thank you to everyone who kindly included genial, softening compliments along with their oppose votes.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not enough quality and detail • Rohan ^T 20:33, 24 May 2008
•  Oppose same as above Mrmariokartguy 00:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC) ...

2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)