Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Basket of flowers egg

The 1901 "Basket of flowers" egg by Peter Carl Fabergé

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2017 at 14:51:54 (UTC)

Reason: SVG is freely licensed, is W3C valid, contains no rasters, and is a highly accurate representation of the actual egg (of which there are currently no freely licensed images anywhere on the Internet— at the moment this is the only freely licensed image of this egg in existence). This image is based on a series of different photographs of the egg, all from the Royal Collection. Egg itself is out of copyright.
Articles in which this image appears: Basket of Flowers (Fabergé egg)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator: KDS4444 who is gladly taking suggestions for improvements, if any

Support as nominator – KDS4444 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I initially thought this is a stunning image, but it isn't anything like the real thing is it? Not from the photos on Google anyway. Colours seem to be wrong and details are incorrect too, such as the basket handle. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. SVG strikes me as inappropriate for this kind of thing. I love your diagrams, but for only representing a physical object it's lacking. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Of a real object, I want to see a real photo... --Janke | Talk 07:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. No need of a drawn image for something that is real and photographed. Mattximus (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I wondered if the image might not get this response. I tried to emphasize that there are no freely licensed images of this object available, and that my drawing is the only such image now out there. Yes, a photo would be better... But we don't have a photo, and no freely licensed photos exist. So I made this image, which is quite close (how is the handle wrong? I said I was taking suggestions). It isn't that I am suggesting we make this a featured picture instead of a photograph of the real thing. I am suggesting that there isn't anything for it to be compared to that is freely licensed. If we are going to have a criterion that "SVG images should only depict non-specific objects," shouldn't we say that somewhere? It's fine (though disappointing) if it's true. If we ever got a freely licensed image of the real thing I'd be glad to abdicate this one. But based on the stated existing criteria, I thought this might be a genuine candidate. I guess SVGs just can't cut it sometimes. KDS4444 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but there is a long history of rejecting images that have glaring flaws (this is a great illustration, but it's still an illustration) if a better one could conceivably be created. At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20170329 MCDAAG Michael Porter Jr. MVP, for example, we had a technically competent picture: crisp, in focus, reasonably good contrast and lighting. However, reviewers agreed that the image fell short of FP quality, and that a much better image was possible.

Similar objections were raised at one of your other nominations, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Male Maratus volans. This rejection of illustrations in place of photographs (for non-diagrams) is not new. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, my understanding for why the M. volans illustration was rejected was because we (finally) had an actual photograph of it which, as a photograph, necessarily took precedence. We have no photograph of the Basket of Flowers egg. Someday we might, who knows? But we do not now and there is no reason to expect one to be offered up anytime soon (the Royal Collection does not freely license its images, and access to the egg for quality/ professional photographic purposes is otherwise rather limited). I created a pretty good SVG version of it, one I thought worthy of consideration as a featured picture on its own grounds. But there you have it: it is not a diagram, it is only a very complex imitation of one (that took me nearly three weeks to put together! Amen!). But all I can do now is let it go, which I have done. In the mean time I have created a much less complex and much less time-consuming diagram of a chicken egg which I have just now nominated for FP consideration (see above). The good news is that it is a diagram! KDS4444 (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It goes without saying, that despite not succeeding in FP, the images are very useful in the articles, if no real photos are available with a free license. Thus, thanks, KDS444! --Janke | Talk 08:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --f e minist 06:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. f e minist 06:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]