Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Semerkhet

Alabaster vase of pharaoh Semerkhet c. 2920 BCE

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:35:06 (UTC)

Reason

Encyclopedic Value:

In pristine condition, this unique alabaster vase arching back to the First Dynasty of Egypt recalls the visit of a poorly known pharaoh named Semerkhet to the Palace of the pleased king.
The standing man hieroglyph used as part of the king's name is particularly rare
The left sign in the rectangle is important to understand the evolution of hieroglyphic writing, being an early form of the hotep sign (see the course on the matter on wikiversity).
The vase shows the earliest known exemple of the Two Ladies name (vulture and cobra), used by virtually all subsequent pharaohs until Roman times.

Difficulties: picture has high resolution and comes from a small badly-lit corner of a room in a museum which has otherwise very few Egyptian antiquities and is rarely visited for them. I did my best to capture the hieroglyphs with the terrible surrounding light and distance of over 1m from the object, which was located behind a thick glass.

Articles in which this image appears: Semerkhet, Nebty name, Two Ladies, on Wikiversity: Development of hieroglyphic writing and on many non-English wikis.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History
Creator: Iry-Hor

Support as nominator – Iry-Hor (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose original – excellent EV, but not a high quality photo, sorry. The poor lighting (as stated by nominator) is affecting DOF and noise. Bammesk (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bammesk Do you think the image could be enhanced digitally now? I would really like to see this image become as good as possible. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it can be improved to the point of passing FP criteria. Vase area need sharpening (DOF) and the shadows need blurring (noise). Perhaps others with more experience can do more for the image than I can. If the museum is accessible to you, it is best to shoot it again with a tripod (if allowed), or with a much better camera. Those are really the best ways. Bammesk (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Sidenote: if you shoot it again for the purpose of passing FP criteria, please note that some reviewers may find the crop too tight and the background too busy/distracting. I am Ok with both though, given the EV.[reply]

Bammesk Unfortunately the museum is not accessible to me anymore. I posted the picture because I interpreted the following point in the FP criteria "A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value" as meaning that for a high enough EV, the photo can be of passable quality. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is specific in some ways but it is also open to interpretation by individuals. My vote is just one vote and not a final word (nor is my opinion). Here is my opinion: in this case the subject is a museum piece, therefore there is opportunity to create a better image. For historic, rare or onetime events, or given a specific reason on a case by case basis, then bypassing the quality standards of the criteria is Ok. But excellent EV on its own is not sufficient, in my opinion. Bammesk (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Bammesk. lNeverCry 00:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I uploaded an enhanced alternate. Modifications are listed in the Alt image caption. I think the Alternate ~~might~~ meets the FP standards, the votes will show whether it does or not. As a minimum we have a better image. Pinging those who commented @INeverCry and Iry-Hor:. Bammesk (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Bammesk – Jobas (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt – Excellent EV, technically acceptable, and the EV justifies the tight crop and somewhat busy background. Bammesk (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alt image is much better indeed! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So with two Support and two Oppose how do we decide? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions on top of this page say 5 support votes minimum and two-third majority, 2 votes is not enough. Bammesk (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]