Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bedroom in Arles

Bedroom in Arles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2013 at 16:58:59 (UTC)

Reason: High quality scan by Google Art Project with a huge EV
Articles in which this image appears: Bedroom in Arles (most EV), Google Art Project
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Vincent van Gogh

Support as nominator --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support is obvious. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 06:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 06:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support !!! J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mattximus (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose- This is a terrible reproduction! The picture is worryingly dull. It is as if we were seeing it though a grey filter. It is to do with the scan. The picture itself is in good condition. It isn't dulled by dirt or by layers of varnish (like many older paintings). So why are the colours all so muted? Vincent van Gogh didn't paint in muted colours; he used paint straight from the tube, mixed with a bit of white or black, or ochre. The blues should all be pure blue, not grey blue. The bed should stand out as glaringly orange-yellow. The other yellow-green colours are bright and acidic. The colours should be more like this: [1] adjusted and uploaded smaller. In this pic, you can see clearly that he has used two different types of blue. Amandajm (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Amandajm. The colors do appear to be off. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amandajm. --ELEKHH^T 06:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree that the colors are very muddy. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one's close, but seems to have turned heavily against it at the end. When a potential problem gets spotted half-way through a nomination, and noone addresses it, I don't think we can just promote on a barely-scraped-by vote count. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/photo-diary/files/2013/09/PB2167837.jpg http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2013/10/11/a0/c4/a734669449284e3caa4111e02b169e74-ee7d2862023540cb9b2a78fa732a535b-6.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.210 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]