Commons:Valued image candidates/Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google Art Project - edited.jpg

Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google Art Project - edited.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Yann (talk) on 2018-10-25 11:08 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: The Tower of Babel, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (Vienna version)
Used in	Global usage
Reason	Huge resolution of a famous painting. The original Google Art Project picture was edited, as too dark. Featured picture, geolocated. -- Yann (talk)
Review (criteria)	Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)  Oppose - Either this one or the Rotterdam version, but not both. I support both going into a Most Valued Review. Martinvl (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Martinvl: These are 2 different paintings, so there is no duplicate. They even have a separate category for each. This is not a valid oppose, please withdraw it. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)  Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)  Support - Martinvl, toggle back and forth between the two versions, and you will see very clearly that they are quite obviously not the same painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)  Comment @Archaeodontosaurus, Ikan Kekek, and Jacek Halicki: On the other had, the section on Valued Image works of art states "... A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way." I notice that there is one article in the English Wikipedia that covers both paintings - see The Tower of Babel (Bruegel), similarly with the German WIkipedia (Turmbau zu Babel (Bruegel), the French Wikipedia (La Tour de Babel (Brueghel), the Spanish Wikipedia La torre de Babel (Brueghel) and probably every other Wikipedia. That is why I wished to select one of the images. -- Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Respectfully, my friend, I consider that very poor reasoning. Obviously, that article needs to use images of both versions, so both are useful and valuable. In addition, Breugel is one of the major artists in history, not even a great master of secondary fame or importance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Result: 3 support, 1 oppose => promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)