Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 00:42:53 (UTC)
Original – 8th century sculpture of the
Amitabha Buddha from the unified
Silla dynasty. Approximately 12 cm tall. National Treasure No. 79 of
South Korea.
Comment - I don't necessarily see a problem with there already being two featured images of Korean sculptures: In the sculpture category of featured pictures, I see at least four British sculptures, three from the past 100 years, two of which are by the same artist. Besides, this category seems too biased towards modern, Western sculpture. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blorgy555 (
talk •
contribs)
13:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The problem is not that there are already two pictures of Korean sculptures. The problem is that there are already two featured pictures which are used to illustrate exactly the same thing as what this image ostensibly is meant to do (i.e.
Korean Buddhist sculpture and
National Treasures of South Korea). This means that it has little EV (= Encyclopedic Value); the image of this statue adds very little that the others don't. If there were an article on the statue, I wouldn't be opposing, as we cannot illustrate such a subject with pictures of other statues. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Your points are noted. Still, I think that this has good EV because it was made over a century later in a completely different time period from the other two (they were made in the Three Kingdoms Period while this one was made in the
Unified Silla period), it is listed in a different portion of the
Korean Buddhist sculpture page, which is quite long, from the other two, it portrays a different Buddha (
Amitabha as opposed to
Maitreya), it is done in a completely different style (Seated Buddha as opposed to Pensive Bodhisattva), it is only 12 cm tall as opposed to the other two which are both close to 1 metre tall and it is gold, rather than bronze. Also, the
Korean Buddhist sculpture article does spend about half a paragraph on this sculpture.
Blorgy555 (
talk)
If there's enough referencing for half a paragraph, there's probably enough referencing for a whole article. Notability shouldn't be a big issue; it is a national treasure of Korea, after all. As I said earlier, if this statue had its own article (and thus its EV wasn't compromised by the existence of two other FPs), I wouldn't be opposing; I'd be supporting. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 00:42:53 (UTC)
Original – 8th century sculpture of the
Amitabha Buddha from the unified
Silla dynasty. Approximately 12 cm tall. National Treasure No. 79 of
South Korea.
Comment - I don't necessarily see a problem with there already being two featured images of Korean sculptures: In the sculpture category of featured pictures, I see at least four British sculptures, three from the past 100 years, two of which are by the same artist. Besides, this category seems too biased towards modern, Western sculpture. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blorgy555 (
talk •
contribs)
13:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The problem is not that there are already two pictures of Korean sculptures. The problem is that there are already two featured pictures which are used to illustrate exactly the same thing as what this image ostensibly is meant to do (i.e.
Korean Buddhist sculpture and
National Treasures of South Korea). This means that it has little EV (= Encyclopedic Value); the image of this statue adds very little that the others don't. If there were an article on the statue, I wouldn't be opposing, as we cannot illustrate such a subject with pictures of other statues. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Your points are noted. Still, I think that this has good EV because it was made over a century later in a completely different time period from the other two (they were made in the Three Kingdoms Period while this one was made in the
Unified Silla period), it is listed in a different portion of the
Korean Buddhist sculpture page, which is quite long, from the other two, it portrays a different Buddha (
Amitabha as opposed to
Maitreya), it is done in a completely different style (Seated Buddha as opposed to Pensive Bodhisattva), it is only 12 cm tall as opposed to the other two which are both close to 1 metre tall and it is gold, rather than bronze. Also, the
Korean Buddhist sculpture article does spend about half a paragraph on this sculpture.
Blorgy555 (
talk)
If there's enough referencing for half a paragraph, there's probably enough referencing for a whole article. Notability shouldn't be a big issue; it is a national treasure of Korea, after all. As I said earlier, if this statue had its own article (and thus its EV wasn't compromised by the existence of two other FPs), I wouldn't be opposing; I'd be supporting. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply