I found this image during a debate over what image should top the Jesus article. This picture is of a mosaic at the Church San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy and I think it demonstrates the beauty of early Christian art.

• Nominate and support. - —Aiden 04:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historic, and beautiful. HighInBC 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear, historic image that is impressive even at thumbnail size--Melburnian 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, provided that the colors are accurate. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 12:28
• Neutral. I had a look at it full sized and there is clearly a lot of jpeg artifacts due to overcompression. They blend in a bit due to the tiled nature of the image, but they are there and don't look great. I would support a re-upload of this image with much lower compression. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure those are artifacts and not just the surface structure of the mozaic pieces? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 14:10
    • No, there is definitely heavy and noticible artifacting. You can see the block quantization in many areas extends between tiles in the image. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 14:35Z
• Weak oppose. Excellent except for the jpeg artifacts (I noticed them too on close examination). If the artifacts are fixed I will support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Worthy, competent, engaging photo of a significant art work. The technical matter is the question of whether it meets the criterion "free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed jpg files)." In my judgement, this photo meets the criterion. It is not completely free of compression artifacts. Artifacts are present, but I would not have noticed them until they were pointed out to me. It is free of compression artifacts of the extent that is visible in highly compressed JPEG files. So while I wish for more technical quality, this image has plenty. Fg2 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I would support this if a) it were larger and cleaner, or b) if a Wikipedian created it. But this is not outstanding compared to a lot of PD art scan images floating around out there. A good find, but not quite FP quality.--ragesoss 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment The PD seems valid, why should it matter if a wikipedian scaned it or not? HighInBC 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant if a Wikipedian had taken the picture, rather than it being a scan of a printed reproduction of a picture.--ragesoss 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't think those are artifacts at all; that's what tiles look like. I don't think we should discriminate against images not created by Wikipedians. --M@rēino 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look in the bottom-right corner. That's where it's most noticible. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 02:13Z
• Oppose, artifacted, blurry (look around the eyes) and cut off on the right side. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I personally don't think it's large (high-resolution) enough for us to see the details of the artwork. Although I think it's a beatiful artwork, the shot seems rather ordinary --Vircabutar 07:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]