Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Francis Bacon by Reginald Gray

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Francis Bacon by Reginald Gray edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 19:05:57 (UTC)

 
Original – Portrait of Francis Bacon by Reginald Gray. Oil on board, 1960.
Reason
A high resolution render of a portrait of a highly important 20th century artist by another prominent artist. (Very slightly below 1,500 pixels on one axis. Can this be forgiven?)
Articles in which this image appears
Reginald Gray (artist)
FP category for this image
People/Artists and writers
Creator
Reginald Gray
I added this to Bacon's article because it's a free use portrait of him by an artistic peer. Not just because I also chose to nominate it. JJARichardson (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find that hard to believe, but nonetheless. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus christ. Look at the image; something a 14 year old would be ashamed by; one of the weakest COI attempts by this family in last few months. Over my dead body will this week association make it into the Bacon lead. Ceoil (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might personally dislike the painting but I fail to see how this being a life portrait of Bacon by one his contemporaries a weak association by any means. And unless I'm some sort of lobbyist for Gray's work then I fail to see how it's conflict of interest. JJARichardson (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Jobas (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis/criteria? Ceoil (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am willing to defer to Ceoil's knowledge of this topic and her(?) judgement, though I am not sure I understand where COI comes into this. I will say that I think that there is a lot to be said for favouring a free-use portrait for the article's lead (NFCC#1, if nothing else) but that doesn't necessarily mean we should be promoting it to FP status. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The EV here comes from this being composed by a contemporary of Francis Bacon. It's also a notable work, it's part of the National Portrait Gallery's (in London) primary collection. In fact they seem to hold it in high esteem - see their website here. I think it should be put in the Francis Bacon article, and can see that it has been, but has now been removed. I think that the resolution is just about high enough for a featured image. Chris TehGrauniad (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say the resolution is high enough to be FP; which worries me as you are backing into that judgement, based on the NPG owning it, which is really your rationale. Not good enough. Your reason for including the portrait on the Bacon page is weak, actually its not even stated, past being an opinion amounting to "because we can, we should". FP needs better evaluation criteria, or even some criteria, and what I'm seeing here is ILIKE it and inclusion creep. I remember the van Gogh lead image fiasco, and this is brewing here again. Pff. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, thank you for your comment. I'm sorry that you are feeling worried. For my taste I think the resolution of the reproduction is just about on the edge (are the highlights a little crushed?), but just on the right side of ok. I bring this up because it is a significant part of the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, which are well worth a read, especially if you are voting here. I see that you feel the painting is "something a 14 year old would be ashamed by". However, the notability is not in question. Whether we like it or not, the artist has notability, has painted other high profile Irish subjects and yes, as I say, is part of the National Portrait Gallery's primary collection. I currently feel that it adds to the Encyclopaedia because it gives a contemporary's insight into Francis Bacon. I hope this goes some way to alleviating your worries. Chris TehGrauniad (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, not really as you are thinking of the picture only, and my *fear* is insertion to the Bacon bio, where it it only properly belongs in a trivia section, if the article was badly enough maintained to allow. By the way, are "the highlights a little crushed" (the onus is on you as supporter), or is ILIKEIT the only criteria at play here? Further, my granny was a contemporary of Francis Bacon, or were you looking for another word. Ceoil (talk)
  • In my opinion it meets the 8 criteria. My comment about crushed highlights is to do with the quality of the reproduction (criteria 1 and 2) rather than a comment on the artwork itself, and I’ve noted that I think that it is good enough. I'm happy with my use of the word 'contemporary'. Chris TehGrauniad (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What 'others', and why do you consider their "analysis" (quoting Cirt) so convincing? I'm not seeing any analysis, except some concessions from TehGrauniad, after pressing. Um, is FP even moderated anymore if this level of discussion is typical. Moderators should set levels of discussion, clearly absent here. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the image is not stable in (and has been removed from) the Francis Bacon (artist) article, its EV will have to be judged by its appearance in Reginald Gray (artist) alone. Some of the above editors might want to clarify their support !votes. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is going to be promoted, it should really be placed in an artwork category, given that it is no longer used as a portrait. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bacon by Gray 257.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Francis_Bacon_by_Reginald_Gray&oldid=1090403671"