Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Still Life with Flowers
Still Life with Flowers edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 08:37:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- good quality image (through the Google Art Project) of a painting which is typical of Ruysch's style. Included in the gallery of the article on the artist.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Rachel Ruysch, List of paintings by Rachel Ruysch
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Rachel Ruysch
- Support as nominator – MurielMary (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good quality scan for sure, however there is no page for this painting, and no mention of it in the painter's page, so there is no EV for this painting. Mattximus (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. However the grounds for your vote are unclear - there is no mention in the FP criteria that a nominated painting must have its own page, or that it must be mentioned in the painter's page. The criteria state "It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." - this image is nominated, as stated, because it is among the best examples of Ruysch's work. It also meets the criteria "The image is used in one or more articles." MurielMary (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Muriel: The worry here relates to criterion five: "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." (Also: "A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.") This is important, and what most clearly distinguishes the process here from the process at Commons. It's clear that a picture of a painting in an article about that painting adds significant EV; equally, if this painting is discussed in the article about the artist, then a picture of it will almost certainly add value. This image, however, comes across as just another picture in a gallery of the artist's work. At one time (I say "at one time" because I can't find it right now, but it may still be written somewhere) we explicitly had a rule against images only used in galleries, and this is a practice that is still followed by a lot of reviewers. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to explain that background Josh. MurielMary (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Muriel: The worry here relates to criterion five: "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." (Also: "A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.") This is important, and what most clearly distinguishes the process here from the process at Commons. It's clear that a picture of a painting in an article about that painting adds significant EV; equally, if this painting is discussed in the article about the artist, then a picture of it will almost certainly add value. This image, however, comes across as just another picture in a gallery of the artist's work. At one time (I say "at one time" because I can't find it right now, but it may still be written somewhere) we explicitly had a rule against images only used in galleries, and this is a practice that is still followed by a lot of reviewers. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. However the grounds for your vote are unclear - there is no mention in the FP criteria that a nominated painting must have its own page, or that it must be mentioned in the painter's page. The criteria state "It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." - this image is nominated, as stated, because it is among the best examples of Ruysch's work. It also meets the criteria "The image is used in one or more articles." MurielMary (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mattximus. -- Acefitt 18:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mattximus – Jobas (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Now its part of the article Rachel Ruysch. --Marvellous Spider-Man 18:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Moving towards Weak support. Marvellous Spider-Man 19:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)