Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/What's the gender-flipped version of a panty raid? A Boxer Rebellion.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2020 at 12:07:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- It's a very fine image. Probably a bit more artistic than 100% accurate - that is some beautiful composition, with a clear eyeline concentrating a charge - but it's stable, illustrates the battle in an engaging way, and really nice example of mass-produced military art. It dates somewhere between the time of the battle in 1900 and his death in 1919, but I'd presume the earlier end of that, especially given I doubt the market for Boxer Rebellion images was strong once the Great War started. I apologise for the terrible pun in the nomination page name.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Battle of Taku Forts (1900) (+2 newly-added)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/War
- Creator
- Fritz Neumann (1881-1919), restored by Adam Cuerden (8 June 1979- )
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 12:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Question This artist appears to be very minor (not surprised!), Adam. Do you have other information that might indicate some artistic merit? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's kind of a forgotten war in the first place. I suppose I could ask you to compare it to other images of the war. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 21:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. It might have made a great cover for a young-adult historical novel. And I'm sure the restoration is top-notch; Adam's always are. But I'm concerned that, in its use at Battle of Taku Forts (1900), we're presenting this image in Wikipedia's voice as how the battle really appeared, when it appears instead to have been painted purely from the artist's imagination, and from a romanticized and somewhat racist imagination at that. And it doesn't seem to have independent EV as an image itself rather than from what it depicts. Doesn't the reasoning in Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures apply here? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, having done work with the American Civil War and Crimean War, I kind of see a certain amount of inaccuracy and triumphalism as the cost of entry to military art. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Eppstein. Sorry, but to this history buff it looks amateurish and cliché-ish. Just an opinion. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- PS: One could say it "glorifies violence." – Sca (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Adam, it is just such a poorly-executed fantasy painting! Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This is actually a very good example of jingoistic age of imperialism-era military art, but I'm unenthusiastic about its primary use in an infobox given the nature of the image. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Too fantastical for its nature. Also, possibly historically inaccurate, given this is an artist's (whom is apparently very unknown) impression with a misleading appeal. Lemonreader (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)