Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Wilkes
I was looking through random articles and found this, thought it might be suitable and a change from Fir002's excellent wildlife. Hope you agree with me. Seems to be more than big enough and I can't see any major faults. Appears in the John Wilkes article, it is from an old engraving, so I don't believe there are any copyright issues. Image created by User:Daderot from an engraving by William Hogarth.
- Nominate and support. - Terri G 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm afraid. I've always been a bit skeptical of featuring old works of art, but in any case there are much better Hogarths that could be chosen. A political caricature is just not interesting so long after the events. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- How can you make such an opinionated statement in a manner which presents it as entirely factual? I find such old-fashioned caricatures fascinating, as they provide great insight into past culture, lifestyle, and politics. Though I agree with you that this is not FP-quality, it is still very amusing! Jellocube27 17:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with Terri. It matches the crteria of a Featured picture and gives an insight to past culture, lifestyle and politics. --ZeWrestler Talk 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- How can you make such an opinionated statement in a manner which presents it as entirely factual? I find such old-fashioned caricatures fascinating, as they provide great insight into past culture, lifestyle, and politics. Though I agree with you that this is not FP-quality, it is still very amusing! Jellocube27 17:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I like the idea of this (an old political cartoon) for a FP as per ZeWrestler, and it has relatively good quality, though a little fuzzy around the face. For maximum relevance and interest, either the subject or the artwork or publishing itself should be more notable. Spyforthemoon 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to see someone is taking an interest in this pic. It caught my eye, so I thought it could have a chance at FP. There was no criteria saying it couldn't be a work of art, and I can't see any problems with quality, if there is something specific, can someone point it out to me, so I don't make the same mistake again. Terri G 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, you didn't make a mistake at all. Maybe my words were too strong before. There's nothing forbidding works of art, and there's nothing wrong with the quality. I just personally don't feel that this has that special something which sets it apart from other works of art, but other people may disagree. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)