Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pony Express Map

Pony Express Map[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2013 at 06:01:08 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution, high quality, well illustrated. Used in several articles.
Articles in which this image appears: Pony Express, William Henry Jackson, +3
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: William Henry Jackson (images) and Howard R. Driggs (text); restored by Crisco 1492

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's right, that's the Overland Trail. Bierstadt followed that route in 1859 up the North Platte, and in 1863, followed down the South Platte, both times I believe starting from Atchison, Kansas. Beautiful map. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Adam's point but Crisco 1492 makes cases for either. I support either since I really can't make up my mind. :P – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice diagram. I looked at it at 2400px in the preview window.TCO (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are errors in the dates. The description says "by William Henry Jackson, 1861" which is incorrect and misleading. The date parameter says 1951, which confuses me because the source says "issued by the Union Pacific Railroad Company in commemoration of the Pony Express Centennial, April 3, 1960 - October 24, 1961". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Overland Trail. ~~Several articles credited the image as 1861 and I changed this to 1860, assuming the image was created and issued in time for the commemoration.~~ – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, ok I was being really stupid, confusing 1961 with 1861. I think the map shows the 1861 route, and I've gone through the articles and reverted back to the 1861 year, but made clear this was the year of that route, not the year of the map's creation, which obviously confused me on several levels. Hopefully I got it all right. One article's image caption references the 1860 Paiute war, so I didn't change that. Either way, some articles were saying 1860, others 1861, and one or the other should be used for consistency. The map itself was created/issued in 1960 I believe. Again, not sure where 1951 comes in to play. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The LOC gives 1951 for this edition (follow the source link... not sure why though). This version is dated 1961 and was reissued by the American Pioneer Trails Association. Other than that the source is unclear as to when Jackson made the image and for what purpose. It appears (based on comparison with the version dated 1960) that the only change made to this map was the addition of the Railroad's emblem and some red text, which can be removed lickity split if we want to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pony express route April 3, 1860 - October 24, 1861" — Oopsie again. I'll go through the articles this image appears on and change 1861 to 1860. This would make all articles, including Paiute-war-mention, consistent. As for the logo—File:Union Pacific Logo.svg—I tend to scratch my head at what's a simple shape/design and what isn't. If that file is anything to go by, then maybe it should be removed? But I'm no expert on that. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's posted here without a copyright notice, so copyright-wise it's fine. But for accuracy to Jackson's work I don't mind removing it. No issues, I take it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No issues from me :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like a little more explanation/understanding of this image's provenance. First, I want to make triple sure of the copyrights. Was the whole design made by Jackson (I don't mind the UP shield, that is de minimus) or was this assembled from his works (or possibly colorized) by UP in 1961? Second, in addition to rights, I think part of an FP should be that we understand the work as a work and right now, it is pretty confusing when/how created and for what reason.TCO (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a copy of the version before "text was added" so we can see the difference and if the new version has originality? (I guess there is also potentially the issue of copyright for the text itself, but I'd like to see if the image was changed (layout, map, etc.)TCO (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no copyright issues. Note how there is no copyright notice, which in the 1960s US meant this was automatically PD (this is the license used, too). The LOC does not have a copy of the design before text was added. For accuracy, see above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. It's a pretty picture and it will get its star, but I think we owe it to the readers or the image-users to unsnarl some of this confusion if we are good encyclopedians.

(1) The panorama dates to 1951, not to 1960 (just the reissue by the Trail Association). This was after Jackson was dead.

(2) Driggs had a significant input in the design (probably the map, text and layout) while the illos (paintings, not photos) are probably Jackson's.

(3) Jackson did do some painting early in his life, but almost entirely photography up until his last 10 years of life when he turned to painting and illustration. I suspect the painting illos are from about 1930s-40s. Driggs put out a book with Jackson in 1935 about the Pony Express and it had Jackson painting illos. I suspect the 1951 map re-used these paintings.

(4) Right now, the image as being used improperly in the Jackson article is wrong. It's down there in the 1861 period of his life...which is misleading and BAD EV.

TCO (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I think we can straighten it out by listing Driggs as a co-creator and by cutting or moving the map from the Jackson article (and looking how it is discussed in other articles also).

P.s.s. The rights stuff is probably fine and I'm not into being a dick about that, but if this info helps to raise any concerns (e.g. 1935 book version of paintings?) than you all who are experts can figure it out. Or ask CLindburg at Commons.

P.s.s.s. I'm not trying to be a dick or fussy or stop Crisco from his star. But my bias is to readers and "use in the articles". And the confusion of this image is kind of the opposite of clear explication.

(1) As I've stated, the LOC does not give an actual year for the map. This gives two possible books: one 1935, one 1942.
(2) Added Driggs here, has been credited on images for about an hour.
(3) Agree, added possible source.
(4) It's actually in "career as an illustrator", which is poorly developed as is. Anyways, clarified that this is a later illustration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this address your concerns? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm concerned about the usage in article. The placement makes it look like he did those paintings in the 1860s. I think we owe it to the reader to straighten that snarl out. Maybe you think I'm being picky, but from an article usage standpoint stuff like that is pretty important. I just cleared a picture out of Fluorine from De re metallica that is gorgeous and looks like iron smelting related to fluorite use, but really is not (noble metal separation). I'll go finish the research and then move that stuff down and make a section of his bio on his significant career as an illustrator in his last 10 years of life. The usage in other articles is also either wrong or dancingly vague. After that I'll support.TCO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible oppose edit but the original is great, and I Support original. It's misleading to edit out original material in that way, as it presents a highly modified version as if it was the original historic artwork, when the modifications do not improve the image; on the contrary, they remove the provenance of the information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence why I uploaded it separately. Johnson's original would not have included the logo (and other editions exist without it, as linked above), but I don't mind having it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's far better to take this as an artefact of the time of this image's printing than to speculate about a possible original state without proof. Text could have been rearranged to make space for that - certainly, if it is removed, it produces a large straight bit of negative space not seen anywhere else on the image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - For comparison: 1961 reissue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]