Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Charon - Divine Comedy (redux)

Crazy old Mariners and the Engravers that love to illustrate Dante

 * Reason:Gustave Doré was a major engraver - usually considered amongst the masters of the craft - and this particular engraving is dramatic and very nicely composed. Even at this tiny 250px size, it's dramatic and interesting, at full size, it is spectacular.
 * Articles this image appears in:Charon (mythology), Gustave Doré.
 * Creator:Gustave Doré


 * Support as nominator --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: You may recognise this: It's an image I nominated a while ago but withdrew, for reasons happily no longer relevant. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment What about a featured set of the Dore Inferno images? de Bivort 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 75 images might be an excessively large set, and I'd have to make sure every single one was used somewhere. Might not be practical. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support making a featured set of all the images that are used, assuming they are all of high quality. Also, I don't think an image set could be too large, at least not with 75 images. de Bivort 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The detail on the cliffs and water is nice, but it's rally incredible how anatomically detailed Charon is. Featured sets generally need to be complete. Theoretically, if there are a finite number of images, they all belong. But with 75 images (some may not be as good as this), I don't think that's possible. Besides, each image is worthy in it's own right. (Sets were made when one image was marginal, but the set was overwhelming. The tumbler locks are such a case - one image alone might not be approved.) So maybe keep a list of other Dore´ images on hand in a template, and perhaps group them on a subpage. But I don't think a list is called for. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is 75 images not "possible" - a page with an array of 9x8 or 10x7 or 12x6 images... seems straightforward enough. de Bivort 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But on what page? Generally, it's preferred that such galleries are on Commons instead. One possibility might be to do a page on the art itself, as with the William Hogarth subpages, but we'd need some good sources. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured sets are a demotion; a crutch used for images that aren't good enough on their own. What we've seen has been excellent; this image is worthy in its own right. By "not possible," I was expressing doubt that all 75 images could be restored to the technical quality of this one, and have intrinsic artistic value as to match this one. (Even a master has his share of works that just didn't come out as good as the others.) That said, you're welcome to prove me wrong.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All are pretty good, but some have decidedly more "Wow" than others, and there's also some other problems, e.g. Do we want to feature two pictures of Francesca di Rimini in the storm of souls, or is one enough? What about the three images devoted to Ugolino's story of being trapped in a cell with his family without food or water,  and eventually being driven to cannibalism after begged to mercy-kill them, and left alone? (We could, actually - all three are very high-quality, but they're also a very understated and subtle tryptich, relying on the changes between the images to provide a sympathetic picture of the poor fellow, not gory scenes from a cannibal feast. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those three could make a good set, especially if all three were good but not quite excellent.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, moving on, any more comments on this image? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Beautiful engraving, excellent EV. Elucidate ( light up ) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Dramatic picture, good quality (we would better support as we'll all have to deal with this guy in due time...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and he looks mean (albeit in an anatomically correct way...) Elucidate ( light up ) 10:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now. I'm pretty sure I supported this when it was up before, but I'm having a little trouble doing so now. The EV in Charon (mythology) is debatable. While this is an excellent illustration of Charon, there are a bunch of others in there too. What makes this one exceptional? Same thing with Gustave Doré. This picture is in a big gallery of his works. Is this engraving particularly important or representative of his work? I certainly think it has EV in both articles, I'm just not sure if it has enough to be featured. It is truly a spectacular work, though, and I'm glad we have so many of his works on here. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly, it would be hard to say one particular work of Doré is particularly important: Doré was best known for producing sets of illustrations for books. He was quite lavish about it: in some works, like the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, there's more pages devoted to engraving than to text. So, you know... I figured the best thing to do is to try and choose the best 5% of the 300 or so engravings of his I have. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how did you come across so many of his engravings?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bible has about 200 (I think some editions have a few additional engravings that mine lacks, but it's still at least 90% complete), Inferno jas 75. Doré tended to do large-scale, lavishly illustrated book illustration sets instead of individual pieces. They weren't exactly cheap - well, okay: I got a shockingly good deal on Inferno: $20, American. But the Bible was much, much more than that - but I put back some money each month towards such Wikipedia projects. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a large, really old Bible here that I should really have a look at. My scanner pretty average though. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

--Noodle snacks (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)