Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg

Revelation 22:17
Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 02:08:55 (UTC) [Forgot to actually list this, so I've updated the time]
 * Reason:What can I say? I'm a sucker for requests. It should be noted that it's impossible to reproduce this image perfectly in electronic form: Metallic inks aren't shiny on screen, since they can't reflect light. Nonetheless, it's a fine illustration of Victorian mass-market religious art, and - for those worried I'm about to slowly bring out illustrations for every verse in the Bible - I'll note this is the last of this particular style of illustration that I have access to at the moment.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bridal theology, Conditional election, Bride of Christ, Book of Revelation, Passion flower (The flowers surrounding the image - it fits in with a discussion of the Victorian love of the flowers). Kronheim is notable enough that he could have an article, but does not at the moment. Also used in George Baxter.
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Literary_illustrations
 * Creator:Joseph Martin Kronheim


 * Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Information: This appears on my screen pretty nearly the same size as the original, or maybe a little bigger. It was scanned at 800 dpi, which is a lot, so it's probably best judged at a bit less than full resolution, say, 2500px wide. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, love it, as with the other one- high quality, high EV and a lovely candidate for FPC. Not wild about its usage in Bride of Christ, but the rest are great. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the Bride of Christ usage is borderline, but it does mention the Bride in that sense, and the article has no other illustration. Feel free to remove it there, though, particularly if you have a better image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Jujutacular  T · C 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: is the color fidelity good? The paper looks purplish./  Spikebrennan (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but... purplish?! I just don't see it, I'm afraid. Anyway, I own the original, and got it as near to that as I could get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't looking at the sky, are you? One of the aspects of the process used is it allowed as many inks as desired to be used, so the sky has ink of a rather delicate pale periwinkle. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the spaces between the letters of the text. Is this rough paper texture, or is the paper not really white?  There's also what seems to me to be some purple fringing around the edges of some of the black lettering, especially around the letters of the word "life" in the lower left.  Spikebrennan (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's some paper texture, yes. This is scanned at 800 dpi; if you couldn't see that, I'd have messed up the colour adjustments rather badly. As for "life": There are some bits of this that are very slightly unsharp, though: Either because of the reflective ink throwing off my scanner, or the difficulty in ever getting an image in the middle of a book to lie completely flat (though I had thought I worked out how to do that rather well - I slip a stiff bit of board in a few pages further in) - there's a few bits that I couldn't get perfect. Since even a slight downsample to 4000 px wide would eliminate the issues completely, I didn't think it was a huge issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not a big issue, which is why I didn't oppose. I just didn't know whether these were (1) problems and (2) solvable.  Support per nom, since it is a nice image and the EV is good.  Spikebrennan (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. A fine illustration. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Noodle snacks (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm frankly surprised at the support this picture seems to get. It's obvious that its EV is minimal, and it is barely relevant to all articles it appears in. Moreover, the illustration is completely irrelevant to the text in the page. I could only accept it as an FP of it appeared in an article like "Victorian religious art" or something like that. I cannot deny it's a beautifully illustrated page, but I see nothing else in it. --Desiderius82 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The illustration is meant to be the water of life. Also, I added it into George Baxter, in the section on his licensees, which includes Kronheim. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support The significance in the Unconditional Election article is a bit weak, but I can't understand how someone could possibly fail to see the significance in the Book of Revelation, Bridal Theology, and Passionflower articles. Image quality is good enough, plus it's visually attractive. A fine specimen. Maadio (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I may as well explain my logic:


 * Bridal theology - Provides an illustration of the metaphor in use, speeding the understanding of the reader.
 * Conditional election - This is a fairly short article, but does mention the verse as one of the evidences used. As it's hard to see any better sort of illustration, and as the article lacked illustration (outside of a generic infobox one), I think it's useful.
 * Bride of Christ - Like the Bridal theology article, it does have some use in showing the metaphor in use, but is probably somewhat weaker here. However, I do not see how any illustration for this article could be anything but weak, and there were no other illustrations besides the infobox.
 * Book of Revelation - It's been moved upwards a little from where I put it, but it does illustrate the last part of the outline. In addition, including it gives a nice balance to the images in the article: One Catholic illustration, one Protestant illustration, and one Orthodox.
 * Passion flower - The section on the Victorian love of the flowers can only really be illustrated by an artwork. In addition, there were no other artistic depictions in the article, only photographic, and it thus gives the article that little bit of extra depth.
 * George Baxter - A good example of a Baxter process image, Kronheim is himself discussed.

With any image, usage is subject to change. However, I believe that these placements are defensible, and some are rather strong. The editors of the articles can decide if they agree with my logic, and keep or remove it accordingly. -Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the word "significance" is being a bit overused here. Commentators In this picture I still see only a beautiful illustration and nothing more than that. The Book of Revelation is so rich in apocalyptic imagery that a page with flowers and a simple river/lake landscape just looks insignificant to me. In my opinion, this is a great example of a picture that contributes (very) weakly to many articles but fails to contribute significantly to even one. --Desiderius82 (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)