Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grant from West Point to Appomattox

Grant from West Point to Appomattox

 * Reason:I think that the paintings are stunning, it's contemporaneous to the publication of Grant's memoirs, and, although it was nominated before, I'm sorry, I simply do not accept the complaints from last time that a Victorian layout is cause to oppose an image from the Victorian period about a Victorian, created by one of the major illustrators of the American Civil War. In addition, it's been selected for the American Civil War Portal, has remained stable in the Ulysses S. Grant article, and has been featured on Commons in the interim.
 * Articles this image appears in:Twelve-pound cannon, Ulysses S. Grant
 * Creator:Thure de Thulstrup


 * Support as nominator --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * previous nomination: Featured picture candidates/Ulysses S. Grant
 * Oppose substantively (per previous nom) and procedurally - it's totally inappropriate to renominate something a week after it failed its last nomination. We don't go on extending nominations until by chance it's closed at a moment favorable to the nominator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opposition was based on the claim that it looked good at FP, but not in articles. But it's been very stable in the article, so I don't see how your opposition stands. In any case, I have no intent of hacking a historic work to pieces because people dislike historic layouts. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it looks bad in the article. Just because it's stable doesn't mean it's Wikipedia's best work. I don't see how users' comments are somehow nullified by its continued placement in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Calliopejen1. Meniscus (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have to agree. This illustration just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. It really sticks out like a sore thumb. It's a beautiful restoration though. Maybe it could be featured on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe that you are seriously arguing that contemporaneous images, likely made in response to Grant's memoirs, by a person who made many of the iconic images of the Civil War, should not appear in an encyclopedia article. What is this, bizarro world? I'm sorry, but.... WHAT THE HELL?! Are you simply completely unaware of the historical method, which encourages use of contemporaneeous images made by people who lived through the events - as Thure de Thulstrup did, he was one of the major illustrators of the Civil War - or do you somehow think that if we avoid contemporary images, we can pull ones out of thin air to replace them? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "sticks out like a sore thumb" - please see criterion 3: "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that I can't get any useful information out of this picture at thumbnail size and scaling it up to the proper size in the article would require crowding out everything else on the page. It's already big enough in the article to break the page formatting for me. Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Probably should have supported this last time too. I agree with Shoemaker; this is a reputable form of art and I think it's used well in the article. It's not like it's the lead or anything. ~  ωαdεstεr 16 «talkstalk» 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know.. my gut feeling is that it would illustrate the article on the author of the painting better than the subject that it depicts... Not to say it shouldn't be in the article on the subject at all, just that it doesn't contribute to the understanding of that article as well as it would in the authors article. I'd welcome other thoughts though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because we have so many other colour images of Grant.
 * Oh, wait: This is pretty much the only one. Never mind. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support - (note: came here after I saw a note on WT:MILHIST) - beautiful restoration with high encyclopedic value; it shows the very notable and famous subject in nine of the important events of his life. Frankly, these opposes are ridiculous and I am totally bewildered by them. How does this not "belong in an encyclopedia article"? If anything, the fact that this is a contemporary painting increases the encyclopedic value. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing attention to the nominator's wholly inappropriate canvassing. Shoemaker, you've been around for some time, you know better than this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG SUPPORT - per comment by the ed17, especially with emphasis on the opposes are ridiculous. The scenes are all about major points in Grant's life, so how is NOT illustrative of his life?!Camelbinky (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I didn't vote on the last nomination, and I should have. I think that this is a very good engraving, and I understand Shoemaker's frustration at not having it passed. It's a high quality piece of period illustration, and does a reasonable job of illustrating some events in his life - but not so well as an illustration of these that I think it passes.


 * This is ultimately subjective, but as someone unfamiliar with much of the Civil War, it doesn't really tell me anything. There are many Civil War FPs we have which do a fine job of telling the casual reader things they did not know. It fails to illustrate either Twelve-pound cannon or this part of the life of Ulysses Grant as an FP (considering he already has an FP, it should illustrate something different about his life, or illustrate him better, and I think this does neither). If it was illustrating an artistic technique, or the artist, as a highly exemplary work, I'd probably support.


 * I don't have a problem with MilHist notifications - provided that the voters are informed of the Featured Picture Criteria, and explain how they think the picture fits these. As per usual 'I like it' !votes should be discarded. Also, Shoemaker has not brought any new reason for renomination - other than "it's of high quality" - an argument that was considered last time.


 * And a final word; it's a pain having things rejected (or not adequately reviewed in a few of SH's recent cases).I thought the PNG edit of my last nomination clearly passed (although I should have nominated in a different file format), but FP isn't always fair or rational.Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Further to my comment, if this had been renominated after use in Thure de Thulstrup, " one of the major illustrators of the American Civil War" in SH's words - as it clearly illustrates his work well, I'd probably be supporting. It would significantly increase the encylopedic value of this picture. At this stage I suggest a procedural close. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * re Grant's other FP: what in the world does Grant having another FP have to do with anything? A FP is a FP; the fact that there is another one of him should have no bearing on the status of this one.
 * re 'I like it' - my !vote addresses my opinion on criterion 5; should I add to it? It isn't meant as an 'I like it'... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The other one is an appallingly bad FP by the way, it's from 2006, a horrible crop, and has big patches of damage all over grant's face visible even in thumbnail. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose and Speedy Close Seems completely inappropriate to re-nominate a picture so soon after it failed. From the first sentence of WP:FPC: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." This picture does neither of those. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? How in the world does it not illustrate the accompanying article content well? It shows the most important events in Grant's life! With regards to "eye-catching"&mdash;take another FP for instance, File:House sparrow portrait.jpg. Why in the world is this eye-catching? It's a close-up of a bird. However, it was apparently enough for some people. My point is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; just because you aren't a fan of the image doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a FP. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am serious. The pictures are far too small and lack the detail to illustrate those portions of Grant's life. Other than saying "this is somehow part of Grant's life", the picture does nothing to explain his involvement or the importance of those events. As for being eye-catching: this is mostly a matter of opinion. To my eyes, it's far too cluttered to catch my interest. I don't think it's fair to compare featured pictures with one another. Each should be evaluated based on its merits, NOT in comparison to what is already featured or what is nominated. By the way, I don't think it's productive to question whether evaluators are serious. Nor do I find it appropriate to "simply ... not accept" evaluators' critiques. We're a community; let's respect each other's opinions. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think that FPC 6 is met. Grant appears to be more formally dressed in the depiction of Appomattox than he states he was in his memoirs (where he says he was in 'rough garb' and 'wore a soldier's blouse for a coat, with the shoulder straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was') and the depiction of him with Lincoln doesn't depict the scene as it was described in the memoirs ('It was delivered to me at the Executive Mansion by President Lincoln in the presence of his Cabinet, my eldest son, those of my staff who were with me and and a few other visitors'). That said, I agree with the above editors who suggested that this image be a featured image on Commons rather then here: it's an interesting image and a great restoration. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, noone has bothered to read my statements, since it is featured on Commons, and I said so at the top, yet a few people have directed me there. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see that - I've just struck that part of my comment. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, regretfully. It's a great image, but I don't see the encyclopedic value in the articles it's in. Would be great in a Thure de Thulstrup article though, and then I'd support without hesitations. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support - I don't see how this is lacking in EV, in fact I see tons of EV, and it is a good quality image. Great restoration work, too. — neuro  (talk)  11:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see the lack of EV in the articles as a result of the fact that it's a painting/engraving and inherently subjective. As has been mentioned above, some elements of the picture are demonstratably not accurate. As I said above, I believe it would illustrate the author far better than the subject, because (among other things) the issue of subjectivity would be negated. Diliff  | (Talk)   misalignment  (Contribs) 11:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Gerard's comment on the last FPC: "Historic material in its original setting.. In many ways, the way people were portrayed in their time reflects how people were perceived. When this is different from our current vision, it is all the more reason to understand this difference." NW ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 19:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Unbelievable. Everyone agree that this image is technically perfect, yet some oppose on EV ground ? "The image as no EV because it is biaised" ? Are you serious guys ? This means you consider propaganda/political poster, ad for companies , etc... have no historic or encyclopedic value ? If the image is biaised, you may say so in the caption or description. But for it is both : 1- interesting to discover the important facts of life of Grant (which I hardly know) 2- See how it was perceived/promoted in his time and how it may be biaised (which also tell a lot about his time).Ksempac (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment However I must say i dislike the way you nominated it twice in two weeks and that's why I didn't vote right away. Ksempac (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for everyone, but I'll tackle your issue. If we were to feature a historical ad for a company, it would be because it illustrated the historical advertising of the company or of the products it made, because advertising is inherently biased and we're documenting that advertising bias just as much as we're documenting the art used in it. I see it as quite different to a similarly biased image of a person and his history in a biographical article. In a biography, we should be aiming to document that person's history accurately with as little room for interpretation as possible. Bias/incorrect details would be fine for an image illustrating the author of the image because that accurately reflects the author's bias and we're not attempting to present it as fact as we would in a biography. I agree, that at the very least we should make any bias or incorrect details clear in the caption, but I still feel it has far less EV in Ulysses S. Grant as a result of the aforementioned bias. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)