Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hogarth's broken marriage vows

Hogarth's marriage vows
Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2015  at 05:24:29 (UTC)


 * Caption: The National Gallery, who hold the paintings, describe the series of six images as a "satirical moralising series of engravings that took the upper echelons of society as its subject". Hogarth pokes fun at the aspiring trading classes, the titled and profligate aristocracy, the young, the vain, arranged marriages, quackery, foppery, poor parenting, bad taste, licentiousness, child prostitution, the abuse of rank and a host of other 18th century traits, behaviours and vices that he hated.
 * Reason:William Hogarth (1697 – 1764) was a famous English painter, and pictorial satirist, who has been credited with pioneering western sequential art. A crackingly good set of images depicting Hogarth's satirical pokes at the upper classes of 18th century London. His comic touches are as a deft as ever.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Marriage à-la-mode (Hogarth) examines the set as a whole, each image has its own article, it has its own commons category + numerous other articles for each individual image.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:William Hogarth


 * Support as nominator – SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Well, done, excellent. Very famous images. And, by God, it's indeed a set. It was painted like one. Hafspajen (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A great idea for a set — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Voracious-supporter I've always been an avid supporter of these sort of paintings. Watching the paintings in set enhances my enjoyments. Zooming-in will also show each nuance detail by detail. It's needed to say the gesticulations of man and woman in 2ed picture are nice. Totally William Hogarth was an adroit eminent painter who never fabricated his works unprofessionally. Alborzagros (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Picture regeneration There was not paining No.4 in the article. I just made it shown there . ___ Alborzagros (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are the originals this murky? While I do not advocate any extreme doctoring, the murkiness and muddiness does detract greatly from their appeal, in my opinion. 109.153.236.229 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of these are undoctored uploads of the National Gallery scans. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the murky and unappealing Degas here was also said to be a National Gallery scan. Is it possible that there is some systematic problem with these scans? While I imagine they must be "correct" according to their own technical standards, is it possible that they do not display very true on ordinary computer screens? Versions of the Hogarths on the Tate website here, (actually labelled "© The National Gallery, London"), are very different -- much brighter.  109.153.236.229 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But the originals are dark. If there was an issue with the NG process then it would show up time and again, by that's just not the case. - SchroCat (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you personally familiar with the real-life appearance of the originals? 109.153.236.229 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I saw them three days ago, if that counts.... – SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then. Aesthetically I do, as I say, find these images unappealing, but if the originals are just the same then there is not really any arguing against it. 109.153.236.229 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Degas painting was not "said" to be a NatGat scan. It was a NatGat scan. You can open up the source and check yourself, though I'll let you work out how to download the image. I believe they've changed their algorithms since Dcoetzee made his batch download. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not use that phrasing in order to cast doubt on whether it was, but merely because I only read it somewhere in a comment, and do not have any personal knowledge of how the image was obtained. 31.51.134.168 (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. If I upload an image, I do my darndest to ensure it is exactly what the source has (at least for the first upload). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Two more things: article on their scanning technique, and I expect that white background is causing the images to look darker than they actually are in thumbnail view. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support.--Jobas (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)