Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Il Signor Tambourossini

"Il Signor Tambourossini"
Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019  at 09:43:37 (UTC)
 * Reason:I think, when looking to the past, it's easy to forget that a lot of the people we now hold up as masters weren't accepted at first. This picture of Rossini, stomping a violin, with a magpie singing along to his tunes, and with the works of Domenico Cimarosa and Mozart being ground under the feet of his followers is great for showing the other side (however wrong it may be). It's one of those things that may not be widely useable, but certainly adds a lot where it is used.

I should probably note: Yes, the text and lines are grainy. That's lithographs for you. It's inherent to the medium.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Gioachino Rossini
 * FP category for this image:Huh. WP:FP/THEATRE?
 * Creator:Paul Delaroche, restored by Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Nothing wrong with image, but I don't think this article justifies so many FPs. In other words it doesn't add "significant encyclopedic value to an article". I've had many images rejected because they are not a 'top right' image. If the community disagress, I'll recant for selfish reasons! Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If it helps, that's an argument I've never supported. Maybe if the article's a stub, and feels stuffed with images, otherwise...
 * I actually think that student's dangerous. It dooms us to having one good image and many terrible ones in every article. Everywhere really, but especially at GA and above, that's a terrible idea. hell, I'd say most bird article's need at least three images: Male, female, and juvenile (At least where genders are distinct, and when they're not, pictures to show what small differences exist wouldn't hurt), and would add egg, behaviours, and even alternate angles as useful images. As long as every image has unique information, and the article isn't overcrowded Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 11:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Useful debate. I'm nominating one that's in a gallery as a 'test'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's rules about galleries only counting for sets, but that may have more to do with old-school galleries. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 18:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Adam. Gioachino Rossini is currently going through FAC (Featured article candidates/Gioachino Rossini/archive1), and if the image is still there if/when the article is featured, the EV cannot be disputed. Support. MER-C 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To avoid clogging up this nomination with this discussion, I've created a thread at WT:FPC. MER-C 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Armbrust The Homunculus 13:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Pretty obscure and not particularly engaging aesthetically, IMO. Sca (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I will echo the sentiment above, I'm not seeing the EV. A featured picture for the Rossini article should be a portrait of Rossini. Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's really limiting the scope of material covered in a soon-to-be-featured article. Are we really going to insist that no picture other than the main image can be featured, and doom them all to being rather bad thereby, because no-one puts in the work on anything but the lead? We have a featured picture of Rossini. But that shouldn't preclude other illustrative content, that helps illustrate and explain key parts of the article. This picture has been discussed in academic biographies of Rossini. Hence why the File Description page has a reference to one. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 06:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose I view Featured Pictures in a very encyclopedic way. If there was an article on Rossini in a physical encyclopedia, what would be the best image of him to best compliment the article? I almost always oppose, say, two images of the exact same bird on the same ground. That's the key difference between wiki commons and featured pictures on wikipedia I think. Nevertheless I can see supporting a second picture for an article but only if it offers significant encyclopedic value (outside of a cathedral and inside a cathedral, or male and female bird, etc..). But that's just my opinion, I'm happy to hear others. Mattximus (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that even though we may disagree on the EV of this particular image, I do greatly appreciate what you have done with the images on wikipedia, your efforts have made it a much better website. Mattximus (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise going to strongly disagree with this oppose rationale, per the reasons I described on the talk page. Since when is the most encyclopedic thing about an artist their personal appearance? Best thing for the infobox, sure, but their notability comes from their output and its reception, most of the article is about their output and its reception, and I would fully expect an illustration of what most of the article is about to qualify for FP. ...That's my main concern -- that it depict something covered in some nontrivial way in the article (or that would comprise a nontrivial amount of the article if it were an FA). And that is also why, unfortunately, while I wouldn't oppose it, I don't feel like I can support in this case -- because this doesn't look to be mentioned at all in the article (unless I'm missing something), and I don't know enough about the subject to base support on what should be in the article... would likely support for FP on Commons if I saw it, though. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)