Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Koeh-189.jpg

Coffea arabica

 * Reason:Not a particularly high resolution image, but a fantastic illustration from an old 19th century botanical book
 * Articles this image appears in: Coffee, Coffea arabica
 * Creator:Franz Eugen Koehler

That bigger version is from another source – the flowers are white (uncoloured) and the colour repro is completely different. I really don't like it as much and we'll never squeeze that nice vibrant green of the original nom out of it. Good trawling though :o) --mikaultalk 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator - especially if colours of higher resolution image can be adjusted properly. My comment on accuracy of representation appears further down. CharlesC (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wonderful, but way too small for the encyclopedia, let alone FP. Please check the criteria before nominating. If you can find a bigger version, I'd love to see it. --mikaultalk 10:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the criteria and I came across this bit which made me think it might be OK: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed" --CharlesC (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found one. Does anyone want to clean it up? MER-C 11:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * These old illustrations, as attractive as they are, are not always particularly accurate, and therefore not particularly encyclopaedic for our modern usage. I can't speak for this particular image, but I have been doing a bit of work recently with Australian birds and have come across a number of beautiful images by noted 19th century ornithologist John Gould. As nice as they are, I'm yet to find one that is entirely accurate with respect to its representation of the bird. The point of this is that it seems rather a long-shot to invoke the "Exceptions to this rule..." clause, when I'd need to be convinced it's actually completely correct. --jjron (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree about the "exceptions" purely due to the fact that other versions clearly are available. I'd stand up for it's enc value though, as it has historical significance among other virtues.
 * Besides the possible lack of accuracy I mentioned above, encyclopaedic value is further compromised here with those numbered small images around the bottom having lost the key they presumably originally had. --jjron (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Abebooks has a reprint of Köhler's Medizinal-Plantzen for $30. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the perceived lack of accuracy is a red herring. Just because someone saw some inaccuracies in a another book by another person about birds (which let's face it don't sit still to be drawn), it doesn't mean that Franz Eugen Koehler was innacurate in his drawings. In fact he is renowned for his highly detailed and accurate representations. My feeling is that if someone has that amount of talent at drawing, specifically for a biologically focussed book, with a plant that doesn't move sitting in front of him - its not unreasonable to suppose that it is going to be as accurate as any representative drawing from a human being is possibly going to be. --CharlesC (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except it's not very hard to check how accurate a drawing is with today's images on Internet... and his drawing looks more like the leaves of an elm than a coffee bush (the folds at the veins are wrong). And both drawings have strange colours. Narayanese (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Variation may of course be the result of human selection (i.e. breeding)... --CharlesC (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Considering the articles it appears in, one would expect accurate rather than historical depictions, i.e. photographs. Narayanese (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)