Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jamaican daily life under British rule

Jamaican daily life under British rule

 * Reason:At Featured picture candidates/Plantain Walk, Jamaica Fir0002 raised an objection to the encyclopedic relevance at the History of Jamaica article. So here is a less colorful but more pertinent work by the same artist, which depicts a dark-skinned family watched over by a light skinned man in a top hat.  Most of the island's population during the time when this image was made were enslaved people of African descent, who worked on plantations dominated by a small British elite.  Have made other changes per Fir0002's input that are documented at the other FPC.  Considering that Wikipedia has hundreds of FPs for many first world countries, two about Jamaica doesn't seem to be too many.  Restored version of File:Jamaica hut.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:History of Jamaica, Plantation (settlement or colony), Watercolor painting
 * Creator:William Berryman


 * Support as nominator -- Durova  273 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please renominate when the paining is finished. --Dschwen 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Going at it a bit more seriously than ↑ this, there is no mention regarding the fact that this looks "unfinished". Is this meant to be this way, or is it a work that was never completed? I used to visit many art museums and never experienced a sketch that was only partially water-colored. Typically an artist will choose one medium, not mix the two.  wadester 16  19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the artist's biography, this was one of 300 sketches and watercolors that he made in preparation for a series of etchings about Jamaica. He did not live to complete the etchings project and the preparatory artwork was neglected for nearly two centuries.  His first museum exhibition occurred in 2007.  Nonetheless, the encyclopedic use is its historic value as a depiction of Jamaican colonial plantation culture.  Most depictions of that culture from that era, such as this famous example, portrayed the ruling elite class rather than the slave economy that was the source of their wealth.  This image took two days to restore, and if its use of partial pigmentation (which appears to draw attention to its central subject) is so objectionable I could locate a third image and work on that also.  When one tries to please everyone one pleases no one: please come to agreement what the priorities are--esthetic or encyclopedic?  Durova  273 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As wadester aptly recognized: My comment wasn't to be taken serious. I actually agree with your assessment, that partial pigmentation draws attention to the central subject. --Dschwen 21:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Durova  273 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That information is essential to the nomination and should definitely be added to the image page. First question any reasonable user will ask is: is this done on purpose or was it never finished? The current image page description leaves one wanting, even if it was the official LOC caption. Much of this image's EV comes with the history of the artist, IMO.  wadester 16  21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For this reason the image page contains a link to the artist biography. It could be viewed as patronizing to additionally copy material which is already available that way.  Durova  273 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree; I very much prefer a thorough caption for any image on this project. Might as well offer as much information as possible if it takes minimal time to add and offers interesting, unexpected historical context.  wadester 16  23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the unfinished picture in progress, but I feel the image should go to Sketch (drawing) or Watercolor painting rather than the currently used article? --Caspian blue 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my first thought as well. --Dschwen 15:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I oppose. EV is weak in the two articles.--Caspian blue 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Again I don't think this is a particularly strong illustration for the history of Jamaica. The connection between this painting and slavery is tenuous - certainly not a "feature standard" illustration of the subject --Fir0002 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support IMO the EV is pretty good for this one. The simple colours are somehow eye catching. --Muhammad (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Noodle snacks (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't have exceptional EV in either article. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support    Sophus Bie  (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support GerardM (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC) A small attempt to remove some systemic bias. It is both a nice piece of art AND it provides a view on a time long gone by. GerardM (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (to make sure that arguments are available .. you can always image the "as per nom")
 * Oppose sorry but at the first glance the image looks boring and the theme is way too subtle. Nergaal (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure where boring is on the featured picture criteria. Personally, I find a lot of the insect featured pictures quite boring, but those types of shots are still useful and encyclopedic. The same applies here. This is a useful and encyclopedic piece of art, and opposing because you simply dislike the type of artwork is unnecessary. NW ( Talk ) 05:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way" eliminates boring pictures. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - It doesn't have exceptional editorial value, but neither is the image forced into the article. Per statement above. NW ( Talk ) 05:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - Added to Watercolor painting. 05:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't care that it was unfinished (as someone says it's kind of nice so you could even think it is intentional), but the EV just isn't there. I can see 1 white guy, fours black person, a non-descript house and what looks like a banana trees. This could describes quite a lot of places, nothing indicates the time, the relation between people (i.e that the black people are slaves), or their condition of living. Actually, the thing i find most EV worthy are the trees' sketches, but you could find quite easily real pictures of theses trees. Ksempac (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the time period, see 1795-1820_in_fashion: the white man wears apparel that is easily recognized from the period--top hat and tails became formal wear afterward. Nearly the entire black population of Jamaica was enslaved, with the few who were free usually living in towns.  And not that it matters, but the trees are plantains.  Durova  278 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For me EV for a picture is "what valuable information can i get from this picture ?". Here i knows this picture was made by someone circa 1800 while he was in Jamaica. I then look at the picture and can get the following details : In Jamaica, circa 1800, there were white people, black people, and plaintain trees (thanks for the name of the tree). I can also get a few additional details about how theses people were clothed. No where in the picture something remotely suggest that : plantains was cultivated by humans in Jamaica or that black people were enslaved. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying you know it by others sources, not through this specific picture. On the other hand, this other recent FP had a lot of EV : white people were hanging everyone meaning they were obviously in charge, but still tried to promote equal treatments and fraternity for both Europeans and indigenous people meaning indigenous people weren't slaves. If you want to show plantains plantations or slavery in Jamaica, find a picture of someone working on plantains, a picture of a black slave being abused, or a picture of an official sign promoting discrimination Ksempac (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) PS : Unrelated note : linked pictures are quite striking, and I'm glad WP has them so that everyone can see and remember how cruel and stupid humans are.
 * I find it strange that the only images you consider to have EV happen to be those that show Europeans in an abusive and aggressive manner. You do realize that such treatment represents only the minority of the time, and that such an emphasis as you suggest goes against NPOV, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer on your talk page since it's completely irrelevant to this nomination Ksempac (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement and your actions are enough to make it certain that your claims about lack of EV are invalid when applying various policies that Wikipedia holds dear. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Clear EV as it can easily fit in many pages which it is currently not in (like an expanded page of William Berryman, who is clearly notable and can be expanded quite a bit). Also, the topic of British rule in Jamaica is clearly notable enough to deserve its own fork, which it probably should have. I can also think of quite a few other pages that should be around which this image could easily fit in and add great value to which aren't yet here in addition to the ones that are here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Though, to point out, you shouldn't be voting on the potential of the nominee, but the actual use of it. That would create a very negative precedent.  wadester 16 
 * Actually, I think just the opposite. Encyclopedic Value is objective, not subjective. We must think of the encyclopedia as a work in progress and must strive to fill in the pieces. Encyclopedic value is not what is current but what is ideal. This has obvious value. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that the article mentioned in criterion 5 ("Adds value to an article") is an actual article not a hypothetical one. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Because in English it clearly does not state that it must be an actual article. Cars add value to people's lives without having to actually be owned or an actual example of such. That is how all value statements operate. The fact that there is not one individual image in that sentence suggests that in its very nature it is hypothetical. Please, your argument is completely unfounded and it only reveals that the opposes lack any actual merit here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It really has nothing to do with the opposes, and you bringing them up shows an inherent bias. EV is based on use of an image in a current article, or one created for the image itself, which ideally should be created before the image is nominated. FPC is not made for potential EV. You clearly have your logic backwards.  wadester 16  08:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Whilst some people think the EV *may* be lacking at present (I however do not), I still think it is worthy.  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've thought long about this one, but I just don't see the EV in this; I don't believe it to be one of our 'best works'.  wadester 16  01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Low EV, nothing special. - ☩  Damërung   ☩   .  -- 08:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough EV, but nothing special, is not something that I could consider as one of the best works in wikipedia (so still oppose). - ☩  Damërung   ☩   .  -- 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Great EV, especially for Watercolor painting.  Spikebrennan (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Isn't this supposed to be closed after 7 days? Because if it was, this wouldve promoted. Now, it's ambiguous. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't follow on that, but wasn't the 7 days + 2 days of inactivity adopted ? In that case, nom is OK, since it saw constant activity. Or did we end up agreeing to disagree and leave this undecided ? I'm ashamed to admit I don't know. Ksempac (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep I'm pretty sure it's 7 days + 2 days of inactivity --Fir0002 11:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That seemed to be the consensus but nothing was finalised. As it says at the top of the section, the old status quo still stands, i.e., "Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination.". HOWEVER, I believe Wade may have set an awkward precedent a couple of weeks back with one of Fir's noms where he discounted the votes made after the seven days was up (which were opposes and would have changed the outcome - ah, found it)? Therefore not sure how we should deal with this. FWIW the complete lack of reasons given in most of the supports makes it even more difficult as arguably there's a number of votes that could be discounted, or at least the opposes with strong reasoning could be considered to carry more weight. It's hard to determine what those supports are thinking, which is a bit careless in what was clearly going to be a controversial nom, e.g., we could potentially discount Caspian's oppose as that seems to have been addressed, by why should we do that simply because he has given a reason, when we will likely count votes that don't give us the opportunity to understand their reasoning? --jjron (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a request to two users to close this nom; neither have gone for it (I don't hold it against them, I'm just pointing it out). I agree that 'precedent' was a bit awkward, but for the most part, I had closed things on time (that one being an exception). I wish there was a template to just end voting on a nom, rather than closing it (SH and I are currently the only closers recently, but are both involved with the nom, so couldn't close). This could have brought voting to an end, but the opportunity wasn't there. Maybe we should consider that or have a bot add a nom to the "older than 7 days section", indicating that voting is closed at that point. At least until the new regulations are put in place.  wadester 16  08:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that statement is meant to inherently agree with Jjron that the new system has yet to be put in place. Currently, nothing has changed with regards to Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process.  wadester 16  08:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That discussion is dead, and I consider it closed. The current discussion as to whether we should overhaul the closing process is at WT:FPC. So we can't decide what to do with this nomination? MER-C 10:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I don't think the "new" system would have affected the outcome of the kestrel nom - last vote was on the 27th which makes >2 days of inactivity before the 7 day closing time cut off (30th). That's of course if you adopt a strict approach to the closing time (which I guess is what most people wanted in terms of establishing a degree of objectivity) --Fir0002 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But the point is we're not using the new system, and under the old system which we are still using votes have always been accepted until it's closed. --jjron (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, Wadester recently closed a nomination that had opposes after the seven-day period as promote, saying it was his fault that he had left it open. That leaves a confusing precedent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is the point I made in my original post just above and which Wade discussed also... --jjron (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RfA and AfD have generally always accepted late "!"votes as valid even if they come after the seven day mark. I suggest that we follow that for here too; I see no reason for us to diverge from the "anyone who has a point to make is welcome to make it until a final decision is made" model. NW ( Talk ) 18:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The big pow-wow of a few weeks back struggled to nail down a shut-off point precisely because there was a lot of support for a more open-ended, transparent closing procedure. The two things seem to be incompatible but don't have to be, so long as it's understood that (a) clear promotions clearly don't need any more than 7+2 days and (b) controversial noms clearly do. If this was a poll, all would rest on closure date. But it's not a poll and where opinions differ, time must be allocated to thrash out a consensus. This nom, to me, appears to be a no consensus result, as there are significant, robust, unanswered oppose arguments. If that's unsatisfactory for whatever reason, we should be discussing those issues here – answering the opposers and scrutinising their validity – not debating the need for discussion. --mikaultalk 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's so robust or significant about them. If I did, I wouldn't have voted "Support". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Maybe my own bias showing... looking again, EV is the issue, a point made by several opposes and not addressed at all in many supports (ie without comment) with at least one support arguing that EV could be there in future, non-existent articles. It's this last point I think sums up the nom's FP suitability. Most of the opposes are concerned (and supports concede) that EV rests only with the painter and the medium. We have a similar issue with photographers from time to time. Proof of that sort of EV always going to be burdensome. --mikaultalk 01:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's being used in watercolour, and shows how a reasonably notable painter sets out his plan for a watercolour and began work on it. That's pretty high EV in that article alone. Plus, it's a contemporary, but reasonably unromanticised view of a plantation in Jamaica - that lack of romanticisation makes it useful in the plantation article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we both managed to iterate our opinions on the candidate. It still remains to interpret consensus (if any) from the open period of the nomination. I'm still of the opinion that there is none. --mikaultalk 05:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support. I'm not going to get dragged into the nitty-gritty of whether this is still open for input. If it IS still open, I support. Otherwise, you'll have to figure out whether the above constitutes a consensus. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As there may be some strong difference of opinion on this subject, I would like to explain the process and thoughts by why I came to this conclusion. I very carefully surveyed the articles the image resides in and determined that EV is weak; I combined this with several well-reasoned opposes stating that EV is weak; and furthermore did not find the supports convincing in explaining or overcoming this defect.  This is not a clear example of British rule, of the tensions or slavery of the period which it purports to depict (as implied by the article), or the main crop of Jamaica, or a typical plantation, or a watercolour that typifies the English school (that the watercolour is by a British artist is the only link (and a tenuous one) as far as I can tell).  I have only summarised, because it does not seem to be the habit to give long descriptions here, but I would be more than happy to explain all of this in more detail.  Just ask.   Mae din \talk 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And this is why we need to use raw numbers, not closer's consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that if you did count the votes, and included the nominator in the supports, then you'd fall short of a 2/3rds majority (either with weak being 0.5 or 1). I still think we need to implement the 7 + 2 days to avoid closing time drama. I think we should just implement changes gradually, rather than having repeated proposals that no one can agree to. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No you wouldn't. 13 supports v. 6.5 oppose is 2/3rds majority. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * General agreement was > 2/3rds in that discussion I thought, in which case it isn't. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support" - top of WP:FPC. It doesn't say more than two-thirds, it says two-thirds. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)