Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kronheim's Illustrations to Foxe's Book of Martyrs

Kronheim's Illustrations to Foxe's Book of Martyrs

 * Reason:A useful set of images, providing good encyclopedic value to the pages of various protestant martyrs. Featured Set Candidate. The set is complete, including all illustrations by Kronheim, or at least the ones that were printed in this book. The originals are abut 3" x 5". Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles this image appears in:All: Foxe's Book of Martyrs
 * I: Saint Paul, List of Christian martyrs
 * II: Gaspard de Coligny
 * III: Pierre de la Place
 * IV: Robert Barnes (martyr)
 * V: Hugh Latimer, Oxford Martyrs
 * VI: John Bradford, St. Paul's Cross
 * VII: Thomas Cranmer, Oxford Martyrs, List of Christian martyrs
 * VIII: Prest's Wife, Exeter Cathedral
 * Creator:Joseph Martin Kronheim


 * Support as nominator --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * N.B. For the main page, we could probably make a single image out of these, say, 4x2, though I doubt that would be particularly useful in article space.Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. A brilliant set of images there.   GARDEN  09:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Impossible to judge and comment on the EV of so many images at once, but I'm guessing the EV is limited. These diagrams were done for an edition of the book 300 years after it was published, and the accuracy of any individual image has to be in serious doubt in any case. It's kind of like putting up a portrait of Jesus as a good illustration of the man, when we have no idea what he actually looked like. Also looks like sloppy editing, for one example in the caption "Barnes and his Fellow-Prisoners Seeking Forgiveness" - what's with all the capitalisation? (See Manual of Style (capital letters). --jjron (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kronheim was a reasonably notable illustrator, even if we don't have an article on him yet. Also, those are the titles of the works: You capitalise each important word of titles. Admittedly, they're in all small-caps in the original, so some ambiguity might exist, but I did follow standard rules for capitalising titles. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Historic in their own right and of great value to the articles they have been added to. -- Secisek (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SupportEpiphyllumlover (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of the EV this has as a set...in the Foxe's book of Martyrs article, they come from a specific edition of the book, and personally, I don't think it adds a lot as a gallery on the bottom. Individually, however, there's good EV, so I would support the individuals. If there was an article on the illustrator, I would then support as a set.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think by giving some specific examples of martyrs and the events in their lives that were chosen for special emphasis by Kronheim, you get a much better idea of the book as a whole. The book covers hundreds of martyrs, transitioning rapidly between them, which makes it hard to get an idea of the book from mere description. The images help show the sort of things it emphasises and portrays, and I think it does so reasonably well.
 * As for an article on Kronheim - we probably should have one; I just don't feel up to creating it just now. Not been sleeping very well. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying. Weak, weak support of a set (would probably be changed if an article on Kronheim was created). Full support individually.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If MER-C wants to promote them individually, he may feel free, but I suspect that a set may be slightly easier. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose on EV grounds. The set really only has value for the article on the book, which I think would benefit better from more (and better scanned) woodcuts from the original edition.  If I remember correctly, the Victorian editions of the text were fairly heavily edited--in a scholarly sense, these illustrations are later interpretations more than directly representative of the book itself.  Chick Bowen 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth does the edition being abridged have to do with whether the illustrations are indicative of the book's content? There's literally hundreds of martyrs in the book; no edition would have an illustration for every single one. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the illustrations are from a substantially different book from the one written about in the article! Chick Bowen 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, mainly because of the way the nominator has gone around plonking these, let's face it, rather crap Victorian pictures into articles, shoving aside historic images (see Gaspard de Coligny where a Vasari has been booted to the references) and often placing them opposite existing images. I had already removed one from St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, where we already had 3 contemporary images of the assassination of Coligny, & now there are protests from others at Thomas Cranmer, I see. The more obscure ones might be of use, though woodcuts from the early editions are always likely to be preferable, but for example we have many better illustrations for the martyrdom of St Paul. The article Pierre de la Place has been created by the nom for the picture, but though he was supposedly a duke, it is sourced only from Foxe! In fact the long French article  makes it clear he was a bourgeois lawyer and writer - not a duke, so forget Kronheim's fancy court dress - with a long career. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Vasari wasn't only available at 150 × 506 pixels, with Gaspard himself taking up maybe 50 by 50 of said pixels, I'd have left it where it was. As it is, it's a very, very bad reproduction of what would be a notable artwork. I thought the new one had the advantage of actually making it clear which person Gaspard is meant to be.
 * I feel no need to defend myself for making stubs. This is a collaborative project, and you are, of course, welcome to improve the articles, however, I lacked better sources to hand, so decided to simply start the work, and maybe come back to it later. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really good enough - it took 20 seconds to find out that "Prest's Wife", a similar stub, was called Agnes Prest etc. I've now moved it. Mixing this sort of thing with featured content doesn't work. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You evidently have better sources than I: I spent 30 minutes checking online, with no luck. Anyway, featured pictures are completely separate from featured articles. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google search on "Prest Exeter"! Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, see, I didn't stumble on that combination: I tried the hometown Foxe gives, no luck, I tried Prest's wife, etc, etc. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 09:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)