Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oh the shark has pretty teeth dear, and he shows them pearly white

Watson and the Shark

 * Reason:We need a bit more variety, so how about a boy about to lose his leg to a shark? More seriously, this is a very well-executed painting, and a very good reproduction of it as well. The  humans are painted extremely well, with that sort of hyper-realism you get in the best paintings where it's better than any photograph could ever be. Admittedly, the shark's anatomy isn't as good, but, that said, this was from before aquariums, so fishes weren't as viewable back then as they are now. Plus, it has interesting historical context. What's not to love?

Just to point this out in case anyone doesn't know - this painting, though very well preserved, has cracked a bit with age, leaving a network of very thin white lines over the picture. "Crazing" is the technical term, I believe. This is typical of any 230-year-old painting, and there is nothing that could be done that wouldn't come at a cost of encyclopaedic value.
 * Articles this image appears in:John Singleton Copley, Borghese Gladiator, Watson and the Shark, Brook Watson
 * Creator:John Singleton Copley (c.1738 - 1815)


 * Support as nominator --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Durova Charge! 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To respond to objections below, it's a reasonably notable painting about a reasonably notable subject, and it's available to us in high resolution. Esthetically it's never been to my taste for a variety of reasons (the boat is thataway: turn your head and reach for the rope or else I'll be delighted to submit you to the Darwin Awards--should've gotten out of the water when you first saw a fin, chump), but despite the facts that its marine biology and human anatomy are both inaccurate and the whole things's a melodramatic puddle, the world of art experts and museum curators have assigned it a certain importance and our role as encyclopedia volunteers is to defer to that...even if it requires holding one's nose.  Durova Charge! 03:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. LOL I like how you answered all possible objections in the nom. Classy. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been around here a while, and you get to know what people who don't know about artistic medium X will question. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - nice expressions on their faces - Is he really a boy in the painting? - why is he naked? de Bivort 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to double-check my facts, so I may be off a year or two, but Watson was 14, swimming alone near Cuba, when the shark attacked. Friends in a nearby boat rescued him.  At that time period, the bathing suit hadn't yet been invented, hence the nakedness. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your facts are perfect, Havana Harbour, 1749. In addition to not studying the anatomy of a shark, the anatomy of a 14 year old boy isn't particularly accurate either. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - not wonderfully EV, but a good reproduction and a good period painting. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Vanderdeckens objections. Maybe on the commons. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Although this painting is shown in its entirety (here with frame), another painting by the same painter — of which this is probably a copy — is oriented upright (compare the details of the sharks to notice differences). The way the harpoon is cut off at the top of the version nominated here is also suggesting a different orientation. In my opinion the upright version shows a more balanced composition than the current nomination. – Ilse@ 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Wow, I didn't think it was possible to make this painting more melodramatic, but the lurid sunset lighting of the artist's second version makes it moreso. I believe this is the original, though - why would the filename so clearly label it "original" if not? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The National Gallery claims to have the original painting here and it tries to found the claim here. Regardless of whether they merely want to have the original or whether it truly is, they themselves explain that the composition was altered. Maybe the artist cut off the top and painted another version without the cut later. – Ilse@ 12:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I think the encyclopedic value is very high... obviously it won't be used to illustrate sharks or 14-year-old boys, but it's a significant work of art that is being used well in several different contexts.  It seems like some of the detail is washed out on the bright white areas, though.--ragesoss (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't say about the bright white areas - in any case, I don't think there's very much detail lost. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting story, good painting that illustrates it. Facial emotions are stunning. I'm not a big connosseur, but I liked it. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support- great painting, so it certainly has the 'wow' factor, and this is an excellent reproduction, providing encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great painting and a good reproduction --Abdominator (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Definite wow factor, this is a sexy, very sharp image considering the age of the artefact - a good nomination Excalibur (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)