Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of Maurice of Nassau

Portrait of Maurice of Nassau
Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 19:57:39 (UTC)
 * Reason:Among dozens of existing portraits of armored men I think this one is of particular interest not only because of full stand, but of historical value. Maurice received this gilt suit of armor from the Dutch States General after the victory in the Battle of Nieuwpoort. The resolution allows to inspect plates, helmet, gauntlets, shield, etc. The collar shows the insignia of the Order of the Garter, given by the English king in 1613. Plus iconic Dutch orange colors.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Morocco–Netherlands relations, Aḥmad ibn Qāsim Al-Ḥajarī
 * FP category for this image:People
 * Creator:Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt


 * Support as nominator -- Twilight chill t   19:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest the Artwork, paintings category instead. Gut Monk (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. Twilight chill  t   09:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The people category would be far more appropriate- this is being used to illustrate the person, not the artwork. (No opinion on the picture itself at this time.) J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning towards support . The colors seem a little odd to me - are they correct?  If so, then I'd definitely support this. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Added retouched version with saturated colors and general adjustment. Twilight chill  t   17:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit - very lovely. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support edit - Gut Monk (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit Category people. - P. S. Burton  (talk)  19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support preferably the original, it's brighter and the golds seem more reddish in the edit. It's a painting, I'd put it in paintings. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the encyclopedic interest in this image? It's the person, not the fact it's happens to be a painting. Every photograph we promote shows off certain photographic techniques or equipment, but we only categorise them as such when they're being used in the encyclopedia for that purpose. Same with taxonomic drawings, or historical sketches- they don't get slammed into drawings (or shouldn't). J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You could see it that way and I agree about drawings meant for scientific bases, in this case my thinking is that this wasn't just made to document the guy. Like the other additions we have to paintings, this was made to show off the skills of the painter as well, the pose and his outfit clearly show that the arraignger had faith in Mierevelt's abilities. Plus we have a bunch of paintings in there that document a person or event just as we would with a photograph in this day and age, but as it's not up to me there's no point in me debating. --21:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what it was created for, we base our reasoning at FPC off what it's used for. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really doesn't matter, not my decision anyway. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no one person's decision, hence the discussion. And, erm, where I have I asserted anything other than the obvious? Are you going to deny that we judge candidates here based on how they are used on the encyclopedia? J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also argue for my categorization above (preferably military), simply because there were no cameras at that time, while the person is notable. Twilight chill  t   21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)