Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of Mrs Richard Brinsley Sheridan

Portrait of Mrs Richard Brinsley Sheridan
Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014  at 10:31:11 (UTC)
 * Reason:Quality image with good E.V. - the colours are very near the original colours of the artwork
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mrs. Richard Brinsley Sheridan (painting)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
 * Creator:Thomas Gainsborough


 * Support either as nominator –  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  10:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Great painting, but there's issues with the reproduction - lots of artefacts, and, as it's a Yorck Project scan, it's highly likely the colours are off. I'd like to see this painting featured, but we'll need a better photo. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Oppose original, support NGA copy. Just look at it: It's gorgeous, and the NGA wants them to be used. (And now you see why we don't tend to promote Yorck Project copies at FPC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ace, brilliant - thank you, Adam! Do I need to change my above support to the NGA version?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  08:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably wouldn't hurt, but I think Armbrust can figure it out. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Adam's recent enthusiasm for the NGA high resolution pics, they've been out for more than a year now and were highly publicised at the time . I for one have been uploading their images to Commons, and I assume [redacted]'s recent Fragonard image came from the same source. There are 25,000 such images and it raises a point I've made before - these high resolution are now two a penny (the Prado, the Rijks and many others are similar examples of museums now offering high resolution images, even Getty offers them). Are we really going to Feature them all? Does it really depend just on the personal whims of editors? What we really are in some need of here is attention to the same kinds of details regarding fidelity and scholarship we see amongst the photographers regarding technical issues. At the moment that's not happening. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Shame I can't find this on Google Art Project. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support NGA version, please! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, for NGA copy. Fylbecatulous talk 08:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support NGA copy, thanks for digging it out. Brandmeistertalk  14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support NGA copy. Nice picture. That's what the discussion should be about, not personal attacks on past editors now driven out of wikipedia by this bullying. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is rather poor, the description of the painting consisting entirely of a lengthy quote from the NGA museum page and failing to address the most basic issue looking at this portrait -- why so sad, why so troubled? Minimal EV. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is FP, not FA. The article doesn't need to be perfect for the picture to be featured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The reductio of that would be that it doesn't need an article at all, or at best merely a stub. The issue isn't that the article is not perfect, but that's there's actually nothing to set the Featured Picture in any kind of context to explain its EV. Thus someone clicking though our portfolio of Featured Pictures and wondering why this rather humdrum painting is Featured, is in fact none the wiser on going to its linked articles. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the featured picture criteria which says there must be an article of a certain class attached to the image. Worse comes to worse an image promoted could end up at WP:POTD/Unused, but this is not such a case: the article on this painting is enough for a main page blurb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 10:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)