Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Set: W. Russell Flint's illustrations to Princess Ida

Princess Ida
Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014  at 07:24:38 (UTC)


 * Reason:A fine set of images, taken from the first edition of the work. This book contains four operas, but I'm going to nominate them separately for ease of review, and because they're a bit of a nightmare to sort out. There is some half-toning, but the originals apparently haven't been available to the public since the 1960s, and are broken up and scattered. Now, we don't - at this time - have an article on the book itself. I'm working on that, but want to get my sources together first, and that will, unfortunately, take a while. Hopefully by the next set from this book. If necessary, I'm fine with breaking up the set; I think 1, at the very least, should pass without question?
 * Articles in which this image appears: 1 and 5 are used in Princess Ida, I've put 6 in Gilbert and Sullivan (admittedly just now), and all are in William Russell Flint, an article that, until now, has had major problems with bad fair use images.
 * FP category for this image: Literary illustrations is possible, but I suspect Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre is where most would expect them.
 * Creator:William Russell Flint, restored by Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support set. Nice to see you back, Adam. Colour halftones must have been a nightmare to sort out. My own efforts with black and white weren't all that good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually somewhat easier with very early half-toning. It gets funny spots, and there's scratches, but the rest isn't too bad. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. They seem a tad on the dark side. Is it just me? Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's in the original. When I looked carefully at the originals, they were a little dark. I spent a huge amount of time trying to match the exact colours, with reasonable success, I think. Do you want me to reevaluate any in particular? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They all look pretty dark, but I guess "Daughters of the Plough" especially. If you could double-check them, I would be satisfied with that. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Checking, I'd say they're about right, I'm afraid. If anything, a smidgen light, but I don't think I'll act on that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I'll have to support then :) Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — I can't imagine all eight images as a TFP. Sca (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, either one is chosen as a main image, or there's a script that can show different images throughout the day. We had a 20-image set last year for Puck of Pook's Hill. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is one of those things that readers don't know or care about, but I (or whoever handles POTD when these run in about a year and a half [assuming they pass]) have to worry about. It's very doable. We've also done montages, such as with the Extermination of Evil set (Howcheng set that one up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment- Re FP- these have little to do with Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre. Despite the fact that they illustrate plays, they have have not been produced for anything to do with theatrical production. They are not theatre posters, and do not belong to the scripts that actors would use. They are essentially book illustrations, for home reading and fit into exactly the same category as the contemporary Edmund Dulac's illustrations to "Arabian Night's,  Kai Nielsens illustrations to "East of the Sun and West of the Moon" and Arthur Rackham's "Peter Pan and Wendy".   If there is a class for "Literary illustrations", then that is where they belong. Amandajm (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a large number of Shakespeare works in the Theatre category that likewise don't come from productions; I think people looking for illustrations of a play will not make the distinction you're making, and would be very surprised to find these in the Literary illustrations category. Given the categories always have ambiguity, I'm pretty sure fitting unambiguously into them shouldn't be an FP criterion. We'd lose too many good images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would go for a much more encyclopedic degree of accuracy in the cataloguing. I would put photos of productions, and theatrical posters and the like under "Theatre" and everything in this class under illustration. Where do you draw the line between an illustration to J.M. Barrie's novel "Peter Pan" and J.M. Barrie's play of "Peter Pan"?  Likewise all the countless 19th century oil paintings based on Shakespearian subjects are not substantially different to all the similar pictures based on Boccaccio's "Decameron",  Milton's "Paradise Lost"  or Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales".  They are first and foremost narrative paintings that are about the characters and stories of the plays. They are not theatrical, in the sense of being associated with the theatre. In fact, in common with all the other works that I have mentioned, most people who know Shakespeare's plays well, know them from reading them rather than from seeing theatrical productions. If book Illustrations for publications and paintings based on the subjects are usually categorised under "Theatre" then this needs to be re-thought and the works sorted into a different category. The might belong under a category named "Shakespeare" but they do not belong under the category "Theatre".  These present works do not belong under "Theatre" either.  They belong under "Book illustration". Amandajm (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, this is getting off-topic, as the categorization is, in the end, up tot he closer, and has nothing to do with the FP. If you want to discuss it further, let's do it on the talk page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with, above, that it is good to see such high quality contributions from , again. Hope all is well by both of you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support- though I agree that the colours are rather dark. My observation of illustrated books of this date is that the intensity of colour in the prints can vary from book to book, and sometimes within a book. Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is, indeed true. However, not having access to a second copy, I can only judge off of my own. =) If I get to go to Wikimania this year, I think I might well bring my copy and see what people think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I placed it in Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)