Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Signing of the Constitution of the United States

Signing of the Constitution of the United States
Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014  at 12:52:04 (UTC)
 * Reason:Notable painting used in many articles, meets size requirements, high EV, good quality
 * Articles in which this image appears:Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, Constitutional Convention (United States), American philosophy, List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, Howard Chandler Christy, Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, George Washington, Originalism, Founding Fathers of the United States, Powers of the United States Congress, United States Congress, United States Constitution, Independence National Historical Park, etc.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/History/USA History
 * Creator:Howard Chandler Christy


 * Support as nominator – MarshalN20  T al k 12:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - very nice image and compares well with this reference work "Allegory versus Authenticity:The Commission and Reception of Howard Chandler Christy’s The Signing of the Constitution of the United States. I should much like to support but would like clarification on the resolution first. I see several uploads upping the pixel count, but no source far any of the uploads. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not know that the pixel count needed a source (unless I misunderstood the question); sorry! I found the image at The Indian Reporter, and then balanced the colors in comparison to other images (including the previous uploaded ones). I am still learning about copyright, so please forgive me if I did anything inadequate. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. I'll add the source to the Description file and put a formal support vote below. You did a good job on the colour balance I think. Incidentally someone should really find a place for this Cristy image (Feminism?)
 * That image also caught my attention. It could probably also be used in Women in the military.-- MarshalN20 T al k 16:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll make the edit some time the next few days if I don't see you making it. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Nice image and good agreement with reference image "Allegory versus Authenticity:The Commission and Reception of Howard Chandler Christy’s The Signing of the Constitution of the United States mentioned above. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I was checking this out a couple weeks ago, and ultimately decided not to nominate for the same reason I'm opposing here. There are too few pixels. Yes, it's over the 1500 minimum. But this painting measures 20 by 30 feet, give or take. That only 100 pixels a foot, or 8 an inch. Tiny. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you consider it this way, but understand the decision. I'd find a higher pixel size to help, but this is the largest one in the web; I think this is also understandable considering the large size of the painting. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 00:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I understand the concern raised about the resolution, but it does meet the requirements and is good enough for all practical purposes. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - MarshalN20, now remember this is nothing personal, you seems to be a very nice editor. This I really mean. But one thing is the problem mentioned above. The other is a stylistic problem. Painter lived 1873 – 1952, well fairly recently, the artist is obviously indulging in nostalgia for a distant past. The artist must have based its details on older paintings he had seen in museums,  without being able to work from direct experience of the period in which the events took place. As a result, there is an uneasy feeling, not because it is unusual to depict other eras. It doesn't need to be condemned simply because it did not originate in the period being represented. Painters of many periods, for example, have depicted Biblical scenes without ever having witnessed them at first hand,  The evident nostalgia, however, for a time not actually in the artist's experience is not unlike trying to paint an imagined remote future Utopia, when "things will have gotten better". It is,  a denial of the artist's own time—a wish to escape from it by retreating into fantasy. Well, one simple thing - would that really be possible that nearly all figures that day are wearing green, the same green as the curtains? (And tablecloth...)  Hafspajen (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you can say much the same about a similar historical painting Commons:File:Declaration independence.jpg which did make it to Featured picture status. And where's all this stuff in WP:FP? anyway? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not quite the same, Coaty. There is a very fine difference. John Trumbull lived  1756–1843, what he painted happened 1776, he was 20 at the time. Howard Chandler Christy was born c. 100 years after what he depicted happened. (About where that stuff is - remember discussion aesthetic judgment?)  Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't suppose Trumbull was working from photographs. I did put up a link to a discussion of this painting because it provides a useful reference image. Without reading it in detail, I gathered it was making the point that the painting was an allegory of the American consciousness, and that stikes me as about right, although discussions about the merits of a painting are neither here nor there in this forum. It's the merits of the image that we are concerned with here, whether it has encyclopaedic value and so on. I didn't enter into any discussions with you about aesthetics. The only thing I can find in WP? about aesthetics is "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing". Crisco's point about resolution is fair. I too was dismayed at the lack of fine detail in this image and that was why I queried the source. But FP? guidelines are at least 1,500 pixels, and this image is 3,000 pixels wide. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Trumbull's version. That was promoted six years ago, when standards were quite different. I'd probably oppose if that came up now. Yes, 1500 is the minimum, but for some subjects (say, really big structures, or really big paintings) more resolution may be expected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know the technical difficulties of getting a higher resolution picture, how feasible it is to ask for one. It's Rembrandt Nightwatch size (someone should nominate that for Featured]]. I imagine that was done with scaffolding? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Nightwatch: Needs to be in an article first . I'm not 100% familiar with art photography, particularly as I've yet to see a painting here that I could photograph and upload freely to Wikipedia/Commons (and thus haven't bothered to take anything bigger than what would show up well on Facebook), but yes, scaffolding and taking several images which can be stitched together would probably work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OH, I am pretty sure that Nightwatch by Rembrandt has already an article. Yes, there it is, The Night Watch, also the picture is already Featured, here File:The Nightwatch by Rembrandt.jpg, I remember there was a link to an article from the  picture's name, it was from the Rembrandt article.  Hafspajen (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That surely could be in the Rembrandt article, but the one the one thay have is already very agreeable and itself a Featured image with many links, so I shan't interfere with that. A long way ahead I plan a few Rembrandt edits. I might do an article on the Nightwatch, linking the new image. Incidentally Godot13 has a to die for engraving of the Trumbull painting at FPC. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still of the oppinion that as an artwork of a historical event it is rather schematic. But you can take Crisco's more down to earth motivation, then. Hafspajen (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The positions taken by Hafspajen and Crisco have merit, but there is a flaw in their conclusion. The question asked here is whether the image in question meets the guidelines for it being a Featured Picture in Wikipedia. The answer is, as explained by Coat of Many Colours, a simple yes. However, Hafspajen's and Crisco's views are valid towards the idea that the image could be improved; however, this only leads me to consider that pictures in Wikipedia, like articles in Wikipedia, are a work in progress. Even after reaching featured status, images and articles in Wikipedia can still be made better (I'm sure technology in the future will lead to much more aesthetically pleasing images). Of course, all editors are entitled to their own perspectives, and I also like to assume all of them are nice persons. [;)]-- MarshalN20 T al k 14:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Haffy. To me it looks like something from the Saturday Evening Post, churned out by Norman Rockefeller or whatever his name was.  Sca (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see where you're coming from there, but it's the image we should surely be judging, not the merits of the artwork. It's certain encyclopaedic. And Norman Rockefeller sells for serious money at Christie's, his auction record being $46 million Saying Grace at Sotheby's. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very surprised a couple of experienced editors are making these arguments. The artistic quality or content of the painting is immaterial. Our criteria judge it on its encyclopedic value - in this case solidly underpinned by an independent and lengthy article. Is the work kitschy, nostalgic, patriotic and arguably quite ugly? Yes. Does it matter? No; we don't get to judge based on our own conception of aesthetics. 70.72.190.205 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 12:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)