Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Hunting of the Snark

Hunting of the Snark - Plates 1–10
 wadester 16  03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are a set and only have historical value as a set. And if Plate IV doesn't past, then the set is disrupted. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just offering my 2¢. Note we have many engravings from novels that appear alone; typically they give the best overview of the piece of writing. But it's your decision.  wadester 16  04:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Put into gallery. I couldn't get the poetry to work - it doesn't like HTML line breaks - but the text is still there for someone else to clean up. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The poetry part was the reason why it wasn't converted to gallery, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Durova  273 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There, I've fixed the damn thing so the poetry displays. However, I don't really feel like coming back to FPC yet, so I'm not going to vote. Unless this entire page gets filled with even more arguing and idiocy over picture arrangement - It runs for a week, people. Endless manipulation of the gallery format, at the cost of actual reviews, is neither useful, nor helpful. - in which case, I shall vote to have all of you hit in the face with a pie. Every day. For the rest of your lives. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks much better; thanks. Oh, and I prefer blueberry.  wadester 16  18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Delightful set.--ragesoss (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pictures don't have great EV in the article. They aren't really integrated well at all. There's probably enough EV for some of them, but not enough to promote the whole lot. These would no doubt fare better if only the best was nominated. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how there is a section devoted to "illustrations" and they are a set that can only be understood in a whole and are a possible aid in understanding a very complex poem (as pointed out in the article), I question if you have actually looked at the article. As such, your oppose is negated as not actually dealing with the reality of the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Really? I did look at the article before I voted, and I stand by my comments. All those pictures in that section are quite distracting. The section isn't really about the illustrations anyway; rather, it's about whether the illustrations are faithful to the text. Like I said, one or two of them probably have the exceptional EV required to be FP, but not all of them. Plate 4, for example, certainly doesn't add to the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a section discussing the illustrations - which were published witht he first edition and almost every edition thereafter until modern times (when publishing books stripped of their illustrations became common) but you don't feel that having all the original illustrations, compiled with Lewis Carroll's approval, adds encyclopedic value, adds encyclopedic value? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Plate 4 is 100% essential to the text - the author wanted that plate because it shows the humor and carries the levity into the illustrations. It distinguishes the pictures as an addition to the work that compliments it and not just mimics it. The illustrations are obviously notable on their own and as a set. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Props to Showmaker's Holiday. NW ( Talk ) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  05:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)