Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Princess

Scene from "The Princess"

 * Reason:I think it's a nice engraving, the play is relatively important given what it later developed into, (and after 6 bloody hours fixing all the printing errors, I want everyone to see it.)
 * Proposed caption:In 1870, W. S. Gilbert's musical farce The Princess premièred, a parody of Tennyson's epic poem The Princess: A Medley. Tennyson's tale of a prince cross-dressing in order to get access to a princess who shuns the world of men proved fertile ground for satire, and the cross-dressing prince and his companions, portrayed by women pretending to be men pretending to be women, added another layer of silliness to Gilbert's play. Though some elements of the farce have not aged well - Tennyson's poem is now forgotten, and Gilbert's satire of women's education is no longer politically correct - the play lives on in a later comic opera revision: Princess Ida, the eighth Gilbert and Sullivan opera.
 * Articles this image appears in:The Princess (play); Princess Ida.
 * Creator:D.H. Friston, with rather extensive retouching by me to fix a rather abominable printing (Alas! The only printing! One does wish that newspapers could make sure the six blocks that make up their woodcut image were positioned properly so that researchers a century and a quarter later wouldn't bewail their fate.)


 * Support as nominator Adam Cuerden talk 11:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support -- Ssilvers 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think you went too far in your editing. Those white lines delineate the separate, but probably glued-together pieces of wood that build up the woodcut. Removing them alters the historical original, and that is unacceptable, IMHO. If the lines were there in 1870, they should still be there! --Janke | Talk 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's always hard to judge these things, and it'd be reasonable to go either way. Hence why I provided both versions. But for simple illustration of the play, the lines are distracting. Adam Cuerden talk 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support despite my string of opposes today on 19th-C engravings: this one is of good quality and compelling composition. When I started typing this I couldn't quite support, per Janke, but on reflection I think that neither the articles it illustrates nor the subject would benefit from reproducing the printing errors, and the fact that the image page clearly describes the amendments made is sufficient in my opinion. If it were nominated for its contribution to an article on printing, I'd think differently. Compliments on the excellent caption by the way. ~ Veledan • T 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye: It seemed more useful, given where it's being used, to go with a version that removed obvious flaws, even if they're interesting from a typographic point of view. But I did provide an unedited version as well, since it has historical significance. I just don't think it's as useful for illustrating the plays. Adam Cuerden talk 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - good, clear, high-resolution engraving of a very interesting subject. I also agree with Veledan, nice composition. -- Chris.B 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)