Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tortilleras - Carl Nebel

Tortilleras

 * Reason:A very good quality colour lithograph, in superb conditio, illustrating traditional ways of making Mexican tortillas. By being able to select details, Carl Nebel was able to create something better than a photograph would be in illustrating this. As a bonus, the creator is quite notable. - understandably so, perhaps - his use of delicate colour in the sunset really is a masterpiece of lithographic art. The ability to reproduce delicate shades in bulk, outside of masterworks such as this, won't be seen again before the early 20th century.
 * Articles this image appears in:Lithography, Mexican cuisine, Tortilla, Carl Nebel, Nixtamalization
 * Creator:Carl Nebel


 * Support as nominator --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support! This is great! Not only for Carl Nebel, but also for the food articles! Tortilla making is such a big part of Mexican cusine and social interactions that it's great to have this view of it! Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This image is relevant for articles related to lithography and Mexican cuisine. And is also a very good piece of art.--Enigma Blues (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above  Beware  ofdog  16:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given that tortilla making is so important, I think the article would benefit more with a high resolution digital photograph than it does with a dated artists interpretation. Both articles already have actual photos of the subject matter which illustrate it rather well. The lithography article has numerous examples of artistic lithographs, I'm not really sure what is one is adding to it. That is compared with only one, rather weak technical image. This is the best example of Nebels work we have, though his article is a stub with a gallery in the public domain. I'm not overly moved by its artistic qualities, which as I understand carry more weight on the commons than they do here. This is a high resolution, high quality image which is ultimately going to become FP, I just don't see what all the fuss is about. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no other high-resolution colour lithograph in lithography. The only other colour lithograph is very low resolution. Secondly, there is no other image of people making tortillas in the tortilla article, only of tortillas themselves, or as part of food. Thirdly, this lithograph, through its age, shows the length of time tortilla making has been important to Mexican culture, in a way a modern photograph could not. The historicity lends interest - for instance, this could also be used to discuss Mexican clothing of the period - and having a variety of reproduction media in an article adds depth. Finally, an artwork can choose to eliminate distracting elements, and a photo can't, so I'd question whether a modern photograph of similar quality would actually be that easy to get. Since said photograph does not actually exist yet, I'd say that if and when it does, then would be a better time to compare and discuss. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Historic value does not necessarily equate to encyclopaedic value. I agree this image adds some value to the articles, but not enough to warrant featuring. An artwork can chose to eliminate distracting elements, or important ones, or embellish some, or whatever. I'm not convinced that this manifestation of a mans imagination is in any way superior to an accurate photograph of an actual event. People are still making tortillas in the traditional way. I can not support this image on the basis that "hey, it's the best we've got" when it is possible to do much better. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well,I think that, even if we had a modern photograph, this would be useful to show how long it's been part of Mexican culture, in addition to said photograph. Also, even if it wasn't encyclopedic there, it would be in Carl Nebel or lithography. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shoemaker that it provides a unique and valuable, if not vital, addition to the respective articles. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, having a photograph as well would increase the encyclopedic value: Think about it: it was important enough to be the subject of art in 1816 - and here's a photo, showing that two centuries later, it's still important to Mexican culture. The two together would, if anything, be far more encyclopedic than either one alone =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no photograph, there is only this piece of art. It is pretty, but it is not so good at illustrating the articles that it warrants featuring. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... this conversation's probably not going to go anywhere. Agree to disagree? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, nothing personal either, I think we just have vastly different opinions of when artwork has EV. --151.124.247.200 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Uncle Bungle. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday that this image has encyclopedic value for several of the articles that it illustrates.  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added the image to nixtamalization, which previously had no illustration and where a historic lithograph of tortilla production in Mexico looks highly encyclopedic. Durova Charge! 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 05:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)