Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/US Capitol rotunda paintings

US Capitol rotunda paintings

 * Reason: Featured Set Nomination: Declaration of Independence was first nominated and successfully promoted in August 2008. While it is exceptionally famous, it shares the same room as seven other notable and wonderful paintings in the United States Capitol rotunda. This is an effort to complete the set, which identify key points in early American history. Each painting is 365.76 by. And just a friendly reminder: evaluations should be based on the full resolution version of each image.
 * Articles this image appears in:United States Capitol rotunda is where they reside together. Each is also used in other articles as well. See the respective image pages for more info.
 * Creator:All images courtesy of the United States Architect of the Capitol, painted by John Trumbull, John Vanderlyn, William H. Powell, John Gadsby Chapman, or Robert W. Weir


 * Support as co-nominator -- wadester 16  06:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as co-nominator-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 06:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Featured sets have been controversial in the past, and fair enough too, as they're awkward to evaluate, and awkward to handle as FPs. What I did last time I had a set was to combine them into a single image, and link to each individually on the image page. Just an idea. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understandable, but this just recently passed with ten images. I would argue these have higher EV (not knocking the other nom, but these do have a legitimate place in American history).  wadester 16  15:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Having looked through them all. We have to decide if featured sets are OK once and for all rather than debate with each nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be nothing wrong with featured sets as long as the quality of each picture is up to snuff. I could see them as being a bit harder to pass, considering how one bad apple might spoil the whole bunch. However, each one of these images is worthy of an FP star, so why not all at once! Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except it is NO harder for them to pass - the 'bad apples' are just overlooked. It means you get multiple FPs for the price of one, which should not happen. --jjron (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? What do you mean "which should not happen"? What are you suggesting here?-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * His point is that if one is bad, but a voter thinks the quality of the others outweigh what's lacking in the one, it's not fair; each image should be promoted on its own merit. It's a very fair argument. I personally believe all of these meet the expectations of FP status.  wadester 16  03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Just checking. I thought he was suggesting something else; but as I (and you just now) stated above, every one of these pictures is worthy of FP status.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 06:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Pericles, you probably haven't been around here long enough to know that I am 100% opposed to the concept of featured sets. I have explained previously how they should be handled, in short either each image is nominated individually, or as Diliff says if they really belong in a set they are combined into a single image and judged in that context. --jjron (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been here since 2007. Your point is taken, but given the fact that there are already featured picture sets, like this one, I see a precedent for the acceptance of featured picture sets. Let's hear what others have to say.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, though perhaps you should have known then that I am opposed to them :-). My personal take is that all existing sets should be auto-delisted and renominated in one of the two forms I mentioned above, which would remove the 'precedent'. It was a mistake to ever let one through to start with to set the precedent. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question If they're all good enough, why not just nominate them each? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support, albeit reluctant - I just wish they were a bit bigger. Still, the sizes compare to the other featured paintings we have which were taken in situ by Wikipedians, so I'm going to support. Weak because several of them have dark bands on the left and right sides. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. In light of the above discussion on sets and SMH's comment, I just randomly opened one of these. Does someone knowledgeable and uninvolved with this nom want to honestly say that this would get promoted if it was nominated individually? --jjron (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a set, but would consider them as individual noms. I don't think they all meet FPC standards of quality and EV. BTW, seems like we need to formalize some policy for dealing with sets. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support - the bands are a little problematic, but the colors come out nice and clean. I feel that they are definitely encyclopedic and outweigh the problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[I believe this is failing at the moment, as it doesn't have three full supports excluding nominators? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)]
 * Hmm, I never thought of it that way. I don't think I've ever not passed a nom that still had 4 supports even if 2 were co-nom supports. I see your point, as you're following the rules (albeit strictly), but I don't really think we should be punished for working together on the nom...  wadester 16  05:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, that is precisely why the rules are worded that way - to help ensure a minimum level of scrutiny. I remember a featured sound debate where they had three nominators, which would make it eligible for promotion even though nobody commented on it (fortunately, people did). MER-C 11:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll go through each painting one-at-a-time:
 * Surrender of General Burgoyne — Is the lighting on the rump of the horse bright, or is this how the painting is painted? In addition, the tilt seems off; look at the framing on the bottom and the left side.
 * Surrender of Lord Cornwallis — I really don't see any problems with this, just regular, expected wear and tear. However, is the shading line running along the right from lighting, or is that different fading?
 * General George Washington Resigning his Commission — Pretty decent quality with this one, although there is a 4 px grey line on the far left side that I think should be cropped out. I can't tell if it's the frame or the painting.
 * Landing of Columbus — There's a significant amount of frame appearing in the top right; I don't know if this can be fixed. (A crop would remove some of the painting itself). And it looks blurry in the article for some reason.
 * Discovery of the Mississippi — Banding issues and frame at the top right and left. This almost seems vignetted because of the darker corners.
 * Baptism of Pocahontas — Definite tilt issues. Needs a slight clockwise turn.
 * Embarkation of the Pilgrims — The frame needs to be cropped out.


 * Overall, Weak, weak oppose set because of concerns in some of the above, in addition to the banding pointed out by Shoemaker's Holiday. Some of these I think could pass, others need work before passing, and others I don't know about them passing.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Spencer, you write: "Is the lighting on the rump of the horse bright, or is this how the painting is painted?" It is most certainly how the painting is painted (or rather, how it has been degraded); look at this Google image search of every single other photo taken of this painting.--  Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. That's for that one. [continues looking at the pictures].  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 19:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As a set. Do not see the huge importance of the rotunda and, as these paintings may change, would degrade the quality of the set.  If this were to pass, we would have precedence for a set of the paintings in the Louvre, or the Hermitage, or Buckingham Palace, or whatever other building combinations might be dreamed up.  Sorry, this isn't how I think our featured process should work.   Mae din \talk 10:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I just want to point out, though, that these paintings won't change. They are permanent additions to the walls of the rotunda, being set into niches in the wall made specifically for these paintings. They were commissioned specifically to be in the Capitol rotunda and have been there for over a century and a half.  wadester 16  18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I hadn't specifically realised that, I was referring more to potential damage, either to the paintings or the building. But I agree that it's unlikely they'll change—at least not any time soon!   Mae din \talk 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, gotcha. I didn't realize your meaning initially.  wadester 16  18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I hadn't made it clear :-) I appreciate the information, anyway.   Mae din \talk 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope noone minds: I have voted, but I voted opposite to closure, and this had dragged on quite some time past closing date. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)