Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Whiskey Rebellion

Whiskey Rebellion
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 11:10:15 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality, notable event in American history
 * Articles in which this image appears:Whiskey Rebellion (lede image), Presidency of George Washington, Taxation history of the United States, 1794 in the United States
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/History/USA History
 * Creator:Unknown, attributed to Frederick Kemmelmeyer


 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment/neutral: to me this looks a bit average, but I don't know much about this particular area. I wonder if you could take a look at criterion 3 and reason it out a bit. In particular, although you may wish to draw instead on other parts, It illustrates the subject in a compelling way and/or [It] is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative... historical... images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You and I seem to have a very different opinion of what is "compelling". The painting is nearly contemporary (painted one year after the events pictured), and I've yet to see another with equal EV. Colours may be a bit faded, but that is to be expected for a 200+ year old work. As Kemmelmeyer seems to have been a realist, there is little symbolism (readily apparent, at least) to draw the eye. "Wow" isn't everything - this isn't Commons; "wow" can be offset by high EV, irreplaceability, etc. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, with a comment regarding the above: this may not have "wow" in the traditional "this is incredibly gorgeous and I love to look at it" sense. What it does have, for me, is a tremendous amount of "wow" in the sese of "here is a moment in American history that has been depicted by a near-contemporary", which is a great thing for me.  As to artistic merits, honestly, if I were writing a paper about this painting as an object it would be mildly condemnatory.  It's not awful (I've seen worse), but it's not the greatest, either; the colors are faded, the landscape's a shade unbelievable, the soldiers are ranged too neatly in rows, and by and large it doesn't have any artistic "oomph" to me.  The sad fact is, though, that much of history was depicted at first-hand by the second-rates, as it were, and this is no different.


 * Anyhow, there's my tuppence ha'penny'orth on the matter. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)