Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Ben Banneker

Ben Banneker


Image summarizes Ben's works. Appears in Charles Alston, and Benjamin Banneker


 * Nominated by: Muhammad (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of images break my heart because the subject is so important and there just isn't anything that stands a chance of meeting FP standards. I've tried restoring portraits of Harriet Tubman, for example, and can't get anything to a level where I could nominate. Over at Commons there's a proposal called valuable images where this would be suitable. If you don't already have an account over there, it might be worth creating one to check that out. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 10:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Why this particular depiction? I agree it's important to recognize men like this.  What puzzles me is why you selected a World War II artist's depiction for an eighteenth century figure.  The execution is respectful, yet also workmanlike and routine.  Durova Charge! 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Appears to be the only image of him on Wikipedia. Perhaps that was reason enough for the selection? --jjron (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats exactly why. But can it pass as FP? Muhammad (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I only rarely vote on images like this at FPC (meaning historic images and the like) as it is somewhat anti my idea of what FPs should be, which is images by Wikipedians exclusive to Wiki. If I do vote it's usually an oppose because I find the image to be particularly deficient in some way. So having cleared that up, I don't think this is any worse than a number that have been promoted in recent times. For that reason I think it may be worth a try; personally, while I wouldn't support it, I wouldn't oppose either. If it had been created by a Wikipedian I would support. --jjron (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's fair to say that this doesn't stand a chance of meeting FP standards. In my opinion it's at least as good as today's POTD and has higher encyclopaedic value. The more I consider this the more I lean towards at least a personal 'weak support'. --jjron (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd probably abstain. If the nominator articulated a particular reason for the World War II era depiction, and tied that in with the biography or other articles, then its value would be much higher.  Durova Charge! 06:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This image is notable primarily for the misinformation that it conveys. The artist (Charles Alston) claimed in the image that Banneker had been a "city planner", "was placed on the commission which surveyed and laid out the city of Washington, D.C.", and had "constructed the first clock made in America". No reliable sources confirm the accuracy of these statements.  Banneker was an astronomer and a surveyor; he was not a "city planner".  He was an assistant on a survey of the boundaries of the future District of Columbia, but was not placed on any commission that was involved in this activity. The first known clockmaker of record in America was Thomas Nash, an early settler of New Haven in 1638. A known American clock was made in 1680. Banneker was not born until 1731. It is noteworthy that Charles Alston was an employee of the United States Office of War Information during the Second World War at the time that the image was published.  It therefore appears that this image was a piece of propaganda that was intended to counter the racist propaganda of Nazi Germany. Such propaganda often contains misinformation. Corker1 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)