Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Ursa Major and other constellations

Ursa Major and other constellations


Sounding out the community on a slightly broader idea than this individual image. I've located high resolution files by the same artist for 29 constellations. The quality of the source files is quite good and the originals are well preserved, so these would make excellent starter projects for restoration. I've been looking to coach more people in this area and a collaborative restoration with the hope of a featured credit would be a good way to welcome newcomers to the area. My question is whether the community would accept these as candidates for featured picture: each illustrates a different constellation and the brightest stars often have their own articles. What's your opinion?


 * Nominated by: Durova Charge! 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominated at FPC by Durova. --jjron (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I suppose question No 1 is whether you sure these are astronomical book plates, and not astrological book plates? The short Sidney Hall article (oddly only just created) only makes some vague reference to astrology. My second issue would be the value per se of astronomical images from the early 1800s given how superseded any info they contain would be; the only value would be of historical curiosity surely, and I don't personally see that as being huge for these images. If they're astrological images then I see zero value. --jjron (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well most of the plates cover constellations that have nothing to do with astrology, and that stub was created with zero references two hours after this peer review opened by someone I had specifically asked to avoid me. I hope that doesn't disrupt this proposal, because several people have been talking to me about getting started in image restoration and this looks like an excellent way to bring more people into the area.  Durova Charge! 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconder:

