Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grenville Diptych edit2.jpg
- Reason
- A bit blurry but could probably benefit from being downsampled. Dramatically illustrates the heraldry concept of "quartering". Wouldn't this make a terrific choice for the April Fools Day main page?
- Proposed caption
- The Grenville Diptych was produced for Richard Temple-Grenville, Marquess of Chandos the son of the first Duke of Buckingham and Chandos between 1822 and 1839. The diptych shows 719 quarterings of the family which include, among others, ten variations of the English Royal arms, the arms of Spencer, De Clare, Valence, Mowbray, Mortimer, and De Grey, among others.
- Articles this image appears in
- Heraldry, Quartering (heraldry), Richard Temple-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, Richard Temple-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, Viscount Cobham
- Creator
- Unknown, but dated at 1839. Uploaded by User:Evadb
- Support as nominator Spikebrennan 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Fascinating, but heavily artifacted. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support edit 2 CillaИ ♦ XC 18:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- weak oppose, support edit 1, new proposed caption artifacts - a downsample might fix it though, as there are plenty of pixels, and I don't think info would be lost. Also, the 17th on the bottom row is close to my family crest. Debivort 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very interesting, but quite meaningless at this page size (I think an image should have some meaning at thumbnail size, as that is all that many users view at). Inconsistent scan from left to right of image - the left side is darker than the right side. --jjron 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- You really can't tell it's a set of heraldric crests in the thumb? I mean, I believe you, but it seems pretty clear to me. Debivort 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. Here's my test. I look at the image before reading any headings, captions, etc. I expect to be able to understand what it is illustrating without opening it fullsize. If I can't, then to me the thumbnail lacks meaning. I looked at this for at least a minute or more before giving up and reading what it was. Once I knew what it was I could tell, but it had failed my 'image only' test. --jjron 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Point of clarification (not that this addresses your objection): strictly speaking, this is not a set of heraldic crests; it's _a_ heraldic crest-- that is, this complex mess is the crest of a single particular 19th century English aristocrat. Spikebrennan 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe a better caption would help address Jjron's objection. Try this: "The Grenville Diptych is an extraordinarily complex coat of arms designed in the 19th century for Richard Plantagenet Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, a 19th-century British politician and aristocrat. This coat of arms includes 719 quarterings, or incorporations of the coats of arms of ancestors." Spikebrennan 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have no dispute that this is a valuable and interesting image. I might be out on a bit of limb here, but to me the criterion concerning 'adding value to an article' includes adding value at thumbnail size, as that is all many users view at. A lot of time here at FPC is spent by users going over images at full res, while paying scant regard to the thumbnail. I feel a FP should cover both bases, and to me this type of image doesn't. That doesn't mean it's not a useful image. Also I think a rescan from the original would be required to address my concerns over the inconsistent colouring; this is still the same in the Edit - compare the gold on the left and the right (it's brighter on the right), and the image edges on the two sides (on the left it's almost got a pinkish hue, on the right it almost blends into the white of the page background at pageview size). My guess is this was scanned from a book and the page was bound on the lefthand side so didn't sit flat on the scanner, thus scanning a bit darker on the left. --jjron 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I uploaded a second edit that hopefully deals with some of the coloring issues (the pinkish tint is now gone). CillaИ ♦ XC 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have no dispute that this is a valuable and interesting image. I might be out on a bit of limb here, but to me the criterion concerning 'adding value to an article' includes adding value at thumbnail size, as that is all many users view at. A lot of time here at FPC is spent by users going over images at full res, while paying scant regard to the thumbnail. I feel a FP should cover both bases, and to me this type of image doesn't. That doesn't mean it's not a useful image. Also I think a rescan from the original would be required to address my concerns over the inconsistent colouring; this is still the same in the Edit - compare the gold on the left and the right (it's brighter on the right), and the image edges on the two sides (on the left it's almost got a pinkish hue, on the right it almost blends into the white of the page background at pageview size). My guess is this was scanned from a book and the page was bound on the lefthand side so didn't sit flat on the scanner, thus scanning a bit darker on the left. --jjron 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Uploaded edit 1. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Support edit2 Incidentally I saw this last week. Amazing technique and exceedingly encylopedic. The last edit appears to have minimized the prominent artefacts present in the original, so I support. -- Chris B • talk 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)- Support edit 2 - Very interesting and encyclopedic image. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 2 - encyclopedic, right size and just gets the point of quartering across.The Placebo Effect 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Grenville Diptych edit2.jpg MER-C 09:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
