This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Cartimandua is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
I see that this image of Cartimandua — who evidently shared her makeup artist with Mariah Carey or Scarlett Johansson — is of questionable provenance. It's under copyright, and fair use is argued; however, I doubt its encyclopedic value, as I see no information on the file page about its artist or period. It's perfectly acceptable to use canonical interpretations of ancient people or scenes in later artwork, as long as these are labeled as such, for instance a Neoclassical painting of a Socratic symposium. Such works and their artists have their own notability. This image has no information that would explain what sort of lens is filtering the subject. It's the work of one William Whitaker, who doesn't have his own article. I can't find any published scholarship on the work, not even a blog review.
Illustrations of this kind are a form of OR because they are interpretations; they differ from diagrams, maps, and so on that straightforwardly present information that can be verified. I cannot, for instance, produce my own artistic vision in acrylics of Vercingetorix surrendering to Julius Caesar and palm it off as an illustration for WIkipedia; that would be OR. But Royer's famous painting of this scene, correctly labeled, has its own historical interest and value. Without a provenance, this image of Cartimandua misleadingly suggests that it is a recreation of how a woman of Cartimandua's time and status might've looked, and as that I find it quite silly (no offense to the artist or the quality of his work!). Cynwolfe (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I took this picture out of the Brigantes article because it looks like a modern recreation of a painting by some early 19th Century romantic on a visit to the Ottoman Empire. I'm not even sure that it's the same Cartimandua, or that the artist knew who she was. Paul S (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Now, if we actually had a painting by a 19th-century Romantic who was feeling Ottomanish, I'd be on board. If we don't hear a defense in a couple of days, I suppose we'd be justified in removing it? I think it should be deleted altogether from WP, as I don't think it meets the criteria for fair use. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)