Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Pig Faced Lady of Manchester Square and the Spanish Mule of Madrid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Pig Faced Lady of Manchester Square and the Spanish Mule of Madrid[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 19:14:49 (UTC)

Original - The Pig Faced Lady of Manchester Square and the Spanish Mule of Madrid is a coloured print by George Cruikshank depicting The Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square in contrast to the unpopular Ferdinand VII of Spain.
Reason
Very interesting and striking picture of extremely interesting subject matter- it may well make a great April Fools' Day POTD. Clear EV in the context of the (very well developed) article- there are two paragraphs (and two blockquotes) devoted entirely to this image. Other than that, the file is of a very high quality, all the text is readable, the colours are great and the image is nice and big. It's aged well.
Articles in which this image appears
Pig-faced women
FP category for this image
This, much like the article, really defies categorisation. It could be People/Others (it's illustrating the person), Artwork/Others (it's in a section about the artistic depictions of the subject), Culture and lifestyle (people really believed she existed), Religion and mythology (the pig-headed woman is a creature of folklore and myth) or History/Others (this very much belongs in the history books.) Opinions welcome.
Creator
George Cruikshank
  • Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak support This is weird, I'm sure it's meant to be humorous but, I don't know, maybe you had to be around during the time period to get it; You know what they say about a joke: If you have to explain it, it's not funny and you know that feeling of hearing a joke you don't get? That's what weakens my support =\ It is technically good, although someone else might not like the yellow edge and suggest more restoration. I'm inclined to categorize this in Literary illustrations. --I'ḏOne 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's 19th century satire. Take a read of the article (I'd recommend reading it anyway, but the subject matter is something I love of a number of levels)- you'll start to appreciate what the image is showing and the significance of it. The joke will also become more apparent. (It doesn't fit in litarary illustrations at all- it's not an illustration from a book or literature, it's a pair of charicatures of real people in the style of the time.) J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • As the author of Pig-faced women, I'd be inclined to say that this should be categorised at Artwork/Others if it's promoted (no opinion on whether it should be). Although it's currently only used to illustrate Pig-faced women, I suspect most people will be primarily interested in this in the context of "very unusual work by Cruikshank", not in the Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square or in Ferdinand VII per se. Agree that it definitely shouldn't be in Literary Illustrations, as it has nothing to do with any book; the point Cruikshank was trying to make was that, despite his high rank, Ferdinand was less civilised than the human/pig hybrid believed to be living in London at the time. – iridescent 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
        • My thinking is that it's an illustration that has literature. According to the article these stories apparently used to be popular folk literature and stories, there's even a pic at the top of the article that was from a newspaper, but w/e. --I'ḏOne 14:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
          • "That has literature"? What does that even mean? J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I think Idloveone is misunderstanding what this image is. It's not the illustration to any piece of literature; it's a print of a drawing, and the only text attached to it is the captions visible above and below. (I'm not sure what "one of the other images in the article is from a newspaper" has to do with anything.) – iridescent 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Agreed. IdLoveOne, again, I impore you- take a look at the article. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
                • One full Support even though I still barely get the joke. My point about this being "literary" is that the captions of each image double as, in effect, short stories; Story-telling and drawing are two types of artwork clearly present in this, but if you still disagree then my vote goes to Culture and lifestyle since, apparently, these are long-past archaic themes of folklore according to the article, or Other artwork since that is what it is. Was this really just released singly? It was never apart of a book, magazine? What is "The Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square & other Medical Marvels"? --I'ḏOne 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Good EV and resolution. --Avenue (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional weak Support Conditional that it's moved to Commons. (yes I'm aware the uploader doesn't want that, but there is no legal reason why it shouldn't be there and available to other projects.) Also I'm pretty sure the restoration pushed the colors WAAY to far, the paper is almost mustard yellow now. A more careful color correction might be fully supportable but this one is most likely highly inaccurate from the original (unless another source shows the originals colors and this is faithful to them). — raekyt 11:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, I've uploaded it to Commons, where it has the same name. The paper is not yellow due to age (and I don't think this has had any cleanup work)- it has been deliberately coloured yellow. Look, for instance, below the words "so justly form'd"- you'll see what I mean. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yea I looked at some more of his work and it appears he usually colors in squares like that for the effect. Still seems unnaturally saturated, but I'll defer to your opinion. — raekyt 23:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 04:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  • 4 of 5 necessary supports. Jujutacular talk 04:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)