Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edward VI of England c. 1546.jpg

Edward VI of England[edit]

Reason: Sharp, crisp clear painting of a british monarch
Proposed caption: Edward VI became King of England, King of France and Edward I of Ireland on 28 January 1547, and crowned on 20 February, at just nine years of age. Edward, the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, was the third monarch of the Tudor dynasty and England's first ruler who was Protestant at the time of his ascension to the throne. Edward's entire rule was mediated through a council of regency as he never reached maturity. The council was first led by his uncle, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset (1547–1549), and then by John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland (1549–1553).
Alternate proposed caption: Edward VI became King of England, King of France and Edward I of Ireland on 28 January 1547, and crowned on 20 February, at just nine years of age. Edward, the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, was the third monarch of the Tudor dynasty and England's first ruler who was Protestant at the time of his ascension to the throne. Edward's entire rule was mediated through a council of regency as he never reached maturity. The council was first led by his uncle, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset (1547–1549), and then by John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland until Edward's death, probably from pulmonary tuberculosis, aged 15 in 1553. This portrait depicts Edward as Prince of Wales, wearing a badge with the Prince of Wales's feathers, and was probably painted in 1546 when he was resident at Hunsdon House from May to June, as the house is shown through the open window. - PKM 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in: ~~Edward VI~~, Edward VI of England, 1500-1550 in fashion Edward VI is a redirect. - PKM 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creator: Unknown, but the copyright has almost certainly expired
Alternate creator: This painting was formerly attributed to Hans Eworth, but is likely by another artist of the Flemish School, perhaps William Scrots. -PKM 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator Hadseys 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the painting, however i just can't make myself support it, simply because i know a larger version exists somewhere and i feel it's currently not detailed enough to be a featured image. However, since it's above the minimum size according to the guidelines, i can't really oppose it either, and to be honest i don't want to do that as it is a high-quality picture. --Aqwis 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but if we ever get a larger copy that doesn't have other flaws, we should probably shift to that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The new scan is significantly better, but those strange lines and halftoning artifacts keep me from supporting. Resolution isn't the best, but fine. However, for the size, I want a bit more than what the jpeg artifacts and lines/spots, especially on the face, leave. thegreen J Are you green? 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure the artefacts you mention are just part of the painting, it usually happens on even the best paintings, because the paintbrush doesn't go ver all of it or something. --Hadseys 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't really have a texture as I might expect from a painting; I think it's probably something to do with the scan/printing. A larger scan will tell more. thegreen J Are you green? 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've asked PKM if she'd be willing to rescan it. Chick Bowen 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescan: I can rescan at higher resolution, but maybe not before the weekend. What's the max size? 5MB? - PKM 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something around that area, but it is possible to upload larger files. thegreen J Are you green? 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually 20MB, but the limiting factor is likely to be your internet connection. MER-C 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're considering internet connections, please consider other people's and try to keep file sizes to something reasonable - I can't see why this needs to be more than 1 - 2MB. --jjron 08:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescanned I have rescanned from the book at 600dpi (the largest native resolution on my scanner) and removed scanning artifacts. The new image is 2.67MB, and at this resolution we are picking up the screen from the printing process, so I think this is as large as makes sense. - PKM 16:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are slight color fringes from the scanning process which can be removed by sampling this down to a smaller size, which would, IMHO, make the high res version more useful and pleasing - but you seem to want all the detail, so here it is. PKM 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hmmm, if I saw this in an art gallery it wouldn't draw me in - applying that to FPC would be an oppose. --jjron 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably the argument here is that its value is historical rather than aesthetic. Chick Bowen 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I would contend that 'historical value' is far too oversold on FPC as an excuse for not meeting other criteria. --jjron 06:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.247.123 (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 85.75.247.123, I'm glad to see you're interested in the FPC process - however I noticed that your only edits are here, and as such, your vote is likely to be disregarded (I quote "Note however that anonymous votes are generally disregarded"). If you wish to participate, I'd encourage the creation of an account. Cheers. --Mad Tinman 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Pay it forward brother! de Bivort 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I most surely will xD Fast learner, hehehe --Mad Tinman 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The size doesn't bother me, and the quality of being aesthetic is subjective; so opposing on the grounds of not being attractive is a little unfair IMO. -- Chris B • talk 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I assume you're referring to my vote? It seems that people oppose images all the time for 'no wow factor' or its equivalent. Perhaps if I put my vote in those terms it would make more sense? --jjron 14:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the record, I think this image is gorgeous (but I spend a lot of time looking at 16th century paintings). It is historically interesting, as depicting the short-lived king of England as Prince of Wales (he wears a jewel with the Prince's badge of three ostrich plumes); it can be dated decisively (Hunsdon House appears in the distance; Edward lived there from May-July 1546); and it documents clothing cuts, textiles, furs, and embroidery of its period. It's also, in retrospect, heartbreaking - Edward died at the age of 15 in 1553. - PKM 16:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support on enc. grounds and technical quality. Perhaps work some of PKM's info above into the caption? --Malachirality 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I've proposed alternate captions and creator messages with some of this info, above. Sorry if I didn't follow approved protocol on that; I've never participated in one of these before. The turquoise streak is in the photo I scanned, and is I think an artifact of a crack in the wooden panel on which this is painted (it's not on canvas). - PKM 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Edward VI of England c. 1546.jpg MER-C 03:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]