Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Balearic slinger

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Slinger from the Balearic isles

edit
 
In ancient times, the inhabitants of the Balearic Islands were reputed experts with the sling.
 
Edit 1, Removed dust.
Reason
Excellent example of original artwork contributed to Wikipedia by the artist.
Articles this image appears in
sling (weapon)
Creator
Johnny Shumate
Caption is fine! --Fir0002 11:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is now, Fir. The caption is perfectly descriptive. Iorek85 12:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, puts the sling in context. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Nice picture 8thstar 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How do we know this is accurate? Without sources, this could be construed as original research. howcheng {chat} 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Three things that keep me from supporting: 1. there's scanner dust all over the picture; 2. the (I assume digital) coloring is inconsistent with the hatching, most noticeably in the strap of the shoulder bag; and 3. the background doesn't fit with the style of the foreground and is a bit kitschy. And the caption is on the short side too. ~ trialsanderrors 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) How do you know that's scanner dust and not just part of the image? Even if it's dust, it's easily removed. 2) Haven't you ever seen artwork where the coloring is not always "inside the lines". This is normal, even in the strap. 3) The coloring in the background is only there to replace the white. The background is rightly without detail, so as to keep the focus on the subject. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-30 04:57Z
      • Could be either, but should be removed. The Dufy effect is not what I'm talking about. The artist isn't clear whether to use the hatching to signify shades or dark areas. If it's the former the facial stubbles shouldn't be hatched since they're exposed to sunlight; if it's the latter the strap should be hatched. The background doesn't need detail, but it needs to be in keeping with the over style of the picture. There is in fact absolutely no need for background in this picture. Sorry, but I had to accept those kinds of criticisms myself long enough to know what I'm talking about. ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A pleasing image. The technical issues are minor. Any dust (apparently graphite pencil diust on the drawing itself) can be removed. Yes, the image appears to be hand-drawn but software colored. Nothing wrong with that. However, has anyone looked into the copyright issue? Name of artist and uploader doesn't match, the given website leads to a commercial archery site, etc. If there is certainty this is a free image, I'll support. We have far too little free original artwork of this type. --Janke | Talk 06:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here. The issue isn't that it's hand drawn and computer colored, it's that it contains flaws one should learn to avoid in the first semester drawing class. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me for saying this, but I think it is unfair to require full professional artistic skill for a piece of artwork with a free licence (which must still be checked - I'm no expert, but there was a © sign on the imaginefx page, but that may refer to the website, not the artwork itself.) If we oppose a good-enough-looking drawing just because a professional artist could do better, we should also require full professional quality of all FP photos. If it comes to that, then I propose we scrap FPC altogether, because very few contributors would ever succeed. Very few even of Fir's or Dschwen's wonderful image - some of the best we have - could pass a "full professional" scrutiny. Only half in jest... Greetings, --Janke | Talk 09:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong, and your comment on Fir's picture belies this. We're not amateur hour here, we're trying to find freely licensed images that can compete with professional/copyrighted alternatives. Also, to repeat, I'm not applying "professional" standards here. "Whatever approach you use for your drawing, use it consistently throughout your composition" is one of the first lessons learned in an undergrad drawing class. And lastly, I'm focusing on the things that are fixable rather than the ones that aren't. ~ trialsanderrors 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a possible copyvio. The source is [1] and it is copyrighted. — Indon (reply) — 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be so sure. That looks like it was user submitted and likely didn't give the possibility for the user to change the license. I have pictures I've taken on sites and they could easily seem copyrighted even when I uploaded the same ones here and made the public domain... gren グレン 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no copyright violation. The picture was uploaded by User:Peltast, the artist is Johnny Shumate and these are one and the same person. Johnny gives his e-mail address on the image page, I contacted him and, referring to the URL I sent, he replied:
Great..!
I saw it on your website! I'll have to tell everyone I made the "bigtime"..!
Thanks!
Johnny

Peltast 14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Please click on the illustration and read the licensing: "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." My other illustrations can be found on this website. Look up, "Hoplite", "Peltast" and "Hypaspist". Johnny Peltast 14:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)18:35, March 30, 2007}}[reply]

  • support I would rather see a couple images, at least one of which shows a sling in action. That said, this image is so evocative of illustrations I had in my childhood encyclopedia that I have to support it. Debivort 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: to whoever who wants to give comments here, please do sign. There are a lot of unsigned comments by the nominator, by User:Peltast who said that (s)he is Johnny or Johnny Shumate a.k.a Hoplite a.k.a. Hypaspist, etc. Now I am confused who owns the copyright of this image. That's why I said it is possible copyvio. Unless the names are fixed to know definitely the copyright status of the image then I will support for the FP candidacy. The e-mail claim evidence is also not convincing for me. — Indon (reply) — 09:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As unattributed fact, non-matching background, and the subject being more the person than the sling.Enuja 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "subject being more the person than the sling". What does that have to do with the suitablility of the picture as featured picture? Gaius Cornelius 15:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What is meant is that this image is supposed to illustrate a sling. However, the image is only 10% about the sling, and the most dominant feature is the figure. When you look at the image, you don't think "whoa, this is a very encyclopedic image of a sling". I think "hmm... this is an illustration of an old-time looking guy, in the style of biblical illustration... oh, and I guess he is holding a sling". The image isn't even a demonstration of how a sling is used, or some other example of how including a figure could improve the encyclopedic value. This image just doesn't illustrate "sling" in an appropriate manner. I may reconsider if this image was attached to another article. Oppose.-Andrew c 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Balearic_slinger&oldid=1138493355"