Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gustave III redux

Gustav III, Act III (redux)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2024 at 23:30:39 (UTC)

Original – Set design for Act III of Daniel Auber's Gustave III

Reason: Not sure why this failed to reach quorum last month. There's examples - I should prepare one - of the process from this sort of thing to a 3D maquette (and presumably to stage, but the actual stages were rarely photographed; you sometimes got newspaper impressions) and they're clearly stages of a design process, so it's pretty fair to call this a set design.
Articles in which this image appears: Gustave III (Auber), Pierre-Luc-Charles Cicéri
FP category for this image: WP:FP/THEATRE
Creator: Pierre-Luc-Charles Cicéri, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think you should renominate so soon, Adam. I gave a reasoned argument against the nomination so you shouldn't be unsure why it failed to reach quorum. Not quite the same as my juvenile wombat which just failed - 4 support votes and no negative comments. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. To make this a simple series of points instead of a rant:
1. This is a very standard sort of image for FP status. We've regularly promoted similar artworks for opera - there's seventeen in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Theatre. Indeed, we promoted one earlier in February.
2. I read your statement; I responded to your statement at the time, and you never commented again. You still haven't clarified your point.
3. Nothing about your previous statement was framed as an objection. It was a comment about whether this counted as a set design, which I responded to both there, and in the introduction here.
4. You did not vote oppose last nomination. There were zero opposes.
5. You've never stated how this being an early stage in the set design - from which we know the final designs were made - ruins its EV.
6. Even if we accept this isn't finished set design but a concept for one, no other parts of the process exist except this one for this opera. It's from 1833; before illustrated newspapers and before photography, and this opera neither has a maquette like File:Marcel Jambon - Giuseppe Verdi - Otello Act I set design model.jpg nor a post-production artwork like File:Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - Gaetano Donizetti - Carrefour de St Jean et Paul. Dans l'Opéra Marino Faliero.jpg (Well, there's this image of a different scene but that has major issues of its own: Stages don't exist in portrait orientation, so its probably much, much more inaccurate and impressionistic than anything under consideration.) As such, this is the most reliable source for the opera.
7. This the only image of his work in Cicéri's article, and I'd say an example of Ciceri's work is of high EV in the other article.
8. I've reviewed every single example of Cicéri's work on Gallica (at least that comes up from a author search by him), and
  - Due, I presume, to when he worked, the vast, vast majority of his work isn't able to be assigned an opera or play.
  - There's not a lot of his more finished works that survive. This, and the unidentified [1] are probably his best surviving work, at least on Gallica. (Ones I'd consider somewhat close are: [2], [3] (unidentified ), [4], [5], [6], [7])
  - In one, and only one case, can I compare one of his works to a post-production lithograph. Now, I wouldn't necessarily trust a lithograph or other published illustratiosn of an opera to be perfectly accurate in pre-photography days, but this set design from Robert le Diable and this lithograph) are similar enough that I'd presume a lot of the differences are down to inaccuracies in the lithograph (after all, it's by necessity an impression of the stage design, probably not actually sketched from the same angle it's presented from) at least as much as any changes in the design later on.
    File:William Waud - Burning of McPhersonville 1865 - original sketch.jpg is what Alfred Waud sent Harper's Weekly. File:William Waud - Burning of McPhersonville 1865 - final Harper's Weekly version.jpg is what got published. Hence why one need be careful about presuming that illustrations from old newspapers or books are perfectly accurate. I'd be more inclined to trust Cicéri's original.
--Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose here is because I don't think we should be nominating again so soon. There isn't rule against it but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I saw your explantion on the first nomination but my comment still stands: 'This is the artist's signed watercolour which was presumably used for the set design. It is not the set design.' So the problem is not the EV of the image, it is the description which the rules say 'Properly identifies the main subject'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't see how it's any different than any other illustration of the set design. People know it's not a photograph of the stage. Do you disagree that Gallica labels it as a set design? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vinícius O. (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moonreach (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pierre-Luc-Charles Cicéri - Act III set design for the première production of Daniel Auber's Gustave III.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]