Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/We shall resume our occupations

Auriga and Aquarius

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 19:23:26 (UTC)

#1: Auriga, in an 1825 starchart from Urania's Mirror.

#2: Aquarius, Piscis Australis and the obsolete constellation Ballon Aerostatique in an 1825 starchart from Urania's Mirror.

Reason: Not exactly a set, but I think these two are likely amongst the best cards in Sidney Hall's Urania's Mirror, and certainly similar enough to be judged as a group. These are attractive, very useful, thumbnail well, and are important to their articles. I've had half-finished cards from this set in my to-do list for ages, so I wanted to work through them.
Articles in which this image appears: Both: Urania's Mirror; #1: Auriga (constellation), Sidney Hall; #2: Aquarius (constellation), Piscis Australis, Ballon Aerostatique.
FP category for this image: Unsure
Creator: Sidney Hall and Richard Rouse Bloxam, restoration by Adam Cuerden.

Support both as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support both individually, not as a set. They have the most EV separately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The best EV would be in Urania's Mirror, but since we don't have that article yet,~~ other images can compete with those cards in the articles on corresponding constellations. I also noticed some unsharpness at full size. Brandmeister^talk 17:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WorldCat, the original work was 24 x 17 cm, and thus these scans are about 378 ppi. Printing this at 300 ppi would give a 30.21 x 21.15 cm print. I think a bit of blurriness is to be expected when we are making a print bigger than it actually is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a version of Auriga has been stable in the article for, as near as I can tell, about four and a half years; Aquarius lacked any traditional illustration whatsoever. If other images can compete, they aren't doing so very well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the comment that, as usual, the artist has been down-played to the extent that although these images were both used in articles in order to show how the constellations were depicted i.e. visually represented in graphic form, the artist had not been acknowledged in either case.

Let me state here that the images have no "encyclopedic value" in the representation of the constellations in any scientific or practical sense. Both are useful only in demonstating the History of human understanding of the constellations and the way they were perceived, named and depicted. They are images of a human construct. I am writing this because there appears to be considerable confusion as to when an image has "educational value" and when it doesn't. It would be very easy to label such "non-scientific" images as "of little educational value". However, the history of human understanding and depiction of the constellations is a valid encyclopedic subject in itself, just as book illustration is a valuable encyclopedic subject, in itself. In each case, the creator of the image must be properly acknowledged. This is not the constellation itself; it is Sidney Hall's depiction of the traditional concept. As such, Sidney Hall needed to be acknowledged in the captions of both articles, and any subsequent articles where his work is used. Amandajm (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, support them in Urania's Mirror (despite the 7-day requirement). Brandmeister^talk 07:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support both J e e 15:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Auriga.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Aquarius, Piscis Australis & Ballon Aerostatique.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]