Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Ben Banneker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ben Banneker

Benjamin Banneker, was a free African American mathematician, astronomer, clockmaker, and publisher.

Image summarizes Ben's works. Appears in Charles Alston, and Benjamin Banneker

Nominated by

Muhammad(talk) 11:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why this particular depiction? I agree it's important to recognize men like this. What puzzles me is why you selected a World War II artist's depiction for an eighteenth century figure. The execution is respectful, yet also workmanlike and routine. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Appears to be the only image of him on Wikipedia. Perhaps that was reason enough for the selection? --jjron (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thats exactly why. But can it pass as FP? Muhammad(talk) 08:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I only rarely vote on images like this at FPC (meaning historic images and the like) as it is somewhat anti my idea of what FPs should be, which is images by Wikipedians exclusive to Wiki. If I do vote it's usually an oppose because I find the image to be particularly deficient in some way. So having cleared that up, I don't think this is any worse than a number that have been promoted in recent times. For that reason I think it may be worth a try; personally, while I wouldn't support it, I wouldn't oppose either. If it had been created by a Wikipedian I would support. --jjron (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of images break my heart because the subject is so important and there just isn't anything that stands a chance of meeting FP standards. I've tried restoring portraits of Harriet Tubman, for example, and can't get anything to a level where I could nominate. Over at Commons there's a proposal called valuable images where this would be suitable. If you don't already have an account over there, it might be worth creating one to check that out. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 10:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's fair to say that this doesn't stand a chance of meeting FP standards. In my opinion it's at least as good as today's POTD and has higher encyclopaedic value. The more I consider this the more I lean towards at least a personal 'weak support'. --jjron (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd probably abstain. If the nominator articulated a particular reason for the World War II era depiction, and tied that in with the biography or other articles, then its value would be much higher. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconder