Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crown of the Andes
Crown of the Andes[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 01:07:59 (UTC)
- Reason
- The Met has started licensing their photographs of PD works with a CC-0 license. Among the thousands of images included is this beaut, of the Crown of the Andes. High quality, good EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Crown of the Andes
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
- Creator
- Metropolitan Museum of Art
- Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good EV, good picture, easy nom. Mattximus (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Minor caption issue - article says 16th century, not 17th. TSP (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Museum says "Ca. 1660 (diadem) and ca. 1770 (arches)". Source for the 16th century says "example of the work of 17th-century Spanish goldsmiths" but also that "the little cross supported by the orb, the earliest part of the confection, probably dates from the 16th century." Sources seem to agree on this being a 17th-century work, despite the oldest piece presumably dating to a year before the 17th century. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. Even that source says it dates partly from the 16th century. It just seems problematic to me that we have an article caption saying "It dates, at least partly, to the 17th century" for the lead image of an article whose lead describes the item as "Originating — at least partly — in the 16th century".
While these aren't technically contradictory, I'd suggest that one needs revising; and that it would be better to achieve consensus at the article rather than in an image caption. Personally I'd still support the "at least partly to the 16th century" wording - the point is that the crown is traditionally dated to the 16th century, but Christies say it only dates partly from then - i.e. everyone agrees it has an origin in the 16th century, but not exactly how much of the current structure dates back to then.
I also think this phrasing would normally be used to give the earliest date - it would be technically true to say "The Tower of London, which dates at least partly from the 21st century", but I don't think anyone would. TSP (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)- Reworked entirely — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. Even that source says it dates partly from the 16th century. It just seems problematic to me that we have an article caption saying "It dates, at least partly, to the 17th century" for the lead image of an article whose lead describes the item as "Originating — at least partly — in the 16th century".
- Museum says "Ca. 1660 (diadem) and ca. 1770 (arches)". Source for the 16th century says "example of the work of 17th-century Spanish goldsmiths" but also that "the little cross supported by the orb, the earliest part of the confection, probably dates from the 16th century." Sources seem to agree on this being a 17th-century work, despite the oldest piece presumably dating to a year before the 17th century. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support - great picture, great EV. TSP (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Jobas (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Brilliant candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Crown of the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception, known as the Crown of the Andes MET DP365520.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)