Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/US Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supreme Court Oral Arguments[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2020 at 21:05:02 (UTC)

Originals Erwin Chemerinsky (left) and Seth P. Waxman (right) argue before the US Supreme Court in Hyatt III
Reason
These two images are historically significant and rare depictions of the scene inside the United States Supreme Court. Because oral arguments are not allowed to be photographed or video recorded, the only depictions available are drawings. As a set, they represent our only images available to illustrate Supreme Court proceedings, and on their own merits depict a historical moment that resulted in the rare rejection of a Supreme Court precedent. Beyond their encyclopedic value, they are of a high technical standard having good composition, an interesting art style, and high quality scans of the original drawings. Though these do not meet the 7 day waiting period, their encyclopedic value seems obvious enough that the waiting period can be ignored.
Articles in which this image appears
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019)
FP category for this image
Drawings
Creator
Arthur Lien, released under CC-BY-SA license through the work of MrClog
  • Support as nominator – — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never nominated a set before, and couldn't find instructions, so if I've done something wrong feel free to tell me or fix it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I'm the uploader) - I am also unexperienced w.r.t. FPs. However, I agree these are good quality pictures. Cameras are not allowed in the SCOTUS and the 3 (I think) court drawers all require payment for their work (I don't blame them). My email to Arthur asking for permission seemed like a long shot, but I was happily suprised he was willing to release these drawings. --MrClog (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images don't meet the 1500 pixel requirement (criterion 2), but I am Ok with an exception in this case. More pixels don't give us more information or useful details in this case. Each image is also used in a second article [1], [2]. Support but conditionally, if the images are stable in the three articles for an additional 7 days after the 10 day voting period. Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bammesk: Arthur Lien chose to provide the medium resolution version of these images (which normally cost $120 per sketch), presumably so he can still sell the high resolution version ($200 per sketch) to certain organisations that would like to have the images in the highest quality possible. However, besides your point, it is unlikely we will ever get more court sketches, let alone court sketches in their best quality, as that damages the court artist's commercial interest. --MrClog (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good examples of this almost defunct artform and tradition (I remember when court drawings were often shown on the TV news in Australia), and illustrates an eccentricity of the modern US Supreme Court. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Maybe it's just me, but how does this help the reader understand the Hyatt case or decision? Isn't there argumentation in all cases before the SCOTUS? Now, if the picture were on the courtroom sketch article, it might be different. -- Veggies (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Veggies: (Actually, in some cases SCOTUS issues summary decisions without hearing oral arguments.) Regardless, the image provides a visualisation of the atmosphere and environment in which the oral arguments of Hyatt III took place, with the specific lawyers and justices present, in a way words could not. --MrClog (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images are also used on Arthur Lien as a representation of his art style and at United States Supreme Court in its oral arguments section. As for its value to Hyatt III, the renditions of Kagan's and Kavanaugh's expressions are able to convey how receptive they were to the arguments. For example, in the sketch of Waxman's arguments, we see Kagan with what seems to be a positive expression, and Kavanaugh looking frustrated. This is an interesting scene in the context of the article because in the final decision, Kagan actually sided against Waxman and Kavanaugh sided with Waxman. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We don't see law related FPCs often at all. MER-C 16:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Court drawings are not PD, and this is a rare profession so we aren't very likely to see many court drawers in the Wikimedia community. Hence promoting these two would not open the floodgates to an indiscriminate number of such drawings. The court case is borderline EV, but it definitely enhances the EV of the artist's article by showing his art style. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chemerinsky during Hyatt III sketch.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Waxman during Hyatt III sketch.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/US_Supreme_Court_Oral_Arguments&oldid=957071850"