Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Grenville Diptych edit2.jpg

Grenville Diptych

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 01:20:57 (UTC)

The Grenville Diptych was produced for Richard Temple-Grenville, Marquess of Chandos the son of the first Duke of Buckingham and Chandos between 1822 and 1839. The diptych shows 719 quarterings of the family. The left hand panel of the diptych lists the quarterings. These include ten variations of the English Royal arms, the arms of Spencer, De Clare, Valence, Mowbray, Mortimer, and De Grey, among others.

Reason

While this might meet the size criteria, I think it fails in the quality realm. It's also just not a very clear scan. This would be much more appropriate as an SVG, especially considering the size of the smaller quarterings, which could use more detail (or at least less blur), therefore it is not one of Wikipedia's best works.

Articles this image appears in

Heraldry, Division of the field, Viscount Cobham, Quartering (heraldry), among others

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grenville Diptych edit2.jpg

Nominator

upstateNYer

• Delist — upstateNYer 01:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Informed original nominator. upstateNYer 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist per nom --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 08:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist. Interesting, certainly, but I agree that the quality could be far higher here. J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist. I was the one who nominated this one for FPC in the first place. A pity, since this image had a place of honor on the April Fool's main page for 2008. But I can't argue with the rationale presented for delisting it. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist for two reasons: (1) the original is a scan of a half-toned reproduction [1], and (2) the other half of the diptych is not available, nor has it been transcribed for us. SVG argument is nonsense, you'd be working for more than a few weeks to reproduce the intricate border pattern plus shading in a vector format. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Regardless, it would still be preferable in my opinion. Didn't necessarily say it was practical, though. upstateNYer 00:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This is a completely different beast to any other coat of arms - this one was not made for use on official dispatches etc. Completely impractical for most things, and almost certainly designed as a sort of joke or fancy. I will therefore argue that this is not a case for being illustrated conceptually, but rather a single, once-off piece of art closer in spirit to Botticelli's Birth of Venus than to a traffic sign or simple coat of arms (where SVG would be actually appropriate). So in my opinion, a raster graphics reproduction is the correct medium for this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I see what you're saying. You wouldn't vectorize this for the same reason you wouldn't vectorize the Mona Lisa. At the same all other COAs are represented like this somewhere. But it doesn't matter, that's not the point of this discussion. But I understand what you mean now. upstateNYer 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Jujutacular ^talk 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)