- Reason
- A high res picture of Ben and the only one present on wikipedia. The image summarizes Ben's works.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ben Banneker, Charles Alston
- Creator
- Charles Alston
- Support as nominator Muhammad (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. This picture shows also a drawing style of Charles Alston, which was very characteristic. - Darwinek ( talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral The quality of the reproduction is good. I am concerned with the accuracy of the sketch though. My searches found this sketch of him to be different from 5 other ones I found. Each of thsse 5 was slightly different but generally similar to each other, this one shows a far less rounded face and larger lips. As an example of Charles Aston's work, I support. As a representation of a person, I am less certain. I suppose it's no different to crude paintings of 16th century monarchs which are not very accurate but all that exists. Capital photographer ( talk) 00:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing remarkable here. This is not to say it's not nice, useful, and interesting, just that it's not FP material.
Madman (
talk)
01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which of the FP Criteria does it nor fit in?
Muhammad
(talk)
11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would say 3 and possibly 6 Capital photographer ( talk) 12:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which of the FP Criteria does it nor fit in?
Muhammad
(talk)
11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support as I said when this went through PPR a few months back; was wondering if/when this would get nominated. -- jjron ( talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I just don't see the significance of this particular cartoon. It just seems like any other educational drawing from a children's book published from the 1940s through the 1960s. It's not particularly interesting or eye catching. -- Grandpafootsoldier ( talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Grandpafootsoldier. Kaldari ( talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree, this just isn't featured picture material. J Milburn ( talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't really like the exclamation points at the end of the sentences in the picture. Spencer T♦ C 19:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The cartoon mischaracterizes Banneker's achievements and overstates their importance. Banneker was not an "city planner". He assisted in a survey of the boundaries of the future District of Columbia for about three months, but did not participate in the layout of the City of Washington, D.C. Further, he did not construct the "first clock in America". The first known American clock was constructed 100 years before his. Corker1 7 August 2008.
- Reason
- A high res picture of Ben and the only one present on wikipedia. The image summarizes Ben's works.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ben Banneker, Charles Alston
- Creator
- Charles Alston
- Support as nominator Muhammad (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. This picture shows also a drawing style of Charles Alston, which was very characteristic. - Darwinek ( talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral The quality of the reproduction is good. I am concerned with the accuracy of the sketch though. My searches found this sketch of him to be different from 5 other ones I found. Each of thsse 5 was slightly different but generally similar to each other, this one shows a far less rounded face and larger lips. As an example of Charles Aston's work, I support. As a representation of a person, I am less certain. I suppose it's no different to crude paintings of 16th century monarchs which are not very accurate but all that exists. Capital photographer ( talk) 00:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing remarkable here. This is not to say it's not nice, useful, and interesting, just that it's not FP material.
Madman (
talk)
01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which of the FP Criteria does it nor fit in?
Muhammad
(talk)
11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would say 3 and possibly 6 Capital photographer ( talk) 12:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which of the FP Criteria does it nor fit in?
Muhammad
(talk)
11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support as I said when this went through PPR a few months back; was wondering if/when this would get nominated. -- jjron ( talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I just don't see the significance of this particular cartoon. It just seems like any other educational drawing from a children's book published from the 1940s through the 1960s. It's not particularly interesting or eye catching. -- Grandpafootsoldier ( talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Grandpafootsoldier. Kaldari ( talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree, this just isn't featured picture material. J Milburn ( talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't really like the exclamation points at the end of the sentences in the picture. Spencer T♦ C 19:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The cartoon mischaracterizes Banneker's achievements and overstates their importance. Banneker was not an "city planner". He assisted in a survey of the boundaries of the future District of Columbia for about three months, but did not participate in the layout of the City of Washington, D.C. Further, he did not construct the "first clock in America". The first known American clock was constructed 100 years before his. Corker1 7 August 2008.