Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alfred Waud

Alfred Waud
Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2022  at 18:13:38 (UTC)
 * Reason:For an outdoor, more-or-less candid shot from 1863, this is stunningly good. In case anyone wonders: The lighter line is above his moustache also appears in the other half of the stereoscopic image, so it's real. File:Alfred Waud, full-length portrait, seated, holding a pencil and pad, facing left.jpg, despite its poor quality, does have a slight hint of it. I think it's something to do with very high cheeks.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Alfred Waud, Battle of Gettysburg, Devil's Den
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
 * Creator:Timothy H. O'Sullivan, restored by Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 18:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Bammesk (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I can't support it on encyclopedic grounds. In the Battle of Gettysburg it gives little to no value. In Devil's Den it's in a gallery (big no-no) and it similarly serves little purpose. In Alfred Waud it's encyclopedic, but I would argue that his portrait is of much higher quality in illustrating what he looked like. If someone cleaned it up a little, I think it would be a decent FP candidate. The nominated photo is focused on his trousers and the exposure time has left his face blurred. I know we can overlook technical aspects in historical photos, but the best that this has going for it is that it's an "action" shot of Waud in his profession. That just isn't good enough to fully convince me, unfortunately. -- Veggies (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's generally a bias towards the time they're doing the things they're famous for; the portrait is from nearly a decade before the American Civil War even started. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)