Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Archibald Sinclair, 1st Viscount Thurso

Archibald Sinclair, 1st Viscount Thurso
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2022  at 05:12:10 (UTC)
 * Reason:Well composed, clear, reasonably high resolution, high encyclopedic value (used in several pages on the en WP)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Archibald Sinclair, 1st Viscount Thurso, Secretary of State for Air, 1945 United Kingdom general election, Norway Debate (GA), Churchill war ministry, Robin Sinclair, 2nd Viscount Thurso, Secretary of State for Scotland, Leader of the Liberal Party (UK), List of Knights and Ladies of the Thistle
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Political
 * Creator:Royal Air Force official photographer


 * Support either – Liam2520 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – An official RAF photo, but at least it's an interesting face & pose. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, alt 1 preferred., although adding another couple dozen pixels of background at the top wouldn't be the worst idea. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 14:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do it! I tentatively support Alt 1, oppose original. --Janke | Talk 20:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1 – Bammesk (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt 1 We shouldn't be adding pixels to archive images, Adam. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thing is, it's not like we're seeing the edges of the photo here. Simply cropping a scan could have removed that much if it wasn't done carefully. There's often more vagueness in where a photo starts than you'd think: Text written on the negative, uneven borders, trying to crop out a rip or fading that could have been easily fixed, and so on. I tend to go for as much of the original content as possible, but scans by archives can be... surprisingly strange. This, for example is an actual scan from the University of Pennsylvania archives. Similarly, what's the correct crop on the current Billy Bowlegs image? I went with one that seemed roughly guided by the paper, but books have gutters on one side for where the paper goes into the spine, so I didn't exactly use the paper edges as a guide, as that would have uncentred the text, which is very much not the artistic intent. Now, I can't check the IWM site - it's down - so I can't say if they have a copy of a scan that shows more of the edge that was expanded here, or evidence that this is the intentional crop, but this feels well within the range of acceptable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. IWM is back up. If you look at the second copy after you click through you'll see it has substantially more headroom, with what may be a crop line about where we have it here, whereas the third copy is similar to the original. So there's no one valid answer here: Different prints vary on that front. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 13:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Archive image" was not changed at all: . The change was uploaded as a separate file. We can do derivative files of everything on Commons. We are not an archive site. Bammesk (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopaedia and should not manipulate archive images. So, if it was a photo composed with a very tight crop, that is how it should stay. In this case, Adam has shown that adding the pixels is reasonable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ... Alt1 — The added pixels are visually contentless and simply improve the image slightly per standard tenets of composition. This isn't a case of manipulating or distorting the image. – Sca (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, prefer Alt1 - good quality, distinctive image of notable figure - comparing other scans demonstrates the original crop was not quite so severe. TSP (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 07:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)