Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Audrey Hepburn

Audrey Hepburn
Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2011 at 23:36:42 (UTC)


 * Reason:A striking photo of a striking woman. The perfect lead image.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Audrey Hepburn, a couple of others.
 * FP category for this image:People/Entertainment
 * Creator:Unknown


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Aequo (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - wow. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Remarkable detail at full resolution. And great light. --Mareklug talk 00:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Hot darn! Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per Mareklug Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Nicely framed. —Bruce1eetalk 06:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - excellent image.  Nik the  stoned  15:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate oppose. The image contains stunning facial details (like the iris structure and little droplets in the eyes), but it was oversharpened. Her skin looks like she's been in a desert for a while (especially upon mild zooming). It is a historical image, and thus reality, not beauty, is essential. It can be fixed by editing before promotion, but not after (edits will simply be reverted). Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't see the oversharpening. Her skin looks amazingly life-like to my eye. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it is PC-dependent (not the brightness; perhaps related to video driver or LCD screen, though the screen I used when writing my first comment is Ok), I would invite others to zoom and check. Materialscientist (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Questionable licensing. I'm not ready to accept that any pre-1977 (for no notice) or pre-1963 (for no renewal) promotional photo is PD, even one without a real source, without any proof of publication without a copyright marking, and without proof of non-renewal. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that this oppose is somewhat of a slippery slope. There was considerably less widespread knowledge about copyright when this was originally distributed. There is very little chance that a still such as this was ever given a copyright marking. To find proof that a marking was never applied is all but impossible, making such works (and there are many) unfeaturable. I feel that the extremely thorough breakdown on the file description is more than enough rationale for considering these works public domain. As for finding out whether there is copyright renewal on file, take a stab at this 65MB zip file of records.  Jujutacular  talk 05:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – (assuming licensing is ok) Meets FPC criteria in my view. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - assuming copyright issues do not exist; the quality is excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

--Xijky (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)