Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Duke of Devonshire by Allan Warren

Duke of Devonshire by Allan Warren
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 20:52:29 (UTC)
 * Reason:I think this is among the best of the photographs Allan Warren has uploaded at Commons. It is technically sound, it is composed in a clear but interesting way (Warren is fond of mirrors and obstacles, but has avoided them here) and it captures the self-deprecating manner the Duke was known for.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Andrew Cavendish, 11th Duke of Devonshire
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Political
 * Creator:Allan Warren (see also Allan Warren)


 * Support as nominator --Chick Bowen 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, absolutely love it. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that this is the most encyclopedic picture possible. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is your "citation needed" template intended to cast doubt on my assertion of Cavendish's self-deprecating nature? The quotes in the article make it clear enough--particularly claiming that his own ministerial appointments were "nepotism."  As for encyclopedic value, I might have also pointed out that the image shows him in Chatsworth, his ancestral home, which he turned into a tourist attraction.  Other than that, I don't know how to more encyclopedically show a duke doing his thing, since they don't do much, really. Chick Bowen 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that if indeed he was known in a self-deprecating manner (or he wanted or liked to be seen this way) then this portrait is FP worthy. If he was the opposite, then this is not necessarily the best depiction of him. Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I understand. Is this obit helpful? Chick Bowen 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view, just because someone has been described as 'self-deprecating' (amongst many other traits) does not, on the face of it, justify a lead picture of this nature being used. However, if this fairly and broadly represents what the Duke was like, then I would be happy with this picture. This picture needs to be a typical representation of the Duke, which I do not think has so far been shown.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.242.165 (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, wonderfully character-ful. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can someone boost the shadows a little bit? It looks pretty dark back there. Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I fiddled with it a bit and was unhappy with the results—I don't want to alter the photographer's intended relationship between foreground and background. Chick Bowen 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Milburn. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Artifacts all over. Or are my eyes playing tricks on me? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, given that a fair amount of film grain is to be expected in a low-light photograph like this, it would be pretty hard to distinguish any artifacts from the grain. So, hard to say. Chick Bowen 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I'm looking at the face in particular. Looks more like artifacting than grain. I'm guessing there's a higher-quality version out there given that Warren was a professional photographer. Even if we can't get it, we should at least ask for some better source info (e.g. date). Makeemlighter (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per concerns above. Just doesn't meet the standards we have for portraits, even old ones. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose crazy artifacted (that's definitely not film grain). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Artefacts and blown highlights. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din\ talk 06:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)