Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edgar Allan Poe

Edgar Allan Poe
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019  at 20:56:42 (UTC)
 * Reason:One of very few photos of Poe, lovingly restored.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Edgar Allan Poe
 * FP category for this image:WP:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
 * Creator:Unknown; restored by Yann and Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Yann (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the alt, but I don't like that my and Yann's release into the public domain has gained a CC-license, especially when it didn't originally credit Yann and I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Original or Alt 1 --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose What was originally a Daguerrotype (an image formed on a silvered metal plate), has now been restored to something looking more like an albumen print, thus misrepresenting the original. --Janke | Talk 08:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, daguerreotypes did not look like that originally - e.g. as faded and damaged, they just experience rather nasty degradation over time. In any case, it hasnt changed that substantially, other than crop, some contrast, and expansion outwards to remove the severely damaged tarnished area surrounding it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 11:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think that File:Edgar Allan Poe, circa 1849, restored.jpg would be better? Adam's version has more restoration, but this may look like closer to a daguerreotype. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Daguerrotypes were typically mounted in a glass frame, sometimes with a cover, as a little book. The restorations have removed this. The above mentioned oval restoration (with faded edges) re-inserted in the original frame would satisfy me, looking like a real Daguerrotype. --Janke | Talk 13:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PD-Art only applies to two-dimensional works, the frames are 3D. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 13:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have the picture with the frame under a free license, but without restoration. It comes from the Getty Museum via Google Art Project. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm. It's a point. I have a suspicion this one will be preferred in articles, though, where the focus is Poe, not historic photography. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 14:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes; that's what I think too. Your version is more useful for illustrating Wikipedia articles about Poe, while the picture with a frame might be more appreciated on Commons, as a work of art in itself. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – when you introduce an alternate please say you did so in a comment, so the reviewers know the nominator isn't presenting two versions. Also, I think it is inappropriate to take a restoration, add more restoration to it (in this case, not in a significant time consuming way, in my opinion) and present it as an alternate while the original restorer(s) are active editors and could have done so (if they chose to) with a mere suggestion. Same for a photograph or a drawing if the creator is an active editor. Just my two cents. Bammesk (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it, I'll be sure to note introductions of alternatives in the future. I'm not sure why it's inappropriate to contribute an alternative. I'm used to the Wikipedia standard of "be bold", but if there are more local norms I'm violating here, please let me know. Thanks. Qono (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well... you did fail to credit Yann or me, and changed the license from our release into the public domain to one requiring reusers credit you (but not us, since we weren't listed)... that's problematic. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In article space, contributors get no credit (or exposure) when their work is used elsewhere (inside or outside wikipedia), so being bold and taking liberty is a nonissue. For visual content (including restorations) contributors get credited when their images are used (for example on the main page), see the archives and notice the footnotes; therefore contributing to others' work and having one's name or username be listed alongside their name would be inappropriate IMO when/if such contributions are non-significant (in creativity or timewise) and when the original contributors are active editors and could do so (if they chose) with a mere suggestion. Bammesk (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC) . . . . fixed the archive link.
 * Well, also note that - the version of the file description Qono used - and  this is probably a mistake, but a rather bad one - credits Qono as sole author and mentions neither Yann nor me anywhere on the page. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it have been better to upload a new version at the original location? Qono (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've proposed additional language to the main featured pictures candidates page to help clarify the process for newcomers who want to edit candidates. I propose we continue this discussion there, for those who are interested. Feel free to remove my alternate here, if you would like, . Sorry for the trouble. Qono (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – EV, I think it fits the article without the frame as well as with the frame. Bammesk (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)