Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Foster Peabody

George Foster Peabody
Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2013 at 15:27:07 (UTC)
 * Reason:I was looking around the SCOTUS blog, out off curiosity about the major cases coming up - for those that don't know, I was raised in America before moving to Britain. I saw they won a Peabody Award, and a little wikiwalk later, I found us using a massively scaled-down version of this image. That's relatively common: People grab the Library of Congress' JPEG copies, not realising the TIFFs can be 5 or more times higher resolution. It makes for a very easy way to improve Wikipedia, and I was quite happy to take it.

This is a very good photograph, of a notable businessman, and was a relatively easy restoration, clocking in at 3 hours or so. Plus, I then discovered that the photography studio lacked a sample. As my work only fixed up some dust spots and damage presumably post-dating their photograph, I think this is an excellent sample of their work.
 * Articles in which this image appears:George Foster Peabody, Pach Brothers, Peabody Award
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others, though we should probably clean that category out a bit - there's a lot of things in it that should rightfully be in the other "People" categories.
 * Creator:Pach Brothers, restored by Adam Cuerden


 * Support as nominator -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Bang up job. is there a reason you kept the little spot above his left hand, near the jacket edge? It doesn't appear to be a watch chain to me (the only thing I can think of that might be there). – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 16:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looked different to the dust and spotting elsewhere - more like the rest of the photo. I don't know what it might be, but I wasn't entirely sure it shouldn't be there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leave as is. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Soft at full size, particularly when compared to some older photos, like the one above from 1895. Brandmeistertalk  15:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, these are the other options: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/hec.05269/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/hec.05270/ ( also http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2005012603/ - but that one's very, very blurry) If you think these are better, I will gladly restore one.
 * As for why it's blurrier - well, I have noticed that there is a dropoff in photographic quality around 1910 for a bit. I could speculate, but don't think it'd be useful. Probably changes in photographic equipment that had advantages other than sharpness. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both tiffs also appear blurry. Not a big deal though since this person may not be particularly interesting. Brandmeistertalk  21:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, he's notable enough to have his own article, and an award. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. There is no notability threshold for a featured picture, except that which applies to all articles. Notable enough for an article = notable enough for an FP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - However, there seems to be a large fleck of dust right in the middle of his forehead. Could you get that, Adam? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (I er, forgot to post it, but this was fixed last night.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Cowtowner (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)