Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Abraham Lincoln head on shoulders photo portrait.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States. Photograph by Alexander Gardner (photographer)
Edit to reduce dust, scratches, downsize, slight sharpen of face, and remove writing

Pretty good scan of a famous, public domain photograph. This photograph appears on the following pages (among others): Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, Facial hair, Beard , American School (economics), List of United States Presidents by height order, Contributions to liberal theory, The Greatest American, Illinois in the Civil War, Alexander Gardner (photographer), Historical rankings of United States Presidents, Chin curtain, Military leadership in the American Civil War, and various other places.

  • Nominate and support. - Spikebrennan 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good resolution. -Gphoto 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice, sharp, high-resolution, image of Lincoln. Hello32020 03:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good resolution, nice image. Regards, Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Either. Extremely valued picture on Wikipedia, and historically significant. NauticaShades 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (edit 1). Top score for encyclopedicity and historical significance. Could do with some dust & speck removal, though. Also unnecessary large, since it is blurry in full size. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though you voted support, I created edit 1 to address these issues. I'm not sure if it was problematic, but I also removed the 1900 writting (because the photo was taken decades before then).--Andrew c 22:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This picture is displayed ad nauseam. It's almost hard to escape. It's in text books, all over the internet, and might soon appear in my nightmares. Let's feature something different and refreshing. T Steinway 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original - It is a good unique painting. It's appearence all over the place proves that it is high quality. --Ineffable3000 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support either. Something weird is going on with the cheek area. --Tewy 04:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just because it's iconic and factually significant doesn't mean the image is good. If you look at the hi-rez version, even on the downsized Fir version, the detail of the face is very low. The hair is blurry, the skin is blurry, just ick. There have been B&W iconic photos that have been featured, but this one just doesn't make the cut. It's about on par with Image:CheHigh.jpg - iconic, but low quality by modern standards.--HereToHelp 00:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind WP:WIAFP explicitly states that the more historically significant a picture is (and this one is very significant), the less quality it may have. NauticaShades 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Even though I was the one who originally uploaded the image from the LoC and I enjoy it very much, it really isn't of "featured" quality; it is, afterall, a blurry 1860s photograph. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it is from 1860 and that it can never be taken again allows it to be somewhat blurry. NauticaShades 14:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though the same could be said for any portrait photograph taken in that time period... GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at full size it looks like a picture of a picture, not a picture itself. I think someone photographed the original to digitize it with a focus that was a bit off; hence excess blurriness. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — There really isn't anything significant about this photo, other than the fact that it is of a famous person and that it was taken in the 19th century. There are many other old photos that have gained featured status, but they are of superior quality or actually show a significant event. ♠ SG →Talk 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Abe Lincoln isn't just some old guy plucked out of the street, you know...Borisblue 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hmmmmm, I think everybody here agrees on image's significance, thus it has very low resolution, not even a candidate img for me. --WalterHumala |wanna Talk? 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is that supposed to mean? NauticaShades 11:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also has some smudges, iu could scan it again, but from the original picture.. --WalterHumala 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very historically significant photograph! Ackatsis 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ♠ SG →Talk 2 -- mcshadypl TC 21:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original. Very encyclopedic. | AndonicO Talk 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support either; there's some strange concentric distortions around the right cheek and shoulder but the resolution is great • Leon 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iconic Borisblue 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --ZeWrestler Talk 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Abraham Lincoln head on shoulders photo portrait.jpg --Fir0002 04:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Abraham_Lincoln_head_on_shoulders_photo_portrait.jpg&oldid=1138491441"