Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Tecumseh Sherman

William Tecumseh Sherman

Reason: Good scan of good 19th century portrait
Articles this image appears in: William Tecumseh Sherman, a few others
Creator: Mathew Brady

Support as nominator — Spikebrennan 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One or two bits blurry, but for a historical image, superb. So long as it's no worse in that respect than the original, I give it my wholehearted support. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - It's amazing how long good photography's been around. --TotoBaggins 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above reasons. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative ~~Maybe I'd be inclined to support it if it was the only photo of him available, but~~ my opinion is that this image is much superior because it really illustrates his "seamed weather-beaten face, unkempt hair and scraggly red beard."[1] Cacophony 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered nominating the one that Cacophony references--that image certainly does simultaneously convey a mood of weariness and arrogant defiance, and it's a great image-- but I found the darkness of the corners of that image to be distracting. Spikebrennan 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative - I'm sure this breaks some element of FPC protocol, but I *love* that image Caco posted, so I'm offering it as an alternative. While the original's composition is better, the alternative is just so humanizing; he looks like a rough bastard I might run into at the Kwik-E-Mart today, and whom I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of. This one is great too, but a bit small and blown-out. --TotoBaggins 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in favor of the alternative won't work unless somebody goes through the protocol of nominating it. (Nothing stopping you from doing so). Spikebrennan 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any thing wrong with alts getting votes - happens all the time. Debivort 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support either Debivort 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The second one is a far better portrait - there's more than just lighting and angles to a photo, and it really captures something, as TotoBaggins says above. But the crop is a little weird and the vignetting in the bottom right is off-putting. The first one is just bland, only shows half of his face, and feels PR-ish, like someone's trying to artificially make Sherman seem grandfather-ish. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tecumseh sherman.jpg MER-C 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]