Comment: The image page calls this a late 15th century picture, yet the article leads with a 1520 image, which is calls the earliest known.
J Milburn (
talk)
12:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. The other image shown in article was painted from a painting that was an actual portrait (thus closer to a real depiction). This one looks very artistic, but is not in itself a famous work (enough to ahve an article) nor is it the best illustration of the subject. That said, hugely notable subject...
TCO (
Reviews needed)
02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: It does strike me as rather odd that this picture does not feature on the
Richard III article itself. Surely if this portrait were to be promoted, it should also go in the article of the person it is illustrating?
Centy – reply •
contribs –
23:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: The image page calls this a late 15th century picture, yet the article leads with a 1520 image, which is calls the earliest known.
J Milburn (
talk)
12:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. The other image shown in article was painted from a painting that was an actual portrait (thus closer to a real depiction). This one looks very artistic, but is not in itself a famous work (enough to ahve an article) nor is it the best illustration of the subject. That said, hugely notable subject...
TCO (
Reviews needed)
02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: It does strike me as rather odd that this picture does not feature on the
Richard III article itself. Surely if this portrait were to be promoted, it should also go in the article of the person it is illustrating?
Centy – reply •
contribs –
23:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)reply