Delist: Tecumseh sherman.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2013 at 23:18:09 (UTC)

Reason

Compared with other portraits of Union officers, this has an inexcusable amount of shadow on the right side. The article on the general has opted for a different version of this image, File:William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg, which has a significant reduction of that shadow, and that image has displaced this version in all but one article.

Articles this image appears in

Chattanooga Campaign

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Tecumseh Sherman

Nominator

Sven Manguard Wha?

• Delist — Sven Manguard Wha? 23:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delist as per above. Mattximus ( talk) 00:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delist - How come this be a FP and POTD?? Herald talk with me 14:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It may very well have been within the standards a half decade ago when it was promoted, although even the this should not have passed, I think. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delist - Per Herald '''Johncy''' ( talk) 14:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delist, but looking at the original nomination, I'm not sure this should have passed. I count three votes for the other picture, two for this one, and one for either. Should we reconsider the other? It's in use, could use a cleanup. Chick Bowen 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delist Suggest that the other picture be renominated. It's probably beyond the point where it can just be promoted outright but the other image should go up for another nomination with the note that it probably deserved to be nominated in the first place. Cat-five t c ---- 02:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delist. I would support nomination of secondary photo if it were cleaned up. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 20:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure. I think that the first image was selected because it encapsulates the man's (apparent) ruggedness better. Either way, it's contingent on Adam Cuerden or another restorer spending some time on it, as the alternate image is a bit beat up right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I propose to do this image if no-one objects. It has major benefits in accessibility, and could easily, post-restoration, have crop made to give a very similar effect to the former FP. @ Sven Manguard: Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 22:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Of course, the image of him I like best is NPG.81.M175.D1, available in tiny resolution as File:William T. Sherman by Mathew Brady Studio, c. 1865.jpg... but the National Portrait Gallery doesn't even offer an obvious way to order larger copies of images, let alone make them available. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 22:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • There are a ton of images in the National Archives Flickr's "Mathew Brady Civil War Photographs" collection, including this version of the other image up for delisting, and this version of the image up for desisting at this page, as well as a couple of others of Sherman. Adam Cuerden, do any of those work? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
        • • Resolution's on the low end of acceptable. but http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/4190887790/sizes/o/in/photolist-7okoW3-7uZRVc-7uZSZB-7pXCr9-cqnXL1-7k3WjU-abgUNQ-7k4dMh-cqnXXW-7vx4mC/ is doable. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 23:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
            • For what it's worth I support this one. It's a great picture, the current FP doesn't do it justice. Mattximus ( talk) 00:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply