Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare

Reason: Probably the most influencial person in the history of the English language, this portrait represents what little we actually know about Shakespeare. It meets featured picture requirements easily, and would make an excellent featured picture. Majorly (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in: William Shakespeare; see the File links on the image page for the complete list.
Creator: Unknown; attributed to John Taylor, but unconfirmed.

Support as nominator Majorly (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds of quality, admittedly it is an old photograph, but part of the picture looks like he has a bruise on his forehead or something. Also, its very flaky as parts of the portrait appear to have peeled off. Also i wasn't aware shakespeare had a pierced ear, surely this should be checked before we promite an image?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 February 2008

That's simply the quality of the painting. You'll find no better version of it. But... it's likely to be the only portrait of Shakespeare that is actually authentic. Think about that. And yes, he did have an earring. Majorly (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We actually know stunningly little for certain about Shakespeare. This may or not be him, as pointed out below, stated on the image page, and clearly discussed in the Chandos portrait article. We also don't know whether he really had an earring; any 'evidence' for that comes from this painting, and some studies suggest it was added later anyway. For all intents and purposes though, this is Shakespeare, as there are no better images of him available. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Support then, in that case --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 12:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question photographs of two dimensional artworks aren't copyrightable. Is this the best file of its type available? And BTW the earring is old news, no problems there. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Jjron. Convincing argument that this is true to the painting. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose corpselike color balance. As an illustration of the person, this is bad. Maybe if the painting had its own article. de Bivort 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does: Chandos portrait. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you possibly adjust the colour balance of the picture to improve it? Seddon69 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it. Majorly (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Here is a link to the National Portrait Gallery (UK) version of this image (they hold the original). This looks pretty close to the true colours and quality going on their site. Please be aware that there exists virtually no images of Shakespeare that we know are of him or that are any good. Most 'better' quality pictures are based on this portrait (which may or may not be him, but at least dates from the right time). This spent over two centuries exposed to the 'elements' - smoke from open fireplaces, candles, etc, before going into the NPG in 1856 as its founding portrait, so it's pretty degraded by time, and also highly significant. Given some of the other meaningless trash that gets featured I can't in good faith anything but support this significant piece (assuming copyright is OK). Honestly, this is about a million times more significant and encyclopaedically valuable than the engravings below (no offence, it's just that they're nearby) that are getting nothing but support. --jjron (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredibly high encyclopedic value. faithless (^speak) 09:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support - historically significant, and quality is good enough. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aren't you still abbreviating "encyclopedic" as "enc"? ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an illustration for Chandos portrait. Per that article, attention should be drawn to the fact that the identity of the painting's subject as Shakespeare is far from certain. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caption at Chandos portrait indicates that the image is a 20th century reproduction. Is that the case (just clarifying because it may have applied to a previous version of the page)? --Iamunknown 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point; the details on the image page aren't entirely illuminating, though if it's a reproduction it appears to be pretty true to the original. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support matches the painting and fulfils other criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the best you're going to find of Shakespeare... Mønobi 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's the best we have, or ever will have really. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A great picture, although I must admit that I never knew he had an ear-ring. Qst (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support very encyclopedic, and I never knew either that he had an earring. Spencer^T♦^C 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – There are no problems with its encyclopedic value, but this image definitely fails featured picture criteria #1 (bad lighting of photograph: the painting has a greyish look) and #2 (not high resolution: its height is 600 pixels instead of the minimum of 1000 pixels); a better quality version of this portrait is possible, and this can easily be verified with the aid of User:Jjron's link (use the "View this portrait in detail" option). – Ilse @ 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hold up here, someone has uploaded a smaller version over the bigger one, so we are not all judging the same image. If we are to compare different versions for any reason, upload it as a separate file instead of over-writing the original. I would support the original--what more do we need? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue here is that it does not meet the criteria for featured pictures (refer to Ilse@'s post. I note that it counts as a historical image, but that does not immediately mean it qualifies for featured picture status. <3 bunny 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image used to be 1,943×2,490 pixels wide until someone over-wrote it. Just check the file history. See previous version. What I want to know is why? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed it because it was changed without discussion for no other reason than to try to attain featured picture status. I and many others spent months trying to get the Shakespeare article up to feature status, and after three attempts it was finally granted, using the previous picture. Majorly took it upon himself to arbitrarily change the picture and wipe out the previous versions, and with no discussion, as I said. The picture that illustrated the article is a much better and more attractive version, even though it may not be as authentic, having had the colors brightened. If you want to go ahead and try to attain featured status, I'll leave this version up, but as soon as it is granted I plan to revert it back to the original picture. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion only applies to the large version. MER-C 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, I just reverted it to the old version. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ilse@. <3 bunny 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Shakespeare.jpg MER-C 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]