Talk:Thomas Lovell Beddoes

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Birthdate[edit]

Although older sources give 20 July 1803 as Beddoes' birthdate, recent ones favor 30 June. Compare Moulton's Library of Literary Criticism (1966) against The New Moulton's Library of Literary Criticism (1988) and subsequent sources. Ewulp (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant image[edit]

The article currently contains these two images of the subject. The first image (on the left here) appears in the infobox; the second appears later in the article. The second image—which admits to being a modern painting made from a photograph of a contemporary painting of Beddoes (a total of three steps removed from Beddoes's actual face)—almost surely is a copy of the first image shown here or some facsimile of it. The pose, the expression, and the collar are identical.

The second image adds only prettiness, but nothing material, to the first—which has at least an appearance of authenticity. Since the second image adds nothing significant to the article except a prettier picture, I am going to remove it. I already removed a credit to the non-notable modern copyist from the second image's caption, but I think further action is advisable. This is a very short article, hardly needing two portraits of the subject, especially when one is a copy of the other.

Since the second image is, by the author's own admission, one step further removed from an authentic portrait of the subject, and that added step is whatever subjective vision the modern copyist introduces into the portrait, I am going to remove it from the article in favor of the less pretty but more nearly contemporary portrait on which it undoubtedly is based.—Jim10701 (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]