Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Louis Agassiz

Louis Agassiz[edit]

Reason: Scientists are pathetically unrepresented in our FPs, with a total of approximately zero, unless you take a long shot and count Edison and/or Thomson, or the group shot from the Solvay Conference. While going through the delist for the low EV Agassiz statue below, I found a couple of decent shots of him in the article. I prefer the first one, it falls just short of the 1000px, but near enough for me. The second one is good too if people want to be really anal about the size requirements, but I prefer the first.
Articles this image appears in: Louis Agassiz (and List of geologists & Benjamin Franklin Mudge)
Creator: Unknown (uploaded by Saperaud)

Support as nominator, preference for original. jjron (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, The original is ok though nothing special, the second one however is very poor in terms of comp and contrast. Capital photographer (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise you're new to FPC so are still learning the ropes, but if you change your vote for some reason you're meant to ~~strike~~ the original and replace it with your new vote, not just overwrite the vote (and generally give a reason for changing, even if it is that I commented on your Trevi Fountain edit). --jjron (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, sorry, thanks for the reminder. Capital photographer (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jjron, there is no policy that says you have to do it that way. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - However I must agree with Jron, it makes it more apparent when people have changed their position and I support its use, just forgot to do it. Capital photographer (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original Does not meet size requirements. Oppose alternate Nothing really stands out. Just a slightly sub-par picture. crassic!^[talk] 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should have an FP of Agassiz, and that these are decent scans of what are, presumably, fairly small originals (You can tell if you know a bit about Victorian engravings). That said, though, they aren't partiicularly great illustrations. Perhaps the one at t he LoC would do, if substantially cleaned up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. It feels like a very accurate portrait. It would be easy to sneak in another 55px without anyone complaining that it needs a tighter crop, so I don't see the problem. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]