The "Black Mahler", most famous for his setting of Longfellow, The Song of Hiawatha, which only stopped being a major London tradition when the Second World War intervened. This is the second nomination: The first barely failed to reach quorum during a slump period for featured pictures. He comes from a period where free-licensed photographs are hardest to get, particularly for a Briton.
Oppose – Beer aficionado though I am, must oppose this due to substandard detail at full res – and the quasi-promotional character of the composition. Sca (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find this picture too dark and a little cluttered in the background. I think a full pint would also be preferable. I'm certainly not opposed to this kind of photo in principle (and I'm also a beer-lover, though not this one); indeed, we're very short of drink FPs. While it's not perfect (white head on a white background?), I think something like File:Leffe blonde en verre.jpg would be a little better. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me about the beer or the photo? I definitely like the beer; I've just moved from the UK to Canada, which has opened up a whole new range of drinks to me. I tried the well-named Moosehead Lager the other day- surprisingly flavourful, given stereotypes about North American beer... The photo still isn't quite there lighting-wise, even though the composition's good. It's also not under an appropriate license. I suspect if we have a dig around we'll find a few that are worth a nomination here; I'll keep my eyes open. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Craft' and 'micro'-brews have proliferated hugely in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. I don't know if the same is true in Canada. Anyhow, my pic was just to illustrate a simple shot of a glass of beer under natural light – of which there are very few on Commons. Here's one that would be OK were it not for the horrendously distracting clutter. → Sca (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A beautiful picture in a high quality of this nice river. I'm pretty new (only the second discussion which I open here), so I hope that it really suits the criteria page (I looked there, and in my opinion it is, but I hope I'm not wrong).
Oppose Hi MITB, This photo doesn't presently meet the featured picture criteria as it's currently not used in any articles on this Wikipedia. More generally, It seems to have limited encyclopedic value, and the technical standards aren't great by modern standards. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick-D. I've added it to Seine (it was needed), and expanded the description a litte, so it will have more encyclopedic value, if it helps, because I can do nothing else, so I guess that you'll stiil be opposed.MITB --- MITB_talk05:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I agree with Nick-D on technical standards, it isn't sharp at full size, also the headlight stream is too strong, it throws off the balance (1 or 2 second exposure would have been better in my opinion). Bammesk (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the mic, but too bad there isn't more of it. I think it adds balance to the composition and shows she is on stage. I support either way though, with and without mic. Bammesk (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but I'm really not sold on the angle, here. Perhaps acceptable for a certain kind of documentary/journalistic image, but not at all great for a portrait, in my view. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A notable actress photographed by a notable photographer is always a good combination. The first nomination is an odd case: Six support, but one was about 15 minutes late and one still too young of an account, so it didn't reach quorum
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 06:47:32 (UTC)
Original – The Nasir-ol-Molk Mosque , also known as the Pink Mosque, is a traditional mosque in Shiraz, Iran. It is located at the district of Gowad-e-Arabān, near Shāh Chérāgh Mosque.
Reason
An artistic high resolution scene captured at Nasir-al molk mosque. The colorful show of sunlight going through the stained glass is really interesting. This picture has won the following titles so far:
Oppose - Shadow areas way too dark; there is a lot of information there, but it needs some skilful tweaking to avoid noise - a simple histogram correction isn't enough. --Janke | Talk07:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A captivating composition, but I must agree with Janke that the inky shadow areas are just too dark – and in this case look exaggerated. Sca (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Nice picture! But I have to agree with above, the shadows are obscuring most of the interior of this mosque, so aesthetically nice but not encyclopedically nice. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A fine image of an important early role in the theatre of the Harlem Renaissance. Father of James Earl Jones. The first nomination got four and a half supports during a slump period, with the only complaint being about Van Vechten's composition - something that we cannot do anything about three quarters of a century later.
It is almost impossible to distinguish the larva of these three species. All three exist in India. I don't like wild guesses as mentioned in may larva pictures here. Jee15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Pretty, with pretty good detail – I only wish there was less foreground. (Also wondering if the sky tones were manipulated a bit.) Sca (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really like the image itself, but the sky has issues. Also, in addition to a few tiny specs in the sky there is a rather large dust circle, mid sky, just right of center.--Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 04:36:04 (UTC)
Original – Baby Huwae in c. 1963. Born in Rotterdam, Huwae had moved to Indonesia by the 1950s and taken up modelling. She entered the film industry in 1958, and gained popularity following the success of Asrama Dara (Dormitory for Girls). Over the next several years she acted in a further five films and established a girl group, the Baby Dolls. However, after she married in 1960, Huwae focused on modelling. In the 1970s she worked as a fortune teller.
Reason
High quality image of this Indonesian singer and actress.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 11:11:51 (UTC)
Original – The Sarawak state legislative assembly building. It is significant as the landmark of the capital city of Sarawak and the place where all state assemblymen from all over Sarawak come here to debate and passing state laws. The roof of the building is similar to "Terendak", a hat specifically made by the ethnic Melanau group in Sarawak.
Reason
The image is clear at depicting the state assembly building which has a unique architecture and its landscape . It is also representative of the state of Sarawak. The image was also a winner in the 2015 Wiki Loves Monuments competition.
Weak oppose – good EV, but the sky looks a bit unnatural, at magnification of 200% or more, there are obvious artifacts where the sky meets the landscape. Bammesk (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just find (and I suspect, given the last nomination, some people feel the same) that the picture itself is pretty uninspiring. I'm also not convinced that there's oodles of EV. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course football history is a legitimate subject, and I'll take your word for it that we don't have a lot of early football pictures to choose from. But that's not really the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the above, but I will vote this way. I don't really see the EV as well. There is no page for the painting, and the pages it is found in do not make too much sense. If you want to illustrate the rugby team, a photograph would be more relevant. It is also in a player's page, but the image doesn't specify which player is him. I don't see what is gained by having (a rather bland) painting instead of a clear photograph, sorry. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: You're presuming the existence of photographs, though, which probably don't exist. 1906 is probably way too early for cameras to do action shots, so, you're basically voting this down because you'd rather have something thatcannot possibly exist. Adam Cuerden(talk)15:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For which page specifically? I offered different reasons why this image doesn't really offer EV in any of the pages it's currently found. Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)+[reply]
You're moving the target. Do you want this to be judged as an action shot or as an image of a historic uniform? We could surely have a much, much better image for showing historic uniform, and I'm not sure we urgently need an action shot... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not: It's valuable on many fronts, and I cannot possibly fathom your response. We don't have colour photographs of the uniform from this period. Obviously. We don't have documentation of the state of the fields, of historic rugby football, or a number of other things, except for this image - and yet it somehow lacks EV. Even if this image is just a nice historic illustration, it gives a lot of incidental information about what rugby was like at the time, and is thus valuable; that it's fairly unique in doing so makes it more so, not less. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say, and, especially in this case, there's a lot of incidental information in this image that a thousand words will never convey. For example, that one could wear a non-uniform cap; the depiction of a tackle; the shoes; the state of the field; the rugby ball; the colours of the uniforms; the style of them, seen from a variety of angles - all these are useful for anchoring a reader. Adam Cuerden(talk)05:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why I've reached the conclusion I have, and I'm not the only person who has reached a similar conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree; harrying opposers (and borderline twisting my words- I have neither claimed nor insinuated that football history is not a legitimate topic) just comes across as a chilling technique. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree, that was rude. I just don't understand the idea that historic imagery, particularly the only historica imagery in an article, not giving EV. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can clarify? What specific encyclopedic entry does this provide EV for? It's in 4 pages at the moment. One is for a player that may or may not be illustrated in this image (so no EV there), the second is for the artist, but it's buried in the gallery among others (no EV there), and then it's in 2 modern teams where a photograph would be better. I agree with the above, if you want to illustrate historic uniform then a photograph would be better, if you want to talk about the "action", well none of the 4 pages actually talks about the historical aspect of the action, so I have to agree, I don't see any EV. Mattximus (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: But the modern teams are also historic teams. It's in their articles history sections. Further, there wouldn't be any historic photos from this period in colour, which really puts a damper on any historic photos of uniforms. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2016 at 14:05:10 (UTC)
Original – The Accolade is a painting by British artist Edmund Leighton from 1901. It depicts an accolade, a ceremony to confer knighthood. The painting is housed in a private collection.
Reason
A bit more from Leighton. Good digitizations of private collection artworks seem to be particularly valuable, as they aren't that accessible by public.
"Moderate resolution": I don't know what world you're living in, but 10.4 megapixels for a postcard-sized photograph is far from "Mediocre". This was scanned at 900 PPI.
"Contrast issues": What, exactly, are you referring to? There are no blown highlights, nor are there any clipped shadows.
"Promotional": For an actress who has been dead for fifty-five years? Really? Are you going to oppose a picture of Notre Dame next, because it's also used for tourism?
"Questionable notability": Cover of multiple magazines (Varia, Minggu Pagi, etc.), demanded - and received - large wages for the time (I have a menu from c. 1955... Rp 10 would have gotten you a full meal at a good restaurant. Multiply that by 750 or 1000), coverage in numerous contemporary sources, including obituaries from two sources cited in the article alone, funeral attended by A-list Indonesian celebrities. She clearly passes WP:N. The "Sca bar" you wish to implement is, thankfully, not policy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Indonesian, but a search for Elisa Firmansjah Noor and Lies Noor on Indonesian Wiki failed to find an article. Quick Googling of her name yielded one hit – the English WP article targeted here.
Contrast: Poor contrast with backdrop, inky shadowing of hair.
She died in 1961, and Indonesian film history is not well represented online, particularly for people who died before Misbach Yusa Biran began actually trying to catalogue that history. The Indonesian Wikipedia is certainly no measure: less than 0.5% of the editors there are willing to actually go to a library and crack open a book (hence why the majority of their Featured Articles are translated from ours). Their articles on numerous actors from the '50s are far below ours in terms of quality (compare A. Hamid Arief and id:A. Hamid Arief, or Indriati Iskak and id:Indriati Iskak). Your inability to use the internet (the majority of the sources cited are online; you need only follow the links) does not render her non-notable. To the best of my knowledge, Djakartawood has been defunct since the late 1950s. Crediting them on the image page (not in the article - indeed, they aren't credited in the article) is simple acknowledgement of the photographer, and is no different than crediting Mathew Brady for images of Civil War-era generals. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with Sca on all their points (it has great contrast/resolution, good EV, not promotional) but I agree about the signature, I also find it distracting. Considering the page is not about the photograph itself, but about the actor, would it be acceptable/possible to remove it? If it was about the photograph then of course I can see the argument of leaving it as it was intended. Mattximus (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be possible, and I will do so (reluctantly) as a separate file. I subscribe to Adam Cuerden's approach of leaving well enough alone (I've only seen him remove a watermark once, and that begrudgingly). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the restorations but the dark areas look dusty still. I don't like the pose and wish the shades of gray were more distinct, but can't ask for everything in a historic image. Looks better without the signature. My concern is the dusty dark areas. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT Even if promotional, this is type of portraits I can accept, unlike some modern generic promos churned out by PR agencies. Also improves coverage on such little-known women. The only thing that bothers is her missing birth year. I suspect it's the 1940s. Brandmeistertalk09:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with judging her age based on her being in school up through 1955 is that, during the Japanese occupation (42-45) and revolution (45-49), a lot of students were delayed. I'm still attempting to track down a biography outside of Varia (I have several editions of the contemporary film magazines Film Varia and Dunia Film, but my collection is spotty). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the watermark/signature issue... I think we have to ask what the picture is showing. If the picture is to display a work of art, removing the artist's signature would be deeply problematic, as it would change the nature of the work. Similar if it was to display the likes of a film poster. If, however, we have an image which, for our purposes, is fundamentally a picture of the original work's subject, rather than the work itself (as we have here), then I think we have to ask whether these signatures/watermarks are adding/detracting from the image. Given that we are (quite reasonably) so opposed to watermarks on contemporary images, I'm not sure I understand the anxiety about removing them from older images. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the watermark on the ALT. I think removing a 60+ year old watermark is significantly different than requiring that contributors of photographs to not include watermarks in the first place (I can't think of any examples where a Flickr user's watermarked image was send this way), particularly since the names appear to have been printed with the photograph (note how the hexagon pattern of File:Ermina Zaenah c 1955 (portrait) - before restoration.jpg is also found on her name). I am concerned about misrepresenting the photograph as a physical object. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt looks noticeably better, so I'll cancel my opposition. (I guess this amounts to weak support for Alt.)
I'm not going to reopen the old debate about notability, except to opine that in featuring any photo we should ask the question, why are we featuring this picture? Put another way, why would our audience, the readers of English Wiki, be interested in this picture and associated article?
For me, I am interested in featuring images to educate viewers; to make viewers understand that there are more things in heaven and earth than their philosophies can imagine; to ensure that nobody, in the future, has to say "sometimes you can feel lazy and think we're so big we don't have to really know anything about other people". That's my reason. And it's clearly not shared by everyone. Hence why we use the criteria and not individual editing philosophies for determining featured pictures. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt meets all the criteria and none of the non-criteria used above as reasons for opposition or for watering-down a support convince me in the slightest. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support alt, neutral on original. I find Sca's arguments unconvincing; there is no reason for us to be worried about the fact that that this is a promotional photo given that the subject is long dead, and the claims about notability do not seem to be based on any formal guidelines. The subject is not famous in the English speaking world, but that is certainly not a reason to oppose featuring a picture of her. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great image but why the large variation in sharpness, especially the right side? I am curious, was it shot from a tower or airborne? Bammesk (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk- Thanks. The main focal point was the center of the Field of Mars and f8 might not have been quite enough for the far surrounding areas. I was trying to balance shutter speed (1/400 IMO is very slow for aerial shooting) and potential grain. This was a difficult one to crop. I didn't want to cut off the large square building on the far right along with the base of the bridge (for aesthetics). By the same token, keeping the Church of the Spilled Blood (top center) seemed like a good idea. This was shot from a helicopter, restricted to flying over the river only, at a minimum altitude (in the city) of roughly 500 meters. It was intermittently overcast with some turbulence.--Godot13 (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My browser display didn't do it justice at full size, looked at it again in my photo software and the sharpness looks Ok. I love the composition, the EV and everything else. Support. Bammesk (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC) (I just saw it was a zoom lens)[reply]
Support - Though I agree, F11 would have been better. ISO 400 on my 60D is still perfectly acceptable (not sure about 5DS), and the 5DS you were using would give you lots of wiggle room resolution-wise if you needed to use an even higher ISO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for several reasons: a highly accomplished Shakespearian actress in her youth, and a theatrical innovator with her husband later on who both encouraged the creation of and premièred rôles in several important early operas by important writers and composers of 19th century Britain; for example, W.S. Gilbert's first big hit outside of pantomimes, Ages Ago had her in it and was at her and her husband's theatre; other major writers and composers for them included F. C. Burnand, and Arthur Sullivan (though she didn't act in Cox and Box as it has no female roles) Adam Cuerden(talk)04:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Well, given the period, it has to be art: There's no photos of her until much later in life, for the very obvious reasons. It may well be an accurate portrayal of her appearance on stage, though: Flying someone in on a wire is not a new innovation; hell, the Victorian era had all sorts of interesting stage effects and spectacles, many of which are way too dangerous to do today (c.f. star trap). Adam Cuerden(talk)17:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 14:31:33 (UTC)
Original – The Pinafore Picture Book is W. S. Gilbert's retelling of the story of H.M.S. Pinafore for children. In this frontispiece, we see the hero, Ralph Rackstraw, in the rigging.
Reason
A fine image from a notable artist from one of Gilbert's last works. Previous nomination was a couple vtes short, with the only objection being to, um... cropping blank paper, with no captions or other marks. Which seems a weird objection. While we don't have an article on the book at present, the book is discussed in both articles as a notable adaptation.
A very nice, detailed picture of him. Photos seem to either date from much later, or appear to have had major editing done so that they're equivalent to drawings - I'm not at all convinced that https://www.loc.gov/item/brh2003003291/PP/ , for example, is a genuine photograph in the facial region. It gives the impression of a painting. This image is important enough to be used as the basis for a stamp later, File:JamesRussellLowell-1940.jpg (it's a mirror image, but otherwise obviously based on this). By the way, if you haven't noticed, I've been clearing out all my half-done stuff this month, so forgive me if I get through a fair amount of stuff; I have a lot of things I've put a lot of work into, but never went through the last bit of effort to finish.
A fantastic action photo of a person who A. was the first female chemist to work for the United States Geological Survey, and B. worked on the Manhattan Project.
Support – good EV. Sidenote: The photo shows her at work but I wouldn't call this an action shot. This is a set and posed shot. In 1919 nothing was left to chance, intentionally. A blurry subject and/or a moving subject is not synonymous with action shot, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point. I should have said "simulated action shot" or the like. But it's in the actual laboratory, and presumably pretending to do actual things she did. Adam Cuerden(talk)02:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The drawers at the bottom are straight; they seemed the most likely to be the correct ones to use. There's also a matter of balancing how much you'd need to crop out to make a rotation: Make the shelves completely vertical, and you're cropping a lot out. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Making the shelf upright exactly vertical loses very little, and nothing of any consequence that I can see. To my eye, actually, the best result is achieved by making that upright fractionally off vertical, in the same direction as presently, but not so much. 109.146.248.31 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 14:38:02 (UTC)
Original – The Eurasian blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) is a small passerine bird in the tit family Paridae. The bird is easily recognisable by its blue and yellow plumage.
Reason
high quality photograph of a notable bird species, and therefore high EV
Oppose It's a great vivid scene (and I could live with the slight focus issues at the rear), but the shadows obscure the face and frontquarters, which should surely be the main point of the image. Smurrayinchester10:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 18:34:27 (UTC)
Original – The Mercedes-Benz W114 and W115 models are a series of sedans and coupés introduced in 1968 by Mercedes-Benz. This pictured model is a 1973 220D (W115).
Comment - I like this image... Does it concern anyone that there is a license plate that could potentially identify the owner and (presumably) the phone number of a dealer or garage?--Godot13 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to edit out licence plates are inevitably distracting, and should only be used if necessary. I suspect it was edited in the crop in order to avoid the advertising made much more prominent by the cropping; that's fair enough, but it's not necessary here where you'd have to look for it. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 10:49:30 (UTC)
Original – Josselin Château. Taken from the bridge across the river Oust in Josselin on a very calm August evening. The château was lit with golden sunlight and reflected in the relatively still water.
Reason
Photogenic 15th century castle enhanced by evening light and reflection in calm water.
Comment. I don't think the composition is brilliant ... I find the picture a little cramped at the left, and the whole reflection thing a little too much, but perhaps I am being too critical. 109.146.248.31 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm wondering why the reflection seems to take up more vertical space than the castle itself. Or is that an optical illusion?
Also, in the other two pix of the castle at the target article it appears to be built of gray stone, whereas this pic. shows a golden hue to the stone. Sca (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sca, I flipped the image and overlaid them and found the reflected castle to be a very close match for the real one. If you measure from the base of the pointy roofs down to the darker brick of the base, and then compare with the reflection they are much the same. Yes this image is shot during the Golden Hour, which changes the colours to a much warmer tone. Wrt the other comment about being cramped on the left, the scene has a large tree to the left of the castle, which becomes an "include it all or nothing" distracting element that then makes the castle much smaller in the frame. Beneath this tree is shadow, so that area of the scene isn't particularly photogenic (and the reflection, being darker, is just a big dark patch). To the right isn't a whole lot other than some canal boats which also distract the eye from the subject. I would have preferred a little more space either side, but including part of this huge tree or a bit of a canal boat just looked messy to me. -- Colin°Talk18:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – EV, good resolution and very detailed at full size (can count almost every brick). Bammesk (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Sidenote: I am not a fan of accurate reflection of man-made structures.[reply]
Support - Upper left corner is a bit tight relative to the rest (explanation above makes sense), but the detail more than makes up for it...--Godot13 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure about my crop (those wanting to try their own hand can find the pre-crop restoration at [5] - I restored everything, including parts I was pretty sure I'd crop out.) but the image is highly encyclopædic, and minority women, particularly Native Americans, tend to be under-photographed relative to their importance. It's a very good photo of her at a key point in her political activities (just around the time of her meeting with President Calvin Cooleridge)
Some subcategory of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People probably Artists and writers, Political, or Other: she worked and was successful in a LOT of fields.
Support as the author of the biography. Truly difficult to find images of minority women and this one is quite striking and relevant. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: Is that the best one? I always saw that as more for people whose EV was primarily in their clothing, so I'm a little hesitant to put someone who's notable in her own right in there. Adam Cuerden(talk)15:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]