Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/David Octavius Hill by Amelia Robertson Hill

David Octavius Hill by Amelia Robertson Hill

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2016 at 16:10:42 (UTC)

Reason: A significant work by a notable female sculptor of her also-notable husband. Given angles and such, cutting off the gravestone is probably an acceptable way of getting good backgrounds.
Articles in which this image appears: Amelia Robertson Hill, David Octavius Hill Dean Cemetery
FP category for this image: Depends. Are we considering this an artwork or considering the subject?
Creator: Amelia Robertson Hill, photographed by Kim Traynor

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting nom. The image page could probably do with an explanation of why the statue is PD or a FOP template. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @J Milburn: Well, the sculptor died in 1904, and the UK has full Freedom of Panorama, so... definitely is fine. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Josh is saying that it needs to be noted on the file page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Crisco 1492 and J Milburn: Which it is. Scroll to the very bottom of the licensing section. You can't make it too prominent or people will ignore Kim Traynor's CC-by license because, for example, Media Vieweronly goes by the firs t license it sees, I believe, and will actively encourage people to ignore copyright. That thing has some serious bugs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wonder why the PD-100 template isn't being used under a sub-header for the statue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        My view is that files shouldn't have both a PD and a CC license; they are surely mutually exclusive. I'd just include a note on {{information}} if the statue's PD and/or include a FOP template. I agree, though, that there's an inconsistency/lack of clarity when it comes to how we treat these images. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 05:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom inscription below his name is clipped, leaving it illegible. Brandmeister^talk 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And that's not the only thing clipped ... look at the shadows on the bust. The lack of metadata on this one does not help me judge whether this was something unavoidable or not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Brandmeister – Jobas (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, poor lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - the shadows are too harsh, but if that can be fixed, I can be convinced otherwise. Margalob (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably considered this as an artwork (if successfull), as the image isn't used in the depicted person's article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]