Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schiller edit1.jpg

File:Schiller edit1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 04:55:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Schiller edit1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schiller edit1.jpg

•  Info published by Jos. Koehler (creator unknown) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Schiller.jpg by Durova -- Durova (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral Technically high quality portrait of Goethes friend. However, such an idealized "pretty" portrait does not really make a significant impact on me as an observer. I find the portrait rather uninteresting, actually. --Slaunger (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This is different enough for many of today's readers. --99of9 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per the historical argument given by pjt56. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm glad it's not a misspelling, but I stand by my (changed) vote. The reason for the restoration can't be a factor in whether it should be featured. --99of9 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Seems like a nice example of what high-quality portraits looked like at that time. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good work by Durova, but I don't like the zigzag crops around the person in the original print. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very sorry, Durova, once again great restoration work. But being from 1905 (Schiller died in 1805) and no other sources given I'm afraid this portrait is far from authentic (even the name is spelled incorrectly! And look at his nose on other portraits ...). Featuring it would give it false importance. There are lots of authentic, contemporary Schiller portraits available. --Pjt56 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It isn't a misspelling: Schiller was ennobled in 1802 by the Duke of Weimar and changed his name slightly. The caption in this portrait uses that version. This restoration was performed for the specific purpose of showing to German archives to seek access to better material. If those negotiations yield a digital file of equivalent technical quality from a likeness taken during his lifetime I would gladly delist and replace this. Durova (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The von indicates his acquired nobility and is spelled correctly, but Fredrich instead of Friedrich is incorrect. It may be the adaption of his name into another language (which one?), but this would again support my doubts about the authenticity. I can offer to help you to get access to German archives if you're interested (let's continue this on our talk pages). --Pjt56 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Sure, love to. Durova (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC) pushes Hegel and Max Planck to the back of the desk
•  Support --Gaeser (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- GerardM (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical