Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lysander Cutler

Reason

Greatly illustrates the article Lysnader Cutler and of course has great encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Lysander Cutler

Creator

Unknown, Library of Congress

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not outstanding. I really think we have more than enough of those. --Dschwen 02:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because there are a lot of Civil War photos doesnt mean that there can not be anymore. All of them add enciclopedic value to the articles which they belong to. If we say that there are too many Civil War photos we might as well say that there are too many bird photos or too many NASA photos. All of the photos you listed, and this nomination hold great encyclopedia quality and deserve to be featured.--CPacker (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must admit I was thinking a bit of a similar thing about Charles Griffin, who I'd never heard of either. --jjron (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 'Snot like we have a limited number of FP slots =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just ridiculous, it's not just american civil war photos it's american civil war union general photos. We have featured and are featuring so many of them we might as well make them their own FP category! --Dschwen 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean studio portraits of american civil war union generals. Funny that there are about 15 old studio portraits featured, but portraits of contemporary political leaders don't get anywhere near the same support. I could also use a break from these nominations for a while. Cacophony (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's out of focus & has insufficient enc value to mitigate. --mikaul^talk 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, we need MORE featured content from ACW, not less. MrPrada (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a bizarre 'reason' for a support, that incidentally addresses absolutely none of the criteria. Just for the record Wikipedia is an international project - would you be so ready to jump in and support every studio portrait of every general from say the Boer Wars using the same reasoning? --jjron (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, maybe if he was interested in that particular conflict he would. Also, I don't really see how Wikipedia being an "international project" should have any bearing on whether a America-centric photograph is featured. (Oh yeah, and support) -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, for god's sake! That's exactly my point - he's supporting because it's a picture from the ACW, not because it addresses the FP criteria. And I suspect he's not the only one doing so. --jjron (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice but not fabulous photo. Unimportant subject. Unsure why this should be Featured Picture quality. Some reviewers seem to vote for 19th century works merely because they are 19th century works. Oscar (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Enuja (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]