Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lysander Cutler

 
Original - Lysander Cutler (February 16 1807July 30 1866) was a businessman, educator, politician, and a Union Army general during the American Civil War. In the first summer of the Civil War, Cutler, a respected 54-year-old businessman and Indian fighter, was commissioned colonel of the 6th Wisconsin Infantry on July 16 1861. The regiment would eventually become one of the units of the famous Iron Brigade.
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
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. --mikaultalk 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]