Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Adam Smith (2nd nomination)

Right facing profile of Adam Smith

Original - Profile of Adam Smith, etched after the death of the subject, likely for a cover to The Wealth of Nations.

Reason: Image is encyclopedic and of clear historical value. This profile of Smith, based on an enameled paste medallion created in 1787 by James Tassie, graces literally hundreds of books. This image name was previously nominated in June, but the image rejected there was then of unknown providence and was reversed (so smith faced left). While the exact author is still not known, two of Smith's biographer's point to the four possible names listed on the description page.
Articles this image appears in: Adam Smith, History of economic thought, Economist and many others.
Creator: Uploaded by Protonk (talk)

Support as nominator --Protonk (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Size requirements victorrocha (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008(UTC)
- Found larger version at the LC I'll upload it later. victorrocha (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008(UTC)
- Man, I'm terrible at these things. :( Protonk (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with condition the condition being that a larger version is uploaded that is larger than the guideliens. A very good portrait, very historically significant and encyclopedic. Cat-five - talk 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution is way too small. --Abdominator (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Hold the voting for a sec...User:victorrocha says that they'll upload a larger one later. Unless I'm mistaken, that hasn't happened yet, but we should hold voting ntil we have the new one. Spencer^T♦^C 19:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote For some reason, when I go to the img page, it where the image should be is a link to Upload this image. Anyone else getting this? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. WTF? Protonk (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a large accidental baleetion of images this morning, though this image isn't on the lists of images gone missing. Just upload the high-res version and be done with it. MER-C 10:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been searching for an alternate but the one I found wasn't a genuine copy it had been made larger from a copy that is at the Library of Congress archive. If anyone would like to have that uploaded.Sorry for the delay but there's been a lot going on with college starting up. From the File History there seems to be another version that was 1400x2100 px anyone know what's up with that one? Victorrocha (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when people ignore upload warnings. MER-C 10:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~We can restore that version if it is flipped to face the right (the original orientation of the etching). don't see a problem there Protonk (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done Uploaded a reversed prior version. sorry for not noticing that they were two scans of the same etching (or two scans of two prints of the same etching, rather), I just looked at the version immediately before mine when uploading a new one. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all around meeting-the-criteria-ness! Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]