Oppose bad crop of original; image unrestored besides having said crop, which removes damaged areas, but ruins the composition. Any competent restorationist could get a much better crop out of this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The damage is visible even at thumbnail resolution, and even moreso at review. That white spot on his beard? That's damage, not reality. That bump beelow his cheek? Damage. That awkward crop at the bottom? Came from hacking away at the original. That's not dandruff on his collar, it's damage, etc, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true, but again, the picture is largely above the quality criteria for the VI status (which does not focus on technical quality). --Eusebius (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Minor) quality issues aside, I prefer photographic portraits over illustrations/engravings for people scopes. I do like how the other one shows his important achievements.. but when I consider VIs, I think of what image I would pick to go in the top right-hand corner of the subject's Wikipedia article. This one would be it. However, this is a weak support and I hope it's not the only/deciding vote. Rocket000 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
