Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg

File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2021 at 19:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
•  Info created by unknown photographer, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk)
•  Support -- Yann (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Very detailed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose not FP for me. More space is taken up by the ornate frame than the old photograph (whereas most reproductions we see here of a painting/photograph have the frame cropped out, to focus on the subject.) The old photograph itself is not exceptional quality for the era it's made in, or otherwise extraordinary, so I don't see what makes this FP quality. Buidhe (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Buidhe has made a good case against this image. Well, I see it the other way around ;–). The detailed reproduction of the ornate frame which fits the old photograph perfectly in style and size makes this photo special. The old photograph itself is of good quality, I guess it is just (because of the thick glass) a bit out of focus. The theme is also important: the old photograph with its nostalgic frame reminds us of how long how many African Americans have served their country faithfully, but are still not fully respected and acknowledged by many of their fellow citizens. --Aristeas (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ambrotypes (also modern ones) are never really in focus by our standards that are based on totally different technical expectations and possibilities --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Martin, thank you very much for the explanation! --Aristeas (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support per Aristeas --Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support After comparison with the original, I think the restoration was well handled. Very expressive faces. Good quality in my opinion for the period, except the girl at the right a bit blurry, but that's not crippling, since the three other people are okay. Concerning the huge black and gold frame, I just find it great -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas and Falbisoner. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas and Basile -- Radomianin (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support for the historical interest. Cmao20 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I actually like it with the frame shown. It shows this portrait is treasured. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for the explanation, Martin. A very striking portrait and I like the historic frame, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Question @Yann: the description says unidentified yet about a week ago you changed it to Sgt Samuel Smith of the 119th USCT. How did you figure that out? The description is wrong in other ways, it says likely one of the Maryland regiments, but the 119th was organized in Kentucky, early 1865. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Seven Pandas: See the description in other versions: File:Unidentified African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.png, File:Unidentified African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters LCCN2010647216.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• One says nothing on this and the other two say unverified identification. Seven Pandas (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The sources available here appear a bit thin, admittedly. But they offer more than nothing. And even if the suggested description turned out to be factually false and hence the depicted persons were to remain anonymous, this nom would deserve its star nevertheless, at least imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not if the identification is so shaky and that shaky identification is in the file name. So I have to oppose on that sole point. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose see reason immediately above. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Commonists 14:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for including the frame. When the Library of Congress writes "Frame: Berg 7-22", it refers to a specific image and number in the book Nineteenth Century Photographic Cases and Wall Frames by Paul Berg, which is a reference work for people who work with or collect images from the Daguerreotype- and Ambrotype-Era. The extensive list of cases and frames in "the Berg" is a tool to date works from the first years of photography like this (only very few Daguerreotypes or Ambrotypes have information about the date the image was taken on the back of the case or frame). So, without the frame, important information is missing. I encourage everyone to not crop pictures like this. Best --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support. Meiræ 16:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1850-1900