Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 21:40:04 (UTC)
Reason
This image has two flaws, both of which I think are minor enough to be ignored: The blacks are rather noisy and there's a mostly-unobtrusive white thing poking in from the lower left. Not too noticeable. Secondly, it's from 1914, which is before she was a senator, so it's the second image in the article, not the lead. I think, though, that it's a very strong, striking image, and it's used (by editorial choice) in quite a few articles. (I myself added it to her husband's article, though.)
@
Sca and
Charlesjsharp: By the way, I figured out the creator. Figured "Har[...] Wa[...] was probably Harris & Ewing, Washington, D.C. The LoC gave its copyright entry number, so going to the Copyright Entry book for 1914, and checking under Harris & Ewing, I was able to find the same number with the same description. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7% of all
FPs17:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I prefer to leave on historical copyright notices unless they're so prominent that they're distracting. It's part of the historic image, and help identify the image's history. This one is so barely noticeable that I thought it negligible - no-one was going to notice it unless they were looking for it - but, especially before I worked out the photographer, I didn't want to remove what little helpful info there was. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7% of all
FPs02:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)reply