Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Felice Beato

Felice Beato

self-nom When I first came across this article it was named "Felice A. Beato", but having done a lot of research on the photographer, I moved it to "Felice Beato", the name he is more accurately known by. I then added quite a lot of information that has recently come to light regarding Beato's life, clarifying a number of issues and filling in a lot of gaps. Pinkville 00:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Great work on this article, the references are especially impressive , but there are still some important problems. The lead is too short, and needs to be expanded. Somewhat ironically the article is also incongruously lacking in images. The article needs a picture of Beato, and should also include more examples of his works. In parts the writing also needs work. There are too many one and two sentence paragraphs, especially towards the end of the article. - SimonP 02:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support SimonP 14:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• If the article is on a 19th century photographer, can't we add lots of images with no copyright worries? Everyking 09:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. Lead section is way too short. And it needs more images. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Support. The concerns have been dealt with. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair enough on the lead and towards the end. As for the images, although Beato is a 19th century photographer - the copyright on his images is held by the institutions which own his photographs. Frankly, I'm not even sure the image I used (which I found on Wikipedia) is legal. Is it? I'm not clear about the use of his images. I know that the photographs in the collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, for example, cannot be used (unfortunately). There is only one portrait of Beato in existence - Tony Bennett reproduces it on his site - again maintaining all rights. To compensate for the lack of images in the article I provided the extensive list of linked photographs at the end - but I too would rather see them in the article. Pinkville 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    While the institutions might claim copyright on the images, under U.S. law, which is what Wikipedia falls under, all of his images should be public domain. - SimonP 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the lead and other sections and I've added some images (thanks SimonP!). How does it look to you all now? - Pinkville 00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think the concerns of the above have been dealt with. I like it, Support. Broken S 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)