It could be removed, but I tend to leave on photographer's identification markings, as part of the image's presentation. This one is borderline, though. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 16:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
My reaction is, it doesn't really add anything relevant to the content of the photo, and it's a little bit distracting. If this were being used to illustrate types of early 20th C. photos, etc., that would be different. Definitely a face with a lot of character.
Sca (
talk) 18:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support – Love Mrs Pankhurst, and agree on the removal of the fussy photography credit.
Vesuvius Dogg (
talk) 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Besides, not everyone has a name like Emmeline. (Didn't Chuck Berry do a song about her?)
Sca (
talk) 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support – But I agree with the removal of the copyright tag, since it has nothing to do with the person in question, and detracts from the overall image.
Mattximus (
talk) 23:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Looks fine.
Sca (
talk) 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Good work, Adam, and thank you for this one. I'm a collector of photographic carte-des-visites and own another image of Mrs Pankhurst. This one is better.
Vesuvius Dogg (
talk) 16:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Vesuvius Dogg: Well, if you have any that do need a little restoration, scan them at about 300-600dpi, and I'm happy to go to work. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 17:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply