Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cheoljong of Joseon

Cheoljong of Joseon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2022 at 19:48:03 (UTC)

Restored – A portrait of Cheoljong, the 25th monarch of Joseon. It was partly damaged in a fire of Yongdusan in Busan in 1954 and was restored in 1987.

Original – The original is one of South Korea's National Treasures

Reason: A portrait of Cheoljong, the 25th monarch of Joseon. This is the only surviving royal portrait depicting King Cheoljong's physical appearance, as well as Joseon Era royal military attire; it was partly damaged in a fire of Yongdusan in Busan in 1954 and was restored in 1987
Articles in which this image appears: Cheoljong of Joseon, List of Monarchs of Korea
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility
Creator: restorer unknown

Support as nominator – Haiiya (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure this satifies criterion number 2. Also, there's this ~~restoration~~ restored copy that was uploaded by someone overwriting the original, if this one is available in sufficient resolution with a free license then imo it is a better image.
I changed it to that, thanks! It's creative commons 4.0 so we're good. Haiiya (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will still fail criterion number 2, it has to be at least 1,500 pixels in height and width. It is also not a restoration, as Janke pointed out, but a copy (which would be OK imo if the resolution was good). The original, however, despite being partly destroyed, is historically significant enough to carry much encyclopaedic value, as evident from this description. If the resolution of the original can be as good as this, then I will happily support featuring the original. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it was destroyed in 1954, are there any pictures of it from before? Black and white? Those can be restored if they exist, by capable editors here such as @Adam Cuerden: but the copy is a copy, and since it was made in 1987, are we sure it is in the public domain or under a free license? UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, that would be my worry, and it's going to depend on South Korean case law, which is quite beyond my expertise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 16:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Restored? That would imply that it contains part of the burned original, which it doesn't. It is a copy, not a restoration. --Janke | Talk 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]