I find the picture striking and I belive it definitly adds to the Sing Sing article, and if there was a cellblock article it would add there as well. It is a library of congress image uploaded by user:Daderot.
Note the image has a {{PD-old}} tag on it, but the image can't be 100 years old. This page says Osbourne was appointed governor in 1914, so it can't be older than that. So that particular PD tag has to be wrong. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my fault. It had a PD tag on it, and I thought it was older than 100, my fault. Its an image from the library of congress. There are no copyrights on it [1] I think it has a correct tag now. -Ravedave20:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning toward oppose. The more I think about this, the less I like it. Sure, it has historical value, but it just lacks a little pizzazz. --Janke | Talk07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I agree. Old photographs lack pizzazz almost by definition, because of the long exposures required. But is it of significant historical interest? I can't see, from the Sing Sing article, that the particular warden photographed is notable. –Joke15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have titled it differently, probably just Sing Sing, or Sing Sing with warden. You are right the warden doesnt really matter. -Ravedave17:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Portions of the photograph is overexposed, with the face of the guard in the background is badly blurred. It's a pity about the technical quality, because the image is certainly informative, and - in terms of what it conveys about the outlook of the participants - almost Karsh-like. --Philopedia18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
_with_warden.jpg?lang=en)