I agree, its a better picture for the article - my concern is purely on the copyright side of things. I remember this problem when I created the first version of the article - I couldn't find a good picture that wasn't potentially copyright... It's a challenge for photographs that might be around 1900+ in date. Where we don't have a photographer's name, it is quite plausible that they may have been taken (say) by a 20 year old, who could easily have lived to seventy, in which case the "lifetime + 70 years" of copyright protection won't run out until 2020+, depending on the exact date of the photo. With a photo with a firmer date (e.g. 1880s) we'd be on somewhat safer ground, but as you say, the website isn't giving an indication there.