Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Declaration of Independence

Reason

In the spirit of the following nomination.

Articles this image appears in

United States Declaration of Independence, Historical document

Creator

Second Continental Congress

• Support as nominator — J Are you green? 04:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good thinking -Fcb981 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not sure if your aware of this, but some monthes ago the US Declaration of Independence came through here as an FPC, and was overwhelming aproved as an FP. Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Prefer current FP over this completely illegible version. --Dschwen 08:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 14.51 MB? wow bandwidth killer. Bleh999 10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, already featured in better quality.--Svetovid 12:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Svetoid and Dschwen --Brent Ward 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What happened to adding historical importance into the criteria? This is the original document—not a copy! J Are you green? 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I agree with User:Thegreenj, this is the original document and should be featured. Yes, we have a featured picture of a copy of the document with much better legibility, but the historical context of this outweighs its less pleasing points. For a similar situation, the first permanent photograph (and some other physically replaceable images from Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History) is/are much more important than if someone took a better photo of the same view. --WillMak050389 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeh but whats the point of having something featured you can't read; people wont know or understand what their looking at? At least the first permanent photo isn't written; so you can make out what it is; this, although it is an original its an original in very poor condition and i would much rather have a featured copy than a crappy original; despite historic important. The only difference between a copy and the original in this case is the penmanship and the parchment; so why does historic things matter?--Brent Ward 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close per Svetovid. OPEN ME UP and you will see that this image is already a featured picture. (I would have nominated it myself if I hadn't seen that someone else had already beaten me to the punch. Spikebrennan 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current FP is better. It may be be picture of a copy, but that copy is faithful enough that it's thought to be a direct ink transfer from the original, and after all, any digital image is a copy including this nomination; I reckon the key question is which looks most like the original document. As for enc value, the article is about the Declaration of Independence, not about how documents fade when they get very old, and the current FP represents it better. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn J Are you green? 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]