Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Declaration of Independence us0036 03.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:US Declaration of Independence us0036 03.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2011 at 21:56:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Thomas Jefferson et al. - uploaded by Scewing - nominated by Scewing -- Scewing (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Neutral Has very high educational value, important and historical document of a country. But I think Commons is not an American-centric project. —stay (sic)! 09:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Info Agree. Commons definitely should not be American-centric, but the United States Declaration of Independence is one of the most celebrated manifestos for human freedom and self government in the history of western civilization. We shouldn't let its country of origin detract from its worldwide historical value. Scewing (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Support USA, USA! Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)- SupportThanks to PW for the link just above ! As French, I agree (especially today, 14th of July, Bastille day as you say in english
), that "Commons" must not be an American-centric project. Moreover, as for me, it is not. But I think that this document has a worldwide very high historical and educational value, and is a precious treasure of (and for) all the mankind, like this one maybe. And the version seems to be "the best "Commons" can offer" IMO. No problem for a support vote.--Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC) - Support A high quality reproduction of a work whose import is manifest in the outcome. All such works should be welcomed on Wiki. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Very useful image for articles on wikis, also has good quality, but I see no wow here. --Jovian Eye talk 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)- Oppose Its more for VI. Could be sharper anyway. --Mile (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think VI does not include documents, per COM:VI#Eligibility. —stay (sic)! 00:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- This declaration is very valuable i think, so perhaps one more missed rule in VI scope. Those who set it should seriously reconsider some "updating". Otherwise not much FP here, even bad IQ - I dont see any use of huge resolution seeking chemical substance. There is one Feautered on EN.Wiki at normal-more than enough-size. --Mile (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you think it's really that important to change the guidelines - there's nothing that prevents you from doing it yourself. Start a discussion on VI, on village pump or ask directly those who edited the current guidelines. As for high resolution: possible usages of high resolution images are very obvious. Printing, digital wallpapers, derivative digital art and scientific research are just a few examples where high resolution images comes in handy. This platform is not a mere image deliverer for wikipedia - it's about people and their projects, their needs. It's always possible to downscale a high res version of an image, whereas upscaling comes along with a massive loss of quality (lossless image formats). Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I judge just what is seen, not what could be seen. Primary use is Wiki anyway. Those working science out of it will surely get on the spot, with some other $$$ equipement, otherwise migth be ending-up hobby class is delivering to science class - pharse. --Mile (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Info This kind of image is allowed in the VI project, there is even a specific gallery for them: Commons:Valued_images_by_topic/Historical/Documents. The exclusion is only for .pdf files like this, I think. --Myrabella (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see what makes this a featured image. It is valuable, but not pleasing to the eye. A bunch of text and some signatures... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
