Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edward VIII abdication papers

Edward VIII abdication document

 * Reason:Not the best technically an quite small but you can read it so who cares. Very historic document
 * Articles this image appears in:Edward VIII abdication crisis
 * Creator: Sherurcij

--wadester16 | Talk→ 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Thanks, Hadseys 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close It doesn't meet the size criteria.  Zoo Fari  03:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares if you can read it to be honest? Mean where the hell do you get off mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was unilateral to remove this nomination from the archive, but I still keep the Speedy Close. Sorry, but if it was your case, we'd have a lake of candidates. Not to mention the poor quality as well. If it is worth "checking out", you might as well nominate at VP.  Zoo  Fari  15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume good faith and hope that wasn't a personal attack, but comments like that (Hadseys') are not constructive nor welcome at FPC. You've been here long enough to know that. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too small, bad colour, compression artifacts and unwanted border. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ye but to be fair how is it good faith to remove something I worked on without telling me? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody deleted the image, though the nomination closing was a bit hasty. More votes should have been gathered before applying WP:SNOW - although I predict that it will snowball into a close without promotion. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A nom should be closed if it obviously fails the criteria, or atleast that's what I think. I don't see how keeping the nom for more votes is useful, when it is obviously going to fail. But that's just my 2 cents.  Zoo Fari  06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yeah, unfortunately this image clearly does not have enough resolution as per the criteria. As mentioned by Vanderdecken though, it should have stayed on the page a little longer or at the very least, you should have been notified that it happened. It will never pass with less than 1000px, as we would not make an exception for a document that could be reproduced. In fact, looking at the source, it actually is (in a round about way) available in a much higher res - however, you can only scroll around it rather than download it as a file, which is unfortunate. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Raul has directions on how to unzoomify images so if anyone here is running Linux they can get they high-res version. See here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very reluctant oppose per size and quality issues: blown whites at center, uncorrected fade. If anyone gets their hands on a better resolution original it'd be an honor to edit and renominate.  Superb ev, a perfect candidate for document FP.  Durova Charge! 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too small. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Makeemlighter.--Paris 16 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)