Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Japanese instrument of surrender, World War II

Japanese instrument of surrender, World War II

 * Reason:A major historic document in a large legible file. Restored version of Image:Instrument of surrender Japan.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Occupation of Japan, Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Surrender of Japan
 * Creator:United States War Department

The image was promoted by -- Meld    shal   21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Support. The first time I've come out of the Wikiwoodwork to support something for ages, because this is an incredibly historically significant document and the image is of amazing quality. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can the names of the signatories be included on the image description page? If you can't get them all, that's fine. Nautica Shad es  00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. :) Durova Charge! 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Nautica Shad es  02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. For the same reasons as here. Nautica Shad es  02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Exceptional encyclopedic value and high quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * High quality restoration was the reason (not clearly) stated above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally i prefer the original, it just feels much more real. I don't see anything wrong with a few scratch marks on the paper. C  hris_huh talk 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the same nonsense as the german surrender above. What is the point of this restoration. You selectively removed some signs of aging, creating a fantasy image of how the document never looked like. It is sad irony taht due to the nomination procedure this image gets labled original. Sorry, for being so harsh, but I just don't get it into my head why this receives super duper very mega strong support. --Dschwen 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments above. Durova Charge! 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think that the two above voters who supported strongly (Vanderdecken and I) did so because of historical value, and not because of the restoration. Nautica Shad es  23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's odd is that photographic restorations from World War II don't generate complaints, and neither do text restorations from the nineteenth century. I wonder why the difference.  Durova Charge! 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have too much of an opinion on this debate, but I think Dschwen opposes the only color balance tweaking in the images, something which usually isn't done as much in a photograph restoration. Nautica Shad es  23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blink. Where you you get that idea, Nauticashades?  Photographic restoration involves a variety of archaic formats, some of which experience serious yellowing.  Durova Charge! 06:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "usually". When dealing with very old photographs that have yellowed, yes, the color balance is sometimes changed. However, for the average historical photograph created from a negative (say, this), it isn't an issue. Nautica Shad es  20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Taking this to user space--it's getting pretty far afield of this particular nom). Durova Charge! 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)