Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page 1 of the United States Constitution

Page 1 of the United States Constitution


A photo of the first page of the United States Constitution. This page contains the preamble to the constitution, including the famous phrase "We the People".


 * Nominate and Support TomStar81 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, with a comment. Its historical significance is beyond question, but I think the scan needs just a bit of tweaking. Subtle contrast/sharpening, maybe some levels adjustment.  Not too much of any of them. -- moondigger 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, per Moondigger Political Mind 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, per everyone above me. Imaninjapirate 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Totaly ilegible, and I have 20/10 vision. Tobyk777 04:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to view the image at full resolution, not the large thumbnail size on the image page. AND, you have to make sure your browser isn't shrinking the full resolution image to fit into the browser window.  It probably is.  You can turn that option off in Firefox.  In Internet Explorer I think you have to click the icon in the lower right of the image to expand to full size. -- moondigger 13:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose It looks more like a dirty piece of paper than an historical document.Nnfolz 05:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Tobyk and Nfolz, have you looked at it in full size? We don't judge images based on the thumbnails, nor the reduced version on the image page - you need to click your mouse a couple of times to get to the maximum resolution. --Janke | Talk 07:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i actually downloaded (and looked at) the full version before voting. To actually see what it is you have to zoom in a lot. That and the fact that i dont find it strking were the reasons for my vote. Still i'm new here and correct me if I'm wrong, but i think my objections can be forgiven due to the high historical value of the image. What do you think? Still i find it ugly.Nnfolz 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your objection can be forgiven due to the rarity of the photo. In this case, since the historical assessment of the image is a very large part of the vote, one can forgive some of its shortcomings. In addition, there are users (Moondigger and Fir0002, to name a few) who execel in the art of restoring or improving upon images that get cycled through here. In fact, by the time this reaches the bottom of the page a version may emerge that is both readable and historic. TomStar81 08:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Tom, I've actually had this image open in Photoshop for the past 2 days, unsatisfied with the edits I've made. (I've set it aside and gone back to it three times.) The original suffers from some compression artifacts around the text, which are pretty subtle in the original but get more visible as the text is enhanced, no matter what method I use to tweak it.  Maybe somebody with more Photoshop expertise could do something better with it, but I suspect the real solution would be to get a higher-quality original to start with.
 * In any case, my edit is now posted, more legible than before, but the artifacts still bother me. Its historical importance is significant enough for me that I won't withdraw support, but I do wish a better original could be found.
 * BTW, the differences are much more visible at 100% than in the thumbnails shown here. -- moondigger 22:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Historically significant, but not a particularly striking image. Just looks like any other old document. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Maybe try again with a blow-up of the opening ("We the people..") This would lead to a quicker, more visceral recognition; especially for those of us whose eyesight is starting to deteriorate :-) --Philopedia 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nnfolz. Also a deceitful piece of paper. - Darwinek 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it "deceitful?" -- moondigger 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My friend, student of political sciences, wrote very nice essay about this. How freedoms "ensured" in this constitution applies only to some groups of people. And that it was always like that. -- Darwinek 08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't address particulars as I haven't seen your friend's essay. But whatever his argument, it's not the document that's deceitful, but those charged with enforcing the ideals. Deceitful or not, it's not a valid reason to oppose FP status for the image itself. Leave the political opinions out of it and judge the image based on the FP criteria. You might well still oppose, but FPC isn't a place for political debate.  Judge the image.--moondigger 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's visually uninteresting. Featured picture candidates that are documents should feature...pictures. Morganfitzp 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)