Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rosetta Stone

The Rosetta Stone

 * Reason:Historical Significance, this stone helped decipher ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics
 * Proposed caption:The Rosetta Stone is an Ancient Egyptian artifact which was instrumental in advancing modern understanding of hieroglyphic writing. The stone is a Ptolemaic era stele with carved text. The text is made up of 3 translations of a single passage, written in two Egyptian language scripts (hieroglyphic and demotic), and in classical Greek. It was created in 196 BC, discovered by the French in 1799 at Rosetta, a harbor on the Mediterranean coast in Egypt, and contributed greatly to the decipherment of the principles of hieroglyphic writing in 1822 by Frenchman Jean-François Champollion. Comparative translation of the stone assisted in understanding many previously undecipherable examples of hieroglyphic writing. The text of the Rosetta Stone is a decree from Ptolemy V, describing the repealing of various taxes and instructions to erect statues in temples.
 * Articles this image appears in:Ancient Egypt Rosetta Stone
 * Creator:Jeff Dahl (WikiCommons User) (see my vote below)


 * Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 07:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Oh, I want to, but the image is barely large enough to show the individual letters and then not clearly. There has to be a better image out there somewhere. (The caption is too long by half, but that is fixable.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be correct - slightly better from this public domain text, or this from the ESA (may be copyrighted). MER-C 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The Gutenberg link doesn't work, and in my opinion the nommed image is more legible, and therefore more useful, than the ESA photograph (which may be a more faithful photograph, but the inscription is less clear.) Therefore, Support.Spikebrennan 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we this desperate for featured images? I don't think so. Either the photograph should show the Stone in its museum setting with full color, or it should show an encyclopedic event relating to it (I don't know, some philologist going over it with a glass), or it should show the writing. This doesn't do any of that. This is an available artifact of which better photographs certainly exist or may be in future obtained. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support--Mbz1 04:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I think it's rather good. Yes the other versions are higher res but in this version the characters stand out in such sharp relief that they're easier to read. But there are some weird compression effects between the lines --⁪frotht 04:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - This important object deserves better. --Sean 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Does the British Museum allow photography?  Perhaps someone could just go and take one. Chick Bowen 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's behind glass and, if memory serves, the lighting in that gallery is bad. See here.Spikebrennan 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I support this image because it has a great encyclopedic value and it is a very good image. SRauz 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Better quality is needed for something like this. All the characters should be readable, at least. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-10-01 20:10Z


 * Weak Oppose I agree this image could be better. Some history though: what they did when the stone was found in 1799 was it was inked first, then printed, but the ink was left on the stone for many years, until it was cleaned off (I don't remember when). This image was a photograph of the stone, must have been late 19th century before the cleaning, which is why the stone is so black. Modern photos of the cleaned stone do not show the writing clearly at all, no matter how good the photo, because the contrast between the dark ink and relief (which must have been whitened) is gone! However, if we can find an old print of the stone of 19th or early 20th century date, and scan it, I think that would provide a much clearer image. Jeff Dahl 05:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the lower left corner of the ESA photo shows the condition of the stone before cleaning. Jeff Dahl 05:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose No matter whether it's the best we've found so far the fact that it shows an artifact which still exists and prints taken from the artifact may exist then IMHO we shouldn't settle for anything which doesn't show all characters clearly which sadly this doesn't Nil Einne 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)