Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence
Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2013 at 15:59:27 (UTC)
 * Reason:We already have as a featured picture the facsimile version, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg however, I felt it would be prudent to feature this high resolution scan of the actual document as well, provided by the National Archives. Perhaps we could place them together in a two-picture set.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Historical document, Physical history of the United States Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and religion, United States Declaration of Independence
 * FP category for this image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History
 * Creator:Scanned by the National Archives


 * Support as nominator --Indefatigable2 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy mother of... support - Wow. Just... wow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy Suppourth of July. By the way, previous nomination is here. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 04:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support May be faded an illegible, but the sheer EV of this document is much too great to not support. Dusty 777 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have a featured version (File:Us declaration independence.jpg). -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: That FP is not a scan of the original, but is the version most used in WP. We should D&R. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree on D&R. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rethinking after reading Tomer's comments below. They do show different things. I removed my oppose vote. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  14:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose really hard to read anything, as opposed to the current FP. Tomer T (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except, you know, this is the actual document as opposed to a facsimile version. That makes it have much more EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. Seeing the texture of the document is really negligible to me compared with the ability to read the original handwriting. But actually, they both have high EV - of different kinds (this one shows the texture, current FP shows the handwriting). So I removed the oppose vote, and I disagree that only one pictrue should be featured. Tomer T (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support For original historical documents, yay! — raeky  t  22:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)