Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865

The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865

 * Reason:Currently a VP. Looks great to me and seems to meet the criteria.
 * Articles this image appears in:Columbia, South Carolina, William Tecumseh Sherman, Columbia, South Carolina, in the American Civil War
 * Creator: William Waud


 * Support as nominator -- Pmlineditor      ∞    09:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Changed creator. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The creator may have been Mr Waud, it is a good idea to cherish the people who do our restorations.. GerardM (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of spots missing ink, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday nom'ed this at VP for a reason, I presume. I might reconsider my vote if he comments here.  upstate NYer  03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand you right, those "spots missing ink" are the sparks from the fire, and temoving them would destroy the image's intent. Now, I'll admit this is a bit smaller than I prefer, which was the main reason I nominated it for VP. I have a large personal collection of engravings, and you may have noticed that my scans from there are all very large. A bit more would be possible if this were the super-high resolution of the scans I make myself, but, for the more-than-ample size this is, I think this is reasonable. Frankly, I do not have the access to American materials that I do for Britain, since a good amount of what I do is direct scans, by me, from originals. Hence, barring the Library of Congress partnering with Wikipedia, I don't think it's reasonable to expect all featured historic material from America to match what I can do with British stuff using my access to material from multiple British sources. Of course, in the unlikely event that someone finds a better scan, this should be demoted immediately in its favour, but unless that happens, I'm quite happy to Support this. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 08:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Support per Shoe.  upstate NYer  17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Regarding the oppose comment, Shoemaker's Holiday has an excellent knowledge of period printing techniques and part of his restoration esthetic is to preserve the appearance per the technology as it existed at the time: he corrects post-publication damage but preserves flaws that were inherent to the limitations of the printer's press.  This is an intrinsically valid approach and is one of the ways in which our styles differ.  Durova  322 06:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Durova. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Sounds like a reasonable argument for inclusion. And an important part of history to spotlight.. Outback the koala (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)