Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/United States Constitution

United States Constitution

 * Reason:Just in time for the Fourth of July. Hi-res scan of the most important document in the history of the United States.
 * Articles this image appears in:United States Constitution, Law of the United States, Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress and a few others
 * Creator:(PD-USGov-NARA)


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Spikebrennan 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * support Debivort 05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Good thinking -Fcb981 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)  h
 * Strong support due to quality; however, I don't think it will be ready in time for the fourth of July --Brent Ward 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support ~ Veledan • Talk 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full monkeys, I should point out that the first page of a multi-page document is ugly(but it is this first page, because of the famous "We the People" that is really the iconic one.) Spikebrennan 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support This is a great scan of one of the most important documents in American history. Of course, the template/licensing issues on the image page will have to be fixed, but there’s nothing wrong with the scan itself. As to the first part of the reason, well, it’ll definitely be ready for July 4, 2008... —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral, I am not trying to be nasty, but the fact is that we already have the declaration of independence featured (therefore already in the American scope) and there are thousands of other iconic and historic documents including constitutions, war proclamations, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Magna Carta for example which are not. Anyhow, the image is not the best in being aesthetically eye-catching. Chris Buttigieg 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They're different documents, so that objection doesn't make sense. If we have good, hi-res scans of those other historical documents then they are worth considering for FP status also.  I checked the articles for the two you cited and the scans are not hi-res enough.  (The British Library evidently sells hi-res scans of the Magna Carta; I don't know whether any is available from a PD source.  The Lincoln Cathedral's copy of the Magna Carta is temporarily here in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center but they don't permit photography even if I were a photographer.)  I disagree with the notion that the image is not aesthetically eye-catching (I guess that's a matter of personal taste.  I like looking at 18th century penmanship.) Spikebrennan 13:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The non-FP status of other similar documents is not a valid criticism of this image unless those documents were nominated for FPC and failed due to a concern that could be applied to all such documented bananas. As for the aesthetic value of an image, people will obviously disagree with you on that, but even if they don't, the FP criteria allow for images that are not aesthetically-pleasing as long as they're of significant historical value; that is arguably the case here. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-06 15:34Z
 * Don't get me wrong, I do not doubt its historic value or even its aesthetics, indeed I normally support etchings, documents, maps etc. The only thing I said was that it seems a bit superfluous in the context of Americana. We already have the declaration of independence featured whereas other iconic documents are not, and I used the above-mentioned ones solely as an example. It is certainly an aesthetically-pleasing document, yet not aesthetically eye-catching. However, it appears that I have been swayed enough to change to neutral. :) Chris Buttigieg 13:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support as per discussion above. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-06 15:36Z
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support per everything said above, a very nice scan of a historical document. Cat-five - talk 20:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)