Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wanted!

John Wilkes Booth wanted poster



 * Reason:Historic 19th century wanted poster.
 * Proposed caption:Broadside advertising reward for capture of John Wilkes Booth (the assassin of United States president Abraham Lincoln) and his co-conspirators John H. Surratt and David E. Herold.
 * Articles this image appears in:John Wilkes Booth
 * Creator:unknown. Source: Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division.  Uploaded by User:Davepape


 * Support as nominator Spikebrennan 17:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC). Also Support alternative 1.  Spikebrennan 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. No reason it should be this blurry, but great historical value. I wonder how they possibly found anyone with such generic pictures on the wanted posters? --⁪frotht 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just having photographs was an enormous advance. Also, Booth was roughly the Brad Pitt of his day. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: There must be a better version. --Svetovid 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Support alternative 1 - and the caption should note that two names are spelled incorrectly - Surrat instead of Surratt and Harold instead of Herold.--Svetovid 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very interesting, but size / quality not good enough for FP in my opinion whether or not there is a better version in existence. ~ Veledan • T 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * support--Mbz1 13:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Support if replaced with this --Nautica Shad e  s  00:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I concur.--Svetovid 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I concur as well. Jellocube27 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Would anybody mind if the image on answers.com was just uploaded over the current picture? Thats what the upload new version is there for afterall, i'd do it now but i dont want to suffer a backlash for being bold.. --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The answers.com version is not just the same poster, it's the same physical document. (The wrinkles and tears are in the same places).  I would support the answers.com version being uploaded over the existing one (even though it's in BW and not a sepia-tint).  Spikebrennan 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC).  I just also noticed that the poster spells the name of "John Surrat/Surratt" two different ways.  John Surratt is presumably the correct spelling.

Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, somewhat dramatic, somewhat historic, but poor quality negates its value. BTW, the Answers.com image is a cleaned-up version of this presumed digital original, and is probably much closer to the appearance of the physical original (unlike the parchment-paper ones you can get at museum shops, such as the one I worked in as a kid). --
 * Support Alternative I uploaded the other one instead, decided not to upload over the original so that people can see the contrast --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rant Does noone bother to check the sources? The answers.com one is from the Library of Congress. Which also have a much better version of the colour one, where the Surrat image is much more visible than in the b&w.  Adam Cuerden talk 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Alternate 2 Adam Cuerden talk 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose not as large and it isnt straight --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  09:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative I like the sharpness on this one. Alternative 2 is a bit blurry. CillaИ X&diams;C [dic]  18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Alt#1 fascinating. Debivort 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative 1 The text and images are easier viewed on the black and white version. --Puddyglum 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Alt. 1 - best is viewed on the black and white version and the sharpness is much better than on the other two. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. By the way, can someone fix the tilt on the B&W version? Nautica Shad e  s  12:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose All The two alternates are good, but Alt 1 has been converted to B&W from the original sepia while Alt 2 is not straight and is smaller resolution. Normally, I'd support either one of these images, but the fact that they both exist (plus the original) means that a full colour version of Alt 1's resolution is not asking too much and in fact is probably out there somewhere (eg. whoever scanned in Alt 1). Why not wait until it turns up? Matt Deres 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)