Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ausweis Puy-de-Dôme 1847.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ausweis Puy-de-Dôme 1847.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2023 at 08:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Historical
- Info Reproduced from the original document, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment not much to complain about from the technical side, but I don't feel very wow-ed by this. Maybe if someone could transcribe the handwritten parts ... --El Grafo (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak oppose While certainly interesting, I do not think this brings enough to the table to warrant being a featured image. --Explodingcreepsr (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support To give a little love to this picture: IMHO its really interesting to see how different a passport was in 1847. I knew these old passports from descriptions and (bad) photos in books, but it is impressive to study an excellent reproduction of a well-preserved specimen. --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Explodingcreepsr. -- Karelj (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a great document, a VI and a QI, but I don't find it beautiful in this condition. If it were subjected to a difficult digital restoration, that would be a different story. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Unfortunately some of the handwritten text isn't easily readable. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas. --Wieggy (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment @Ikan Kekek As a matter of fact, I was thinking about restoring the scan, which of course would take several hours. But IMO seeing the signs of age, presents the document in an authentic way. In my opinion the authentic version as it is now, with all its spots and wrinkles, is preferable to a restored version. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I wouldn't suggest replacing this file with a restored one, only nominating a restored one at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral per Ikan and Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Good for QI/VI per others, but IMO does not have enough wow to stand on its own pictorially. It would be helpful for long-term Commons value if the type and purpose of this passport was further described in image description. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support Rosalina 🍵 476467 04:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)