Of high quality, considering from 1865. Was seconded at
WP:PPR. Used in 13 articles. It is arguably the most referenced and widely used artistic interpretation of the monumental events that occured that day.
Support as nominator --
smooth0707 (
talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)|| (either version)
smooth0707 (
talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Good clear copy of an historic image. Has plenty of EV, just look at all the articles its in. (
Giligone (
talk) 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC))reply
Support- good reproduction of a historic and well known image.
J Milburn (
talk) 16:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Support A well-deserved promotion. SpencerT♦C 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support I prefer lithographs a bit higher resolution, but the nature of the medium probably makes this size alright. Text could be a bit clearer.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Support altreply
Weak Support it's a little bit blurry, but it's a good image --
Music26/11 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Blur is inherent in the lithograph format. It's basically the art of creating an image out of noise: acid is used to etch a plate, and by carefully adjusting how much the acid eats into the plate, you determine how many pits there are for the ink to get into - and thus how dark the area is. Zoom in on a lithograph enough and you'll see a sort of static made out of black blobs. That said, it could be higher resolution, but I think that, for a lithograph, this is acceptable.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Looking at this one, I think it's actually rather washed-out. Allow me to suggest an alternative. Also, can this be kept open a bit longer to let people evaluate the edit?
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Additional input required: version please... --
jjron (
talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply