Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Statue of Liberty, 1885

Statue of Liberty, 1885

Original - Currier & Ives chromolithograph of the Statue of Liberty published in 1885. Depicts the statue's original copper-bronze hue, but situates it facing southward instead of eastward. Manhattan and the Brooklyn Bridge are visible in the background.

Reason: A high resolution Currier and Ives chromolithograph of the Statue of Liberty published one year before the statue was erected. Restored version of File:Currier and Ives Liberty.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Statue of Liberty#History
Creator: Currier & Ives

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak SupportVery nice period depiction. Especially good EV for original color. Weak only because it's not facing the right way. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They may not have known which way it would face when they published this print, since the statue didn't go up until a year later. Durova^Charge! 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV as long as the caption mentions the wrong direction. --Muhammad(talk) 09:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic EV, despite inconsistency noted in caption -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I like the way they (presumably) thought it was going to face a different direction, but wonder why they cut off the base in the picture. That impact on composition, and the excessive file size limiting usability, lead to the 'weak'. --jjron (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The file size enhances usability; it is always a feature to save a reduced version. You cannot add to the size. GerardM (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excessive filesizes don't enhance usability - you may need to look up definitions. 32.56 MB for a single image is NOT usable for a lot of people, and the only other option is the 377 × 600 px image page version. --jjron (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether its more or less usable depends on who you are and what you intend to do with it, but the fact is that usability is not a criterion, and therefore not to be judged on. Thegreenj 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no objection to linking a scaled-down courtesy copy from the image hosting page for people who have slower connections. This was a high resolution scan, restored at high resolution. Might as well feature the best version we've got. As technology improves in coming years, large files are likely to remain Wikipedia's best work the longest. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I must say I view or 'vote' on very few of Durova's noms these days because of their now generally excessive filesizes, i.e., not usable (oh for the days when people understood downsampling on the internet). And I must say I'm even more nonplussed by a few supports I've seen in some noms recently with reasons along the lines of them supporting solely because of the huge filesize. However if you want to be pedantic about it (greenj), I can change to an oppose based on composition, as stated in my original vote - would that make you happy? --jjron (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        File:Currier and Ives Liberty2 courtesy version.jpg. Downsampled for slower connections at 1.5 pleasant little megabytes. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 07:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent. I think the wrong-facing direction adds to this pic's EV. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Currier and Ives Liberty2.jpg MER-C 07:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]