Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpg

File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 22:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
•  Info created by Verein Trierisch (ed.), reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Question Are those dark spots on the left side on the original? Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Yes, they are. I decided to leave it the way it is, didn't clone out anything. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Support, then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Support I really like this one, especially because of the top text, which says that the publication has been approved by the French military command. It was 1919 and a harmless little thing like this still had to be approved by the French. Says something about why the Germans became so resentful in the following years.--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • American military ... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out; I was actually thinking about the one from September. That's the one I'd nominate, for the reason stated above.--Peulle (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - That's a beautiful illustration. I feel like this cover could benefit from a little digital restoration, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Well, it would be quite easy to "clean it up", but on the other hand, it is obvious that this particular copy has had its own history. That's why I like it with its "patina" which IMO underlines the above-mentioned historical context. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Question - Is this issue now rare that only a couple of copies still exist? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Info - Obviously quite rare, at least it is the only one I know. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Support provisionally, on the basis that you tried searching catalogs of rare book dealers and libraries. I tried doing a quick search on Addall and don't think I found a copy for sale there. Worldcat didn't seem to find anything, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• If rarity is the criterion, there aren't that many of these on Commons, which is where we should focus our search, no? It can always be delisted later if more are uploaded. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• That's a valid point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support In my opinion it's an excellent reproduction of a rare document. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Tozina (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical