Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Demand Note$.jpg

 
Top row: The distinctive green ink used on the backs of Demand Notes gave rise to the term "greenbacks"
Bottom row: Prominent design elements used on the front of $5 and $20 Demand Notes (located respectively under their denomination); pictured in the middle is the front of a $10 Demand Note with prominent design elements listed

This design was created by Kurt as an intro into the Demand Note article. With very few differations and denominations of Demand Notes, something unique had to be brought to the top, giving a glimpse of our shattered past and emerging future.

  • Nominate and support. - Joe I 01:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This image packs in too many things with no obvious relationship to each other (bills, statues, the American flag, a range of years), and as a result instead of clarifying the subject, it just confused me at first sight. I don't think it's really necessary to have a picture like this: the 6 rectangular pictures of the front and backs of the three notes are all the article needs. Redquark 06:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I had the same first impression. It is too confusing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AIYA! Oppose per above. Staxringold 11:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the contrast of pink and green is awful. Also I really don't like the layout - it seems to waste of a lot of space, and the US flag behind is just unnecessary. And for a purely informative image, it's too artsy, and as pointed out, includes irrelevant images. For in image of this type, I would prefer a white background with a simple layout with strong connections between the objects - perhaps arranged chronologically, or with connections between people and objects as necessary. I have nothing against this type of arrangement being FA, per se. Stevage 14:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I realize a lot of work went into this, but it's too artsy. The article needs images of just the money. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]