Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Treaty of Waitangi all documents.jpg

Treaty of Waitangi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 02:51:14 (UTC)

Original – The group of nine documents that make up the Treaty of Waitangi

Reason: Very high resolution copy of the 9 documents that make up the Treaty of Waitangi, high EV. This image contains all nine signed sheets of the Treaty. In the previous FPC for the Waitangi Sheet (only one of the 9 sheets of the Treaty), there were a couple of requests in the that discussion for someone to upload all the sheets as a single image.
Articles in which this image appears: Treaty of Waitangi
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/Others
Creator: Archives New Zealand, with modifications by Insertcleverphrasehere

Support as nominator – — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would probably be better if the backing for the damaged treaties were removed, leaving only the treaties themselves. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~That is the backing paper for the treaties. Which is part of them now. I already removed the backgrounds.~~ Easy enough to to remove them though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

Also, is that second treaty really slanted like that IRL? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm afraid I don't see the value in arranging all these documents in a single image. I'd suggest the pages should be in individual files nominated as a featured image set; which is certainly something we've promoted before (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/ButterflyScaleMicroscopy) though I can't actually see in mentioned the rules. (I'd also agree with Chris about removal of the backing paper - I see the argument that the backing paper is part of the current state of the treaties, but I don't think it has historical significance to make up for it distracting from the primary subject.) TSP (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the backing paper, might take the cache a while to catch up though.— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The value in arranging all these documents together is that, in context, they are not separate documents. Together these 9 documents are the Treaty. Each document by itself is not the treaty, though each contains the treaty text, there are just different sheets because they were all sent around the country separately (no email in the 19th century). While I agree that all the copies could be uploaded as a featured set, the Treaty as one image is actually more important from an encyclopedic value standpoint than any individual sheet by itself. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming the relative sizes of the documents are accurately represented, this is a case where I think a composite image is superior as a featured set won't allow the reader to easily grasp the differences. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012. The relative sizes are accurate. I based the relative sizes off of the lower resolution national archives composite, and I have also checked with regards to pictures of the documents when they were on display (See here), just to check and make sure that the National Archives composite was also accurate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The documents can be read, and having them all together on the one image has strong EV - especially in light of the differences between the versions. I saw these documents on display at Wellington, and viewing them together has a lot of punch. Nick-D (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the white background makes the image seem rather washed out. Wonder if a dark background would look better? (Not sure though if the backing paper should be included in that case.) Also, is there a more meaningful order by which the treaties could be arranged other than by size, that would still allow for an aesthetically balanced image? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and looked at the high quality copies made of the treaties that are on display at Te Papa, on those, they do not replicate the backing paper, which leads me to agree that these are not considered part of the treaties and should remain removed (per comments above and contrary to what I stated above). As for a dark background, looking on commons, other images of treaties do not use dark backgrounds, but rather use white or whatever was in the back of the scan/image of the treaty. As for order, the Waitangi Sheet was the first signed, so it should be on the left (It was first signed on Feb 6th, though additional signatures and another sheet of parchment were added and attached in March). As for the others, they were sent around the country to collect additional signatures over the next few months and there isn't really any meaningful 'order' to place them in. [1] and [2] use an order, but it is arbitrary, and other scholorary sources never refer to the treaty sheets by 'number' but rather by their names (although the Waitangi Sheet is always first), Archives NZ's ebook on the treaty does not list numbers, and the listed order in the ebook doesn't even match the numbers they chose for listing them for download. In short, aside from the Waitangi Sheet on the left, the others should probably just be placed in an aesthetically pleasing manner (I chose to maximise space).

As an additional note, I forgot to transclude this discussion for two days after creating it, so it would be nice to keep it open an extra couple days to see if it gets enough support. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for guidance: I've addressed lots of concerns by many of the editors above, but nobody seems keen to support. Not sure how to proceed as it seems that all the comments and changes to the image have derailed this proposal. I am willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the quality of the image, such as darken the background to some shade of grey or something? It seems silly that this should not be considered a featured image in some form. Would it be better with a slightly darker background colour? Would it be better if I moved the sheets slightly closer together? Should I just give up and upload all of the other sheets as independent images and nominate them as a featured set (or is this composite part of the featured set)? Just looking for some guidance here as I am willing and able but do not know what I have to do to improve the image to get it to meet FP criteria and I feel like I am running out of time. What is the policy on 're-noninations' if I work to address some of the issues? Pinging previous commenters. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]