Talk:Columbian Issue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chicago (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philately (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Philately WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of philately and stamp collecting. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or check out the Philately Portal.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

This is a fine article, just needs a bit of tweaking. First, it needs a bigger-format picture at the top, otherwise somebody clicking on it thinks, "oh, just boring text", not realizing there are plenty of pics. commons:Category:Stamps of the United States has several larger images, though none are ideal. Second, I think the subsectioning for values breaks things up too much - as weird as it sounds, I think plain paragraphs with bolded denominations, or even an enumerated list, will look better. It would also let us keep TOC for main sections, but not take up nearly an entire screen with denominations (it's not like anyone will ever click straight to a particular one). I don't have my Brookman handy, it would be good to add a comment as to why such a large set was decided upon. Stan 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Commons images for the Columbians are painfully lacking (one decent 2c and 10c picture, a 2c mislabelled as 3c, and the worst-condition 1c and 10c I've seen in some time). What I'd really like to see is the image of one of the better Columbian covers (the huge package piece with four $5 and a rainbow of lower demons would be lovely), but I'm uncertain if the free use afforded us for US postage applies to covers from established collections... As an unrelated note, anyone have a good closeup of the broken hat? My scanner is like the 2c Columbian in a way: old, and very useful in its time, but really not worth much anymore. Serpent's Choice 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
My general approach to the "lead" image is that it should be somehow "most representative" of the article's subject and secondarily "most attractive", which in this case suggests a XF unused 2c as the ideal. Cover images are highly desirable supplements, to give flavor of how the stamps were used. As mundane objects, I think scans of covers can only get copyright from either cachet or stamps, so any Columbian cover is going to be PD. It would be a courtesy to tell people when you're collecting images, so they're not surprised to see their item on the front page of WP some day. :-) Stan 15:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)