Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Liberian 25-cent discovery note (1880)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Liberian 25-cent discovery note (1880)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2016 at 04:42:49 (UTC)

Original – A 25-cent Liberian dollar uniface fractional banknote depicting the Coat of arms of Liberia on the upper obverse of the note and hand-signed by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasurer. Prior to the current discovery of this note in the National Numismatic Collection in February 2016 by the nominator, the 25 cent denomination was not thought to exist.[1] A high grade example of the 1880 Liberian dollar series.
  1. ^ Cuhaj, George S. (2010). Standard Catalog of World Paper Money General Issues (1368-1960) (13 ed.). Krause Publications. p. 801. ISBN 978-1-4402-1293-2. 
Reason
High quality, high EV, unreported denomination. The Liberian dollar has been the official currency of Liberia from 1847 to 1907 and from 1943 to the present.
Articles in which these images appear
Liberian dollar, Coat of arms of Liberia
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Currency/Other
Creator
Republic of Liberia
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History


  • Support as nominatorGodot13 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Problem This is an unusual case of an image breaching our No original research guidelines. Is anything due to appear in one of the numismatics publications?©Geni (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
©Geni - I'm not sure how this is OR if I'm citing the main reference book on world banknotes as the source of information indicating that the denomination has not been reported to exist? I could change the description so that this image is simply a high-grade example of the Liberian dollar, but that would neglect it's importance...
The problem is that it introduces unpublished idea. Specifically that the thing exists.©Geni (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
©Geni- That the thing exists seems beyond question, given the image provided (from a reliable source, the NNC). Not wanting to split hairs, I have amended the description of the image so that its relevant EV for FPC is not based on denomination but rather on being a fairly high quality and very high resolution example of the series.--Godot13 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Love the image, but I do agree that we need a secondary source reporting this discovery. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Chris- Can it be used as an illustration of the Liberian dollar and not as a discovery note (for the time being)?--Godot13 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see why not, but this gets its EV from being a discovery note. I don't doubt that's accurate, but to comply with WP:RS I agree that we need a source recognizing its existence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Would a Smithsonian-run blog entry be a RS? - Godot13 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It'd be a primary source. I'd probably accept that for FPC, though if you were to go for FA or FL there'd have to be a secondary source. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood...--Godot13 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Generally yes. There have been past cases where people have had to prod museums to publish blogs mentioning things about their collection.©Geni (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It also gets its EV from being a high grade example and having a vintage depiction of the coat of arms on the relevant article...--Godot13 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Great scan and high ev. Spongie555 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the best course of action here is for me to request a suspension pending my ability to secure either a primary or secondary source to support the discovery note aspect of this FPC.--Godot13 (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support pending verification as noted above. Bammesk (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Suspended per the nominators request. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Why use jpg rather than lossless formats like PNG for your scans, by the way? Cf. commons:Help:Scanning. ImageMagick says "Quality: 96" (from "Photoshop Quality  : 11" per exiftool), 99 would in theory be better if you can't go lossless. Nemo 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Because 1) PNG renders terribly in-wiki, and these images are meant to be used in articles, and 2) there is little, if any, appreciable difference between PS quality 11 and PS quality 12 if you are only saving one time. Godot probably doesn't have the same issue, but when I'm uploading on my very slow Indonesian connection, the extra 10–20 mb PS quality 12 would add is just too much to be offset by the minimal difference. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdraw - It will take some time to create the appropriate source for the discovery of this note. I will re-nominate when the time comes. --Godot13 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)