Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2011 at 04:34:07 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Confederate States of America dollar, Confederate war finance

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

Unknown (Confederate government), scanned by Michael Holley

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm.. I would have expected to see the reverse side of each bill in separate nominations (ie a nom for the $5 bill and another nom for the $100). Michael seems to be active. Perhaps he can scan the other sides if he still has access to the bills. Without them it seems like only half of the information is here, the same as taking a photograph or painting and cutting it in half wouldn't be a good idea. However, the scans are great especially the one of the 100, so I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong and that the other sides aren't needed and then I'll support. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per explanation below. Love Michael's comment below, "I didn't get these out of my wallet and scan them" :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.Need facing sides. Will support if we can get the backs.TCO (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a look at the file description page: "The back of the five dollar note is blank. The back of the one hundred dollar note has hand written "Issued by Maj. James Glover, q.m. 26th January 1863" and a stamped 'Interest Paid to 1st January 1864 at Richmond'. The ink from this stamp can be seen on the front right side." The backs would be superfluous. Jujutacular ^talk 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that in the caption here and on article and I will support.TCO (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to add it to the article if you believe it belongs. The caption here doesn't really matter though. Jujutacular ^talk 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Didn't mean to be peremptoray. Think captioning an aspect of usage (like location, number of articles) that reflects on an image, even though our award adheres to the pic only.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Can I ask why these two notes have been chosen? A set showing all the notes would be supported by me in an instant, but this seems almost arbitrary right now. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most likely these are the only two in the possession of the user that scanned them (User:Swtpc6800). I have informed him of this nomination, perhaps he will be able to confirm. Jujutacular ^talk 03:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: These notes are 150 years old and I only have access to these two notes. I didn't get these out of my wallet and scan them. What is a whole set? There must be 100 different notes issued by various states and banks.

  Confederate bank notes did not have a printed back. They were printed on a large sheet then cut into separate notes by hand. The edges are not straight and square. These were not high quality bills like we have today. Counterfeiting was a real problem at the time. Some of the counterfeit bank notes are now worth more than official ones. There are reproductions from the 1960s that have a printed back similar to our modern money.

  The Wikimedia Commons image was included in the 2011 edition of A Short History of the Civil War by James L Stokesbury. Published by Harper, ISBN 978-0-06-206478-3. I got a credit in the front of the book. Google books -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.: I have uploaded a higher resolution image, 600 dpi. There are very few high resolution scans of Confederate States bank notes readily available for unrestricted use. I had the opportunity to scan these two notes and upload them to the commons. This image has been used on Wikipedia and in a Civil War book published this year.-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Swtpc's explanation. Cowtowner (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I can definitely get behind this. Swtpc6800's explanation above is a reasonable one. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWould feel much warmer to this nominee though, if some of the reasons he gave (one sided, hand-cutting, hundreds of note-types) were added with sources to our article on Confederate dollar. Seems a little weak to make these explanations/excuses which explain why to use the picture (and I agree with it being used and Featured), but then our article doesn't reflect that.TCO (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally uploaded of the images to the Commons in 2008 because I had access to the notes. I am not an expert on civil war money and have not worked on the two articles. I deal with the 1970s such as the Motorola 6800 or Ed Roberts. I agree with the nominator, Jujutacular, that it should be a Featured Picture. I am very busy in real life with a bathroom remodel, new tile floors and cabinets. Previously I added an image to Cement board without improving the text. I will improve the Confederate notes image description on the Commons over the next two weeks. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Confederate 5 and 100 Dollars.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]