Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2020 at 18:29:16 (UTC)

Reason: This is probably the Mount Rushmore pic to end Mount Rushmore pics for a decade or so. The primary image is the version that appears in the article.
Articles in which this image appears: Mount Rushmore
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Thomas Wolf

Support any as nominator – MER-C 18:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – either, prefer Original. Bammesk (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – either, prefer Original. --Janke | Talk 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – either, prefer Original Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Either. My god...187 pictures stitched beautifully. "You sendin' the Wolf?" -- Veggies (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (orig.) – Just make sure you ID all four of them – Washington, Jefferson, Teddy ("Bully, bully!") Roosevelt and Lincoln. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per others --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternate - we should surely promote the highest-quality version we have, even if (for now) we then display a downsampled copy for practical reasons? There is a significant level of extra detail in the full-resolution version, it's not just pixels for the sake of it. It seems odd to call something "Wikipedia's best work" if it isn't even Wikipedia's best copy of that photo.... TSP (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which size better serves the readers? – Sca (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear consensus that the original should be promoted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]