This is the current revision of this page, as edited by imported>Jonesey95 at 16:34, 15 February 2024(Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 16:34, 15 February 2024 by imported>Jonesey95(Fix Linter errors.)
Comment - Very cool indeed, but I'm bothered by the shadow across the center (which looks like it's from a crease) and the crease in the top-right corner. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct. Commons:User:Kop said at the original .png upload that the creases occurred while in the care of the USPS; however, IMO, I think this just adds to the authentication. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The lighting is uneven, and the shadowed region of the middle crease is out of focus, apparently because it wasn't flush with the scanner. Also, holy crap, we have an article about the invitation!?!--ragesoss (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Amen, but it's better referenced than most articles that I see out there. How can this be!? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I am sorry to oppose, but the shadowing makes the invitation look creased in this photograph. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose left side of the seal is out o focus. —Krm500(Communicate!) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The seal is clearly blurred. The uneven lightning is also a major issue.-- mcshadyplTC 04:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose While acknowledging Matthew's withdrawal, I just wanted to note that although most are opposing on technical grounds, this picture no enc. value whatsoever. It's just a souvenir. Fletcher (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)