Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2004

• Lovely pic. Ludraman | Talk 21:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Great picture. I love it. →Raul654 21:31, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Object, until it is used in an article. - Bevo 16:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - must be in an article - why do I get the feeling this bird has visited a taxidermist? - Gaz 13:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - looks kinda funny. Besides, bald eagle pics should be a dime a dozen. Kent Wang 09:21, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 2 Support, 3 Oppose.

• Support. →Raul654 19:47, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Brilliant. Support. Ludraman | Talk 21:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'd prefer more detail and sparkle. I do like the subject framing. - Bevo 21:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, the picture is really too small to see any details. Chmouel 13:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm afraid. The weather means the contrast is poor, so it's really tough to see the island or the buildings. Also (sorry to be hypercritical, but) Tiburon makes for kind of a dull background. A shot from Tiburon (having the city skyline in the background) or from Treasure Island (having the golden gate in the background) would show the island's context better. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:08, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - the island is lost in the background - Gaz 14:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - not strong enough with the distracting background. Get closer and use a wider angle lens to loose the mountains in the background. NickP 07:13, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 3 Support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral.

• Outstanding. I seldom see color composition done this well, the sun must have been done just right. Nominated by Hephaestos|§ 21:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Agree, clearly featured picture quality Sam Spade 21:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Alas, I wish I could take photos that well, but I found it on a public domain site. :) I will also agree with the nomination. RadicalBender 04:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • On what site was it included? - Bevo 18:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Pdphoto.org. Original. RadicalBender 18:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks! http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=5645 is the image as presented there. Such detail! Did you have to reduce that image to fit Wikipedia standards? - Bevo 19:42, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I reduced it because it was a very large file. On most photos (and I'm not sure what the Wikipedia standard is, if there is one), I reduce to about 650 or 750 px wide in order to try to keep the files under 100 Kb (when the wiki nags me for the file being too large). This one was an exception because I couldn't get it under 100K, but, again, I was just trying to keep it smallish in physical size. I'm otherwise not opposed to having a larger version if others agree. RadicalBender 20:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • OK, since the original is only slightly larger than the version now being used (now = 115227, the original = 158,853) I'll do a replacement. - Bevo 20:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. →Raul654 19:47, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Is it OK to replace the image currently stored in the Wikipedia archive with a copy of the one at the source? (see pdphoto site URL above) - Bevo 19:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. →Raul654 20:06, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. - Bevo 21:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Awesome. ugen64 23:03, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Incredible photo, but I have to wonder what's the point of featuring public domain photos that weren't taken specifically for Wikipedia. -Spencer195 01:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with Spencer195 on this. There are ?millions? of PD images out there. Where do we stop? Support this one BTW - Gaz 08:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • We are featuring Wikipedia's best, and only secondarily the photography talents of Wikipedians. The only sort of photo that I'd like to not see in the gallery is the "fair use" ones. And, any photo in the gallery must be a part of at least one Wikipedia article. - Bevo 13:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. fabiform | talk 11:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Hephaestos. Tannin 14:20, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC).

Promoted. 10 Support, 0 Oppose.

• self-nominated by Dmn 13:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Seconded by Sam Spade 21:10, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The automobile in the background detracts too much. - Bevo 02:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see nothing to feature here. - Gaz 11:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Ludraman | Talk 21:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 2 Support, 3 Oppose - Bevo 15:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. No offense, but I don't see anything particularly feature-worthy here. →Raul654 19:47, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Maybe not striking enough to be a featured photo, but good for an amateur photographer.

P.S - The streetlamp is really distracting. I think if you could get rid of the streetlamp and had taken it from a better angle (maybe more towards the front of the building), it would definitely be a good candidate for a featured photo. Other than that, it's accurate, informative, and adds to the article. (Maybe you might also want to add photos of the inside of the hotels as well)

P.P.S - Actually, the more I look at that photo, the more I'm beginning to like it. Very clean appearance, and very accurate. I'm not sure if the streetlamp should or shouldn't be there, since an accurate representation of real life would include the streetlamp, although it detracts from the visual appeal of the photo. I think it's just the weird angle of the photo that holds it back. - Spencer195 01:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the curious, here it is without the streetlight. - Hephaestos|§ 07:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow, great Photoshop job.  :) -Spencer195 03:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMHO You should keep the streetlight, it make the picture more "something else" rather than just building shoot from the street. (still i don't think it's a picture that merite the featured) | Chmouel 02:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose, but only on the "add significantly" clause - striking photo WITH the streetlamp, great composition - Gaz 14:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 1 Support, 3 Oppose.

• Beautiful. —Noldoaran (Talk) 04:12, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. →Raul654 19:47, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I do wish that article had at least one straightforward photo of the church so I could better appreciate the two photos it currently contains. - Bevo 13:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This building look beautiful i should get to Nice someday to see that Chmouel 19:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:59, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I read the description and viewed the image - I know which spoke more words - Gaz 14:08, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, the fact that the bottom of the church is cut off leaves me wondering what I'm missing, and the perspective/angle of the tower detracts from the image. Otherwise striking. fabiform | talk 11:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 20:53, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm proud to be nominated. Sadly, it's nearly impossible to get a full pic of the Church there's to much urban artefacts around. I hope to get something good with a long telephoto from the hills over Nice but this may take a long time as I have to be at the right place with the right film and the right lens on a very clear day at the end of the afternoon. Ericd 13:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted. 7 Support, 1 Oppose.

• nominated by Dmn 11:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• It does a lot to the article. It's hard to judge diagrams, to get the 'brilliant' feeling about them, but I think this one is a very good illustration, at least. I'd be interested in more comments. — Sverdrup 21:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, reluctantly. Solid and valuable work, but I don't think it meets any of the requirements in the first sentence of this page. Perhaps a featured diagrams section is in order, emphasizing technical merit? Lupin 10:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 1 Support, 1 Oppose, 1 Neutral - not enough votes - Bevo 18:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Second. Lovely clear view far into the distance. fabiform | talk 06:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Champs Elysees can look even better than this, for example in spring or summer season. It's a very nice picture, but it doesn't add a lot to the article. — Sverdrup 14:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely support. LUDRAMAN | T 17:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 09:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted. 4 Support, 0 Oppose, 1 Neutral - Bevo 18:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Nominated by —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:09, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Makes me wanna run down and enrol ;-) - Yes!! - Gaz 11:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Evans Hall is polluting the otherwise good photograph. I say tear ugly piece of shit down. Support, BTW. --Jiang 05:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't find it to be particularly scenic, nor a particularly fine angle Sam Spade 07:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Pretty college. Support. Fennec 15:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't quite like the composition. Lupin 09:14, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 4 Support, 2 Oppose - Bevo 18:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• This was added to W:FP without going through due process. If User:Securiger wishs to move it to nominations then others may wish to vote for it. - Gaz 11:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. What can I say, I was tired, and last time I looked at W:FP it didn't have voting. Anyway, I've moved it up here and hereby nominate Lunkwill's picture. I should point out that I am nominating it for educational brilliance rather than beauty; the beauty of this picture is the clear exposition it makes of a certain obscure point in cryptography, and unless you already know the point you may need to look at block cipher modes of operation. If you do know the point but have only previously heard it explained in terms of probability theory, this picture is so striking it almost makes you gasp. Securiger 11:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. In this case I guess I still need those "thousand words..." Bevo 17:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 1 Support, 1 Oppose, 1 Neutral - not enough votes - Bevo 18:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Interesting subject, very poor technical quality. It does not show the true beauty of a Gutenberg bible, one of the most beautiful books ever printed. I've seen the one at the Yale University rare book collection. NickP 05:16, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Nothing striking LUDRAMAN | T 17:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 1 Support, 2 Oppose - not enough votes - Bevo 18:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I second this one. Excellent graphic. NickP 05:16, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't how this adds to the article at all. - Gaz 07:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have to add to an article, or even be included in any article to be a featured picture. —Noldoaran (Talk) 06:42, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Um, it does actually. Have a look at the intro to this page again - it's picked out in bold. fabiform | talk 22:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Clear and prescise. LUDRAMAN | T 17:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 3 Support, 1 Oppose - not enough votes - Bevo 19:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• No - good, but not brilliant --Gaz 13:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Yes! Very, Very good, brilliant. Sam Spade 01:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Very tasteful composition. Support.—Eloquence
• I agree! (and count this as a "second", if we still need one as a formality!) - Bevo 22:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Nice. What has that bull done to the poor house?... :-) LUDRAMAN | T 17:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • it wasn't the bull, as far as i did understand from the farmer's, it was a storm who destruct it. | Chmouel 09:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It was a china shop, obviously. ;-) -- ChrisO 11:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 09:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted. 6 Support, 1 Oppose - Bevo 19:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No - odd angle which does not show sails well --Gaz 13:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Yes, I disagree, very good, original angle. Sam Spade 01:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Yes vote! - I like the curves! Gives me a sense of being there. - Bevo 22:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Very good. LUDRAMAN | T 17:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Yes. Original. Kent Wang 09:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Yes. What Kent said. jengod 20:54, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 09:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted. 7 Support, 1 Oppose - Bevo 19:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• nominated by Chmouel Boudjnah 23:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great photo that fits the article very well. - Bevo 13:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fits the article perfectly, and very nice composition (it's a shame you missed the top of the cross, but worse things happen at sea). I do think it benefits from a little more saturation (digital cameras should come with a special "British Isles Climate" mode). I've prepared a comparison here User:Finlay McWalter/crosses -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah it's a shame that i missed the top of the cross (it was really windy there) but strangely this doen't show too much on the thumbail. If you want to play some collage you can get the almost same picture from here and add the top of the cross. The new saturation look good for me, but maybe you may want to do the change on the original big picture available from my website (but please don't put the high resolution on wikipedia crop it like the old one). Cheers and Thanks, Chmouel 00:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Spiffy stuff. Fennec 21:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted. 4 Support, 0 Oppose. - Bevo 15:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• nominated by sannse (talk) 17:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - Bevo 23:07, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's a striking (if somewhat nauseating) image, and crystal clear, but it's really hard to figure out what's going on. In contrast, the other sundew picture (Image:Regialeaf.jpg), while poorer technically, really goes to the crux of the matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Beautiful. ugen64 02:04, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - Subject is too confusing and not explicit enough (nice color thought) | Chmouel 02:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - ditto to Chmouel's thoughts - we need a single plant - Gaz 13:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too confusing. As one who takes photos like this all the time, there has to be a very strong pattern to the repetition in order for it to work.— NickP 12:05, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with NickP. It is pretty, but not a composition to write home about. Tannin
• Not promoted. 3 Support, 5 Oppose. - Bevo 14:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• →Raul654 02:11, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Maybe if you could improve the contrast and remove the cloth behind the skeleton. Also, you should put the skeleton in front of a plain wall so the design on the wall doesn't distract from the subject matter. -Spencer195 03:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Contrast increased. →Raul654 03:43, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object, is that your jacket hanging behind him? Sam Spade 03:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It's the cover. The only way to get it out of the picture is to unhook the skeleton and lift it off the stand. The skeleton is heavy and delicate (from age), so I didn't lift it. →Raul654 03:40, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good topic, and helpful to understand the article, but not particularily outstanding. Agree with Spencer195 on the cloth and the background. Good resolution, though. -- chris_73 05:53, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the same reasons as above. If you can't remove the cover, can you get some friends to hold up a backdrop to hide it? - Gaz 13:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not a great image. You could completely edit out the background with an image editing program! Then it would be a much stronger image, worth considering.— NickP 12:05, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too high JPEG compression causes artifacts in the background. Even if this isn't featured I would appreciate it if you could re-upload it with lower JPEG compression (can be set in the "Save as" dialog of most image programs).—Eloquence 07:41, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The cover really is very distracting. This looks like Superman's corpse. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. 1 Support, 6 Oppose. - Bevo 21:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin Wall

Berlin Wall on November 16, 1989

Taken and nominated by Yann (with help from Gaz 12:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)) (Yann added this directly to W:FP so I moved it here rather than just reverting it.) Oppose - I don't see how this adds significantly to the article. Now if someone has a shot with people taking to the wall with sledgehammers... - Gaz 12:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) Not promoted. 1 Support, 1 Oppose. - Bevo 16:16, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Scotland Yard

New Scotland Yard

at Scotland Yard by ChrisO Striking shot - Nominated by Gaz 13:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) 'Tis good, alright. LUDRAMAN | T 16:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) I like it. Striking is the right word. Isomorphic 07:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Oppose. It is a striking image, but it doesn't say "Police Station" to me at all - infact, it says "Ministry of Fear" instead. If it were a bit more "police-y" (if, for example, it had a woodentop in it) then it would suit the article better. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) The local woodentops don't seem to like having their pictures taken, for some reason... ;-) -- ChrisO 18:18, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support. Nice picture - and that is what Scotland Yard looks like. Secretlondon 17:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support 4, Oppose 1 - Bevo 19:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) Promoted by Gaz 12:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Cook

Mount cook from a glider

From Mount Cook. Picture supplied and nominated by User:Dynabee. added to Featured pictures by a new user, User:Dynabee, without going through due process, moved here by fabiform | talk 11:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) sorry, did not mean to offend. I was not aware of the protocol. Dynabee 13:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Oppose Support - I STILL find the wing and reflections distracting - Gaz 12:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support - the mountain is big enough and the distractions white enough to still get the striking view through. — Sverdrup 14:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Just about support. LUDRAMAN | T 17:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Not quite great. Oppose with regrets. NickP 07:13, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) Support. Great picture. →Raul654 21:47, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC) Support. Any artifacts of the circumstances of the opportunity to have that vantage point add to the perspective of the viewer (I feel I'm in the glider myself), and that adds to the total brilliance of that picture. - Bevo 15:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support 4, Oppose 2, Neutral 2 - Bevo 19:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) So where does this leave us? - I see no consensus here - Gaz 12:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) Right. Without further votes this one seems left at the tipping point, and that's not good enough. Now, if I could convince you to flip your vote! <grin> - Bevo 14:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) So now its 5/1/2 - Gaz 14:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) Promoted - Support 5, Oppose 1, Neutral 2 - Bevo 17:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fennec Fox

Fennec fox

FennecFox.jpg from Fennec taken by Ralf Schmodeand. Note: This nomination is in regards to the original (smaller) version at http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/5/5d/20040618170932%21FennecFox.jpg - Bevo 12:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) Nominated by the (biased) User:Fennec 15:46, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support - fox looks good with background. LUDRAMAN | T 18:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support - Bevo 22:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Awww, cute. Nicely done, too. Support. -- ChrisO 22:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Too small.—Eloquence It's larger than Wiki conventions suggest for inclusion in articles, so how would size otherwise impact the way it would add significantly to the article? - Bevo 19:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) We have auto-resizing. When I click on a picture I want to see a significant level of detail. Furthermore, the future print edition should be taken into account.—Eloquence Oppose - Poor composition, awkward pose, in captivity - Gaz 10:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not promoted. 4 Support, 2 Oppose. - Bevo 22:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Three cell growth types

Three cell growth types

An excellent scientific diagram, drawn by JWSchmidt for Cell growth. Attractive, good use of colour to convey what goes where in this rather complex business. Nominated by User:Finlay McWalter Support. Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support. Impressive diagram. NickP 07:13, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) Strongly support. fabiform | talk 11:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support. This kind of schemes are very valuable. — Sverdrup 13:21, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Oh yeah! - you don't need a camera to feature here. - Gaz 10:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. jengod 20:50, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) This image needs an explicit Copyright status statement. - Bevo 18:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) One has been appended. Thx! - Bevo 22:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) Promoted. 6 Support, 0 Oppose, 1 Neutral. - Bevo 22:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Male north american turkey supersaturated

Male north american turkey (GIMPed)

From Wild Turkey. Quite a striking beast. Nominated and taken by Lupin 19:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Update I put a GIMPed version in brighter colours up here instead. Support. - Bevo 19:23, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. I like Ben Franklin. Perl 02:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Neutral - a bit drab really, but not bad enough to oppose - Gaz 13:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Hmm... is this one better? It's actually closer to how I remember the colours. Lupin 14:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Having never seen one of these birds, I'm no expert... but, yes, it looks better - Gaz 14:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Is that still a Neutral? - Bevo 21:32, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Yes (still neutral) - Gaz 12:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Decent but not outstanding. Tannin Oppose. I agree with Tannin. fabiform | talk 12:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not promoted. 3 Support, 2 Oppose, 1 Neutral. - Bevo 15:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] California poppy

Field of California poppies

Darn pretty. jengod 21:06, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Too small, no copyright info.--Eloquence* 09:38, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) Oppose - just before I remove it to archive - Gaz 01:46, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not promoted - 1 support - 2 oppose - Gaz 01:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Io (moon)

Io (moon)

Iosurface gal.jpg from Io (moon) taken by NASA's Galileo probe. Nominated by Bevo 21:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support: nice !!! Chmouel 21:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. Outstanding picture. -- chris_73 09:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support, though I feel it is too cropped - does it cost extra to leave a bit of space on the sides? LUDRAMAN | T 19:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support - its made of plastic, right? - Gaz 12:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. fabiform | talk 12:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)~ Results: 6 support - no opposition! - Promoted - Gaz 01:54, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Freshwater angelfish

Freshwater angelfish

From Freshwater angelfish, taken by Mendel. Very clear, nice colour balance. fabiform | talk 15:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. Fennec 16:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Fish almost seems to get lost in the background at first glance. RADICALBENDER★ 16:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose. It sure looks better when expanded to full size, but I'm distracted by that second fish behind the one in focus. - Bevo 22:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support, nice colors. —d8uv (t) 03:08, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) Not promoted. 3 Support, 2 Oppose. - Bevo 14:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Flower of aloe

Flower of aloe (Roquevaire, Bouches-du-Rhône, France, September 1978)

rare picture: aloes blossom only once in 11 years Yann 21:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Too dark. Maybe fixable. Oppose as is.--Eloquence* 22:34, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC) Oppose as is - Composition OK, but too dark - Gaz 12:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose. I don't see enough details and also I don't see the complete plant. Showing just the part that is visible only every 11 years without tying it to the part of the plant that is easily recognizable as Aloe is confusing. - Bevo 18:16, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) I uploaded a lighter picture. Yann 18:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not promoted. 1 Support, 3 Oppose. - Bevo 14:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is not Aloe but Agave americana!

[edit] Hualien Temple

A temple in the city of Hualien

HuaLien-Temple.jpg from Hualien City, uploaded by User:PhiloVivero Nominated by User:Hephaestos Oppose - odd composition. Lupin 10:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose - poor composition - Gaz 14:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Very clunky feel. LUDRAMAN | T 19:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Neutral. Maybe cropping would help by eliminating the left side. - Bevo 16:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Agreed. —d8uv (t) 03:08, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) Not promoted. 1 Support, 3 Oppose, 2 Neutral. - Bevo 14:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Che Guevara statue

Statue of Che Guevara at the site of his death in Bolivia

From Che Guevara. This statue is just a few meters away from the exact place where Che was executed. Credit for the photo goes to a co-worker of mine called Augusto Starita -- Pilaf 02:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Mhmmmmmmmmmmmm........yes. LUDRAMAN | T 19:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Second. the picture look more impressive than the place in real :) | Chmouel 09:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm... No - is it not possible to back up a bit and get a better angle? - Gaz 12:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) See this other picture, from La Higuera. IMO, the alternative picture is better than the one nominated. - Bevo 15:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. I was going to complain that the colours and the reverential angle give it an inappropriately religious look, but in the context of the article I suppose images of Guevara have an iconic role for some, and so the photo is entirely appropriate. Moreover, its unintentional similarity to Jeff Koons' Michael Jackson sculpture gives it an ironic postmodernism (no, really). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Of all the images on the article, I think this adds to the article the least. fabiform | talk 12:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. i think that because it doesnt show alot, leaves a lot to your imagination, such as what he's looking at exactly...--Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:17, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC) Support. Excellent composition. —d8uv (t) 03:08, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) Promoted. 6 Support, 2 Oppose. - Bevo 14:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chateau Wood Ypres 1917

Chateau Wood Ypres 1917

A landscape of Ypres uploaded by User:Gsl for Trench warfare. It's a breathtaking picture, with excellent composition, and shows both the human aspect of the subject and shattered landscape. Support. Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Wow. fabiform | talk 12:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Some comments before I decide. At first I expected an image of a trench as the most prominent image in Trench warfare. http://www.liv-coll.ac.uk/pa09/europetrip/brussels/swood.htm explains how this site is nearby a trenched site. I wish Trench warfare made this connection more explicit. - Bevo 22:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) What Gaz says below has helped me to formulate my thoughts. I've seen many photos of trenches. I see soldiers packed together and focus on them. This photo mentally drags me out of the trenches to the land outside that the trenches were dug to defend... and the destruction that the fighting has wrought. fabiform | talk 00:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) Trench warfare has plenty of images of trenches. This makes a perfect "headline" photo for the article and deserves to be featured in its own right. (but I'm biased - they are Aussies) - Support - Gaz 23:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) Support. Added it also to Passchendaele. - Bevo 14:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) Promoted. 4 Support, 0 Oppose. - Bevo 14:53, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Radcliffe Camera

Radcliffe Camera

Radcliffe Camera; I took the photograph, and now looking at it after a while, found it striking. -- Kaihsu 20:37, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC) Withdrawn; MykReeve should nominate his own superior shot. -- Kaihsu 10:34, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC) Support - Nice picture; also a great improvement on the other one in the article. --Andrew 20:55, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC) Oppose - kind of small, don't you think? Do you have a higher resolution version? →Raul654 20:58, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC) Oppose - image isn't centred. I submit Image:Radcliffe-camera-oxford.jpg as an alternative. - MykReeve 21:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) The alternative image is not used by the article. Did you intend this image as a nomination? (It seems to me a good thing to do, to replace the one similar image in that article with your alternative image). - Bevo 23:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) I've replaced the similar image in the article with my one. - MykReeve 01:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose - Missing a sense of symmetry which would "make" this shot. MykReeve, are you nominating your shot? - Gaz 03:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not promoted. Withdrawn by nominator. - Bevo 19:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bungee Jumping

Bungee Jumping

Chmouel doing the big jump in Normandy, France for the article Bungee jumping Nominated by Chmouel 12:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) Supported by — Adam Conover † A buzz for Chmouel I'm sure, but not a featured picture - oppose - Gaz 04:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose - agree with Gaz. LUDRAMAN | T 21:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose Lupin 09:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oppose —d8uv (t) 03:08, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) Oppose. -- Kaihsu 15:42, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC) Not promoted. Support 2, Oppose 5. - Bevo 19:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)