Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2004

• Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Utterly cute, yes. Support. James F. (talk) 14:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 22:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 11:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- ChrisO 18:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Buster 18:27, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Greudin 07:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted +7 -0 - Bevo 02:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Nominated by Solitude
• This is a really incredible picture! Living in Florida and Georgia all of my life, I have never seen a storm like this. –radiojon 19:39, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)
• Support. July 17 of what year? I presume 2004, but thought I'd ask to be sure. - Bevo 21:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • 2004, last Saturday evening, I was actually working in one of the buildings on that picture at the time, too bad I missed this amazing event. -- Solitude 02:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. That's an awesome picture. --Prisonblues 01:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 11:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 14:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Wow. Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressive. No wonder John wanted to take a picture of it. :-) -- ChrisO 18:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Buster 18:25, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - In Sydney, Aust this would be called a "southerly buster" - Gaz 00:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely fantastic, indeed. James F. (talk) 01:06, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wow! - Randyoo 04:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think were going to need Will Smith on this one Theon 16:37, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Gentgeen 18:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Wow. Support. ☞spencer195 05:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted +15 -0 - Bevo 02:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• This is a gigantic nitpick, but I find small caps very offputting, especially when they've been automatically faked as here rather than using a properly weighted special font. Please could you change the text to non-small caps? Also I'd get rid of the underlining in "Legend" -- underlining is a relic from the typewriter days. I'd also like to see some license information. Looks like a nice informative diagram though - will support if these things are fixed and no-one comes up with any scientific objections. Lupin 11:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've changed it as per your objections. Regarding scientific accuracy, the guys at WikiProject Clinical medicine took a look at it a while back and didn't raise any objections. --Prisonblues 14:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Much nicer. Support. Lupin 06:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 02:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Technically excellent, but far too complex for a Pic o' the Day. The Picture of the Day needs to be able to be recognizable in a single glance, with the 'oh wow' coming after. Denni☯ 03:12, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
  • Not all Wikipedia:Featured pictures become a Pic of the Day. - Bevo 13:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It wouldn't be my first choice when selecting the picture of the day, but that shouldn't exclude it from being a featured image. Angela. 20:26, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted +4 -1 - Bevo 14:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Bevo 21:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - awesome pic --Buster 18:22, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - totally awesome - Gaz 00:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - very good photograph. SamH 13:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - a classic! Denni☯ 20:28, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
• Support - BTW there's a video of that event. When will Wikipedia agree on an video format ?
  • When Ogg Tarkin's ready ;-) James F. (talk) 04:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Great photo -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support, though perhaps some cleanup could be done on the background? James F. (talk) 04:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Gentgeen 18:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support Enochlau 11:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support Chubtoad 06:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted +12 -0 - Bevo 02:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• nominated by Bevo 19:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Great balls of fire! Support. -- ChrisO 09:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Theon 16:34, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 15:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. While this is a nice image, it is hardly spectacular. A quick internet search will yield many more impressive images of the sun. Try TRACE for just a start. Denni☯ 03:06, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
• Object. Doesn't grab me. Lupin 12:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Decent picture of the sun, but not "brilliant" in remarkable way.
• Support. Can see many features of the sun Enochlau 14:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not especially spectacular considering subject. Peregrine981 15:34, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted +5 -4 - Bevo 15:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• self-nomination - Randyoo 04:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 11:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Comment. I wish the colors were sharper, especially in a photo of that much flame. - Bevo 22:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Colors of the flame, the balloon, or the whole photo? I just don't understand... Can you elaborate? - Randyoo 21:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've reconsidered and changed my note to just a comment. It's probably just the specific colors of that particular balloon that make it seem to me that it should look more "lit-up" than what my eyes see. - Bevo 04:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Denni☯ 02:15, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
• Support (I guess it just took me some time to get to like it! 8-) - Bevo 20:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted +4 [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 22:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is stunning, formidable, soaring, and very impressive. The gray London sky is a complement. Created by ChrisO. --Merovingian✍Talk 17:14, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Support (original). Greudin
• Oppose (original). This picture, while technically fine, is not outstanding enough to be featured. Its just kind of blah. Theon 16:33, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support (original) - Bevo 22:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose (original). Composition is great, and the sky interesting, but the (all too common) diffuse lighting afforded by the ever-cloudy Londongrad sky makes for an unappealing overall tonal sameness (which is dweebspeek for "blah"). The same photo taken on a relatively clear day (forecast for this weekend looks excellent, btw) in the early morning / late evening time (when tangential light should pick out the detail better) would be excellent. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll have another go to see if I can capture it in different lighting. :-) -- ChrisO 07:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see any new photos, but I still like the (original) one nominated, for exactly the reasons that Merovingian✍Talk presented - Bevo 18:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support (alternative, but not original). The top of the left-hand tower is included in the alternative image, and it appears straighter too. - MykReeve 18:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've just found this old one that I took of the Abbey on a Summer evening after work in 2002 which might serve as an alternative, as it has a contrasting blue sky behind, is a larger image, is taken from a more central viewpoint, and shows the full west front down to the ground. Eagle-eyed viewers will also spot the top of the Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster peeking into the lower-left hand corner of the image. - MykReeve 15:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I did consider using this viewpoint but decided against it for two reasons: the column and Clock Tower makes it too cluttered (as well as detracting from the facade) and a square-on view always seems to me to be too "flat". I much prefer a viewpoint that shows a bit of what's behind the facade - it adds depth. -- ChrisO 19:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Those are valid points - given that the column in front is unremarkable, and your photos do show the depth behind the facade. I'm sticking to my support for the alternative, but not the original image. - MykReeve 18:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support (original). I really like this photo. It's just a shame that the very top of one of the towers seems to be cropped off. Randyoo 22:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support (original) - I like it and the gray clouds make it exceptional IMHO. --Buster 22:45, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still like the original best, it seems to show the details the best. Although the more I look at it, I am really bothered that the tower tip was cropped off, I blame Randyoo for making me notice that. --Buster 08:20, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've provided an alternative image from the same viewpoint, taken on a bright summer's day, with direct lighting of the abbey facade and the left-hand tower's tip no longer cropped. I've tweaked the votes above to make it clear which image is being voted on. If anyone else votes could they please do likewise? -- ChrisO 07:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose (All). None of these stand out particularly. More interesting light, or some extra element, such as weather, or surroundings, some sort of framing, might make a more impressive photo. Peregrine981 15:48, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would prefer to see more of the base of the structure as well as the top. Also, the colours present don't really catch my eye Enochlau 14:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Might I humbly suggest my one? It's taken in the evening, so the normally rather dull stonework looks somewhat warmer, and the northern transcept is shown in the background; sad that the flag wasn't flying, though (in any of them)... James F. (talk) 15:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Original - Not promoted. +4 -5 - Bevo 02:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• First alternative - Not promoted. +1 -1 - Bevo 02:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Second alternative - Not promoted. +0 -0 - Bevo 02:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Third alternative - Not promoted. +1 -0 - Bevo 02:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This part of london is always visually impressive but there are no featured pictures of it. This is one of my favourite (self-nomination). ed g2s • talk 02:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. I strongly doubt the real wheel is leaning to the right! - Adrian Pingstone 08:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi Adrian this is simply perspective, have a look Westminster Abbey it seems to me that the towers should be vertical :) - Ericd 22:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • My point is that a few minutes in a graphics processor would have corrected the tilt on the wheel and left the tower vertical, using the Skew command. I checked I'm not talking rubbish by successfully doing the correction (not uploaded here). Nevertheless it's a very good pic, just not worth Featured yet (IMHO)- Adrian Pingstone 07:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Please upload your correction. Lupin 11:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC
    • OK, here it is - Adrian Pingstone 17:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Humble apologies to Ed for saying I could correct the lean. In my "corrected" pic I paid too much attention to getting the wheel upright and didn't notice the distortion on the Millbank Tower and elsewhere. But I'm afraid I still oppose for the reasons given by others - Adrian Pingstone 08:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I rotated the original so that the centre vertical was vertical. Any other verticals that aren't so are because of perspective. This effect is part of the photo - and I don't think that it should be corrected. It creates an image in which proportions are skewed, and also it adds blur to the full size image. ed g2s • talk 23:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice composition, helps show the subject in question in context, good colours. It's maybe a bit overexposed (and a bit motion-blurry) but not seriously. I'm also impressed with the nice big size of the full image, and the informative content of the image page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The colour and lights give this image some power and dynamism that might otherwise be lacking. Perhaps slightly overexposed, but I think this adds to the effect. Peregrine981 15:40, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Larger image is overexposed and shows motion-blurring. Not up to featured status to my mind. - MykReeve 18:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I tried a lots of different exposure times. The other shots which show the Palace (and other lit objects) a bit sharper have a fairly dull black background. Personally I'd rather have an exciting background. The image was taken on a tripod, the only motion-blurring I can see is on the Eye which was rotating at the time, as it tends to do. Have a look at the spindle of the eye, its quite sharp IMO. ed g2s • talk 23:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I was rather pleased with the result (I fumbled about, ruining the shot, and supplying the tripod ;-)); the result of the skew that Adrian did... doesn't look terribly good to me. It's rather oddly distorted (note the Millbank Tower, for example: vertical in the original, leaning-tower-of-Pisa-like in the modified form, or the Clock Tower and the Victoria Tower: they seem to be leaning towards each other most precipitously). Quite apart from anything, it's rather unfaithful to the actual scene, and I'd suggest that the view can probably get their head around basic perspective... As for the 'blur', the effect with a rather shorter exposure can be seen with this earlier attempt at the original image - the alternative seems to be rather much the duller image, bereft of interest in the sky, &c. James F. (talk) 00:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I marginally prefer the earlier attempt, as I don't think that sodium-orange cloudsky is really worth having. But indeed (having taken about six dozen nighttime Wallace Monument shots, and none that I like) "correct exposure" for floodlight shots is particularly subjective. Comparing the original and Adrian's verticalised one, the latter looks subtly "wrong" to me (but that may be just because I've seen the other). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: It may be best to just isolate the wheel itself, as I've done in the third image, a subset of the original, with a small rotation correction. - Bevo 04:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • But much of the point of the image is the juztapostion of a 19th centruy building that's attempting to look like a 14th century one with a 20th century ferris-wheel that's attempting to look like one from the 22nd. Cropping to just one of the parts of the image somewhat defeats it... James F. (talk) 19:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose all (including my own derivation) - Bevo 21:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. +3 -3 - Bevo 13:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose (note that the article in question is Lupin). It's an interesting view, but I don't think it's a great photo or that it adds greatly to the article in question. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lupin 13:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a neat photo, but it makes them look like trees, which could be misleading. -- Wapcaplet 17:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose it if you must, but I would say that its precisely the fact that they look like trees that makes it an interesting photo. It makes you think about them in a different way than normal.Peregrine981 13:20, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, to me a clear illustration is one that does not misinform. I don't deny that it's an interesting photo, but it does not help much in understanding the nature of the Lupin plant. If this photo were my only point of reference on them, I would believe that they were similar to palm trees, when in fact they're only about 100cm tall. When I know all about Lupins, then I can think about them in a different way, but not while I'm just learning about them. -- Wapcaplet 02:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bevo 03:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cribcage 00:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Not promoted. +1 -5 - Bevo 05:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support (man, I really need to learn blender). Two tweaks (only if they're easy):

1. if my understanding that the green wires (5) perform a confusion function (i.e. that they're a randomish mapping), is it possible to draw the green wires in a few different colours, to make it a bit clearer how chaotic they are?
2. the black lines down from the numbers to the corresponding parts on the unexploded view have some jaggies - can these be antialiased?

But I support the image without the above being changed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The lines were antialiased, but at those steeper inclinations the jaggies become more apparent (especially with indexed color). I've slanted them a bit more to decrease the effect. Wires are now multicolored. -- Wapcaplet 02:48, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) (p.s. - sorry about misspelling your name in the edit summary of the image - I lived near Findlay, Ohio for many years, and it's just habit :-)

super, thanks (now "double ultra-plus support"). And I've had far worse misspellings than that :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Wapcaplet, you're amazing! -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work! Randyoo 02:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Wapcaplet's diagram is, as ever, fantastic. James F. (talk) 10:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Surport, wow tooto 17:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I only learned that there was a featured pictures thing just now. (note to self -- Lots of stuff on WP if you look up!) I've already told him my opinion, but let's make it public and blatant. Fantastic work. I can recognize it if I can't do it. ww 19:44, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - MykReeve 22:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 00:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very informative. --Aqua 05:42, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Promoted +10 -0 - Bevo 01:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 13:17, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Not a vote, but is the image leaning a bit to the left? Could it be profitably rotated? Lupin 14:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be rotated. If you look at the building in the background, that appears to be straight. Angela. 01:36, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, the harsh lighting that day made it very hard to get an extremely good photo; there's too much detail lost in shadow. - Bevo 13:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Verticality should be determined by the main focus of the picture. These folk are clearly left-leaning, and it's time they were straightened up. The fact that they also lead very shadowy lives makes it hard to trust this image. Denni☯ 01:24, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

• Not promoted +1 -2 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support Lupin 08:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support Chubtoad 13:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Not wildy original, but nicely done. -Peregrine981 13:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 13:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Chris 73 Talk 03:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. You almost don't need an article to feel satisfied. Denni☯ 01:33, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

• Promoted +7 -0 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's overcast, making for poor shadows and an unappealing sky. Is it ever sunny in Wyoming? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:56, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - MykReeve 22:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great subject, poor composition. Lupin 09:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lighting is everything. Denni☯ 00:27, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cribcage 00:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Not promoted +2 -4 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The article in question is Ko Phi Phi Lee, by the way. Nice composition, lovely colours, nice and simple. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - MykReeve 22:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Still don't like the boat cut in half. Lupin 09:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 12:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The colours are nice, but a picture shouldn't just automatically become featured because its taken in a beautiful place. The composition is flawed because of that boat that's cut in half.Peregrine981 13:26, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Bevo 03:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 00:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- Solitude 22:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Not promoted: +5 - -4 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 09:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 12:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• No vote. Comment - not a big fan of nomination *not actually taken or created* by wikipedians. Davodd 22:31, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 14:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Neutrality 23:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Could you also add a source and description to the image page? Chris 73 Talk 03:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Promoted: +7 -0 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, doesn't look much on the thumnnail, but it's amazing zoomed-in. This could perhaps use the delicate photoshop skills of someone, to try and bring out that detail (some kind of contrast-enhancement?). Still, I support it unmodified. (This comment was left here unsigned by User:Finlay McWalter who presumably didn't intend to be anonymous. :-) Jwrosenzweig)
• Support -- I agree about photoshopping, but in the meantime it's still amazing. Jwrosenzweig 22:56, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 08:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I've GIMPped it up a bit; hope it's not too bright. -- Wapcaplet 02:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nifty! -- Infrogmation 18:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Image appears to be crooked. Assuming the volcano is symmetrical then the image appears to be off horizontal by several degrees. -- Popsracer 04:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Most volcanoes are not symmetric. IIRC, Vesuvius in Italy is 400 ft higher on one side than the other. →Raul654 09:38, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Promoted: +7 -1 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, excellent. Why don't my panoramas turn out like this? It's a bloody conspiracy, I tell you. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • How did he take a panoramic picture without turning the camera? Check the detail. Photographer in the visor. - Tεxτurε 21:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I mean I just never get the stitch-o-matic program to work well. Taking the pictures properly and then stitching them together correctly is hard, and Jawed is a master of it (and I'm not). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - MykReeve 22:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Lupin 08:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 12:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 02:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wicked. -- Solitude 03:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This is a stitched image??? Wow! Chris 73 Talk 04:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Promoted: +9 -0 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, it's very atmospheric. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I'm hesitant -- it's atmospheric, yes, but I don't get a sense that this is a particularly amazing photo of the Mekong. It does look like a nice photo, but in my uneducated layman's opinion it's not of the same calibre as the pictures usually featured. I can envision much more amazing photos of that location, anyway. Am I way off-base, or is this simply a nice photo that isn't quite featurable? Jwrosenzweig 22:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - MykReeve 22:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Jwr...g. Lupin 09:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much water, practicaly blurry in parts. Peregrine981 13:22, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not too interesting. Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not promoted: +3 -3 (and one undecided) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. That's a painting? It's pact-with-the-devil good. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- beautiful. Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 12:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 03:11, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Promoted: +6 -0 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Awesome. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- brilliant detail. Jwrosenzweig 22:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lupin 09:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 12:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice indeed. -- ChrisO 11:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great photo. Simon A. 09:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Chris 73 Talk 04:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Promoted: +9 -0 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose - not striking. Lupin 08:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 12:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 20:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Angela 19:55, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Promoted +5 -1 -- Chris 73 Talk 10:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's a bit hard to find on the source page, but they do say it's copyright free, providing we credit ESA and other contributors. I'll amend the caption in the article accordingly. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - too small. Would probably support larger version. Lupin 09:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

the original source has a huge (1300x1800) image, but that's a bit too big. What say I upload a 600x800 ish one? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support - I like big images - lots of detail. Lupin 14:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. James F. (talk) 12:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Promoted +5 -0 -- Chris 73 Talk 10:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This image bores me, unfortunately. Lupin 09:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 12:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'd prefer the entire bird, not just the head. Also, the attribution needs to be clarified: see http://arizonaes.fws.gov/images/USFWS_Bald_Eagle1.JPG I've modified the attribution to credit US Fish and Wildlife Service/Mike Lockhart- Bevo 14:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poorly balanced, and a head alone is not adequate. Denni☯ 00:24, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Make it bigger! Allyunion 09:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not promoted: +4 - 4 -- Chris 73 Talk 10:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 21:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- always nice to see a picture that looks more active. I like it.
• Oppose - it's nice, but it's very... green. It took me a moment to figure out what was going on. Lupin 08:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this was an artifact of my monitor setup. It looks pretty good now. Lupin 11:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support - This picture clearly illustrates why the lizard is green. Chubtoad 13:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 13:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I love Pollinator's photos as much as the next guy, but we don't help ourselves by using photos in thumbnail size like that, and I know that Poll. is doing this intentionally. He's a professional photographer and also wants to make money with his work. That's alright, but IMHO that leaves us with photos that are technically excellent, but barely show any detail, and you can completely forget about a print edition with photos of that size. I think a featured photo should at least approximate printable resolutions.--Eloquence*
• Support [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 21:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Elo, we need a bigger version. -- Solitude 03:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I like it! -- Infrogmation 18:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very nice picture and worthy under any other condition, but pixel famine rules this one out for me. I can appreciate Pollinator's concern, but I had to bite my lip and make my pictures bigger too. Either you contribute or you don't. Half-measures just make for a lousy image someplace along the line. Denni☯ 01:31, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
• Promoted +8 -3 - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 08:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Cribcage 23:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, I'm just not astonished by this photo. A couple of seemingly unconnected mountains, a road, and some some what, vinyards? Hard to tell. Maybe I'm jaded, living as I do at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, but this picture tells me more about where I want to be than where I am. Denni☯ 01:20, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

The Alpilles aren't quite on the same scale as the Rockies. :-) What you see in the image is the base of the mountains (foreground), foothills (middle distance) and the two main peaks of the eastern Alpilles (background). Calling the Alpilles mountains at all is pushing it a bit, to be honest, as the entire chain could easily fit into the Greater New York area and the highest point is 10ft lower than the Empire State Building. However... -- ChrisO 22:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. The variety of the content is interesting, but having said that, none of the constituents in the photo is featured in any way that makes this photo a good candidate for becoming a featured picture. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 12:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A nice picture and a good job illustrating the article Lorax 03:03, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sure you could take a brilliant photo of these mountains - this just aint it - Gaz 12:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +3, -3. Angela. 17:53, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela. 12:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Gripping shot. -- Solitude 03:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Conditional support - on the basis that it surely needs a more accurate caption, eg "X Falls, Rondane National Park"? Robin Patterson 03:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • That can be tricky -- this fall is not large nor famous, and has only the name that we who know about it call it (which is 'the mountain shower' in no.). [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 04:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) (added: I forgot, the stream itself has ofcourse a name that I can use.)
• Support (but could you add more caption to the image page?) Chris 73 Talk 03:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. A pretty standard snapshot. Not bad as snapshots go, but not great either. My primary objection (unfixable as it stands) is the abrupt transition from soft (sky) to hard (rock and waterfall). The photograph should also have been taken at a lightly slower shutter speed to smooth the water a bit. It is not liquid but rigid in this picture. Denni☯ 01:15, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's out of focus. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 12:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Out of focus, lifeless (sorry!) and just another waterfall - Adrian Pingstone 08:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Lorax 03:03, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 12:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +6 (+1 conditional), -5. Angela. 17:53, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Angela 19:55, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not sure what it is, but the picture does not feel alive to me. -- Solitude 03:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cribcage 23:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Question: it's an interesting picture, but frankly it's kind of an odd colour :) Was it taken at sunrise/set, or perhaps you've done some creative lab/photoshop work? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It was taken at sunrise which accounts for the color cast. It's scanned, not a digital exposure, and my cheap scanner may have something to do with its appearance. But it was shot at sunrise specifically to capture this light. Kbh3rd 20:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is too much noise in the image. It is most noticable in the sky. -- Popsracer 05:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I kind of like the idea to keep it around for "purple mountains' majesty... above the fruited plain..." - Allyunion 09:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 12:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, the picture looks a bit dull, probably due to the scanning. Lorax 03:03, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. David Cannon 01:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really didn't understand the picture at the first sight. I don't think it should be set as featured. And i agree with Lorax about the colors Chmouel 23:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +7, -4. Angela. 17:53, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)