Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured Picture Tools
Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons What is a featured picture? Featured picture candidates on Wikimedia Commons Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day Picture of the day archive

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by promotion/demotion date) when necessary.

• For promoted entries, add {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
• Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.

	Older Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Contents 1 Bird Flu World Map 2 Wolverine 3 Hibiscus Closeup 4 Drosophila Compound Eye 5 Remarkables 6 Sinkhole 7 Euro 8 Grand Central Terminal Panorama 9 Animation of a water drop 10 Candle Burning 11 Ajanta Painting 12 Haeckel Batrachia 13 Fiji Banded Iguana 14 Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Savannah) 15 NonNudeExample2 16 Hanko panorama 17 Mandarin Duck 18 Han foreign relations 2 CE 19 Bearded Dragon 20 Round Hay Bale at dawn 21 British Museum Reading Room Panorama 22 Markham Suburbs 23 Goats in mountains 24 RedFort 25 Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg 26 Black slug 27 Orb Weaver Spider at night 28 Carrots of many colours 29 Heteropteryx dilatata 30 Police cruiser 31 Raspberries 32 Beige Desktop Power Macintosh G3 33 Professional boxing bout 34 John Daly 35 Light-blue soldier crab 36 F-15C 37 Lady Liberty 38 Statue of Liberty 39 Blizzard of 2006 40 Ultimate Layout 41 Howler Monkey 42 Geneva 43 Autoroute Ville-Marie 44 Poinsettia 45 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 46 Sleepy men 47 Anthomyiidae 48 Image:OHP-sch.JPG 49 Dollar Symbol Evolution 50 Autumn colors 51 Eagle Nebula pillars 52 Cloud motion on Jupiter 53 Jupiter from Cassini 54 Pregnancy.gif 55 Mukka fishing 56 Orange Oak Leaf 57 Dallas 58 Dead Leaf Mantis Camouglage 59 Gandhi and Nehru (alternate version) 60 Justin Pogge 61 Prosobranchia 62 Lütt-Witt Moor.jpg 63 Munnar 64 Personal computer 65 Call of Duty 66 Swans 67 Belle of Louisville 68 Budgerigar-Female-Benno 69 Singapore River 70 Spanish shawl 71 Albert Einstein 72 March 29 2006 solar eclipse 73 Pyramid of 35 Spheres 74 Mediterranean Fruit Fly 75 5th Solvay Conference 76 Sunbathe Buttocks 77 Colorado Springs 78 Cross country running

[edit] Bird Flu World Map

This is a high quality map that illustrates the locations that the H5N1 virus has spread in the world. I think that this would be a perfect addition to the FP on wikipedia.

• Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Won't this map become outdated once it spreads? What if it becomes Featured, do we replace it with a newer map? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-15 23:59
• Comment. Um.. isn't it missing a couple of continents? It really shouldn't be labeled "global". Rhobite 00:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, will have to be replaced as spread increase. Quality maintenance can't be guaranteed. Circeus 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Same as above, plain. PoweredDeath
• Oppose for reasons mentioned above, but also, where is North and South America!? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the above reasons. Also, countries like Russia and China are pretty big. Couldn't there be dots to show exact locations of outbreaks? --dm ^(talk) 07:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with above Calderwood 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, will get outdated too soon. Should be nominated after this wave of the virus has passed. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - was about to support it, but it has been usurped by a new picture, right, in both H5N1 and its spread. This picture needs updating I feel before it can be nominated for FP, but I don't think up-to-date photos should be rejected as FP just because of them having to change. They take effort to update, and can be very good indeed. | Spaully 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that an SVG would be much easier to update, especially for users who are not the image's creator. Rhobite 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • But not many people can edit SVGs... Circeus 20:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, already outdated. More importantly, diagrams and maps should be as plain as possible, especially as they're viewed as thumbnails within articles. The second image is much better in that. Aesthetically the first image is quite good.--Jyril 21:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, probably outdated and won't last long even if updated. - Eagle^amn 07:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Already outdated. France, India and Egypt has confirmed cases of Bird flu! DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolverine

Image i found on the National Park Service's Website. It shows great detail of the wolverine in a natural pose.

• Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very pixelated and fuzzy. That's how most of the NPS and FWS photos are. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-16 00:00
• Oppose. Too fuzzy. Alr 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose While quality and size are good for a scan, it's certainly not up to par with what we usually promote. Circeus 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, poor quality. PoweredDeath Feb 16, 2006
• Oppose insufficient quality Calderwood 07:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, blurry and shows little surroundings. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, The quality of this picture is not high enough to be a featured picture. --Davpronk 09:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - blurry and grainy - Adrian Pingstone 14:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hibiscus Closeup

Close up of the hibiscus, i think this can be a good example for macro photography. please provide your feedback.

• Self Nominate and support. - vineeth 08:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, very good. Support. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think we already have plenty of better Featured pictures for macrophotography, and this doesn't depict the Hibiscus very well. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-15 13:15
  • There are exactly two in the article, neither of which is a nature photograph. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)*
    • Macro photography isn't the only place to find macro photographs that are Featured and are of nature. But, as you said, there are already 2 Featured Pictures in that article alone. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-16 00:02
• Oppose This could be almost any flower so doesn't add anything to the article. As a picture I like it a lot, I just don't see it as a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is a nice picture. However, it is not a good illustration for an encyclopedia. Mikeo 18:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Adrian and Mikeo. And I prefer the other nature pic in the macro photography article ;-P --Dschwen 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ACK Mikeo Calderwood 07:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Good pic, but not FA quality. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drosophila Compound Eye

Image I took with a Scanning Electron Microscpe at 2740x magnification. It shows the Drosophilia's (Fruit Fly) compound eye and its "eye lashes." Since it has no eye lids, the hairs sweep the eye, clean it, then fall off.

• Self-Nominate and support. PoweredDeath 00:59, 16 February 2006 UTC
• Is a larger version of the image available? Also, can you add it to the fruit fly article? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-16 06:01
• Oppose, it is not in focus. At 2k mag that should be no problem at all (if you sputtered on a thin layer of gold). Also it is way to small. --Dschwen 07:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Dschwen Calderwood 07:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, for same reasons as above--Looper5920 12:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 14:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, out of focus, too small image. Maybe smaller magnification should be used for better context. Good subject, I'd like to see more SEM images.--Jyril 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see this as particularly more special than any other SEM image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 10:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remarkables

Used in Queenstown, New Zealand, photo taken by Donovan Govan. A breathtaking view.

• Nominate and support. - Ukdan999 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because of overexposed sky and mountaintops. Breathtaking location, though! --Janke | Talk 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you try burning the sky? --vaeiou 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I tried, but it's not flammable enough. :) LordViD 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Sharpness, compression artefacts and overexposure are all serious issues and it would've benefitted the image hugely if a UV or polarizing filter were used. That said, the sheer immensity of the image is such that it's just fun to explore it scrolling around. I'd say it illustrates its subject...well..remarkably. --Deglr6328 08:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't believe no one else likes this. I think its really pretty good. --Deglr6328 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The chief virtues of this image appear to be that it is of an attractive locale and that it is BIG. Not enough, IMO, to overcome the serious problems of compression artifcats and overexposed mountaintops (I can forgive the overexposed sky in a small region, but losing the snowcaps is unacceptable). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose. Interesting scene photographed pretty unspectacularly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Unremarkable :-) --Fir0002 www 09:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinkhole

Used in article Sinkhole. Photo of a large-form sinkhole in a geographically important area for this phenomenon. The photo itself illustrates the size and recreational uses of the sinkhole.

• Nominate and support. - Xlandfair 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Question Good picture, but do those people want to be wikistars? I know I wouldn't want to be on the front page in my bathing suit (; --Colle||Talk-- 06:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not easy to identify any of the people, and those who can be contacted were in the room when the photo was nominated. (: Dave 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Great example of a sinkhole, interesting photo without taking focus from the geology. Dave 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Really too fuzzy in full size. Rescale to 50-75% or so? No info would be lost... --Janke | Talk 09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, not good quality and not particularly stunning... though I'd like to be the guy on the rope. gren グレン 02:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Over exposed and blurry. Also I'm too bothered by the unattractive trash lying around, even if it is encyclopedically relevant in illustrating one effect of human appreciation of natural beauty spots! ~ Veledan • Talk 19:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I believe it's a photograph of what Florida culture really is, being I live here. I have spent some days at a cold (63*F) spring in Orlando. The picture is filled with such action and life. The unattractive trash is part of that scenery. --x1987x 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Asarkees 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC). Veledan's statement on unattractive trash is contradictory, and he/she acknowledges that. I live in Florida, and this is an extremely accurate statement on the nature of what was once a pristine limestone karst. The perspective is interesting, the content is exciting, and the statement demands attention.
  • Reply to above and below: a Featured picture should be attractive as well as accurate. If the trash round this sinkhole is inescapable, choose a different sinkhole if you want to make an FP ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good action, trash is part of the setting, just like at the quarries here in Minnesota. -Ravedave 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- image subject, being the sinkhole itself, is partially missing from the photograph at bottom. - Longhair 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's nice enough I suppose, but it's not really FP material. Also, Longhair correctly points out the "missing tail" aspect of the framing for the shot, which is especially inexcusable since there is much "wasted" space near the top of the photo. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call that wasted space at all. The sinkhole top of the sinkhole is far above the top of the water. Your "wasted space" is how the depth of the sinkhole is shown. Dave 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, changing vote to Neutral. It's not wasted space because it does give a sense of scale and of the surroundings, but I'm still not convinced it's FP material. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- There is a large area that is burned out that is distracting; less people, only one or two jumping, and maybe someone in the water...also need more detail[[[User:Judgesurreal777|Judgesurreal777]] 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)]]
• Oppose Agree with above--Fir0002 www 09:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Agree with Dave.--Chili14^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support It is a beautiful picture that accurately depicts a niche of Florida recreation AND nature.--Vox Causa 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euro

It shows how math and art combine to create a commonly recognized symbol. The image appears in Euro and Euro sign. User:Agateller released it to the PD in the Wikimedia Commons.

• Nominate and support. - Hyad 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Question but what's the angle ACD? Would seem to matter since it occurs five times. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's a right angle between A, C, and the dotted line on the right, that's 90 degrees + 40 degrees between A, D, and the line = 130 degrees. -Hyad 04:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for the angle between A and D, centered on C. It looks like it is in the region of 30° but I don't think you can work out what it is from the image. However, it is possibly the most important angle in the design. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 15:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Great diagram, very informative. But... not a FP in my book, sorry. --Janke | Talk 09:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Information. I tried to put more information on the derivation of the image in the summary but it doesn't display. Anyway, the original copyrighted image from the Euro Commission is a very coarse image supplied only as WMF (!) or TIFF and doesn't display or print very well. It also has the pesky problem of being copyrighted. This image is public domain and it follows the graphic guidelines set forth in the official diagram, but it does not illustrate them in exactly the same way and is not a copy of the official diagram. The angle ACD is the angle formed by a line from the center of the symbol to the base of the symbol directly below, and then another line going up from that point to the point where it intersects the symbol again on the upper right inside. I know this is extremely awkward, but that's the only official parameter provided, and if I described it in any other way (by specifying the exact angle ACD, for example) it would stray from the official model and theoretically might not produce the same symbol. Agateller 11:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By trigonometry, I get the angle to be 22.57°. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

|AD| = 5, |AB| = 6

<DAB = 90 + 40 = 130 (note: not divisible by three)

|BD| = sqrt(25 + 36 - 60cos130)

|ACD| = arcsin(5sin130/|BD|) ~ 22.572593°, which is why it is not specified. ed g2s • talk 18:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• omgz hilarious, if this isn't exemplary of the unbelievable level of regulatory bureaucracy of the EU what is?--Deglr6328 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really, no. National and corporate symbols and logos almost always have extremely precise geometric definitions. This isn't specific to the EU, nor is it in any way exaggerated regulatory bureaucracy. Nice "try", though. Phils 23:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh good heavens, it slipped my mind there for a moment that we shan't make any humorous observations about any international organizations for fear of offending. oops! back to my doublethink lesson! sigh.--Deglr6328 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't offend me. I actually think the EU is quite the bureaucratic mess indeed, but that diagram certainly isn't a symptom of that, IMO :D. Although I am far from being a blind supporter, I am generally annoyed at the amount of baseless criticism the EU receives from overseas. I'm sorry if I sounded too abrasive; this is not the place for political debates. Phils 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support, however (and call me fickle if you want) I'd prefer to see a more colourful version. 86.135.200.146 01:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support really cool and crisp. gren グレン 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, extremely informative, I like it. Dylan 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Attractive, clean diagram and an indispensible contribution to the part of Euro sign where the tension between the European Commission's specification for the symbol and the interests of type designers is discussed ~ Veledan • Talk 22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although it should probably not ever be a Picture of the Day.--ragesoss 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, does the job well, but not particularly stunning. ed g2s • talk 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No color? Neutrality^talk 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Incredibly informative. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Information I've uploaded a color version of this diagram[1]. It looks much prettier but it is actually harder to read than clear black and white. The black-and-white version still serves the purpose of the article better, IMO. Agateller 04:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, the black and white one is far better. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very good and certainly a lot of Wikipedians will likeit =D --Lord Snoeckx 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Informative, easy to understand, and relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Suppprt, color schmolor. BrokenSegue 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport great illustration. chowells 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment since this was created in Illustrator, can't a SVG be exported instead? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Illustrator 8.x doesn't export to SVG. I can't find a free program to convert from EPS to SVG, either. Additionally, I've never seen any mention of SVG outside of Wikipedia, and so I wonder exactly what purpose it serves (it seems to be like JPEG2, a solution looking for a problem). Major browsers don't appear to support it. While I can see the advantages of a vector-based version of the image, in the absence of a universally supported standard for them, it seems like PNG is the safest bet (and even that is risky, since some browsers won't display PNG, either). Agateller 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have access to Illustrator 10.0 if that helps anything. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I've had some success converting EPS to SVG using pstoedit. See Image:EEA agency logo.svg for example. SVG is supported by browsers such as Firefox and Opera. It will often produce a more space-efficient image than PNG. And when the articles eventually go to press, SVG will produce the most accurate images for printing, just like EPS would. Also, there is the benefit of many people being able to edit the SVG after you have uploaded it, to correct for problems or create a derivative work. I have recently done that with commons:Image:Flag of New Jersey.svg. There are many benefits to SVG. If you could send the Illustrator file to someone with SVG export, it would be appreciated. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • BTW, Wikimedia will render SVG to PNG for browsers that don't support SVG. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. In my opinion, it achieves the effect it wants to. I also find it ironic that Neutrality voted against it for lack of color. But I think that the content of the inage makes up for that: a feeling of complexity without even loking at it in depth. Gracenotes ^T § 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support A nice picture thats interesting to look at, I believe. 216.37.227.202 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:EuroConstLarge.png Raven4x4x 06:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Central Terminal Panorama

This image is a stitched panorama of a very difficult to photograph subject. It was done by Diliff (t·c). A good photograph of Grand Central Terminal's main concourse was missing from the article for a long time. Given the historic nature and landmark status of the building, this was unfortunate. The GCT main concourse has been the subject of many other photos, but due to the scale of the building and the limited lighting, none has come close to the level of clarity and scale that this image provides.

Take a look at the following list for other attempts at GCT interior photographs. Note how they either only show a portion of the room or are quite dark. None achieve the sense of scale and detail that this image does.

1. Image:Grand Central Terminal Inside New York City Long.jpg
2. Image:Main Concourse in Grand Central Terminal.jpg
3. Image:Grand Central Station1 by bencwright.jpg
4. Image:Grand Central Terminal main concourse.jpg
5. Image:IMG 1499.JPG

• Nominate and support. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Getting this shot right indeed takes a skilled photographer. This photograph has the "right" amount of brightness/color. Sometimes a longer exposure is needed to get that, however with the many people moving around in the concourse (like during rush hour), the people will likely be blurred in the photograph. Not the case with User:Diliff's photograph. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I was missing such a high-quality caption of Grand Central Terminal in Wikipedia. The level of detail is OK. Mikeo 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm slightly bothered by the curves caused by the panoramic stitching - I guess the tiles on the floor are in straight lines... (In the recent cathedral picture, the distortion was not so apparent). Is there a rectilinear version, does that have severe distortion of the side walls? --Janke | Talk 17:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue with rectilinear panoramas is they only work well when the angle of view is small. When the angle of view is high, the sides are warped dramatically. I'll show you the rectilinear version of it as soon as I stitch one, but I don't think it'll be as pretty. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, done. I still prefer the first image as I don't think curved 'straight' lines are a problem in a panorama such as this, as cylindrical projection allows more of the panorama to be presented in a more managable way. I do understand that it sacrifices architectural accuracy somewhat, but this can't always be helped. You will never be able to create this sort of panorama with architectural accuracy. But if you want to be able to see such a wide angle of view in a meaningful way, I don't know of an alternative. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I really like the second one better. It looks like a typical super-wideangle shot, distortion and all. Is there any way of non-linearly compressing the left and right sides inward - that would take care of some of the horizontal elongation? (Admitted, it would introduce some distortion to diagonals, but none to horizontals and verticals.) See my small new example, made manually in only three increments, thus imperfect. --Janke | Talk 09:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Good attempt but I don't think that method would survive full size scrutiny. :) I'm not aware of a way of automating that... Anyone else? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I just now did it on the full-size image. See Diliff's and my comments below, Feb. 22. --Janke | Talk 19:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, good resolution and level of detail.--vineeth 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support either one, slight preference for the first one. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - good pic, and I appreciate the effort made and the relative darkness of the location, but the picture is a bit too dim for my liking; could it be brightened just a little bit? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like that inside. --vaeiou 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I feel like I'm there. And yes, its the picture is dimly lit, but so is the room. I wouldn't try to make it brighter. --dm ^(talk) 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've never been there, but I've been to 30th Street Station (Philadelphia), which appears to be similar architecturally, visually, and light-wise - and 30th Street Station is much brighter and more lively than this picture. I think the dimness really weighs this picture down, even if that really is what the setting is like. Ultimately, though, I don't think it's a very eye-catching panorama, and if you're going to sacrifice perspective, I think it should be. Oppose. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Impressive picture, but the station seems to be decked out for Christmas. Also, I'm starting to feel there needs to be more featured pictures of things from outside the english speaking world.--Colle||Talk-- 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't find it that impressive or amazing. chowells 15:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, image with a high quotient of technical difficulty and proficiency, and it is of a significant subject. I like it a lot. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Titoxd --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support 3rd version: I did a non-linear compression (still manually, but many more increments) of the full-size rectilinear version, which now has less horizontal distortion - it's now ready to vote on. I didn't like the curved walls & floor in the first version. What say you? --Janke | Talk 18:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I say its a great improvement actually. It looks 'right' in terms of a lack of distortion and the lines are satisfactorily straight. :) I can't see any evidence of it being incremental. Its a shame there isn't (as far as we know?) any way of automating that process. I'll ask around on a panoramic photography forum. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support the winning version. Very nicely done. TomStar81 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is a near-perfect representation of the interior of an important site. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Hmmm. - Darwinek 21:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - After the two other versions have been added, I still prefer the original. The third would be acceptable, but I don't like the noticable vertical squishing of the figures. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support 1st or 3rd version (Jay 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Promoted Image:Grand Central test.jpg Raven4x4x 07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animation of a water drop

A challenge was put up on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Detaching drop to have an animation, so I took about 300 pics of my sink and created an 18 pic animation of a falling water drop. Other user suggested me to nominate it, so here it is. I also added it to Drop (liquid), now the images make up more than the text of the article. I reduced the size to 768x1024 and 8MB, as the full size would be around 50MB. The time interval between the pictures is calculated to match the distance to the faucet under the assumption of a free-fall, ignoring surface tension (forgive me for not calculating these ;)

Update: Gmaxwell offered to redo the image using a specialized software tool and added a small preview to this nomination. I just sent Gmaxwell 12MB of images to work with, and am looking forward for the results! I would like to request an extension of the voting period to wait for and judge the new version from Gmaxwell.-- Chris 73 | Talk 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Self-Nominate and support. - Chris 73 | Talk 11:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support clearly superior corrected Version by Gmaxwell. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I think it is fantastic. Nice job. Meniscus 12:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to direct my support vote to the new version. Meniscus 06:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Now that's a great animation. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice job. Mikeo 13:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Dschwen 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't like the way exposure seems to differ between frames, as does the position of the tap and tiles. chowells 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Opppose nice try, but I find the varying exposure and moving of the tap incredibly annoying to watch. chowells 18:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's a good pic/animation, but the shadows behind it are too distracting. Is there any way to make sure that the light is constant? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked someone about this before, and they said that the camera's exposure time and aperture need to be fixed between images. Better digital cameras will let you manually set these options, or choose an "auto exposure lock", although my digital camera doesn't. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 16:42
    • I believe it was taken with a flash. Even with aperture/exposure length lock, the flash is difficult to control, as it is evaluatively metering and firing a burst of light that it deems is appropriate. Each shot would be slightly different in terms of flash output. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Still oppose. The newer gif image is too small, and the ogg file can't be displayed on most computers without downloading ogg vorbis. Can't the gif be enhanced? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • How big should it be? I sized it to work well on the article at a number of display resolutions, but it was just a guess... if you have a concrete suggestion please provide it... It would be trivial for me to resize it (or you can do it, the theora version is suitable for resizing). Currently at 60Kb in size I would be highly hesitant to inline anything much larger, and frankly would oppose anything too much larger due to considerations for users with slow connections. The old image when resized by mediawiki to the same physical dimensions was over 400K. Animated GIF is a highly unoptimal format for 'video' like content, leading to huge file sizes and poor quality... Although it is what we have for inline content today, so we have to live with its limitations. As far as the video (Which is not vorbis, vorbis is an audio codec)... it would be foolish to provide the high quality version in animated gif because animated gif is never high quality due to the 256 color limitation. Ogg/Theora is the video codec used by Wikipedia, and is what we use for all videos. Like many other video codecs it doesn't ship with Windows, so many users will need to install it although we're working on adding a java player for Vorbis and Theora to mediawiki. Because Theora is our official codec, I'm going to go ahead and be so bold and advise you that you simply can not oppose media for featured status because of the use of Theora. --Gmaxwell 04:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Another datapoint, if I allow mediawiki to thumb the new image to 10px less wide, the rendered file not only looks like crap (with dancing dithering), but is about 260K. Mediawiki scaling simply isn't acceptable for many animated gifs. --Gmaxwell 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe we could upload two gifs besides the Ogg, one as large as the common allows (up to 30MB), and a smaller version for display? Also, resizing my original version worked very well (see [2]), but GMaxwells version has display errors. Not sure how Gmaxwells .gif can be changed so Wikipedia resizes it correctly. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Your version resized is about 406k, mine is 60k. 406k is unacceptable for an inline image. The reason mediawiki barfs on resizing mine is because I'm not updating the complete image in each version, only the parts that change. If I disable this (i.e. unoptimize-gif under filter->animate in gimp) so that it doesn't get mangled on resize the result is 399k, unacceptable for an inline image. Furthermore MediaWiki resizing makes the video look like crud because it uses a per-frame randomized dither. Just say no to MediaWiki based resizing of animated gifs. :) As far as a large gif, I will not upload a 30MB gif when I've uploaded higher quality Theora file which is under 100k. Gif makes perfect sense for an inline image, but it makes no sense for the high quality version because it's both huge and looks like crud. --Gmaxwell 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Ok, point taken. You surely do know more about gifs and images than me. Did we ever have a featured ogg? -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose although I would change my vote if the tap and tiles could be steadied and the background colour could be fixed. Maybe choose one of the backgrounds for all the frames? The water drop looks good!~ Veledan • Talk 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Support (GMaxwell's edit) ~ Veledan • Talk 13:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose because of variable exposure and disturbing background. --CutterX 18:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems jerky, and the most interesting part of falling water (the shape that rises up as the drop hits a water surface) is not seen. The varying exposures don't worry me at all - Adrian Pingstone 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very cool.--Lewk_of_Serthic 19:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Uneven lighting and animation. ~MDD4696 21:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think it is featured quality regardless of its imperfections. I know there should be basic requirements that need to be satisfied for all pictures, but I do think the difficulty and the uniqueness of pictures should hold some weight. Then again, if it fails, there is the incentive to go back and re-shoot it again. I know it took 300 frames to get right and the author may not want to do it all over again, but hey, the quest for perfection was never meant to be easy. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Pretty cool animations, but I'd like a higher res version --Fir0002 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The full 2592x1944 animation was 50MB, and the commons has an upload limit of 30 MB, hence I reduced the size to 768x1024 with a manageable 8MB. The image displayed on the image page is already reduced in size, click on the image to see full size. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a feeling that you'd be able to use the higher res version if you converted it into ogg instead of using an animated gif, although people would start opposing for that instead... enochlau (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with MDD. - JPM | 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the edited version. - JPM | 04:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can the variable exposures be manually corrected with some kind of Photoshop action? Surely there must be a Photoshop guru out there. –Joke 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've offered to correct the exposure and motion but have not heard back yet. I already have the video processing toolchain for this sort of thing setup. --Gmaxwell 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the delay. I tried to adjust the exposure manually using Gimp, but currently I am away from my main computer, and have no access to my photos. I also adjusted the position, trying to match the faucet position between the images. I'll fiddle around more on the weekend -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What software do you use to correct the exposure between frames? I'm interested because I've done some time-lapse photography myself and needed to use evaluative metering rather than locked metering, so occasionally the camera chooses the 'wrong' exposure for a frame or two which results in a similar thing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I used The Gimp for creating the whole animation, including adjusting the exact position, brightness (i.e. "Exposure"), resizing etc. Not sure what Gmaxwell uses for his video files. -- Chris 73 | Talk 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Using the gimp will lead to uneven correction because the image colorspace is nonlinear. I answered Diliff's questions to me on my talk page since he wrote to me there...--Gmaxwell 03:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support new version. See my comment below below, 19 Feb. Considering that this is shot with a standard digital camera, the result is great. Not many wikipedians have access to equipment like Harold Edgerton ("Papa Flash") had... I wonder if the strange flutter in the exposure (as opposed to a plain change in exposure) is due to different paths of the flash discharge inside the xenon-filled tube? --Janke | Talk 07:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Briseis 13:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Un-even lighting. I also think it's too big; expecially for those people who don't have broadband and are on dial-up. ^KILO-_LIMA 14:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Resize it. The pic on this page is much smaller than the original, and the copy on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Detaching drop is even smaller, so there is no problem for low-bandwith users unless they want the full size. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Gladly change my vote note. Supprot new version. Well done! ^KILO-_LIMA 15:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kessa Ligerro 07:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, I think we can make this better before we give it FP status. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice animation -- Ian ≡ talk 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Calderwood 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• New version. It hurt me to see this potentially wonderful work being featured while it retained so many obvious and correctable technical flaws. I asked Chris 73 for the originals so I could correct the image, but he didn't seem interested in working with me. Normally I oppose making subjective changes to images which original author opposes, so I hope Chris 73 will support my version... but I feel that the changes I made were technical rather than artistic and that my modified version is objectively better. I have scaled the image to display size because the mediawiki rescaling for animated GIFs is far from optimal, I will also provide a full resolution version in a few minutes and update the entry with a link. This version is 60k when inserted into the page, which is a major improvement over the dialup crushing 400k of the version at the top. I must apologize for the some what poor quality of the full resolution version: I only had the large animated GIF to work with, and the dithering noise is non-linear and thus hard to suppress. I'd also like to ask that this vote be extended a bit to allow people to consider the new version.--Gmaxwell 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's so much better. I'd support that version. Shame it's not a tad bigger. chowells 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wish granted, see the link under the image. I *could* do an animated GIF of the higher res version, but the limitation of 256 colors really makes it look like crud. It would still look better had I started from the orignals rather than fighting against the dataloss in the animated gif. --Gmaxwell 23:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support new version. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• supportGmaxwell's version Borisblue 04:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Neat, but not all that interesting. I find it creepy. Therefore, it would be more in line for chinese water torture, or water wastage articles. Drip Drip --Colle||Talk-- 04:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And... I can't stop watching it. --Colle||Talk-- 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's creepy too, and that why I thought it would be worth my time. It's a striking illustration. :) --Gmaxwell 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support new version. Very cool. WP 09:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the playback speed of this animation (either version) is physically inaccurate. I noticed this when creating my own preliminary attempt. The drop spends much more time hanging on the faucet and slowly detatching. While still attached to the faucet, surface tension counters the gravitational pull, therefore acceleration is much smaller. For a FP I'd expect it to be correct. --Dschwen 12:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Dschwen's objections are correct. As a consequence of this consideration I change my vote into oppose Calderwood 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I never noticed that, was so enthralled with the other improvements. Great observation, Dschwen! I struck out my support vote until this is fixed, then I'll support again. --Janke | Talk 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it's easy enough to adjust the timing. For lack of better information I just made the update match the orignal. Dschwen, how do you know your video is more accurate? It looks like it was recorded with the same multiple phase approach that distroys find timing informaiton. --Gmaxwell 19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        • No, it actually doesn't distroy timing information. I used every picture for my animation, just reordering them. Now simple statistics tells me that in this case the timing mut be correct. When the drop is moving slow at a certain position the probability of capturing it in a frame is higher then when it is moving fast. So more frames of slow moving drops are captured and in the resulting animation the drop moves slower. :-) --Dschwen 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Does that mean the triggering of the shots were timed totally randomly? If not, then the photographer's choice of triggering the shutter surely destroys any statistic methods of determining the right timing... --Janke | Talk 09:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
            • As for my set, I switched to series mode and pressed the button for a few minutes or so, creating about a pic per second. The drop is just too fast for any good timing (the reality being faster than this animation) -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I semi randomly shot pictures whenever the cam was ready, wit additional random pauses. I had a drop frequency of abt. 5/sec so I'm pretty confident in my sampling being random enough. --Dschwen 11:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm amused... Getting the timing of this obviously enough right is enough of a challenge that we're unable to gauge the methods any multiple phase method will be disregarded as physically inaccurate but if I recorded this with a 200fps video camera it would be rejected as too low resolution. The featured picture process is a waste of time. --Gmaxwell 14:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • On the contrary. I really like the new constructive spin on FP (like with the carbon diagrams lately). Why the sudden frustration? The phase approach is the most promising. I believe I've got the timing right in my animation, but it is low quality since my drops were starting from slightly different positions, so it looks jerkey. Basically we'd have to take not 18 selected frames from the original pictureset, but all of them. That would preserve timing. This is totally worth a try. --Dschwen 14:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I am also very optimistic. I think this process - and the great work of GMaxwell - will produce a better animation than what any of us could do alone. About using the full set of pictures: I have about 100 usable pics (or 50 MB of data). I removed some because of unsightly drops (i.e. just two drops following the big one instead of three). However, out of the 100 pics about 40% are very similiar with only a small bulge at the faucet and no visible drop. I would much rather favour a nicely distributed set of pictures with the drop at roughly equally spaced positions, and adjust the display time so it feels right. I am definitely looking forward for seeing GMaxwells work. Don't let us hanging (pun intended ;) -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support GMaxwell's version is cool. KI 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The gmaxwell version. pschemp | talk 07:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Gmaxwell's version, wish the animation was a tad smoother, but it is good for a fine example of work. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support corrected version. –Joke 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• I can't believe I just sat here and watched water dripping out of a spigot for more than a minute. What is wrong with me? Support Gmaxwell's. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support new version, good stuff. - Eagle^amn 07:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support new version. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support new version (Jay 00:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
• Support new version. --James 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support new version. Gracenotes ^T § 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Water_drop_animation_enhanced_small.gif Raven4x4x 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candle Burning

This image is sufficiently large and detailed. It is a perfectly iconic image of a candle. The article appears in candle, Plasma (physics), and Template:User_AI. This image was not created by a wikipedia user but has a stable and verifiable copyright tag.

• Nominate and support. - Vicarious 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice photo, significant size and resolution and looks good. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support good photo.
• Support — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-20 14:09
• Oppose. The inner structure of the flame is invisible due to overexposure. I'd like to see the different zones in the flame clearly. --Janke | Talk 15:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Janke; lacks detail where it's most needed--ragesoss 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like it. ^KILO-_LIMA 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. ACK Janke Mikeo 16:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Janke. Its a fine image in composition but the exposure is off. In opposing this, we are encouraging a superior photo to be produced. Best not to forget that. It isn't a difficult photo to replicate or improve on. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ack Janke, Diliff. Another photo challenge? --Dschwen 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it is not that easy. This image is shot at 3 stops under, and there is still a little burn-out, while the blue edge at the bottom of the flame has all but disappeared. Might need a composite image of several exposures. Anyone? --Janke | Talk 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Such a picture is in fact not easy. If overexposure in the core parts of the flame is avoided, everything but this core disappears. But it is possible to make the area of overexposure smaller, so that the parts of the flame with lesser radiation density become better visible. Another objection to this picture is the distorted shape of the flame, probabely caused by the photographer's breath. Calderwood 21:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, the one thing I like about this image is the shape of the flame! Isn't it amazing how people see things in different light! ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, for me this is a very familiar experience, but each time amazing nevertheless Calderwood 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In Soviet Russia, puns make you! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Regardless of the difficulty of doing better, it's clear that better can be done. I'll grant a support vote to a better image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose a good photo of a not so good flame Kessa Ligerro 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are now two new images of candle-flames where colour-shift is deliberately applied in order to enhance the visibility of the colour-zones Roger McLassus 12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC):
  • Good try, but for scientific reasons I'd really prefer a drawing over these two images. --Janke | Talk 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • For me manipulated photographs are a better option for scientific purpose, provided they are manipulated uniformly. By the way, Roger, did you already consider nominating these two pictures here? They might be useful for some articles. Calderwood 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The question is, do these manipulated photos show the correct outlines of the zones in the flame? I.e. where are the unburnt hydrocarbons, where do we have plasma, where soot, where carbon burning? --Janke | Talk 09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ajanta Painting

This is one of the best photos available anywhere of the paintings in the Ajanta caves in India, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. These paintings were made between 2nd century BCE and 6th century CE. The image is in public domain worldwide, and was uploaded on Wikimedia commons by File Upload Bot (Eloquence). It adds meaningful information on various articles including Ajanta, Fresco, History of India, Painting, Gupta Empire, Arts and entertainment in India and History of sex in India.

• Nominate and support. - deeptrivia (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Would also be different from other POTDs and thus bring in more variety. --Gurubrahma 07:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've uploaded a version that is a bit sharper, with more color. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-19 16:58

Sharpness is a good idea, but I like the yellowish tinge (PS: and softness ^_^ ) that the original image has. Is it just my personal preference, or some general aesthetic principle? deeptrivia (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support original version 3 Nice picture and unusual, and doesn't rely on any single article for its contribution. Brian0918, I find your edit a bit too drastic. Do we have any reason to believe that the photographer got the colour wrong when he prepared this image for The Yorck Project? I suspect we are looking at truer colours in the original ~ Veledan • Talk 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The "true" colors are those that were originally used in the painting, not the colors that remain after years of wear. By trying to bring out the colors, I am simply trying to undo the wear, the same way that a damaged photograph is repaired, by removing specks of dust or creases. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-20 03:33

This is a philosophical question. Some would hold that the wear does become inherent to the aesthetic value of the artwork of antiquity, and the Ajanta painting sans its wear simply isn't complete. deeptrivia (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian, if you could, would you repair the Colesseum? - JPM | 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw man. We're talking about an informational photo of an object, not the actual object. Even paintings get restored, and the Colosseum does undergo repairs so that it maintains its present condition--otherwise it would just get worse. But back to this image; the original photo was blurry, likely smeared out the colors, and did not represent the painting very well. I'm sure my change was too drastic, but it needs to be enhanced to better illustrate the article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-21 05:29

So you're saying it needs to illustrate the article better? The caption reads "Fresco from the Ajanta caves." If this is the current condition of the painting in the Ajanta cave, then doesn't it represent the article perfectly? I think these "informational photos" should try and be as close to the actual object in question as possible. I'm all for making the image more clear, or brighter - but tweaking the colors is a no-no, in my opinion - JPM | 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The photographer himself likely screwed up the colors in the first place. Camera flashes don't simply make an image brighter. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-21 14:40

But this is only an assumption of yours, and since I was not there when the photo was taken, I will not make the same assumption. - JPM | 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You should not assume the colors are correct. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-21 23:38

You're right, but since the original picture is what's presented to me at first, I have to throw my trust at it. - JPM | 03:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• My support only goes toward the original, unless someone uploads a less drastic edit. - JPM | 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Janke's third edit, or any similar derivative edit. - JPM | 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - no vote yet. The edit maybe went a bit too far, but I think something inbetween might be good. The original is murky, and it's hard to see details. --Janke | Talk 15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, 3rd version: Since no-one else did, I took the original, corrected exposure only (not the color), reduced the size to 1600 px (original is fuzzy, so no info is lost). There are a few white spots of the undelying wall showing through the painting (armpit, breast) which tells me that the painting indeed has a yellowish color, which must not be changed. --Janke | Talk 16:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Version 3 looks fine to me. I'll raise the question about how the original looks like on the Indian noticeboard. Maybe someone's been there. deeptrivia (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support third version. This picture, by the way, is one of 10,000 reproductions of public domain paintings donated by Directmedia to the Wikimedia Commons. Janke, if you're having some free time, many other pictures in that category could use some editing. ;-) --Eloquence* 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original and third version. I haven't been there to say which among the above reflects the current state of the image. By the way, I do not want the second image deleted or unused, but when used, it should clearly state what has been done to the image. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support third version. Saravask 00:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support 1 or 3. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support third version. svnitbharath

Promoted Image:Indischer_version3.jpg Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haeckel Batrachia

This is a lithographic plate from Ernst Haeckel's 1904 Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature), showing unusual and interesting frog species; Samsara has provided a translation of the description of each frog from the opposing page. The image is found in the frog article. I scanned, edited and uploaded it.--ragesoss 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - ragesoss 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting image. Which description goes with which frog in the image? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-24 03:42
• Support, beautiful and informative. To Brian0918: labels has tiny numbers beside each frog (on the margins). An alternative to this would be great though. I'd propose cutting out each frog and sticking it crudely to the left of its text. —Pengo 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! Don't do that! Almost as bad as cutting up the original... ;-) Support, by the way, beautiful example of lithography. --Janke | Talk 08:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(not a vote) Well I didn't cut it up, but I've gone and stuck chunky numbered labels on the frogs and added it to the description page. I've found it useful even just for my own reference. PS. The only frog species that has its own article is #2 (Hyla meridionalis) —Pengo 09:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support It is a great image, and it adds well towards the frog article. --liquidGhoul 09:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well done folks! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 10:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I sense a scheme to get the whole book featured. I can't say I'm opposed. –Joke 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Extremely high resolution and well drawn. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Clear image. Classically beautiful nature litho compliments the Frog article well.--Dakota ~ ° 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like the image. sikander 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Remarkably Gothic. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support for all reasons already mentioned in favour of this picture Calderwood 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Now I haven't opposed, but I'm not convinced these pictures are encyclopedic in any modern sense. We demand a great degree of fidelity to the subject from FPs, at least in wikipedia (as opposed to commons), and these lithographs typically exaggerate as I understand them. Also, they are common and I don't think we should necessarily promote the first couple we see: when I was writing Bladderwort last summer, I remember sorting through dozens of attractive public domain lithographs to select a couple for the article - and that was only what was available for for one genus. Choosing one to illustrate Lithograph seems reasonable but we already have the anemones. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle with the point you are making, but the (in)fidelity issue is balanced against what these images add to articles that other available images can't provide, their historical significance, and their aesthetic power. Haeckel plates in particular are in a unique position; for much of Haeckel's taxonomy work, his descriptions are still best available and still usable by practicing scientists; exaggeration may be an issue, but not not to the extent that it compromises their encyclopedic value. The three recent lithographs on FPC have been some of the best from Kunstformen der Natur, which was itself compiled by culling the best of images out of over a thousand of Haeckel's drawings. The bladderwort litho in that article is attractive (and of course many of comparable quality are available for many subjects), but I think these Haeckel ones are in a different league. My current plan is to keep gradually nominating these images until they start failing, but if a significant number of people share Veledan's concerns, of course I'll reconsider.--ragesoss 18:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. While I do share some of Veledan's concerns, my neutral vote is mostly because I don't feel that the Frog lithograph adds as much as the Sea Anemone one did. I don't think we need all of Haeckel's plates as FPs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Should FPs of outer space also be limited because they all came from the same source, NASA? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-1 02:15
    • Improper analogy, we're talking here about lithographic plates not photographs. Regardless of who takes photos of "outer space" they're still going to be photos. The difference between this image and a mosaic of photographs of the relevant frogs, for example, should be obvious. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You're assuming that any two photographers will photograph the same subject from the same angle with the same lighting, exposure, aperture, etc, which is not true. So, no, it is not a false analogy. Also, the images from NASA are as much artistic as painting, since the majority of images they release are not true color. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-5 06:19
        • I'm not sure what angles you think people are going to photograph celestial objects from, but my understanding is that you're not going to get very much luck, even with parallax, even at opposite sides of Earth's orbit. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • You were referring to photography in general in your original reply, so that's why I included angles. While that doesn't apply to celestial objects, all of the other things I mentioned still apply. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 20:18
            • Yes, I know, hence the smiley at the end of my last reply. :) However, I stand by my assertion that lithographs are fundamentally different than photographs (certainly when the photograph is an attempt to accurately render real-life, rather than going for an "artistic" impression) for the purposes of my argument. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image: Haeckel Batrachia.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiji Banded Iguana

From Fiji Banded Iguana. It really pops, it's eye is looking directly at the camera, and it has great color. If there is support I'll convince Rklawton to upload a larger version.

Thank you for your nomination. I've gone ahead and uploaded a higher-res version as per your recommendation. God help those with modem connections. Rklawton 08:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Those with slow connections need not view the giant pic! - Adrian Pingstone 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Ravedave 04:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support IF a higher res version is uploaded. Some people will probably whine about not being able to see the whole subject, but they can get over themselves. The picture is illustrating that portion of the lizard, and it looks good. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• According to Cyde Weys below it's already 3504x2336. How much larger do you want to? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Still Oppose partly because it's only 640 px wide. If I've understood the consensus correctly, 1000 px is now considered minimum for FP. , it's extremely fuzzy in large size - was it simply re-sized from a lo-res image??? Loss of tail is not a concern here, but the head appears to be partially in shadow, thus giving the impression of a dark snout. --Janke | Talk 07:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This vote should be revisited because the image dimensions are now 3504x2336. --Cyde Weys 09:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I shot this subject with a Canon EOS 20D, an 8.2-megapixel semi-professional digital single-lens reflex camera, using its highest resolution JPEG setting under low-light conditions (see metadata for details). The current image is the original. I have since switched to shooting on the maximum, zero-loss (RAW) setting, but that's not a format supported here. I'll probably re-shoot this subject. Rklawton 21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because you shoot RAW, it doesn't mean you can't convert it to JPG. That is the point, in fact. It just looks extremely out of focus in this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• 1000 px is not minimum. The wording is "Be of a sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions". I take this as high enough resolution to allow good detail on important parts of the subject. I find the electron microscope image below of good size, as no more detail can be added. However, when it comes to animals, the bigger the better (generally). --liquidGhoul 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Out of focus on the head, and bad lighting around the head. --liquidGhoul 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, part of the animal is cropped on the side. If the remaining part is indeed out of focus that's a bad thing, but really, I prefer to have as much of the animal in frame of the picture to begin with. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Focus and exposure issues. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)]
• Oppose Very blurry, terrible noise. chowells 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blurry and out of focus. - Eagle^amn 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blur is the biggest problem. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for sure. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral The image is blurry, but the resolution and color is good. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (Savannah)

A high-res, crisp, appealing picture of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Savannah, Georgia

• Nominate and support. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sky is beautiful, but I don't like how the base of the Church is cut off. - JPM | 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. same as JPM, too bad though, great pic otherwise. -Ravedave 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can be much better: base included, better perspective by being shot from further away, or, if that is not possible, rectify perspective. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above, I want the base. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was going to say something after the first oppose, but now that its gone to 4 opposes, I suppose I'll say something. I really hate it when people oppose an FPC candidate because the area focused on isn't ideal for the voter. The picture is not of the entire Cathedral, it is of the area I as a photographer chose for ideal composition. Had I chosen to shoot the base (which is rather unadorned and unnatractive), the "cracking sidewalk" and "ugly rusty railings" would've detracted from the image and voters would've opposed for that reason. I know that voting is your opinion, but if you're going to oppose someone's FPC do so because the photograph has issues not because the photograph in your imagination is better. Thanks so much. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The photograph has issues... it does not fully display its subject. If the article it was illustrating was about a certain aspect of cathedral architecture, you'd have more of a point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. Don't get so defensive.
  • Actually, the photograph does have issues that I didn't include in my oppose reasoning, because I didn't want to be too harsh or nit-picky. But now I regret that decision. Regardless of that, if it's supposed to be a picture of a cathedral, and the cathedral isn't entirely pictured, then this is obviously a problem. And if you think including the base would have opened the image up to other complaints, like "cracking sidewalk," then perhaps the church just isn't cut out for being a FP. You could have focused on a certain aspect of the church, and then this wouldn't have been a problem, but if you present the church as the FPC, and it's not all showing, what can you expect? Look at some of the other FPC's where part of the object in question was cut off -- they almost always get opposed. You're welcome. - JPM | 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose don't like the bottom bit being cut off. chowells 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Suffers from a lack of Perspective Control, which causes the towers to look like they are falling backwards. Photo has nice features, but lacks technical quality to merit Feature Picture designation. SteveHopson 05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with chowells --Fir0002 www 09:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Image is uncomplete. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to bottom of church being cut off and weird angle of shot. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Though the image is incomplete, I feel that it does accurately represent the target. And the perspective is not that bad. --Joshua Boniface 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Very nice image, but as stated already I don't like how the base of the church is cut off. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 00:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NonNudeExample2

I think this picture strongly meets the requirements of WP:FPC. It illustrates the article content particularly well and it is absolutely eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. The image is public domain, created by a Wikipedian, so no problems there.

• Nominate and support. - Cyde Weys 18:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Nice boobs, but... well... the background is not well chosen and the composition is not that good either. bogdan 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just a snapshot. --Janke | Talk 19:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not pornography, just a picture. - JPM | 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral: I agree with bogdan; additionally, I think the other picture on the page better illistrates the subject matter. The blond girl also appears to have a case of red eye, although it could just be me. TomStar81 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This isn't porn. It's just a mundane picture of some dumb slags. Certainly not FP worthy.--Deglr6328 06:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
•  ! Strong Oppose This is a snapshot I realize that its fun to submit silly pictures that would never make it as an FPC just because they have some encyclopedic "worth," but there really are some great candidates if you look around something like deviantart enough. Find a good one, ask the contributor if it can be put on the wikipedia. Out of curiosity, do you know these girls? Are you trying to spite them ;)? drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish I knew these girls :-P Cyde Weys 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not interesting enough or special enough for Featured pic - Adrian Pingstone 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is neither pornography (since it does not cause sexual arousal) nor is it a remarkable picture. Composition and background are bad, colours and sharpness not above average, and the blond girl has in fact a red eye. There is no reason whatsoever to feature this picture. Calderwood 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's pornographic in that I suppose it's purpose is titilation (and there appear to be those who are titilated by it), but it's not an especially interesting or intriguing example. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calderwood. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose erm no. chowells 01:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose Doesn't merit Feature Picture status. SteveHopson 05:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose In no way remarkable. --Fipe 09:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Funny party snapshot, but nothing excellent about it. Kessa Ligerro 10:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose If such images are made pic of day, people will think wikipedia is some stupid nonsense site.--vineeth 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Cute models do not a good image make. Agateller 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, lol. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose! Nothing interesting about it. - Eagle^amn 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. What is this, Wikipedians Gone Wild?--Fallout boy 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - Featured images are supposed to enhanced the look of the main page, and this one fits into that category. -- infinity0 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Pity support :) --Obli (Talk)^? 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Boobs. Coffee 20:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is that a support or an oppose? Alvinrune ^TALK 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I couldn't say for certain but I know that whenever I hear "boobs" i think Yes!, so i'd guess that's a support. Vicarious 08:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • At this point it doesn't really matter. Just consider it a pity support. :) Coffee 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It's clearly not in any articles. It's seems to be a simple photo that some teen friends took of each other. (Maybe you mistaked Featured Picture Candidates for Images for Deletion.) Lol. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hanko panorama

Ok, I'll try and see if I can even begin to compete with the magnificent panoramas shown here lately. This one is in the Hanko, Finland article, and shows the typical, mostly wooden architecture, and the coastline of a Finnish small town. Since the camera is looking straight into the sun, the burn-out in the water & sky is inevitable. I shot and stitched this 6 years ago. Back then, there were no good stitching programs available (the one that came with the camera was practically useless), so this is stitched completely manually. For this reason, there are some imperfections. I know some of you are looking for such, so maybe I'm not very wise in telling you this... ;-)

• Self-nom and support. - Janke | Talk 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice stitch job. I'd like to see the continuation on the right. The left third is a but boring, the middle part is dark woods and blown out sun/sky. The right third is nice though. --Dschwen 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the manual stitching didn't work further right - the more built-up area gave me no way of "cheating" with the stitching - and, to be honest, that part of town doesn't look as nice. But if anyone has some good stitching software, I can either e-mail or upload the nine original files (totaling 360°) for you to try - only 7.5 Mb... --Janke | Talk 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Diliff did try, but it appears that even his modern software and his considerable talent in using it couldn't handle this, since it is shot with a downward tilt, distorting the original images. If anyone else cares to try, either manually or with software, I'll give you the link to the original pics. Challenge time! ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support the original, or a version continued to the right. - JPM | 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sun reflecting off the water ruins it for me, unfortunately. Alr 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. This image just doesn't do anything for me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, its nice and does illustrate the article, but the sun is a problem and (is it just me) the quality seems slightly off. BrokenSegue 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Chop off the left third and accentuate the water a bit, and you've got my vote. The water's the most attractive bit of the photo, and sadly is relegated to background by the shopping centre on the right. --Fipe 10:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor image quality at full res. A better time of day (noon) could have been used to avoid the burnt-out-straight-in-the-sun areas --Fir0002 www 09:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, I don't think waiting 27 minutes would have helped much... ;-) Sun and water is always a problem in a back-lit situation. In fact, I was surprised that the camera (a 2 megapixel Canon Ixus made in 1999) managed as well as it did! --Janke | Talk 13:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice picture, good illustration, and especially impressive given the limitations of your equipment & software. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support Great picture -- the quality is good, and it really gives you a feel for the town.--Xiaphias 08:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Mstroeck 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, and I'm willing to try the stitching challenge if you send me the originals. As for the sun over the water, that's an integral part of the landscape. Remember that this town is at latitude 59.5° N. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a full 360° version restitched in hugin: see above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good job, thanks! I still see some very slight stitcing mismatches, but nowhere as much as in my manually stitched 360 degree version (which I decline to submit for that reason). Now, we need to decide what part of the 360 degrees constitute a FP - I don't think the whole is greater than the parts, here.. ;-) I think I did indeed choose the best parts in my own stitching attempt... --Janke | Talk 16:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • For comparison, I added the middle 180° of the full panorama above. How's that look? Too narrow? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it crops off a bit too much on the left - gets kind of cramped in that corner, also due to some vertical cropping - which may be inevitable in the "curved type" stitching, as opposed to rectilinear. --Janke | Talk 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • You're right, how about an intermediate 270° version? I kind of like that one myself. It extends approximately as far as you original version on the left, but includes enough extra area on the right to keep the sun in the center. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, I prefer either my original version or the 270 degree by you. Let's see what others think, if they still bother to scroll this low down on the page... ;-) --Janke | Talk 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support 360° Panorama Very nicely done. Alvinrune ^TALK 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Closing comment: As the photographer, I'd prefer the original version as FP, due to its rectilinear perspective. --Janke | Talk 06:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Hankopan.JPG. Promoted original - all are good and several have some support but no clear consensus for any other version ~ Veledan • Talk 00:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandarin Duck

A fine specimen of a duck. Feather textures are clear. Water droplets show he has just come out of the water. Image appears in Mandarin Duck (Aix galericulata), taken by Peter Galaxy.

• Self-Nominate and support. - one of my fav photos —Pengo 02:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose It is an incredibly beautiful bird, and good photo, it just seems slightly out of foucus. Also, the cropping is pretty bad, in that there is a large gap at the front, and his tail is cut off.--liquidGhoul 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Another weak oppose, a pity the background is so distracting, and the tail is cut off. BTW, it's probably motion unsharpness, not bad focus - see the moving leg. But, oh, how cute the Mona Lisa smile is! , oh, shucks, it's a male... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's motion blur, and it's not aparent at "typical" screen resolutions (e.g. 1280×1024), which is the resolution i'm now thinking i should have uploaded the image at. —Pengo 10:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Yes badly cropped, but nothing wrong with the background. I prefer to see animals in a nature environment instead of doctored images with backgrounds removed or changed. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 10:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• 

  

   Weak Oppose
    You know, I'm a little bitter about the entire 'not enough tail!' thing (one of my FPC got shot down for it) but this is a little much to me. It's very clear and in focus though. I like it.. just noticing the tail makes it feel so unbalanced.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 13:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Drumguy, we'll have to differ on the focus. On my 1024 by 768 screen (which gives perfect focus on other pics) it's definitely not in focus. Yes, the focus is reasonable but not FPC quality. Isn't it fascinating how different eyes see things differently! - Adrian Pingstone 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, I had another look and Janke is right, it is motion blur, not out of focus. Regardless, it just isn't sharp enough to be featured, I think. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose - I guess I find that it is out of focus too, but damn is that thing really cuuute! --Cyde Weys 18:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mainly for the cropping of the tail. Unfortunate as I don't find anything else about the image a problem. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think the rest of the pic makes up for the cut off tail -Ravedave 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Motion blur and missing tail bother me, but I'm not sure it's enough to put a kibosh on the pic as a whole. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose can't forgive the amputated tail feathers. chowells 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Distracting background. SteveHopson 05:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose A beautiful duck and a good picture. Pity the tail got cut off! Kessa Ligerro 10:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice bird, but I don't like the background: it's a brown bird on a brown background. bogdan 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - could be so much better. Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page. Thanks! 00:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Slightly out of focus, still a nice pic --vineeth 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Tail cut off, focus pretty average. --Fir0002 www 09:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Would prefer it sharper, with the tip of the tail on, but I still think it is striking and FP worthy. –Joke 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I love it. ^KILO-_LIMA 21:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral We have to remember, just because the duck looks so cool doesn't mean its FP quality. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think you could capture that subject much better. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Isn't this supposed about clicking into an encyclopedia article because the picture looks interesting? I'm not trying to frame it and put it on my wall, but the picture makes me want to learn about Mandarin Ducks. That's the point. The picture is awesome. ^tara
• Comment Personally, I much rather this image. It has a good background, and the ducks are framed well. It has the same focus/motion blur (whichever it is) problems, but doesn't have the other problems. --liquidGhoul 02:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice! Alvinrune ^TALK 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Han foreign relations 2 CE

It's not a particularly striking or scenic image, which isn't this image's value; rather, this lists all the major cities, including the ones in Central Asia, and all military possessions, a very expansive and extensive map; and it's detail is its value here that I think should be a role model for all other maps to look up to. It is topographical, and shows trade routes, and hints at the Silk Road. It is therefore of high value to the Han Dynasty (and good for the Xiongnu article to give a bigger picture). This could probably be built on by including the contact with the Ancient Greeks, Macedonians, etc. beyond the Ta-Yuan (which is spelt Dayuan in the image and is to the very western edge of the map), but this is sufficient for featured picture, methinks. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sourcing is weird- it covers relatively trivial matters such as geographical features, but not the main business of the respective settlements and their statuses. Mark^{your words} 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting map, but too plain to be FP worthy in my opinion. Also, there are a few little problems. The scale in the lower right shows 500 mi where it should be 400 mi. Some words are a little difficult to read, like Wu or Panyu on the coast. Green and yellow dots are not so easy to distinguish. Finally, I am not sure I understand the meaning of the text about the eastern coastline. --Bernard Helmstetter 21:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, Neutral. A couple more remarks. NJ-MAN should probably appear in the abbreviation list. And I don't understand if words in capital letters are meant to indicate people, cities or regions. Some of these, but not all, seem to be associated with dots, so it is confusing. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The NJ-MAN thing has been fixed up. The small capital letters are meant to indicate peoples, as is shown in the key on the left. I can see how it may be confusing in the western regions, where some peoples overlap with tributary states. In that area sometimes one people are divided into two tributary states. There are also some peoples who did not recognise the authority of the Han empire. I tend to think that it shouldn't be so confusing for someone with some familiarity with Han history. Yeu Ninje 12:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like a lot about the map, but it has issues. For one, I don't think it really does a good job of fully illustrating Han's foreign relations of the period. Perhaps someone can address the concerns and upload an updated version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good changes. The format should be PNG (as noted by Renata) and the white lines (communication and transport routes, see image description page) should be made explicit in the legend, but I'm voting support because I'm betting that Yeu Ninje will promptly address those issues. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, I would really like to see a higher resolution version if that is possible, some of the dots are hard to see. I really appreciate the extent of the documentation though.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm the original creator of this map. I've uploaded a new version, cleared up some of the errors (like the "500 mi" thing), and attempted to clear up some of the ambiguities (like how the capitalised names are the names of non-Chinese peoples, not geographical features). I've also taken up Dante's point, and renamed the map to "Han Civilisation". The shaded areas are supposed to show the extent of Han civilisation (as evidenced by the presence of Han culture, direct Han political authority, urbanisation etc.); the orange dependent states in Central Asia were subject to indirect Han political influence. Whilst this map may not make it to featured picture status, your comments are still helpful - keep them coming. Yeu Ninje 02:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you give sources for the extent of Han settlement, and for the the status of the settlements? Mark^{your words} 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added a note to the image which hopefully explains the source: "The shaded areas show the extent of Han civilisation. I've based this on the existence of settlements under direct Han political authority or military control, according to Tan Qixiang (ed.), Zhongguo lishi ditu (中国历史地图集; 1982)." Yeu Ninje 01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Text is small and difficult to read. Many of the letters are broken. Also, the white line is not explained in the legend. I assume these are trade routes, but a reader might not know that. --dm ^(talk) 05:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The key is now more detailed, and explains the white lines. The text, whilst small, should be quite legible once you expand the map to full resolution. Yeu Ninje 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - it should be png and not jpg. If the format will change, please remove my vote. It's a very good map indeed! Renata 19:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed the format to png and moved the map to Image:Han Civilisation.png. Yeu Ninje 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yeu Ninje 04:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• oppose I agree fully w/ the nominator's reasons for nominating this, but the dark brown color used to depict landmass is much too dark, making the black lettering difficult to read.--Jiang 08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Whoever did this map is awesome. I've seen variants of it used on other China articles as well. I'm not a big fan of this particular map (I'd prefer the Three Kingdoms one instead), but if this is the one that gets nominated, it has my support. Palm_Dogg 15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. High quality, very informative and detailed. --Pkchan 14:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Han Civilisation.png (+5/-2/2). Neutral concerns well addressed ~ Veledan • Talk 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bearded Dragon

Simply oozes with primeval majesty. Adds significantly to the article as is the only pic taken in the wild.
Alternative versions: Image:Bearded dragon02.jpg, Image:Bearded dragon05.jpg

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 22:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm surprised this picture was put up as an FPC (and the other versions) because the back of the animal is very blurred. Yes, I know getting the Depth of Field is hard but we're judging the final photo and can take no account of the difficulties in taking it. Just as a piece of self-promotion have a look at "Adult Bearded Dragon" at the bottom of Bearded Dragon where I've got the whole animal in reasonable focus (but don't put it up for FPC, it's not good enough focus for that) - Adrian Pingstone 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I really don't mind it the depth of field issue Adrian sees. The focus was obviously intended to be on the head in the first place. Circeus 23:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the composition and detail on the head, but I would've liked more of the lizard to be in focus. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:33
• Support Excellent photo, I like how the focus was done. -Jake0geek 07:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, nice photo but depth of field is just too small. I like to see all the scales, or at least some down its back. There's no reason to have such a shallow depth of field when it (appears to be) in full sunlight, and it's a lizard (they don't move that much). Pengo 07:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That is an Eastern Bearded Dragon, and you have even identified it as that with the binomial name. The article you placed it in, is for the Central Bearded Dragon (the article should be renamed). I have been meaning to create the Eastern Bearded Dragon article, as I have a pretty good photo from the wild as well. Just out of interest, I think that guy is a juvenile (maybe it should be included in the caption). --liquidGhoul 08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Image:Bearded_dragon05.jpg. Shows much more of the lizard in focus. --liquidGhoul 08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry but a picture shouldn't become featured just because the "head" looks goods while the rest is blurry. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Um that doesn't really make sense. It's head is the subject, why is that a problem? And I'm not saying it's gotta become an FP just because it has a head in focus body out of focus composition - I'm not even promoting that aspect. All I'm saying is that the DOF draws the attention to the most interesting part of the animal (it's head and claws) without the need of close cropping. I think it's pretty effect. But that just my opinion. --Fir0002 www 09:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fir, I very much admire your photography skills but in this case the very first thing I noticed was the blurry back-end, and from then on my pleasure in looking at the rest of the photo was spoiled. So that's why I opposed - Adrian Pingstone 10:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. You seem to run into a lot of photo opportinities. I like the composition of this one and the natural surroundings. DOF is a bit much though even for a purely asthetic image, and a lot too much for an encyclopedic one. --Dschwen 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Like liquidGhoul I prefer Image:Bearded dragon05.jpg where the DOF is much less jarring. I think an encyclopedic pic though should try to get the whole subject in focus even though I appreciate you have valid aesthetic reasons for the effect. Yes it's better than cropping but if you are saying that the lizard's head is the only subject of the photo then the pixel count is just too low. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Would be a nice image if it weren't for the fact that half the image is blurred and the background is extremely distracting to look at. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't mind the fact that the tail is blurred – in fact, I think that could even look good – but the depth of field is just too shallow in this image. Even the neck is out of focus. –Joke 20:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Good. ^KILO-_LIMA 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - DOF too shallow. --Janke | Talk 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nobody has mentioned that it is extremely contrasty to the point where half the lizard is overexposed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. DoF is just too shallow, sorry. The "05" image isn't as bad though... I might support that one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I like the desaturation in this one, but the depth of field is marginally on the shallow side. 02 is better in that respect. Ideally just in between the two... - Samsara _contrib ^talk 02:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This animal looks so much healthier than any of the others in the article that I must support. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be in that article, look at Fir's identification (which is correct), and the taxobox. --liquidGhoul 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You could be bold and remove it then. I dare you. ;) Fir0002? What do you say? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is still a Bearded Dargon, so that is the best home for it. So I say leave it were it is! Anyway, couldn't we add the "barbata" to the species list? --Fir0002 www 11:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My image above is a soldier crab, do you think it should go in the Soldier crab article? Secondly, I don't quite understand what you mean by add it to the species list, but you could add it to the Pogona article, and I have found that Pogona barbata is already an article. You could clean it up some and add it to there. --liquidGhoul 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would rather be bold and create an article for the Eastern Bearded Dragon, but I have to wait until I can get access to my Australian reptiles book. --liquidGhoul 23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support With any more DOF the image would be less attractive, and the background would be busy and distracting. --Gmaxwell 22:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Half of the image is blurry and the image, overall, is not up to the standard. Alvinrune ^TALK 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Round Hay Bale at dawn

Original version

Round Hay Bale at dawn; Swifts Creek, Victoria; version 2

I know I've already unsuccessfully tried to feature a hay bale photo, but to me a round hay bale is so iconic of farming and the country (particularly in Australia) that I feel such a photo is worthy of FP status.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the image a bit. Feel free to revert. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:32

• Support, despite the lines in the sky, which I'm sure other people will pick up on. I'd rather see them removed, it would be a pity to have this otherwise beautifal image rejected on such an issue.(Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page. Thanks! 00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC))
  • I think the lines are from your monitor. Try degaussing your monitor and see if those lines move. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:27

• Support. Difficult topic to illustrate, but I think this does it well. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:27
• Considerably better than the last two hay bale nominations. Good composition. The colors - the fields, the sky, are still pretty underwhelming to me. Weak oppose. Maybe take the photo in a different season, when the fields in the background aren't all brown? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've auto-leveled the image to help with the colors. Make sure to CTRL+F5 to get the new version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 01:07
    • My, you're bold... ;-) I think you should have uploaded your edit as "version 2", not overwrite Fir's image. Even though it is compliant with GDFL, in the case of FPCs I think originals should not be overwritten... --Janke | Talk 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't really overwriting Fir's. It's just simpler than uploading multiple versions to separate files. I've noticed that when some of the modified versions become featured, the original version remains the one used in the actual article, while the modified version is orphaned. It would be better if people checked the individual histories of each image for their favorite version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 13:52
        • Well, according to the file history you uploaded a new version with the same file name. Sure, Fir's original is there in the history, but how many who look at this page would go and check that? Usually, new versions are uploaded and displayed as variations here, so voters can compare them - see the Water drop, British Museum, Ajanta Painting and Cental station further below. --Janke | Talk 14:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, I know that very well. My point was that sometimes people forget to put the featured version into articles, leaving the original, unfeatured version in the articles, and leaving the featured version orphaned. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 15:45
            • Isn't that the job of the person who administers the FPC page and removes the entries from the page when they have approved/rejected? If that isn't being done, then that process should presumably be addressed. It doesn't mean you make changes to the original before the change is supported here.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
              • It's not like I'm saying my version should be the only choice. It would be easier to automate the process if all the versions were uploaded to the same file, and voters picked their favorite edit (this would only be done for changes to an original image). Then the featured choice could simply be made the only version of the image, and there is no need to change links in articles. I don't know who is supposed to be doing that, but I've seen it happen in the past where the featured picture is orphaned. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 17:00
                • But you haven't really given viewers the chance to see both simultaneously and decide for themselves. I've seen that happen before too, but I don't really think that updating an existing image before it is approved is the answer, as I've mentioned previously. Maybe this should be taken to the talk page. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Bah edit conflict with Diliff. Brian0918, please don't overwrite pics like this. I appreciate you had reasons and it wasn't done thoughtlessly but that just isn't the way we currently do things and people will not be expecting it. Such a change in practice needs to be discussed first ~ Veledan • Talk 18:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • I've been doing this for quite a while now. If the change was very significant, and not necessarily better, then I would probably upload it to a separate file, but for generally good changes, I'll just overwrite the original. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 20:44
                    • I've been doing this for quite a while now. - As you can see, we don't all approve of that. In the future, please upload your edits of FPCs as new files, so we can see the changes and vote on them. Not everyone may agree that your edit is better. If the new version is good, it will be chosen over the original, but we need to compare. --Janke | Talk 22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Personally I'd have liked to have had an alternative version rather than an overwrite, as I'm not sure of the background blurring and I prefer the warm glow of dawn. But I'll leave that side you guys to decide. --Fir0002 www 00:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • I agree. I'm neutral towards the colour balance difference but I really dislike the background blurring that he has applied. It doesn't look particularly photographic and natural and even before I had read what he had done, I noticed that the background appeared a little quirky. I support the original image by Fir0002 and oppose the edit. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                          • The background was blurred to help the hay stand out. If you look through Fir's pictures, you'll notice he does this a lot too. Someone might be able to do a better job of it, though. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 04:58
                            • I don't really agree with Fir0002's blurring either to be honest. This is opening up that old can of worms again but surely if you want a blurred background, you open the aperture more. I don't think the haystack needed to stand out any more than it already did, anyhow. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                              • Actually I don't blur the background unless I'm removing noise. I think the only photo I remember digitally blurring is the haystack photo Brian asked my to do to try make stand out more. Like the Bearded lizard is all just natural bokeh --Fir0002 www 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC
                                • Getting a bit crazy with the indentations here. I think Brian has to use a bit of restraint in photo manipulation. Blurring isn't necessary in this image at all. It stands out just fine. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 03:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
                        • I've undone the background blurring. It wasn't that great to begin with. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 05:04
                      • undone... wasn't that great to begin with. So, if I hadn't taken this up, it means that an inferior version would have been promoted... Now I hope you understand why we want the original untouched, and vote on the versions! Please abstain from this practice in the future, thanks! In fact, I feel so strongly that the original should always be visible here (and I think I have the support of Diliff, Veledan and Fir), that I've been bold myself, and added a comment in the voting instructions. NOTE: Discussion now taken to FPC talk page. If you have comments, please continue there. --Janke | Talk 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • No. I was waiting for Fir's opinion, not yours. I had planned on working on it some more, but just haven't gotten around to it. I don't see the need to have to upload multiple files to multiple locations when they are all visible from the same location. It just seems easier to have them all in one location to compare. The number of people who agree with you doesn't really matter if your rationale is not sound, so I would focus on that. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 13:35

• Support. I see the lines in the sky too. Maybe jpeg compression artifacts? Doesn't detract from an excellent photo. --dm ^(talk) 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they appear to be artifacts. The lines are less apparent in Fir's original image. (Another reason to keep the original visible... ;-)--Janke | Talk 08:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support this rotund haystack. (original)--Janke | Talk 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for now, though I do like the pic. My doubt stems from the fact that there is nothing to give an idea of scale. I don't know whether I'm looking at a bale that stands 3 feet or 12 feet high. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The bale is about 1.2 m (I'm not sure what that is in feet ;-) --Fir0002 www 00:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Whose feet? :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 00:46
      • About 4 feet then :-) OK I'll support especially if the size info can be added to the image text. ~ Veledan • Talk 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Joke 20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like the image and it's a good clear representation of a round hay bale.--Dakota ~ ° 00:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Another nice image by Fir0002. Alvinrune ^TALK 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Another amazing, cool, and unique image from Fir0002! Staxringold 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The original was more popular, so I have reverted Brian's edited version to the original. Raven4x4x 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Promoted Image:Round hay bale at dawn02.jpg Raven4x4x 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum Reading Room Panorama

I think that this image is really admirable. It depicts one of the finest interior spaces available to the public in Great Britain. The photographer has captured the air of quiet, intellectual contemplation of the environment really well and in excellent detail. The image can be found on the British Museum Reading Room page and was taken by Diliff.

• Nominate and support. -  (aeropagitica)  01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good stuff. Alr 02:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Stunning! Awesome detail, excellent technical details with artistic sense. SteveHopson 04:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Impressive. Nicely done. TomStar81 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Yayyy--Deglr6328 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Stunning, fantastic work. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - amazing image--Shanel 06:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Another awesome interior shot by the Wiki panorama master. --Janke | Talk 08:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The small size on the right really doesn't do it justice (it's not going to end up like that on the front page, if it gets there, is it?). Other than that, lovely shot. --Fipe 09:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it could ever be featured on the front page 500 pixels wide ;), but I adjusted the size and centred it for this page. Panoramas aren't really suited to the usual thumbnail size, and since this is the the FPC page, I don't see the problem with any FPC pics being around 400 px wide on the preview. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support great image! Calderwood 11:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Stunning. Neutrality^talk 17:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support superlative. –Joke 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Hey, I have been there! - Darwinek 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work. Agateller 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Detail is remarkable, of course, but it'd be nice to get the window at the top of the dome in the photo. Going by this picture, that would probably distort the side walls at the edges of the image. But, of course, this picture distorts the benches in the center. It's a tradeoff. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great. - Eagle^amn 07:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 09:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either Version. Uploaded a brighter version. --Fir0002 www 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My support is for the original only. IMO, the second version is definitely too light. --Janke | Talk 14:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree. Once again I think the original is more accurate. Why do people always feel the need to make things look 'brighter'? I can see the point when detail is indistinguishable, but this is clearly not the situation... :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, awesome! :D = Mailer Diablo 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Whoa! Nice picture there! Uncke Herb 13:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Candide, or Optimism 14:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've been there, and this looks much better than I could ever get such an image. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Original only, the brighter version is not an improvement. - Hahnchen 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. No need to brighten. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent, support the original only. The brightened version lessens the impact of the rotunda ceiling.--Dakota ~ ° 18:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Original image is better than "brightened" one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original. Very nice picture, gives you a good idea of what the place is like.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree, the original is a better picture.--Xiaphias 08:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - awesome! --Cyde Weys 04:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support brighter version. Awesome. Gracenotes ^T § 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely fantastic picture. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 13:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original Image A beauty. Alvinrune ^TALK 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The panoramic distortions give a slightly misleading impression of the shape of the room, but that's more than outweighed by the positive qualities of this picture. -- Solipsist 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Diliff took it. ;-) —Encephalon 11:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Bertilvidet 15:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Tone 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I only have one word for this: wow. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 01:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:British Museum Reading Room Panorama Feb 2006.jpg Raven4x4x 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Markham Suburbs

Very clear picture depicting typical suburbian residences across North America. Image by Duke

• Nominate and support. - sikander 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting picture for the topic. It might do well to be a bit bigger, but I think this size helps show the pattern better. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-25 04:15
• Neutral More stereotypical than illustrative or even typical. Circeus 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Interesting photo enlarged, but difficult to decipher in small format. SteveHopson 04:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Illustrates stereotypical suburbia very well. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Way too small. way depressing too.--Deglr6328 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Large enough! (Who could want this as a wall-size poster?) Striking - does a good job of illustrating a suburb crowded to absolute capacity, none of the other shots on the page do this. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe we could add it urban sprawl? Neutrality^talk 17:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - illustrates really well. Both suburbia and depression. Renata 19:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support – looks good. –Joke 21:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, we are all individuals -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Very good picture, but it's too dark - and the main reason for that, I think is the shadows from the houses. The rooftops are always going to be relatively dark, but the streets need to be brighter to stop this picture from being too gray and dark and boring. It'd be a better photo if it was taken closer to noon. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The moody lighting suits the subject, IMO. BTW: Have you checked your monitor with the little 4-circle test image on the top of the page? --Janke | Talk 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep - three circles. :) The colors just look a little dirty to me in some way... zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Interesting --Fir0002 www 09:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes! Support! - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support could be a little bit sharper, but quality is sufficient for support Calderwood 18:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Highly illustrative. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support does a great job of showing what the suburbs are.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No encyclopaedic value. Alvinrune ^TALK 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm.. I'm confused now. What encyclopaedic value do hay at dawn, goats in mountains, and this boxing picture have over this image of a typical suburban area? sikander 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's not just that. The image is dark (with shadows covering the streets) and gloomy. Also, the angle of the image seems, I don't know, kind of awkward. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A little confusing the the thumbnail, but perhaps that just makes it intriguing. Otherwise a good a clear aerial photo. Surely the Suburb article should have a non-aerial photo too. -- Solipsist 10:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, nice illustration of suburbs and the kind of conformity prevalent in them --Legalizeit 10:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very interesting and rare picture. Staxringold 20:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Markham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg Raven4x4x 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goats in mountains

I found this image when I went to read about goats. I like the image very much. Whenever I look at it, I desire to be one of those goats, running free in the mountains, free from stress and admins. I also find the background stunning, with the mist in the mountains. It seems that user Fir0002 created the photo -- and that dude created 37 featured photos! I think that a part on the left side of the photo could be removed, because there's something out there that can't be identified. Other than that, cool photo!

• Nominate and support. - Candide, or Optimism 14:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The mist and dark clouds give the photo a mystical, magical quality. While it doesn't appear that the photo strongly supports either article to which it is attached (do we really have 18 photos illustrating the Goat article?), its a picture I can support. SteveHopson 15:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. While the image is great, the article subjects (the goats) aren't prominent enough. Which mountains are these? If you added the image to the mountains' article, then I would probably support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 15:49

• Neutral. I like the scene and composition but the highlights are extremely overexposed. I've tried to burn them back a little to make the most of the detail that was left. I don't feel happy enough about it to support it completely, but I'll put it out there for you guys and if you prefer it, you have an alternative to the original, at least. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for your edit, but the goats are in fact pure white and therefore the original picture I feel is much more true to life. --Fir0002 www 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't change the colour of the goats at all. I just recovered some texture in the highlights. Even something that is white will look golden when the source of light (in this case, I assume dawn, but possibly sunset) is golden. You have used that regularly in your photos and complained when people have REMOVED that effect, so you can't have it both ways. In any case, as I said, I never added a colour that wasn't there. I just decreased the luminosity of the existing colour so you can see detail in the highlghts. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I guess the irony was lost on ya :-)

But seriously, the goats are white, and appeared white in the lighting conditions the photo was taken in. They do not have much detail, even with the human eye they just appear white. Burning them as you did makes them look dirty - much too yellow IMO. Anyway an edit is always good as it allows the photographer to learn from what others want out of a photo. --Fir0002 www 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, whatever irony was there was lost of me. :) Please explayne! You can see that areas of the goats that were not directly facing the sun (roughly perpendicular) had a golden/orange tint. I see your point, but do you not see the problem in having no discernable detail due to overexposure? I don't accept that the goats had little detail/texture, if they were correctly exposed, you would see it. Perhaps my edit did burn the highlights too much, but ideally they should not be overexposed in the first place. Ah well. :) For what its worth, its a difficult scene to photograph well, but the moral of the story is underexpose if necessary to preserve highlight detail. Do you shoot raw? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Continued on Diliff's talk page --Fir0002 www 11:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like the pic description to tell us where these mountains are - Adrian Pingstone 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message on the author's talkpage, asking for the same thing. --Candide, or Optimism 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is taken in the only mountain range of Victoria - the Great Dividing Range. More specifically near Swifts Creek, Victoria Australia. --Fir0002 www 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Pretty pic but not a significant contribution to any article. I'm afraid my oppose will still hold even if the mountain is identified (because it's not really the subject of the photo). ~ Veledan • Talk 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Incredibly dramatic photo, but would support more strongly if it fit better in an article. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, yes, yes! ^KILO-_LIMA 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Only Support if pic went on Mountain goat DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's nonsense. These are domestic goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), not mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus). - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A nice picture, but it does not illustrate Goat particularly well - IMO, none of the pics on that page are FP worthy. (Also, these are domestic, not mountain goats.) --Janke | Talk 07:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Janke 100%. This a photo in need of a better home. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support a good picture. I'm sure it can fit into other articles too, perhaps fog?--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I can't see it fitting into any article well. --liquidGhoul 10:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What is that square shaped object infront of the goat on the very far left? Maybe wood or something?--Ali K 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've never noticed that before! It looks more like an old crate or something --Fir0002 www 07:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, pretty but not particularily encyclopedic. --Dschwen 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support great pic, and those goats have a scary hypnotic look in their eyes. Robert Mercer 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Second Image Excellent angle! Nice background! In general, outstanding! Alvinrune ^TALK 23:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Love the mountains and mist, don't love the overexposed goats or tangential connections to the articles the pic illustrates. Mark^{your words} 17:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RedFort

Reasons... High resolution,one of the great landmarks of india The Delhi Fort is located in Delhi, India. It is also known as Lal Qil'ah and the Red Fort (not to be confused with the Agra Fort, which is referred to by these terms as well).For more visit the main article... Red Fort

• Nominate and support. - Svnitbharath 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've uploaded a 2nd version that is sharpened and auto-contrasted. I down-sized it a bit to help with sharpening. Support either. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 18:09
• Comment. I accept your suggestion... I have replaced the file with your slightly modified one Svnitbharath
• Oppose - I'm sorry, but the sky is very annoying, it's not very straight and the brick wall is distracting. ^KILO-_LIMA 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Something about the angle is bothering me... I feel as if I'm missing something behind the grass. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Kilo-Lima. Alr 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Would love this a be a FP, but the angle is distracting. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Composition could be much better. --Janke | Talk 10:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• support - This is one of the best pictures of the red fort. Its high time we support an indian heritage pic for FP. By the way, the brick wall is part of the red fort. I completely support this pic. Harshavs 17:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Given your comments, is there a reason that you haven't voted here? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ack Janke Calderwood 14:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose "Composition could be much better" —Janke. Could use slight rotating. Alvinrune ^TALK 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg

Well, great minds think alike, and so here is another great gastropod image. It appears in Pulmonata. Photographer is one Jürgen Schoner, uploaded to Commons as GNU-FDL by User ML.

• Nominate and support. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. The detail is nice, but I don't like the artificial background. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-28 17:54
• Weak Oppose. Yes, the background.--K.C. Tang 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like the background zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the background too, a pure white background is the most acceptable artificial background in my book. I will ask the contributor if he/she has a larger image, as that would be really good. --liquidGhoul 09:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got no problem with the background, but you ask for a larger image when it's already 1024x604? I really don't get why people always want bigger and bigger images. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• What is wrong with asking for a larger image? There is no harm in it, and it could improve the image's quality. I didn't oppose the image, so what is your problem? --liquidGhoul 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• I simply don't see why we should ask for something with a higher resolution when it's already top-notch resolution. Higher resolution doesn't equal higher quality. You may not have personally opposed it, but it fosters the idea that massive resolutions are better when most people can't even fit such an image on one computer screen. Besides, if they had one, wouldn't you think they would've posted the larger one instead? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• LiquidGhoul has now explained he was hoping for a better detailed shell. So contrary to what I believed, he had a perfectly valid reason for asking. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Within reasonable limits (file size, the lens' ability to resolve detail and number of sensor pixels), there is never a good reason to upload a lower quality/resolution image. I sometimes downsample my images by about 50% in order to aid in the perception of sharpness, as long as there is no significant loss of detail in doing so, but as a rule, I try to keep them as high resolution as is possible. Assuming the image is captured with anything higher than a 3 megapixel camera with decent quality optics, there is no excuse for an image less than 1000 pixels on the longest dimension. To reduce it further than that is to waste the potential of the image. I think he had a valid reason for asking as it originally stood since it logically follows that higher resolution image will resolve more detail! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - No problems here, in my case. Hillhead15 09:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, prefer animals photographed in their habitat, shadow on the right distracts and composition isn't feature worthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose due to the artificial looking background. --Janke | Talk 17:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't mind the background. It is artificial, but also plain enough for me. –Joke 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I'd like a larger version as well (close-ups of the shell would be cool!), but this is certainly "large enough". Background is great. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support A bit low res tho --Fir0002 www 05:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Another version provided, where the colours are a bit better defined I think. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 14:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 05:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Support the 2_nd image since the background on the first one is too distracting. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original. To me, the pure white background is distracting and fake looking.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe because it is fake. I cut the snail out because some people complained they did not like the grey and the lines in the background. It's white because I cut it out of the background and put it on a pure white layer. I also enhanced the colours slightly, as you would notice if you opened the image in full view. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I certainly know that it is fake, my problem with it is that it looks fake, or overtly unnatural. I normally would support such a change, however the snail does not cast much shadow itself, so I feel as thought the gray in the background it nessesary in order to maintain a sence of reality. I certainly noticed the color change and think that it is much better, though the loss of the background is too distracting for me.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I uploaded a transparent version of the image (Image:Grapevine_Snail.gif) Alvinrune ^TALK 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support (original). Size is fine, background is more or less fine and its a good illustration. On the Helix (genus) page we have Image:Common snail.jpg which is featured on Commons and is quite similar with a natural background. Its mainly the rather flat lighting that weakens my support here. -- Solipsist 09:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice image, prefer 2nd picture. Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 20:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly because it's not striking enough, also because of the artificial background.--ragesoss 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg Votes are very evenly split between the original and the blanked background version. If there is no partictular perference between the original and an edit I promote the original. Raven4x4x 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black slug

What I like about this picture is how the moistness of the slug is captured by the reflection of the sky on its surface, which also defines its texture. Secondly, the fact that the Pneumostome (breathing hole) is visible is also a plus as it piques the interest of the viewer to find out about what this curious structure is for.

• Shameless self-nomination and support. - Obli (Talk)^? 17:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support! Excellent image and high detail. It could probably use some sharpening, but that wouldn't be hard with such a large image. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-28 17:22
• Comment I agree the slug is resplendent & glorious (yuk!). But can you do anything about the blurred concrete background? ~ Veledan • Talk 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is about as much blur as I could remove, anyone else is free to replace it with their own try. I personally sort of like the blur, though Obli (Talk)^? 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original latest version--K.C. Tang 01:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

... so your vote will change with every new edit? ;-) Please specify... --Janke | Talk 07:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support either version, prefer second. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I would support a cropped version, top and bottom of somewhat distracting background removed. Anyone care to do it, or shall I? --Janke | Talk 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have, but I don't know which parts you consider distracting. - JPM | 21:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support the less blurred version, or a cropped version of it. - JPM | 21:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I've added a simple top-and-bottom crop. I find the blurring less distracting but I'm not sure it's improved the composition. Oh and please add it to an article. Neither slug nor pneumostome has too many pics: it could go in either or both ~ Veledan • Talk 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• What the hell, Support crop ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's going to be a crop, I'd be more comfortable with tilting it, the aspect ration is retained better that way, avoiding a panorama look (it's a slug, not a sunset, dammit :)). Obli (Talk)^? 22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel very apologetic for changing my vote like this, but the more I think about it the less I like the manmade background. It's a superb picture of a slug but please get one of it slithering up a wet cabbage! ~ Veledan • Talk 01:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a manmade background. It's a rock. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-4 20:53
• Support cropped version, oppose tilted - the crop is more encyclopedic, we don't really need all that background. The slug is the focus, and in focus, too. The tilted version loses the slime!! --Janke | Talk 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Uninteresting except at huge size. Ugly background. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the background? It's a rock. Slugs like rocks. They don't get around too well elsewhere. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-2 21:43

• Oppose only the tilted version as per Janke. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ugly background. –Joke 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the background? It's a rock. Slugs like rocks. They don't get around too well elsewhere. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-2 21:43
  • I don't see what you expect from the background either. You're not going to find a slug on glass table, unless someone puts it there. And I doubt anyone really wants to touch that thing. - JPM | 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not a rock, it is a road. It is gravel in bitumen, which when I last looked, is not a natural habitat for many animals. Also, these slugs are omnivorous, so you would expect their natural habitat to be in foliage of some plant or on/in a dead animal (although most of you seem repulsed just by the slug so I can't imagine if it was surrounded in dead flesh). --liquidGhoul 12:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm going to wait for the photographer's word before we decide if this is a natural rock or not. Conglomerate rock looks a lot like it's artificial, but it's not. Also, notice the background in this picture includes moss - not something you'd really expect to see growing on a road. -- 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It is asphalt, although as the mud, roughness of it and the moss suggests, it is very old and part of a forest running track. One could argue that it is a natural habitat because it is very moist, slugs like that... --Obli (Talk)^? 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Funny you should mention that, I was actually going to suggest that it was possibly artificial, like a pathway or something. But the moss on it is pretty damn good evidence that it's not a road. And frankly, what with the humanization of this world, a running trail in the woods almost is a natural habitat these days. -- 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion until now. The background looked like old asphalt to me, like an old, worn road or something. Slugs are common enough subjects, so I think if you're going to have a featured picture of a slug, it ought to be really compelling. This one is good, but I just don't like it enough for FP. –Joke 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great shot, DOF is spot on. The background is not problematic (it's natural). As for crops or tilting... I'm still undecided. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. What's wrong with the background? It doesn't look good, it distracts from the slug itself (particularly at the size one views it in an article, when the shinyness of the slug isn't as apparent), and it's, well, ugly. It's natural, sure. But one could find, say, an even-colored rock. Or something. You're taking a picture from straight above of a very flat animal, removing any sense of depth (except at unwieldy sizes) - it looks like just a streak of black paint on a rock that looks like it's been vomited on. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, whether one could find an even-colored rock is irrelevant, the slug was on THIS rock. Second of all, the image is NOT taken straight from above as even a cursory examination of the image would indicate. Lastly, if you looked at the full size image, there's no WAY it could be mistaken for "a streak of black paint". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I absolutely agree with you! It's not taken from exactly above, but there's a reason someone did a tilted crop - it has so little depth. The slug was on THAT rock, but that's just something one has to deal with. The circumstances of the photo shouldn't affect our judgement on the final product, I have learned from looking at FPCs for a little while. And at full size, the slug doesn't look nearly as bland as a streak of paint - but the slug isn't shown in the article at full size! At any reasonable size, it's a boring image. In my opinion. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • IIRC, images are intended to be evaluated at full size, not thumbnail sized. Anyone know for certain? Also, the stated reason that the tilted crop was created was an attempt to preserve as much of the original aspect ratio as possible during a crop. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Slugtastic - one of the best pictures of slugs I've ever seen. PZ Myers would be proud. And I'm ashamed there's so much anti-slug bias on display here :-O At least give him credit for getting close enough to take this picture. Eeek. --Cyde Weys 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Luckily, they don't have fangs :) --Obli (Talk)^? 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't get it, what is wrong with slugs? They can't hurt, and I would rather pick up a slug than an Fierce Snake any day. A little bit of slime is good for anyone :) --liquidGhoul 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • People seem to "freak out" when confronted with animals that don't have bones (insects, slugs/worms, etc.) for some reason. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to clarify that slugtastic means support, in case anyone wasn't aware of that particular slugnacular. --Cyde Weys 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Alvinrune ^TALK 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You must supply a reason for opposition. --liquidGhoul 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fine! ↓ Alvinrune ^TALK
    • Oppose Bad background—almost fake-like. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ugly tarmac background. chowells 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orb Weaver Spider at night

Captures the Orb Weaver when it is active - at night. Alternative versions: Image:Orb weaver black bckgrnd02.jpg, Image:Orb weaver white bckgrnd.jpg, Image:Orb weaver white bckgrnd02.jpg

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 06:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice image. --vineeth 07:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Meets all requirements. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version. I cropped away the left portion of the web, which is unsharp, and not typically spiral shaped. --Janke | Talk 09:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Warning: may cause acute outbreak of arachnophobia. ;-)
• Neutral I hate using this phrase, so I won't oppose it, but I don't find it stunning. --liquidGhoul 10:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version. White backgrounds dull the color of the spider down, so I prefer the dark background. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version, the uncropped looks more like a wallpaper while the cropped focuses more on the object of the picture, which is more suitable for an encyclopedia. Obli (Talk)^? 11:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-28 17:19
• Comment I've uploaded another crop version from the original photo. Note this is a 1:1 crop so be kind on the image quality :-) --Fir0002 www 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Any version. I actually liked the first uploaded image as it shows a good, visual scale between the web and the spider. Hillhead15 09:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That is not the full size of the web by any means. --liquidGhoul 11:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Second cropped version. Clear rather chilling image.--Dakota ~ ° 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support the second crop. Mstroeck 23:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Any version (the three on the side, not the "alternate" ones, which I oppose). The first is more "artsy", the other two... arguably more encyclopedic. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, especially if it's the third image. Nice upload! -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Third Image Nice image! Alvinrune ^TALK 23:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support first and third. —Encephalon 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice to see a subject being revisited and improved upon. -- Solipsist 10:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Orb weaver black bckgrnd03 crop.jpg Raven4x4x 08:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrots of many colours

Very vivid and colourful image, extremely hi-res and of good quality, it's aesthetically pleasing and does a good job on demonstrating how varied the species has become through breeding.

• Nominate and support. - Obli (Talk)^? 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Pretty cool. I like the white background, very informative.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support very nice. chowells 02:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support extremely nice photo. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sort of creepy-looking, but I like it a lot. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - uploaded an edit - I'm supporting that version, the original has a mucky yellowish background. New version looks cleaner to me. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Love it! DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support the second version. Nice sharp image.--Dakota ~ ° 09:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support 2nd version. Also, you might like to add it to the Artificial selection article. --liquidGhoul 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support original - the roots lost detail in the edit. --Janke | Talk 10:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. I fail to see why an edit was needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The image page says: "ARS researchers have selectively bred carrots with pigments that reflect almost all colors of the rainbow". So it does not seem to be different species, like the nomination says. --Bernard Helmstetter 11:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please re-read the nomination: how varied the species has become - not different species... --Janke | Talk 13:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• You are right. Still, I think this image is deceiving. It seems it is really the same exact species fed with different pigments. It is a bit of a silly experiment. This image is not a good ilustration of carrot and it should not even appear in artificial selection. --Bernard Helmstetter 13:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Again, I think you're reading something that is not there: The researchers have bred carrots containing pigments, not fed them the pigments. You don't need to feed red pigment to a beetroot... --Janke | Talk 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps; but then again, the image explanations are unclear. How did the carrots come to contain different pigments? We should have better explanations of the protocol on the image page. I am no expert in the field at all, just trying to understand. --Bernard Helmstetter 14:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think you need to take that issue up on the discussion page of the article, not in voting for the image itself. Your arguments for opposing are invalid. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I don't understand this. Significance of the inclusion in articles is a criterion for voting. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think I did misunderstand the description and that it is probably a genuine case of artificial selection. I am still opposing because I believe a photo about a scientific experiment should be described better. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to explain this. Pigments, while usually something we think of as being in paints, also are naturally occuring in plants. For example most land plants have Anthocyanin, a pigment that absorbs green light (reflecting red and blue light) and give many flowers, fruits and autumn leaves their colour. Tomatoes naturally have the red pigment Lycopene, and carrots are best known for their carotenoids, which are also naturally occuring without the introduction of any artifical pigment. I don't know if it's the levels of different carotenoids, or changes in pH, or a range of completely different pigments that are making these carrots change colour, but it's something that is naturally occuring within the carrot, in different varieties of the one species. You can read more about biological pigements at the pigment article. And AFAIK, it's not an experiment, it's something farmers have been doing since long before we understood the chemical structure of pigments. Thank you. — Pengo 03:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support I havent seen a really eyecatching picture in a while, but this is it!--Ali K 12:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support both images. --Terence Ong 13:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support original as the edit has issues (compare the grey areas between the leaves at the bottom of the photo). This is a fine detailed pic and makes a good contribution to carrot and Artificial selection as well as being eye catching ~ Veledan • Talk 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting. Alr 15:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support either. --Neutrality^talk 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow, great image! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support –Joke 16:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Either version... minor preference for second one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose These carrots don't excite me. Very little detail on individual carrots. —Pengo 03:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent, artistic photograph. Almost too good for an encyclopedia, but very worthy of being a Wiki Featured Photo. SteveHopson 06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Well done, it looks great. I want to be a rabbit. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 14:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Nice idea and image! Alvinrune ^TALK 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Thought I was going to oppose for looking overly staged (as some ARS pictures are), but actually its rather impressive. Perhaps illustrates Artificial selection better than carrot. -- Solipsist 10:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Tone 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Cool idea. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Either image, interesting shot. -- Calibas 07:12, 12 March 2006
• Support idd nice shot poppe 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a gorgeous and informative photograph; if there are objections about the text accompanying it, that is a different matter from the photo per se. Masonbarge 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This comment appears to have been made by Fongs. Please sign any votes or comments you make by typing ~~~~ (four tildes, above the hash # key next to enter on an English keyboard) after your comment, and try to use good spelling and grammar - it really makes a difference. You can change how your username is displayed in Preferences, at the top right of the page. Note: User has been registered since 2005/10/11 07:59:20, has 198 edits on 59 pages and appears to have manually signed with his rl name instead of username. You can change how your username is displayed in Preferences, at the top right of the page. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Carrots of many colors.jpg Raven4x4x 08:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heteropteryx dilatata

Image taken by neighbour, who agreed at the time that all rights be released to me or any purpose or licence I see fit. Subject is my pet, and the colouration has not been modified. Image featured in Phasmatodea, and is high-resolution (1232x824px).

• Nominate and support. - Ian13/talk 20:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  Oppose, Ian13/talk 22:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry this isn't good enough for FP. The depth of focus is too narrow and less than half of the subject is visible. ~ Veledan • Talk 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  Note:Only the ends of the hind legs and the back of the wings/body are missing. Ian13/talk 21:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't the missing part longer than the visible part? Apologies if not. Even so, I'm afraid animal pics fail to get promoted for far lesser portions missing. And there are several other pics on that page which give a better impression of these insects as a whole IMO. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  No, more is visible than not, no problem. Thanks! Ian13/talk 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Camera newbie here ... how exactly would you get a wider field of focus? Different lens? What would be different about that lens? --Cyde Weys 04:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Not much chance of this pic being Featured, I'm afraid, too much of the pic is out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 21:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose same as above--K.C. Tang 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Great value artistically, and no doubt a great portrait of your pet (should there be an article on pet portraiture?). This kind of picture is usually more successful on Commons, where accurate and complete depiction is less of an objective, and artistic value enters into consideration. Oppose. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Veledan, and disagree with the above comment: artistic value ought to be considered here, too. –Joke 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Incomplete animal (How are we to know what the tail end looks like?) and too shallow DOF. Interesting critter though! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support an awesome photo, and you even have the species name. Not really missing much with the focus as is, and if it were any wider angle you'd lose the detail of its head. —Pengo 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lack of sharpness and brightness --Fir0002 www 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Four of the five visible legs are blurred, though the resolution is of respectable size. Alvinrune ^TALK 03:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good pic, is interesting image- not an everyday sight Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police cruiser

A very nice shot of an NYPD police cruiser. This photo is used in several articles, among them police cruiser and light bar.

• Nominate and support - TomStar81 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a cropped, rotated, sharpened version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-1 02:45

• Oppose I like the effect of the light, but the background is too distracting. --liquidGhoul 08:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like the background, actually; becuase trying to capture the car in a non-busy street in New York City is one very hard thing to do. Hillhead15 09:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not used by any article. --vineeth 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The uncropped version is in many articles, and if the cropped version were promoted it would replace the old image in all the articles. --liquidGhoul 12:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's used in several articles.... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-1 15:36
  • Sorry, i saw only the cropped image. Still Oppose, ack Janke. --vineeth 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Opposenot really featured picture calibre.--K.C. Tang 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with above. Alr 15:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, because I agree that it's not quite striking enough. I think the cropped one is better, I wouldn't mind if somebody replaced the old image with that one. Mstroeck 15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Mundane, not FP material. --Janke | Talk 17:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why exactly do you consider it mundane? TomStar81 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because there's nothing special about this image. It's a police car on the street, no more. It is not even in motion. The flash of the light is the only interesting spot in the image. --Janke | Talk 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. That hurts. A beautiful NYPD cruiser destine never to be featured simply because its not involved in a high speed chase. I guess it was to be expected though: one must have a love of form to see past such things. TomStar81 09:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it personally! It's not about the car, it's the general look of the image (not "stunning" enough), an opinion that appears to be shared by most voters. With a better background (perhaps blurred because the camera is following a moving car) and a little more dramatic lighting, I'm sure a NYPD cruiser could befeatured! (BTW, we're all spoiled by TV, aren't we? ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this more what you had in mind, Janke? And I'm neutral, before anybody asks. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Access denied to site. --Janke | Talk 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, second try. Check this. Remember to click the Zoom In button under the image. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No thanks - totally artificial looking. --Janke | Talk 11:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Janke here. Did you really think that would be more appropriate? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, blimey. That was a joke. I wasn't seriously suggesting that that become a featured pic, I was just picking up on Janke's comments on how we are all led to believe that a picture of a NYPD car should be in an exciting car chase with lights flashing and sparks flying. This place is so dull sometimes. Lighten up! —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deadpan humor doesn't work in text format. A simple ;-) would have helped... --Janke | Talk 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes we are. TV has a way of raising the bar, and my guess is that effect is going to be felt here. Its really to bad; this kind of image could easily be used in any number of police car books. I should know. I own several ;) TomStar81 09:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Opppose. I have to admit, I don't find that car very attractive, though. The bonnet/hood is unnecessarily oversized and disproportionate (although this is merely aesthetics, anyhow) and it isn't very stylish. It has the look of a late 1980s/early 1990s car. I'm not saying Australian police cars are the epitome of style but I do think they're a little more attractive ([3] or [4]) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reason to prefer this image of an NYPD police cruiser over any other. –Joke 16:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's nothing special about this image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As above --Fir0002 www 05:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Background is simply too distracting. Cropped version is significantly better, but not featured picture quality, due to the overly busy background. --Red Penguin 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Third image is much, much closer to featured picture quality, but I'm still concerned about the background, which is still mildly distracting. --Red Penguin 07:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Third Image I streched the color of the second image. Now it seems as though the image was taken in the evening. The prior images look as if it were taken on a cloudy day. Alvinrune ^TALK 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing against the photographer, but NYPD cruisers have never been more lame. There are plenty of other, nicer types of cruisers (for instance, most states have highway patrol pursuit cruisers made from Camaros and Mustangs) that would make for a better featured pic. In my book, a photo of an ugly woman is ugly no matter how well it's done. Kafziel 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

An ugly woman is still a woman, and if you take note of the title I have simply labeled the entry "police cruiser", not "NYPD cruiser", not "special patrol vehical", just "police cruiser". While Camaros and Mustangs would arguably make better FPs, they represent a small faction of the police force; most police vehicals are caprices and tuareses. This picture is ment to represent these standard cars. TomStar81 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it is a good standard photo of a standard car. I'm not listing it for deletion or anything, I'm just saying the subject matter is very run of the mill. It's not something I'd say, "Wow, that's awesome," which is pretty much what I expect from a featured photo. Why feature something completely standard? Kafziel 04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - not striking I'm afraid, at least not for me. |→ Spaully°τ 10:25, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
• Support this one. I think it's a beautiful photograph. Judge the photo, people, not they style of the car. Anyway, think those 'stralian cars are lame anyways. ;-) —Encephalon 11:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raspberries

Looks delicious, and everything is the subject (by that I mean there is no b/g because the b/g is the subject as well!)
Alternative Versions: Image:Raspberries02.jpg, Image:Raspberries03.jpg

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 21:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I almost didn't because some of the subject is cut off. :P -Ravedave 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. - JPM | 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Since we're making up things to whinge about, unlimited depth of field would be nice. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Any of the three is acceptable, although I prefer the third (Raspberries03.jpg). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yet another great picture. My stomach is now rumbling!--Ali K 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I definitely like No. 5 the best. --liquidGhoul 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the un-saturated one the best. They do look ripe (except for one at the top). The others look like they have been sugar-glazed. --liquidGhoul 05:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - looks rather pink to me. Other than that, very nice. I like the color levels of Image:Raspberries03.jpg, but the composition of that one isn't as good as Image:Raspberries05.jpg. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Support second image (first darkened version). I want to take a bite out of my screen. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Delicious--K.C. Tang 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd much prefer a darker version - these raspberries simply don't look ripe. It may be the lighting, but I wouldn't eat them. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I was afraid people would think a dark version over saturated. But I've uploaded three edits for your consideration - I couldn't decide between them. --Fir0002 www 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • yes, i consider the new versions over-done.--K.C. Tang 07:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the problem lies more with the lighting of the image and the raspberries shot than anything else. The darkening is an improvement, so I would support any of the darkened versions, but I still oppose original. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support second image (first darkened version) - delicious looking! --Janke | Talk 06:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Excellent detail and sharpness. Prefer darker version. SteveHopson 06:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- I want to eat my screen Glaurung 07:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support yummy photo... --vineeth 08:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Both the lighter and darker photos are so tasty looking! DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support original, the darker ones look over-ripe. --Obli (Talk)^? 09:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support original, the others are much too saturated. chowells 12:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Why not? If a picture is deftly aesthetic enough to incite the most subtle idiosyncrasies of the human taste buds, then... uh... never mind. I'm just really hungry. I support the original, but anything would do. The yellowish rasberry at the top left could be GIMPed out, but then the picture wouldn't be as "natural." Gracenotes ^T § 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, looks like decent quality stock-photography, but is it really adding that much to the Raspberry article? I'd prefer a picture of them still hanging on the bush. Oh, checking the version history I can see that Fir just yesterday replaced such a pic with his. Sorry, but this looks a bit like self-promotion getting in the way of encyclopedic quality. Sigh, apparently I'm alone with this assessment. Time for an FPC-wikibreak. --Dschwen 21:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We already have Image:Raspberries (Rubus Idaeus).jpg, which is the one Fir moved. This picture illustrates a completely different aspect of the subject. Are you saying that such a clear, high-res picture of picked berries adds nothing worthwhile to the article? That's a support by the way. Raven4x4x 00:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, it does add to the article, and Fir's image is of far better quality, but I do agree with Dschwen: I think Fir should have added his pic to the gallery on the page, instead of moving the original one from the info-box to the gallery. Rasperries on the bush are more encyclopedic - the article is mainly about about the plant, not the foodstuff. Exactly where an image is on a page doesn't affect eligibility for FPC, so might someone (preferably Fir himself) do a switch? --Janke | Talk 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • OK I've done that, but you've gotta admit that the pic isn't that best on quality. However I see that it should really have the plant--Fir0002 www 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Fir0002 has delivered us many high-quality pictures and this one is cool too!! --Davpronk 00:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Commentwhile supporting Fir's pic, i guess one is justified to complain that Fir has replaced the original head pic, which is a featured pic in Common, with his own straight away ...--K.C. Tang 03:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support #5 (dark version) only. Neutrality^talk 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support dark version 212.244.146.101 09:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow, we are getting some good images in recently. Well done Fir, my vote goes on the original pic, no darkened versions. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. Uuhhh! Can I take some? - Darwinek 13:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. --Red Penguin 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support very nice article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - original only, I don't see any need for editing what is in the original a very good photo. Nice one again Fir. |→ Spaully°τ 14:13, 5 March 2006
• Support Darker Versions—Preferably The Second The original image does not seem ripe. Alvinrune ^TALK 03:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Image:Raspberries05 edit02.jpg or the original. Staxringold 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. All of the photographs are fantastic quality; any of the darkened versions are fine. Yum! — Webdinger ^{TALK | SZ} 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing particulary special Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Promoted IImage:Raspberries05.jpg Deciding which one to choose was hard. There were some comments exclusively in favor of the first and some exclusively for the darkened ones (the first dark one had a good deal of support), the original seems to be the common denominator and has the most support. BrokenSegue 14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beige Desktop Power Macintosh G3

Well, this is hardly the most exciting of subjects - but it illustrates Power Macintosh G3 in the only way possible. The image is deceivingly simple, but it's hard to get the background, lighting, angle and color so well as to rival Apple's own promotional photographs, the replacement of which with free alternatives has been a pastime of mine for a while now. Along comes Danamania, and uploads some very well done shots to Commons, licensed under CC-BY-SA (don't worry, I'll only nominate this one). It's perhaps not the highest of resolutions, but quite sufficient for print.

• Nominate and support. -  grm_wnr Esc 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't feel it is one of WPs best works or is pleasing to the eye. I also feel that knowing what a G3 looks like compared to other computers is not essential for the article, even a well photographed one like this. |→ Spaully°τ 21:00, 4 March 2006
• Support Very professionally photographed and the best photo of the Beige Desktop Power Macintosh G3 on Wikipedia. It is very valuable to its article. — Wackymacs 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Yes, good photo, but FP? Even as a Mac user myself, I don't find this image "stunning" or "special" in any way - it's just a well-done photo of a computer box... --Janke | Talk 21:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Agree with Janke. It's a good picture, very well done, but it just doesn't seem to work for FP. Alr 22:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As already said, it's a fine photo technically but somehow boring and not striking. So not an FP candidate in my view - Adrian Pingstone 23:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Stunning for it's technical perfection. Very informative --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Advert-style (nothing wrong with that but they really shouldn't be featured pictures). Neutrality^talk 05:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice for the article and very well done photograph. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Strikes me as a little dull. The picture itself looks great and does a good job of illustrating the article, but it just doesn't do it for me. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Another weak oppose. It is certainly a well done product shot, but product photography doesn't tend to stand out. It clearly adds value to the article though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The image, in general, is dull, though the lighting and shadows are pretty stunning. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose not outstanding Calderwood 12:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose just not interestingLeppy 14:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Rather dull.--Deglr6328 07:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This is the perfect example, IMO, of an image that is as perfect as it can be but just isn't interesting, compelling, or stunning enough to be a FP. Staxringold 19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• SUPPORT Style of the case is very import and you can see that very clearly. Also can see what kind of drives and the size. Glen Pepicelli 07:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support When judged against other wikipedia images of its type (Ie free images of boring product shots) this is clearly one of the very best we have. It is dramatic in its own way that such a boring subject could photograph even this well. Johntex\^talk 03:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 14:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional boxing bout

This is an image I found in the US Marine Corps image archive. Although it might not fulfill all technical specifications, I personally feel that it brings out the essence of focus and aggression in boxing, and contributes greatly to the article. The background and is very unusual for a boxing image, and atleast for me, it conveys an eerie feeling. I could imagine this one as a featured picture.

• Nominate and support ---Marcus- 10:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit - see below. Quite some action! One drawback, though: the cut-off head... --Janke | Talk 11:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  The head is added in this other picture. Less authentic, naturally. Shawnc 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support special--K.C. Tang 14:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the nomination, I think this is a great image with a lot of energy. Although the one boxer's head is cut off, I think the real focus of the image is on the boxer on the left, so I don't think it detracts from the image. ~MDD4696 15:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the sky and angle of the image. True, the head that was cut off does take away from the image, but its worthy enough for a Featured Picture. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support A great picture. Somewhat surreal, in a good way. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Illustrates the subject quite well. --Red Penguin 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support great illustration of its topic, and a compelling photo. I suspect the near boxer being slightly cut is a considered and deliberate part of the composition: it brings the viewer into the scene and gives the impression of sharing his (the near boxer's) viewpoint. If you could see the whole of him the choice of angle would just look weird. ~ Veledan • Talk 13:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK so I was wrong. That is one hell of a good fake, I'm impressed ~ Veledan • Talk 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral The picture is very dynamic and illustrative, but the right boxer's head is partly cut off and the lamps (ecpecially those between the two) are disturbing. Calderwood 14:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I see no problem with the cut-off head. The left boxer and the background are both excellent. Kafziel 15:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - first class - Adrian Pingstone 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support –Joke 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - jolly good show.--Deglr6328 08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support it will be a while before we see a better picture for Boxing. -- Solipsist 09:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I also photoshopped the picture to address the cut-off issue, as seen here. Shawnc 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That is amazingly well done! I would support it, provided the "edited image" tag is on the description page. Why don't you upload Heck, you're supposed to be bold, I uploaded the version here myself, so we'll be certain to have an animated discussion about image editing... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As suggested, the image has been re-tagged under the newly created PD-retouched-user (also available on Wikipedia). Thanks for everyone's comments too. Shawnc 23:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely stunning! Are you sure you didn't find a larger image somewhere? :) ---Marcus- 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks great! I don't know if it will really spark any debate about edited images... it's just the top of a crew cut and some lights, not like photoshopping John Lennon into a picture of Castro or something. At worst it's harmless, at best it makes the picture complete and perfect. Great job, Shawn! Kafziel 15:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • At worst, the image doesn't show off the boxer's awesome mohawk. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-9 03:38
  • Holy crap that's a good photoshop job. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support The second version. Staxringold 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support The second version. —Encephalon 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support The outdoor setting adds a very nice touch Tokugawapants 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support the 2nd version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-9 03:36
• supportBertilvidet 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• support second one. --Tone 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support the 2nd version. Good one! - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support the second version is intense! Canuck89 01:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support love the evening sky. The Tom 05:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg--Marcus 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose second photo. Voting after the fact and after Shawnc pointed me to this discussion. Altered photos are in violation of the WP:NOR policy and should not be used to illustrate articles in the main Wikipedia namespace, let alone be promoted to Featured status. The reason is that they purport to illustrate something that is not true; they show a moment in time that never occurred. That is certainly a beautiful photo and I'd support the first one as Featured. Tempshill 06:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Daly

I am nominating this picture because I feel that it exemplifies not only John Daly and golf, but also the level of fitness (or lack thereof) required to play; This appears in the John Daly and the golf article and was taken by me.

• Nominate and support. - Banpei 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Unbalanced composition, too much sky, thus less encyclopedic. I don't think the new version is FP worthy, either... --Janke | Talk 06:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Janke, too much sky makes it not FP quality and makes it poorer quality. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above - but this isn't something that a little cropping can't fix. --Red Penguin 07:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've just uploaded a cropped version, Image:John Daly at AmEx edit.png. I'm not the best graphics editor, so I may still be a bit off, but I trimmed a bit of the sky away. Vote/recommendation retracted --Red Penguin 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. I was thinking more along the lines of this crop (shown second on the right) that I have just uploaded. The composition is improved and you don't really lose anything of interest from the scenery. The focus is SUPPOSED to be the golfer. I have also lifted the shadows SLIGHTLY to decrease the contrast of the image as the sunlight is quite harsh (the highlights are blown and cannot be recovered however). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I agree completely with Janke, though the second cropped image is much better than the first. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ack Janke Calderwood 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support The second (cropped) pic is excellent - Adrian Pingstone 17:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry but that disgusting fat gut just grosses me out. Its like that giant bellybutton is some menacing cyclopean force just staring me down. shudder.--Deglr6328 08:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment So are you opposing *simply* because the subject of the image 'grosses you out' without any regard to the technical composition of the 'photo? Nippoo 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am opposing because I ALSO find the image technically unrenarkable and otherwise roundly uninteresting.--Deglr6328 06:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support #2 cropped version. I also find the picture somewhat un-pretty, but I'm surprised to find this guy is a professional sportsman. We don't have enough good GFDL pictures of reasonably famous people. This is a weakly contested subject area, so despite misgivings, support. -- Solipsist 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Second version. I think the skyspace actually makes the picture cooler, making the golf ball look even smaller. My only complaint is that his face, the key factor for showing what a famous person looks like, is very shadowy. Staxringold 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support second version. Excellent quality, illustrative. Unusual to get such a good PD image of a famous person. Plus, it gives hope to fat men everywhere that they too may become rich and famous and featured in Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support The 2nd picture is great. Really makes you stop and examine his golf game. How does he get away with it? Canuck89 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support second version. - Bevo 16:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 17:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light-blue soldier crab

The Featured picture list is quite lacking in invertebrates. I love this photo, nice and colourful and accurate.; Appears in Mictyris, and will appear in its own species article as I get to it. Created by me. --liquidGhoul 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very good picture. Is it eating sand?--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In a way, it filters the sand for any nutrients, and spews the clean sand back up. --liquidGhoul 04:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice coloring and angle. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-5 04:34
• Supportfrog, and now crab, what creature will liquidGhoul show us next time? :)--K.C. Tang 05:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, even though a tad small (exactly what is the current FP size standard? ;-) What a mudface! --Janke | Talk 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent coloring, angle, focus. --Red Penguin 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although I almost gagged on this one. - JPM | 10:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is that a good thing? :) --liquidGhoul 10:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Liquidghoul, are you aware that Brian0918 has made a change to your image again (replaced original, not uploaded as a different file)? I've compared both and there really isn't a big difference though. I do wish he would see the logic of the situation (and what seems to be the majority consensus) and just upload a copy, rather than overwrite the original. On that note, do you have a larger sized image or is that as big as it gets? It already looks rather overprocessed (massive sharpening lines around the legs) but in this case, the image is unique enough for me to support it in its current form. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentUnfortunately, this is as big as it gets. Although there were thousands of these guys, they will bury themselves as soon as I get ready to shoot. This one was further away than I would have liked, and the crop took quite some size. Can you give me which legs look overprocessed, I personally cannot see it. I have sharpened a bit, but have layered a mask over it, and gotten rid of most of the sharpening as I did not like it. Thanks for your comments. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Add on comment I have zoomed in around the legs and see what you are talking about. I have lost the PSD file (stupid) so it is hard to do it again. I can only see it on the very occasional spot at actual size (mainly two left legs), so if anyone has a big problem with it, I will fix it when I have ample time. But I have learnt to always keep the PSDs and check sharpening with zoom. Thanks :) --liquidGhoul 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I can see it to some extent on all of the legs that have bright, illuminated edges contrasting against the background, but as I said before, I don't think it detracts enough to not support. It was more of a comment than a withdrawal of support. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • First, majority != consensus. Second, as you pointed out yourself, the change was very minor. That's why I didn't upload it to a new file. Voting over something so minor would have been a waste of everyone's time. But feel free to keep me under a magnifying glass. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-5 16:39
      • I'm not keeping you under a magnifying glass, I just happened to view the image and notice that once again you had made a change, in this case without actually mentioning so on this page. You are right that majority does not equal consensus, but I don't think that one person (you) who advocates doing things a different way is a lack of consensus in supporting the status quo either. If one dissenting opinion destroyed status quo, it would be chaos! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Hear, hear! --Janke | Talk 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • In my opinion minor changes such as the one Brian0918 made should be uploaded over the original. I don't think anyone would say that the modification wasn't an improvement, and if there happens to be dissent, it's easy to revert. ~MDD4696 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I see your point, and it applies well in this case. But don't you agree that any change, however small, to a FP should always be announced on this page? --Janke | Talk 07:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Chaos?!?! Oh no! You must've won the argument, because your statement sounds so frightening... Anyways, I thought I announced the change on this page, as I normally do, but I guess not. In the future I will do so. In your original statement, however, you were not concerned with my announcing the change, just with my right to make that change. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 17:54

• Weak oppose, I like the picture, and have no problems with it technically (size/whatever) but I don't find it engaging enough for Featured status. The camera is too high up and looks down on the poor crab. Pengo 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is about 5-10cm wide, and in incredibly wet sand. I was not going to kill my camera, by putting it in wet sand just to get a shot. Secondly, a low angle wouldn't suit this subject. The front is so large, that a low angle would take out most of the rest of the rest of the body, which would be less encyclopaedic.--liquidGhoul 23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Quoting Pengo, "I don't find it engaging enough for Featured status". Alvinrune ^TALK 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You find a car "more engaging" than a crab (refering to police car on FPC page)? --liquidGhoul 03:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Give him a break, he's in middle school (per user page). Of course he finds a picture of a police car more engaging. Sheesh! Rklawton 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't sit around admiring crabs. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should get out more. There is enornous natural beauty out there. Certainly more than that ugly police car ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment When I said that Image:Aus soldier Crab.jpg wasn't "engaging" enough, I suppose I worded it wrong. It seems as though the viewer is looking down on a poor crustacean. Also, though the background is natural and a image like this can be fairly tough to grab, the wet soil I guess made my decision to a weak oppose. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support That's an ugly little critter! How quickly can these guys plunge beneath the sand when you approach? I can't help but smirk at the idea of you trying to get this shot — surrounded by dozens except in whichever direction you happen to shove your camera :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 11:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ugly? They are quite cute. Takes them about 3 or 4 seconds to bury themselves. I have quite a few photos where they are half underground :-) --liquidGhoul 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - first class pic - Adrian Pingstone 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support –Joke 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice job. Shame the background is a dull brown, but if that is their natural habitat its just what we want. -- Solipsist 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice image of the crab. ~MDD4696 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice of this lil' guy. The only thing I would even change would be putting him on dry sand, rather than wet, so we see the ends of his legs. Staxringold 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That wouldn't be very encyclopedic. Its habitat is wet sand. I shouldn't think you would ever find one of these on dry sand. ~ Veledan • Talk 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice --Tone 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, nice. --Pmsyyz 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow. That is a very nice picture. The blue colour is amazing. Canuck89 01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Aus soldier Crab.jpg howcheng {chat} 17:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-15C

This image is a interesting photo of a F-15C firing a missle (AIM-7 Sparrow medium-range air to air missile). I cropped the image from Image:USAF F-15C fires AIM-7 Sparrow.jpg. The former image was in the article, F-15 Eagle. This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the United States Air Force (www.af.mil/photos).

• Nominate and support. - Alvinrune ^TALK 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• CommentImage:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg is already a featured picture. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-5 04:29
• Comment I have replaced the older image on F-15 Eagle with this version since the older version had an excessive amount of useless sky space. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice Image and I think it's better than the vertical image that was mentioned above. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Slightly unsharp at full res, but hey - you don't get to shoot a pic like this every day... --Janke | Talk 06:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose "evening" edit, loss of detail in highlights and shadows. --Janke | Talk 16:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support great pic, ack Janke. --vineeth 07:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. V. nice + informative. |→ Spaully°τ 11:10, 5 March 2006
• Support. Even though there was a similar picture, I just think that this is an awesome picture. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support With the pilot visible, you really get a good idea of how big both the plane and missile are.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support although not quite as sharp as it should be Calderwood 12:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I think the already existing FP is better and less typical. Looks like a US Air Force recruiting brochure, and I'm not sure that's desirable for one, let alone two, featured images. But perhaps I'm just being crotchety. –Joke 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment For the record, the current FP f-15 eagle is firing flares, not missiles. TomStar81 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are plenty of good USAF pictures of planes and hardware. Appart from the missile, this one doesn't have anything special about it. -- Solipsist 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Second and third images. Both quite nice! Staxringold 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The 2nd image is already a Featured Picture..... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-11 20:04
    • Then no wonder I supported it! :D Staxringold 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support It is definitely not as striking as the current FA picture, but it is still very very good, and it is informative in a different way because it is firing a missile, not flairs. I was neutral until I really thought about what it is showing about the size of the image to the pilot - that tipped me into the support camp. Also, I did a Google image search, expecting to find lots of PD photos of F15C firing Aim 7's but I found fewer than I would have expected, and none better than these we are looking at. Johntex\^talk 04:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all (strong oppose for the edit), the edit takes too many liberties with the original content. BrokenSegue 02:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:USAF_F-15C_fires_AIM-7_Sparrow_2.jpg +10/-2/1

[edit] Lady Liberty

The following picture of the Statue of Liberty is okay, but when I saw this, the other image wasn't at all comparable. This image nicely depicts the countanance of Lady Liberty. As for the copyright, the copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose, including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification, and it came from here. It was uploaded by Petrusbarbygere, using his/her Wikimedia Commons account, which is also User:Petrusbarbygere.

• Nominate and support. Alvinrune ^TALK 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment At full resolution, the sky is full of artefacts. I would consider resizing. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 23:56
• Weak support due to sky artifacts. Would strongly support a less compressed version. However, I would not re-size the image any smaller - this is the first time I've actually seen the bolt (or rivet) heads on the crown spikes! --Janke | Talk 07:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Only if sky artefacts are cleaned up without reducing resolution on the rest of the image too much. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Full support thanks to cleanup. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Which would be much fuller with a cleaner sky. Staxringold 13:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose upon closer inspection. I didn't realize how bad the sky looked, even on the smaller version on the image page. I was willing to support an image that only looked bad at absolute full size, but this one even has a problem at the medium Wiki-viewing size... Staxringold 16:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Second version. Looks great! Staxringold 19:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose sky looks terrible at full size. chowells 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support: As per requests here, I cleaned up the sky - see version 2, difference shows only in full size. --Janke | Talk 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks! Sweet job. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think it looks really great, but the torch is cut off, the picture below is more "encyclopedic" but has other issues. This is a commonly photographed monument, can it get better than this? I am torn, I'll see what other have to say. -Ravedave 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm mostly with Ravedave on this one. I like the composition so I'm not too bothered about the cut torch, but still, this is a very frequently photographed subject: I think we can afford to hold out for both detail and more statue. Someone fly Diliff or Fir over ~ Veledan • Talk 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think there's a Featured Statue of Liberty image. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above, it's possible to do much better. Let's wait for the "right" shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Millions of tourists go through NY every year, surely one will take a better photo, and upload it to Wikipedia. Other than that, I don't find it an interesting subject. There are better statues out there. --liquidGhoul 04:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't think we have to wait for the perfect shot. We can have more than one featured picture of the same object. To me, this is not the very very best picture Wikipedia has, but it is very very good and good enough to be featured. Johntex\^talk 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statue of Liberty

As an admirer of the artistry and beauty of the Statue of Liberty, I self-nominate this photo because it shows the scale of the statue in relation to the people interacting with it, is well-centered, and was taken at a high resolution in beautiful sunny weather. Many thanks for viewing.

• Nominate and support. - BigMac | (Talk) 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry to oppose straight away, but the statue's features are indistinct and it's a bit unsharp all over. It's a good shot and excellent for its article, but an extremely high standard has been set on this page by recent city and scenery FPs. ~ Veledan • Talk 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above, plus I would like to see the statue's face have sunlight on it. -Ravedave 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The composition is good, but there are enough things not "quite" right that I'd be more comfortable waiting for the "perfect" shot, especially for such an iconic landmark. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Second Version I uploaded a second, alternative version of the image. Alvinrune ^TALK 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrew Vote I withdrew my vote in favor of Lady Liberty Alvinrune ^TALK 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: While this nomination appears to be failing, your version is still a clear improvement. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - face is in shadow, features are out of focus, unable to read lettering on tablet in liberty's arm. Second version is too red. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ack ChrisRuvolo. --Janke | Talk 07:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lighting just isn't great, and the second version is fake-looking and reddish. Staxringold 03:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, both are out of focus. Sky contains artefacts and second image is so much photoshopped it doesn't represent things accurately anymore. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose lacks focus and contrast. chowells 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blizzard of 2006

This is a picture of the North American blizzard of 2006 uploaded by Quasipalm. The picture is sharp and clear, and of a sufficient resolution. It is very informative an detailed. It is a beautiful and excellent image of the snow. It really draws attention to how powerful the storm was.

• Nominate and support. - bob rulz 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded an auto-levelled, slightly sharpened version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 23:01
• Comment: I don't know about "powerful"; this is a normal winter where I live. Now this is powerful :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 23:03
  • Maybe not powerful, but it's certainly not a small storm. Either way, it's an awesome picture, imo. bob rulz 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support 2nd version -Ravedave 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Both Images Low resolution, the image is just not up to the Featured Picture status. Alvinrune ^TALK 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support first version only. Neutrality^talk 03:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Just a snowed in street. Sure, it may be a seldom seen thing in this particular location (thus good for the article), but the image itself is not stunning. --Janke | Talk 06:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Common image. Very similar to what I can see right now if I look through my window. Glaurung 06:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Are we neighbors? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 07:32
• Oppose, artefact in the snow on the ground. Doesn't properly show it's in North America. Could just as easily be a Swedish storm. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Image isn't that spectacular in my opinion and isn't of a very high resolution. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I guess people have different opinions on what a really cool picture is. Snow is typical, yes, but this picture particularly struck me as really cool. Oh well. bob rulz 15:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support (weakly) second pic. This might not be particularly exceptional for some, but for South east England 1" of snow is an event deserving celebration. Nice picture, and for Mgm, they aren't artefacts, that's a piece of snow falling past the camera lens. I don't really think it's that low resolution. What's deemed an adequate resolution - when the whole thing can't fit on the image description page? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's just not all that stunning. Sorry. Staxringold 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose it's only snow. chowells 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And what about people who've never seen snow? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • We already have 2 good winter pictures. Circeus 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Janke, Glaurung, Chowells et al. The only unusual thing about this picture is where it was taken, and the picture itself doesn't show that in any way. It's just a picture of snow on a street, no different from the view from my window just now (see right). Now, if the picture had a guy running in the snow wearing shorts and a t-shirt, that might illustrate the unusual severity of the storm... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What could possibly show where it is? Take a picture of a bunch of snow with the Empire State Building in the background? What if this picture was just on the snow article? A picture of snow isn't striking, but for some reason this one caught my eye. *sigh* I guess it's just a matter of opinion. bob rulz 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It is pretty, in the way fresh white snow often is. Maybe I'm just too used to it to appreciate it fully. But I still don't see this as being of feature picture quality: It's just not that eyecatching, and in my opinion a featured picture also ought to have some intrinsic encyclopedic merit besides merely looking nice. In this case, the image has encyclopedic value only as part of the article, not when taken out of context as it would be as a featured picture. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 2. Sharp, no artifact I am one of those people who have never really seen snow. If it snowed like that here the second ice age would be upon us.--Dakota ~ ° 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Not striking, could be anywhere, does not catch the eye in the least. Mstroeck 12:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose could be any bit of snowy landscape. Nothing outstanding. Kessa Ligerro 18:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Version two, beautiful picture. --GorillazFanAdam 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - oppose all. unremarkable.--Deglr6328 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Layout

Self nominated at the suggestion of Christopherlin. The picture is from Ultimate (sport), and was taken by Scobel Wiggins at the 2006 club ultimate national tournament in sarasota, florida. The picture itself is a great example of an action shot and portrays beautifully a layout.

• Nominate and support. - Leppy 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose resolution is unsufficient for FP-status Calderwood 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, too low-res according to current (consensus?) standards. Also, background is too messy, the main subject does not stand out. --Janke | Talk 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could you possibly upload a larger version (at least 1000px, the more detailed the better)? FPs other than those depicting unique historic events should be big enough not just for article inclusion, but to allow quality reproductions in other formats. As it stands, I'm afraid this isn't big enough to be eligible whatever its other merits. Great shot though — for once I disagree with Janke's verdict and I think the DOF does enough for the subject & the people in the background add value  :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - great pic but hoplessly too small - Adrian Pingstone 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose – good pic, but small, DOF too deep –Joke 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now – great pic, but someone needs to contact the photographer for a higher res version as was discussed on Talk:Ultimate (sport). The DOF adds to the descriptive quality of the picture, plain and simple. If the pic was illustrating the player or the act of bidding, then the background would be distracting, but it isn't. It is illustratign Ultimate, which is characterized by informality and people sitting on the sidelines. In the article, there is enough difference in sharpness to clearly show the foreground wihout distraction. People who think the DOF detracts from the photo need to learn more about the culture of the sport as the on-field action is only half of the picture. (pun intended)—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 20:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"The DOF adds to the descriptive quality of the picture, plain and simple." and "People who think the DOF detracts from the photo need to learn more about the culture of the sport"? I know plenty about the culture of ultimate, and I know plenty about sports photography, and I think that the DOF is too deep. You should feel free to disagree, but don't assert some kind of ultimate authority. It sounds petulant. –Joke 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Image:UltiClubNationals05Layout.jpg depicts a sweet play, but as already stated, it does not have sufficient resolution. Alvinrune ^TALK 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too small. ~MDD4696 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support (can I do that?) once larger image is available. Are the oppose votes basically "too small"? I'd like to know how many of those would be support with a larger image. --Christopherlin 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I got "What is your preferred size?" from Scobel. Any suggestions? Do we renominate or restart voting after the bigger one comes in? --Christopherlin 22:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As big as reasonably possible (not larger than 1MB or anything crazy). No need to restart, just add it on. BrokenSegue 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Very small. Staxringold 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose much too small. chowells 15:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howler Monkey

This is a youg howler monkey in Costa Rica. I took the photo through a telescope thats why it has a black circle around it. its in the Howler Monkey article i think theres some feeling to this photo that makes you conect with this monkey and want to read about it.

• Nominate and support. - Danielchaves 18:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The image is too small, and does not show enough of the animal. It also has poor color and detail, and the telescope circle is distracting. ~MDD4696 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, I appreciate the monkey is appealing, but this picture just doesn't have the other qualities we ask of FPs. Please have a look at the criteria ~ Veledan • Talk 21:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose First of all the black frame caused by the telescope looks bad. The monkey is slightly off-centered. Alvinrune ^TALK 03:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per others.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Off-centered, overly bright background. Simply not featured picture quality. --Red Penguin 07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Another version added. I've done the best I can in the circumstances, and the only way I can make it anywhere near the featured picture standard is to discard the colour information completely. I'm sorry, this is a decent photo of a howler monkey, and alright for the article, but it is a long way from Featured Picture. Oppose —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose reasons already stated Calderwood 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A million miles away from FPC quality - Adrian Pingstone 17:06, 6
• Comment I checked past featured pics and i see you´re right. Quality is just not enough. Danielchaves

March 2006 (UTC)

• I like the new version much better than the original one, but I still have to oppose. It doesn't show the subject properly. From this picture, I can't tell if the monkey has a tail or a red bottom. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose not even close. chowells 14:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The black is better but still not a very clear picture of the monkey. Sorry. sikander 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geneva

I think this is a very nice picture of Geneva.

• Self-nominate and (obviously) support. - sikander 16:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's nice but not of featured quality. Sorry... --Tone 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as Tone. What's the woman doing on the lower-right corner of the screen anyway? Alvinrune ^TALK 02:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

She's painting the scene. Alright, thanks for the comments. sikander 05:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Snapshot-type image, could be almost anywhere. --Janke | Talk 06:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not very representative of Geneva Glaurung 06:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Pic is leaning - Adrian Pingstone 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not appropriate for Geneva. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Could be anywhere. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I would say yes, but it's tilted. I did give me the sudden desire to travel there though. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autoroute Ville-Marie

This picture appears in Freeway and Autoroute Ville-Marie. The picture is beautifully shot, with excellent composition and framing. It exemplifies the urban freeway design that appears in many major cities. The picture was taken on May 28, 2005 and uploaded by me on March 9, 2006.

• Self-Nominate and support. - V8roadster 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Though I should warn, Image:I-80 Eastshore Fwy.jpg is already a featured pic. Coffee 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Picture is very well framed, I agree with the summary. It is slightly similar to Image:I-80 Eastshore Fwy.jpg but this picture depicts a trench freeway and not a surface-level one. Also, the goal of the above-mentioned Eastshore Freeway picture is to show the frontage roads abutting the freeway. Also, there are many similar featured pictures (say, of panoramas) that can coexist because the subject of the photograph is different. I think this is a good example of that. Job very well done. Charles2-2 19:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This is User:Charles2-2's first edit. Coffee 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Good encyclopedic contribution to its article but I much prefer our existing freeway FP ~ Veledan • Talk 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice image, but the existing FP image is better. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Didn't anybody notice the sky? ~MDD4696 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, sky totally blown. --Janke | Talk 06:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ack janke --vineeth 07:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, the sky is inadequate, as well there is already a very similar featuerd picture. Phoenix2 20:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose White sky and there's already a better pic. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sky is no deal for me, its fine. But it's not that stunning. Kinda dull if you ask me. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC
• Oppose Just not interesting - Adrian Pingstone 17:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Adrian Pingstone - Glaurung 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poinsettia

Image of Poinsettia. Currently used in :

• The Inflorescence article.
• Leaf adaptations : In poinsettia the pigmentation of the leaf changes to red to attract insects, birds, and very few species have this ability. This image clearly shows this transition in color of the leaves.

---

• Self-Nominate and support. - vineeth 16:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent image! I like how there's an ant on one of the petals. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great illustration for the relevant articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Better in full size than as a thumb, but there are some other good pics in the Poinsettia gallery. --Janke | Talk 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Stunning, catches the eye. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the water dropplets and the quality, but I've seen better. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jared, doesn't grab me. –Joke 00:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Something's just wrong... Too bright? Weird angle? Overexposed? —This unsigned comment was added by 65.182.51.67 (talk • contribs) .
• Oppose. It is a good image, but it capture my attention. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shuttle Carrier Aircraft

I found this very striking image of a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft carrying Space Shuttle Atlantis, with a beautiful background. The original image came from Wikimedia Commons. I edited it a little and resulted with the current image. The photo was taken on September 1, 1998 by Carla Thomas for NASA. It is image number EC-98-44740-2, specifically GPN-2000-000183.jpg. Dbenbenn from Wikimedia Commons uploaded this image. (See Dbenbenn's Wikipedia user page.)

• Nominate and Support Alvinrune ^TALK 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent photograph! — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 01:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose too fuzzy. gren グレン 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support –Joke 03:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Seriously poor quality.--Deglr6328 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose will reconsider if a sharper version is available - this is awful in full-size. --Janke | Talk 06:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well the image is from 1998. I uploaded a slightly improved version. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually you've made the image worse in my opinion. I don't see any improvements other than the image is smaller. However, if you look at the side of the 747, the edit has a white patch that does not blend in well. What exactly did you do? Its usually good etiquette to comment on what exactly you've done to 'improve' the image when you upload an edit. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and I don't think that it can really be recovered with that existing image. The quality is just too low. You can't blame it on being from 1988. Its a bad scan, most likely, but could also be due to bad image processing somewhere along the line. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, just too poor quality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great image! It's just stunning to look at. Quality isn't even bad. Maybe the sky is a little grainy, but all of you with 13MP cameras, go take a better one if you can! --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 17:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Although it's a great picture as far as composition goes, it is rather poor quality (grainy).--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support I love the composition of this image, but the sky is a bit grainy. -- Snailwalker | talk 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support I like the image, but like Snailwalker said, the image quality lets it down.--Thermos 16:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Try to take that photo well in any case - quality isn't all that bad.Kingfisherswift 19:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great image, but the quality is too poor in my opinion. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted (7/6/1) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sleepy men

Photo captured in Tehran during Ramadan and and subsequently edited by Bertil Videt. The photo is used in the Fatigue_(physical) article.

• Nominate and support. - Bertilvidet 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Exposure problem - burnt-out highlights. Also not a very stunning image. --Janke | Talk 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeI like the pic but i won't consider it a featured one--K.C. Tang 15:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support The actual image is good but the thumbnail looks very odd (too much contrast ?). sikander 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Take a look at the hands & trousers of the man at left - totally burned out, regardless of size. --Janke | Talk 06:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose An enjoyable pic to look at, but sadly it's too overexposed on the left - Adrian Pingstone 13:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Amusing image, the man on the left seems as if his head is toasting. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the image, but the quality isn't up to par. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks for several constructive points of critics. I am however astonished at the far worse quality of the thumb than the image itself. Any ideas how to resolve this? Bertilvidet 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Perhaps some of the lighting is off or over-contrasted, but what an eye-catching subject!

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthomyiidae

• Self-Nominate and no vote. - Aka 13:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, attention-grabbing, sharp - focus is just in the right plane. --Janke | Talk 15:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Don't see images like this everyday. sikander 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is an image taken by someone who really knows what he is doing. Great depth of field, nice composition. As a side note, is the male a little malnourished? ;) Very interesting to see the difference between the male and female too. Couldn't give the image higher praise. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In most species in the animal kingdom, the male is smaller (sometimes a lot smaller) than the female. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-10 01:28

• Yuk! Support Superb! ~ Veledan • Talk 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-10 01:28
• Support That is incredible. Great work. --liquidGhoul 01:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful image. –Joke 03:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Not a particular fan of creepy crawlies, but this is an excellent image in all regards. - 131.211.210.11 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That last anon vote was me forgetting to log in. Sorry. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Interesting... Alvinrune ^TALK 21:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support How could I not? —23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Perfect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support simply fantastic! --vineeth 04:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Magnificent in both concept and quality! — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Superb image both in clarity and composition. Compliments the article Anthomyiidae quite well.--Dakota ~ ° 18:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Eeew! Wow! Raven4x4x 01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's really an amazing shot. ~MDD4696 05:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Get a room -Calibas 06:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Oh, yes! - Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 12:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great image... if only it had a real article to go with it.--ragesoss 17:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

All together now, Promoted Image: Anthomyiidae sp. 1 (aka).jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:OHP-sch.JPG

Visually pleasing, nicely framed, shows precisely what an Overhead projector does. Not particularly exciting but it does the job well. By User:Mailer diablo.

• Nominate and support. - Sum0 10:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, something about the composition doesn't appeal to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing special - seems like a snapshot. --Janke | Talk 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too dull.. nothing special about the image. Sorry. sikander 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Dull. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think this captures the essence of an overhead projector perfectly. Sure it's dull, not special.. even boring. Remember what it's like being in a classroom watching one of these things? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Noisy photo, unpleasant composition, bad use of the projector (small font, ugly slide). There's potential for a featured photograph of an overhead projector: 1) Play with the lighting from the projector and the environmental light. 2) Show (perhaps in a series) the possibilities of overlaying multiple slides, e.g. to combine information in different ways, to make clever use of colors, and to annotate slides. (Just not a stupid "Ohh, here's some secret text I'll reveal later" trick.) 3) Pick a nicer room. :-) There's less ugly projector models as well. [5] Add a human operator to make things interesting. -- Alternatively, a diagram illustrating the working principle. Dante, who said overhead projectors have to be boring? Any presentation tool can do wonders in the hands of a skilled presenter. :-)--Eloquence* 11:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Have you seen a video of an artist making sand paintings on an OH projector? There are some nice examples on the net. Google for sand+painting+overhead+video and you might find some awesome stuff... --Janke | Talk 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dollar Symbol Evolution

Very informative picture which alot can learn from.

• Nominate and support. - Tarret 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Informative, but definitely not "striking", as an FP should be. --Janke | Talk 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, there's been enough cases were informativeness thrumped "striking". - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Theres nothing too striking about this. I agree with Janke....Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 14:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Janke. --Tone 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good idea but can be illustrated in a better way. sikander 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too little information, too small. Should be SVG? ~MDD4696 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice drawing but not FPC material - Adrian Pingstone 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Interesting, but can be better depicted. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special about this one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, it shows the evolution of the dollar sign well, but it's simply a diagram. Keep trying, Tarret! — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 05:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Mgm. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autumn colors

Found on a recently deceased Wikipedian's talk page as a farewell.

• Nominate and support. - Kizor 00:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It's a little bit dark. Could you/someone make a slightly brighter version without killing the colors? (this comp doesn't have Photoshop) Staxringold 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose--K.C. Tang 04:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Bland. Nothing like a New Hamphire autumn... --Janke | Talk 06:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I saw an aerial photo once, of a deciduous forst (in Canada I think) in Autumn. It was on an angle, not straight down, and it was incredibly beautiful. If someone could get something similar (maybe from a mountainside if you don't have access to a helicopter :) that would be cool. --liquidGhoul 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not clear enough... i mean that the image should've been taken from a distance. sikander 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not enough variation across the pic, just a mass of yellow - Adrian Pingstone 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The title is Autumn Colors. I only see yellow. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If you want a picture of autumn foliage as a FP it's going to need to have ALL the autumn colors. It's a lovely photo though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I miss red leaves Kessa Ligerro 18:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Nebula pillars

This is a photo of the Eagle Nebula, perhaps one of the most beautiful and well recognised of Hubble's photos. It is a star forming region, consisting mainly of hydrogen, and the largest pillar is about 4 light years long in height. It is constructed of 3 images with three colours representing different wavelengths: Red shows emission from singly-ionized sulfur atoms. Green shows emission from hydrogen. Blue shows light emitted by doubly- ionized oxygen atoms. It was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, released into the PD by NASA. I searched through the FPs, and was very surprised not to see this there already. It appears in Eagle Nebula, Hubble Space Telescope and WFPC2 among others.

• Nominate and support. - |→ Spaully°τ 20:35, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment: The old version was low quality and highly compressed. I've overwritten with a better version from NASA. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 20:57
    • That's better, more like the poster I have sitting behind me also :-) |→ Spaully°τ 21:02, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment Nice work, Brian. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• There is a giant poster of this right above my head. Hmmm.... Support :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 20:53
• Support I uploaded a slightly improved version and saved it over it, since it was trivial. Now, the image is a little more sharp and vivid. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I remember admiring this image when it was originally published in Time magazine. --Janke | Talk 21:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I just can't support it due to being an incomplete rectangular image. It looks like a work-in-progress to me. I can appreciate there may be technical constraints but that doesn't mean it has to be featured. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Those missing areas are just as famous as the image itself. There are versions without the missing areas, but I don't think they are nearly as high a quality. This is by far one of the most famous images produced by Hubble. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 03:10
    • Comment: Brian - can you point to a complete image - we might make a composite, combining the good quality of this with the missing areas from another... --Janke | Talk 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There are some complete versions listed here, although some of them may have been photoshopped. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 06:36
        • Browsed through some 10 of those pages, and also did a image search for "Eagle nebula Hubble" and "M16 Hubble", but there was only one "complete" version, all too obviously photoshopped, thus entirely unencyclopedic. So, no go. --Janke | Talk 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Fine with me. I like it better this way :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 07:31
            • Oh? I found this one quite easily and its most definately not a photoshop job (its a composite image as opposed to fake airbrushed stuff). Not to mention this is a better image IMO. Oppose incomplete image.  ALKIVAR™ 13:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
              • The second image you link to has "additions by J. Morse", suggesting it has been supplemented perhaps by other images. As has already been mentioned however the 'ladder step' shape is iconic of the HST due to the technical setup and as such this image demonstrates something that is hard to explain in words. The first image is very nice, but completely different, pehaps you would like to propose it? |→ Spaully°τ 14:20, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
              • Yes, I found that first image as well, but it is way too low in resolution. The 2nd image may be more appealing, but does not have the iconic status of the original. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 18:03
              • The J. Morse version looks photoshopped to me, and fairly crudely done at that. You can even see the brush strokes. I could probably do better given a few hours with the clone tool, but I see no point. The original image is staircase-shaped — why try to conceal that? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
                • I originally though "J. Morse" may have been an artist's name, but it looks like he's been involved with a lot of Hubble photographs. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 04:03

• This is an iconic HST image, and isn't "featured" status about illustrating articles? The shape is precisely the reason it appears in Hubble Space Telescope - it is the only image there that illustrate the rather odd shape of the field of the WFPC due to its 4 CCDs (three large and one small) (there are a few other similarly shaped images in Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Didn't know that! Wow, WP is great! Perhaps Diliff will re-evaluate his vote after reading this discussion and checking Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2. Interesting! --Janke | Talk 15:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not bothered by the missing areas, it seems to be a common occurence in NASA pics. We should show them as they are made by NASA and don't manipulate too much. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. If I'd known it wasn't already featured, I'd have nominated it myself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very high quality image. Staxringold 03:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very famous image and a personal favorite of mine. It also does a great job in illustrating the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Classic and iconic.--ragesoss 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Really a great image, I would have thought it was FP already. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is the most iconic images from the HST, it should be a FP here. PPGMD 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cloud motion on Jupiter

The excellent Jupiter image nominated below reminded me of another great animation from Cassini that I had thought about nominating for FPC a while back. Used in Cloud pattern on Jupiter, this animation shows in unprecedented detail the complex motion on Jupiter. It illustrates the article perfectly, and in a way no diagram could convey. The full size image is quite large, although I've uploaded larger files to Commons before :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 17:10

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Those large specks that quickly appear/disappear are Jupiter's moons, and their shadows on the surface of Jupiter. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 17:13
• Support Great animation. It's a shame NASA has decided to abandon doing science, because these kinds of things are incredible. –Joke 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well found! ~ Veledan • Talk 17:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support This IS an amazing image! --Janke | Talk 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral This image is an interesting GIF, but it seems as if all animated GIFs are Featured Pictures. Alvinrune ^TALK 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that rationale just doesn't make any sense. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 20:30
  • No, it doesn't. ZoFreX 20:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Image:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif has great encyclopedic value. The resolution is perfect (taking into mind its large size). However, heavy editing with the frames might help, if possible. Hey! At least I'm not against it. Alvinrune^TALK 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "heavy editing with the frames"??? So far, you have said: 1) it's interesting, 2) it has great encyclopedic value, and 3) the resolution is perfect. But you haven't identified any problems with the image.... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 22:13

• Support Really cool :) Out of interest how much is this sped up? ZoFreX 20:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The entire 14 frames span 24 Jovian rotations. Jupiter has a 10 hour day, so this spans 10 Earth days, roughly, putting each frame at 17 hours intervals, although the caption says the frames are not equally spaced in time. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 20:40
  • To answer your original question, the animation appears to be 1.4 seconds long, so it would be sped up about 600,000 times :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 23:55
• Support. —Encephalon 07:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very illustrative. -- Solipsist 09:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It does a good job of illustrating the article and is also an impressive image. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Perfect image for the article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very cool lil' gif! Staxringold 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about little... Did you click the image to get the full version? Or maybe you just need to use the sarcasm font in the future :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-8 15:58

• Support. I went to the image page to nominate it, and darn Brian had got there before me! Mark^{your words} 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Its Awesome!!!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent image. sikander 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Just, wow! —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Incredible Btnheazy03 1:49 AM March 11, 2006
• Support The best image I've seen so far! WikieZach| talk 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support WOW! Wonderful! Ram32110 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Really gives you a good idea of how active the weather is. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All together now, Promoted Image:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif ~ Veledan • Talk 18:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jupiter from Cassini

This is an excellent representation of the Solar System's largest planet. The detailing is exquisite. It was taken by the Cassini spacecraft, and is a NASA public domain license. It currently appears in the Jupiter article, as well as several articles related to Cassini-Huygens.

The original version was upload by Awolf002. A larger version was uploaded later by Deglr6328. The current version, even larger with a lot of black border cropped off, derived from the original high-resolution TIFF base file, was uploaded by Dbenbenn.

• Nominate and Support. --Kitch 12:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful! --liquidGhoul 13:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great, as in magnificient, GREAT as in HUGE. One slight fault could be corrected: Anti-aliasing at north & south poles. --Janke | Talk 16:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This was my wallpaper for a long time a couple years ago. Excellent! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 16:44
• Support I like this one too, though it's a more typical image of Jupiter, not as amazing as the animation above. –Joke 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Extremely FP worthy, this image should have been nominated when it was uploaded. Alvinrune ^TALK 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support--K.C. Tang 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support —Encephalon 07:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Wheee! :)--Deglr6328 07:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing image. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A higher-res version would be nice though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Bertilvidet 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Tone 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - You cut off half of the picture!! How are we amateur photographers supposed to compete against NASA? --Cyde Weys 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Quick note: I knew someone would say that down the line. --Kitch 19:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- A beautiful high-resolution image. --BillC 09:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:PIA04866 modest.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy.gif

An excellent illustration of the life-cycle of a foetus during pregnancy and symbolic of the birth of life.

Appears in Pregnancy.

Created by de:User:Christoph73 and cleaned up by User:Ilmari Karonen. Based on Month_1_sm.jpg to Month_9_sm.jpg from the National Institutes for Health, uploaded by User:Stevertigo.

• Nominate and support. --Pkchan 12:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent Sotakeit 12:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although it would be nice to have a larger version to see the fetus change more clearly. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-5 16:32
• Comment: Since I found out that this image was nominated for featured status, I decided to take the time to redo it from the original stills, resulting in fewer compression artifacts and better color reproduction. The new version also uses a nicer serif font for the titles; if you're seeing a version with a sans-serif font, refresh your browser cache. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading the instructions, I realize I should've uploaded with a different name instead. Sorry. I'll leave it as is for now rather than mess things up further by trying to undo my mistake, but if anyone feels it'd be better to reupload and revert the original, feel free to do so. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• A somewhat biased support. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Very good indeed! ~ Veledan • Talk 21:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't it read something like, "5th month" or "5 months"? "5. month" is just gramatically wrong. And also, is a bigger version available? - JPM | 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should. The German original had "1. Monat" etc. I can fix it easily, either with weeks or with months. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support very informative and professional looking. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It is a fine image. Is there anyway to change the 1. month to 4 weeks as pregnancy is actually calculated in weeks?--Dakota ~ ° 07:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So the numbers would then go 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has anyone contacted the webmaster of the NIH website where these images came from to make sure that these images were actually made by someone working for the US federal government? US government sites often use images they've merely licensed from other sources... I'd ask myself, but there doesn't appear to be enough info on the image pages. If no one has, I'm going to oppose. --Gmaxwell 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Need to ask Stevertigo, I suppose. Will do that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The look very much like A.D.A.M. images to me (www.adam.com) which would mean that they are a copyvio.--nixie 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well done. Very accurately and helpfully displays the various stages. I would prefer it if the above changes (time in weeks and 5th instead of 5.) were made, but I still support it even if those changes aren't made. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support but JPM is right - the ordinal numbers should be corrected before the picture is promoted Calderwood 11:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: could it be edited to adjust the "1. month" "2. month" etc. Having a dot after the number is a German convention and since we are the English Wikipedia I prefer it to read "1st month"...etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, provided that: 1 - license is OK, 2 - month numbering fixed. --Janke | Talk 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• 1. Regarding the "month numbering", it should be "5 months" "6 months" etc, not the current 1.Month... Weeks are the usual unit of measure in obstetrics; however directly converting it from our end conveys a misleading picture if the original medical illustrator drew it for (and used) "months". 2. This looks very much like an A.D.A.M.s image; until the source is located this should not be promoted. —Encephalon 07:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support If I support if the grammar is all right (see above). Apart from that, excellent depiction and animated GIF! Alvinrune ^TALK 22:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice detail, but i also agree the number needs to be changed --Ali K 14:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support if and only if the captions are changed to weeks (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36) Neutrality^talk 21:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Neutrality - Support if and only if the captions are changed to weeks (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36) Johntex\^talk 03:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As I've seen no response from Stevertigo, I've sent an e-mail to A.D.A.M. and the NIH asking for their help in determining the copyright status of the original images. I've also asked them, should the images turn out to be copyrighted, to consider releasing them under a free license. One can always hope... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support' Great picture: good quality, simple to understand, clear, to the point, relatively small in size 147Kbyte for 9 pictures). Notice that even the breasts are shown to grow. Msoos 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted It is obvious that this picture has a consensus of support (including from me) but it can't be promoted while its copyright is in question. If you get a favourable reply to your emails (fingers crossed), I'd recommend re-nominating it immediately and it'll surely be promoted (especially if you can adjust the text to read Month 2 etc) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I've just received an email from A.D.A.M. saying that they do not recognize these images. Still no word from the NIH, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Update 2: I've found the source for the original images: [6]. Unfortunately the copyright for the images on that site is owned by the National Physicians Center for Family Resources. I contacted them to ask for permission, but they did not want to allow commercial use. Sadly, that means these images have to go. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mukka fishing

I took this photograph in December 2003 - it depicts two fishermen in their boat attempting to catch fresh fish for us to purchase. The palm trees illustrate how close we are to land, and of course the tropical nature of the surroundings. In high resolution you can make out that the fishermen are not very well dressed, illustrating how the lower classes of Indian society continue to make ends meet through primary economic methods such as fishing... especially in a coastal town such as Mangalore.

The picture was taken by me, has been released into the public domain, and appears on the Mangalore article, used in conjunction with the section to do with the local economy.

• Nominate and support. - DJR (Talk) 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great shot, horrible quality. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The quality, sharpness is not good. sorry, not FP quality. --vineeth

04:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment exposure time of 1/640 sec (0.0015625) is very less, esp when the natural light is dull . This should have been more. --vineeth

• Oppose though i always like this kind of a-liitle-boat-floating-on-a-river pic--K.C. Tang 04:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very nice scene, but the quality is inadequate for featured quality. Keep trying though! ; ) — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 05:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This might be improved by editing the original camera file (not a compressed jpg) to smaller size, while adjusting brightness/contrrast and correcting the slight tilt. --Janke | Talk 06:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nice compo. everything else poor.--Deglr6328 13:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too dull and not sharp enough. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know what picture you guys are looking at, but I think this one is high enough quality so that is is FP material. I may be a little on the fuzzy side, but I think its great quality. A better picture might be nice though. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • TERRIBLE noise, don't you see it? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose you can see the excessive JPEG compression at thumbnail size. Full size it's bloody awful. chowells 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice scenery, but bad quality. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I uploaded another version, but it still needs a lot more editing to be considered a Featured Picture. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no use in trying to improve a pic with that much noise & artifacts - in fact, your new edit looks more like a fresco on stucco than a photo... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yeah, the noise is terrible, especially on the trees. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The edit is no improvement at all! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The JPEG compression is absolutely horrible. Alr 02:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Oak Leaf

Flora, fauna, - both? "Wow" when I first saw this... wow ever since. Shot in the wild. Thanks to Shyamal for identifying this for me. This photo illustrates an otherwise uncolourful article Colours of animals. It will also illustrate the Kallima article at some point. Photo taken/posted by: Rklawton

• Nominate and support. - Rklawton 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, do you perhaps mean this? While the camouflage is impressive, it is so impressive it is not clear from your photo what it is demonstrating. This photo is at least needed for demonstration |→ Spaully°τ 17:51, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

Good point. I didn't include the second photo because it doesn't illustrate the point made in the article. To wit: Thus the leaf-like butterflies (Kallima) present various types of colour and pattern on the under side of the wings, each of which closely resembles some well-known appearance presented by a dead leaf... However, I made sure to cross-link the two images on their respective pages. To me, the second photo looks like just another pretty butterfly photo. Rklawton 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, unfortunately the image quality isn't up to FP standard - grainy, and severe compression artifacts. If a version of higher quality can be uploaded, and possibly combined with the second image into one, showing this amazing mimicry, that would be a stunning image, and I'd support. --Janke | Talk 21:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yikes. I've uploaded a higher resolution image and changed the DPI setting. This took care of some of the problems described. Please note, this is not an example of mimicry. It is an example of camouflage. The image usefully demonstrates the Kallima's hiding abilities as noted in the Colours of animals article. Google "Kallima" (images) and you'll see this image is the best Kallima-in-hiding photo on the 'net. Rklawton 22:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • See what I had in mind (more encyclopedic) in fact, I was so bold as to put this version in the Colours of animals article. With the image pair, you're intrigued with the difference in the top and bottom coloring of the flutterby. (PS: Of course, you're correct re. mimicry/camouflage.) --Janke | Talk 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I reverted your change to the Colours of animals article and provided a detailed explanation in the article's talk section. Your revision misses the point of the article. The article isn't about pretty butterflies. It's about how well Kallima's hide. The second photo illustrates a Kallima sticking out like a sore thumb. On the other hand, the double image would look great in the pending Kallima article... except that I have a three-image illustration that shows the wings opening from the same angle that will serve better as an illustration of a Kallima. Rklawton 07:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I disagree about the pair being inappropriate for the article. The contrast between the top and bottom is what is really interesting to me - there are lots of insects camouflaging which don't show this duality in coloring. Since the dual image is now an orphan, I suggest it should be re-inserted in the article if consensus here favors it. Fair enough? --Janke | Talk 07:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the images here are out of context, the consensus should be sought in the article's talk page. The fact that an image is an orphan does not justify its intrusion into an article. While you are intrigued by the duality of the butterfly's coloring, that particular intrigue has a more appropriate venue: the pending Kallima article. The Colours of animals illustration is meant to wow the viewer with the insect's ability to hide. I didn't insert the Kallima reference into the article; it's the author's example of "invisibility." The illustration I provided is meant to show the reader what the author meant by "invisible." Viewers who want to know more about the Kallima know where to click. When they do, they'll get a second "wow." I sure did. Rklawton 07:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support combined, although it should be feasible to make a larger version. I can't understand why both images aren't in the colors of animals article, it makes no sense! It's an example of an animal with two different color schemes which serve different purposes. –Joke 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The article only references this particular critter's ability to hide, so the illustration only shows this critter's ability to hide, and it does it rather well. Look at it this way, if I provided an illustration of male anatomy for an article on male anatomy, would you also insist I provide an illustration of female anatomy? Of course not; it's off the topic. It's really that simple. Now, an article about a Kallima would be a different story entirely. I have different images to illustrate that article - when it's written, and believe me, the transition from leaf to butterfly is breath-taking. Rklawton 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"male anatomy ... insist I provide an illustration of female anatomy" Not a valid analogue. Males and females are two entirely different creatures (ask my girlfriend... ;-) The dual image illustrates the coloring of this single butterfly perfectly, whether in a Kallima article, or an article about (camouflage) colors. BTW, the Colours of animals article is a mess (copied from E. Brit. 1911), and should be moved to Wikisource, and a new, shorter, much better article written instead. --Janke | Talk 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please at least acknowledge that the sentence mentioning the Kallima only references its ability to hide. Folks who haven't read the article might miss this rather important fact.

As for EB 1911, check the talk page. Another editor posted that it wasn't. Personally, I don't know. I agree the article needs rework. Perhaps the original editors may wish to undertake the effort. Rklawton 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Please at least acknowledge that the sentence mentioning the Kallima only references its ability to hide." OK, OK, sure, no need to get your feathers all ruffled up... ;-) Some of us still would like to see the duality. And Alvinrune, I don't see the idea of your new edit - in fact, you made an error, there's a strangely mismatched or superimposed stripe in the middle. --Janke | Talk 06:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas

This picture appears in the Dallas article. It is a well balanced shot from a great viewpoint. The sky in particular looks great. It appears that this shot was taken in the early morning. An excellent contribution to the Dallas article.

• Nominate and support. - Charles2-2 19:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Grainy sky, not very sharp. Composition could also be better - alas, not stunning. --Janke | Talk 21:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is nice and the skyline is beautiful but ...I don't know, I'm just not wowed. It feels like this is the most mundane way possible to take an image of this subject. --Deglr6328 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Boring Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Janke. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's cool, but not stunning. Not FP Material. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 16:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very stunning image! I uploaded another version. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Alvinrune, the sky is even worse in your edit, even though the colors are better. Editing grainy or "artifacty" images is not easy - most often the results are inferior to the original. --Janke | Talk 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, It would just be any other picture to me, but I really like how that building is so reflective. I especailly like the second, artifacts or not.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor composition and relatively uninteresting. —This unsigned comment was added by 65.182.51.67 (talk • contribs) .
• Support: looks great to me! --Hetar 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing spectacular. Canuck89 08:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Leaf Mantis Camouglage

We already had a FP of camouflage a year ago or so, but I stumbled upon this one by Adrian Pingstone. It does have some problems with it, like blurriness, but I think it'd make a nice image if it got touched up a bit.

• Nominate and support. - JPM | 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, doesn't look too bad, though I don't think nominations shouuld be made with the intention of someone touching them up. Phoenix2 20:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't really think it was at FP quality the way it was, so I wanted to make it clear that I think someone should touch it up. - JPM | 22:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case, oppose, messy in too many ways. Phoenix2 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A bit too messy, and what appears to be an endemic problem: tail end cut off, lessening the encyclopedic value... --Janke | Talk 21:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's an OK picture, not FP quality, though. Too messy is right. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 16:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Decent, but not special. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The background has to be messy or how would the astonishing camouflage be demonstrated? But I don't think it's a suitable FPC candidate (I took it!) - Adrian Pingstone 16:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too messy and confusing. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very messy. Hard to figure out what you are looking at. Canuck89 08:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi and Nehru (alternate version)

This is a historical photograph, with two central figures of 20th century Indian history, the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi, and the first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru together. There might be technical issues with the photo (such as size and exposure), but its historical value makes it a good FP candidate nonetheless.

• Nominate and support. - deeptrivia (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too high contrast. Gandhi's face is totally black, and parts of the image are totally white. Would support a better-quality version. --Janke | Talk 07:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry deeptrivia, Gandhi and Nehru don't even have a front on view and as per Janke. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, that was kind of anticipated. Here's an alternate version. I touched it up a bit, including enlarging and sharpening. Finding Gandhi's photo with Nehru in front view can be difficult.
• The 2nd image is not PD. According to [7] (site is currently down), the photograph was taken well after 1923 and is not public domain. It is still copyrighted, and not licensed to be freely used. Also, the enlarging of the photograph made it extra blurry, and noticeably pixelated (such as around Nehru's eyeglasses). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 17:34
  • As for PD status, it surely is PD (see new tag.) Is there any fix for pixelatedness (like smoothening around that area) ? Is the original size okay? deeptrivia (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I would upload your enlarged size to a separate file and list it on this page, instead of uploading it over the original. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 18:17
• Support Image:Nehru-gandhi.jpg By all means upload a larger version if one is found but I agree, don't upload a simple enlargement that doesn't add detail ~ Veledan • Talk 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Would support #2, but only if a better scan can be found. This one is too small/too fuzzy if enlarged. There's no software in the real world that does what they do on "C.S.I."... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The 2nd image is not in the public domain. It's from the same series of photographs as this one, taken by Dave Davis of Acme Newspictures for the New York World-Telegram & Sun, in 1946. For it to possibly even be public domain in India, it would have had to be taken before 1946. The copyright information is here and here. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 07:28
• Withdrawn support per Brian's elucidation of the copyright question. Would this be eligible for nomination even in 2007? The subjects and location might be Indian, but the act of publication happened in the US. If we were to wait for date of publication plus X years to free the copyright, wouldn't it be US copyright law that applied? ~ Veledan • Talk 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems that way to me. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 19:04

• • Comment: Oh, in that case, maybe we can speedy remove this candidature. deeptrivia (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Pogge

If anyone loves hockey, then no one can forget how Goaltender Justin Pogge has taken our breath away during the 2006 World Juniors Ice Hockey Championships. I can work on the picture if i need to

• Nominate and support. - paat 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Inelegible. Licensed as "status unknown", and even then, it's still too small. Alr 02:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose/Inelegible as per Alr. I am going to guess that this image is copyrighted and it might end up be claimed as fair use. Fair use images aren't allowed as featured images. We also like to see a resolution of at least 1,000px and this falls far short of that. It is a good picture though. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This vote/comment is redundant, but I just wanted to say that I think this is a pretty cool picture, and had it been larger and had a free license, I would've given it some serious FP consideration. ~MDD4696 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nominate for removal - Waaaay too small, copyright unsuitable etc.--Deglr6328 06:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Opp ridiculously too small, ineligible for FPC. chowells 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Apparently paat was able to resolve the copyright licensing. He put it as {{tv-screenshot}} which seems correct to me. However, fair use images aren't allowed as FP. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosobranchia

A striking antique (1904) lithograph, illustrating a variety of prosobranch gastropods. I scanned and uploaded this image.--ragesoss 09:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - ragesoss 09:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. High in detail, and nice contrast. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 09:46
• Support nice picture --vineeth 10:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice image and really adds to the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support for a very cool collage. Staxringold 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Oh go on then ;-) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Much of the value of Haeckel's work comes from after you're done looking at the lithograph, you can then learn more about each or any organism presented. I'd like to see species names on the talk page please (I've already added another ugly number key, so you can fill in the blanks) :) —Pengo 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll fill those in next week, when I get home and have the book again. Thanks again, Pengo!--ragesoss 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Already done now. Sadly none of the species illustrated have their own articles (at least not under Haeckel's often outdated binomials) —Pengo 08:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support per my support of all the previous lithos. –Joke 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, yes, yes! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great picture, good quality scan, clear, important.
• Support A great, clear picture! Canuck89 21:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support IMO this could qualify as a model photo to demonstrate what FPs is all about. --Philopedia 22:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Haeckel Prosobranchia.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lütt-Witt Moor.jpg

Photographer: Jan van der Crabben

Article: Bog

• Nominating. A little dark, but maybe that captures the essence of the bog. It might also be fixable. -- Beland 19:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Truly boggy. It's not too dark. Bogs aren't exactly sunny places. When I think of a bog, I think of something out of fiction - with mist and spider webs everywhere. I'm really glad for a photo that dispels Hollywood stereotypes. I really like the mix of greens. Rklawton 19:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great pic, great colour. Phoenix2 20:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've uploaded a sharpened, auto-contrasted version. The size was also reduced to improve sharpness. The best way to see the difference (in Windows) is to save both image to your desktop and view the changes with the Windows image viewer. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 20:27
• Support either version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 20:27
• Support At the thumb size it gives an impressionistic feel, I love it. --Obli (Talk)^? 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support either This works well at all sizes :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Supporteither version--K.C. Tang 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support either Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Brian's edit. Original is a bit fuzzy, edit large enough. --Janke | Talk 07:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Either version, Bogtastic! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a bog. –Joke 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. - Glaurung 06:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. --Terence Ong 07:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Mild preference for no. 2. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Second Image Interesting image... nicely illustrates a bog. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support My only problem with it, is it's too green... but then, it's nature afterall. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. Brings the ethos of natural beauty Robin klein 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lütt-Witt Moor-2.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Munnar

This photo is astoundingly beautiful, and represents nature at its best. Shown in the photo is Munnar, a famous tourist destination in Kerala, India. Munnar is also the location of exotic flora and fauna. It is in fact nicked as "The Switzerland of India". The picture also gives a splendid view of the Western Ghats range of mountains. Photo uploaded by: Coolmallu1

• Nominate and support. - thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 10:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Beautiful photo, quality is good; only prob is that sun is obnoxious. Don't crop, though, as this would unbalance it. Bayberrylane 18:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry but this is too small, the sky isn't just blown out it's completely hogging the contrast, and the white-balance is off ~ Veledan • Talk 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, unfortunately. Resolution too low, and the sky is indeed too bright. Phoenix2 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sky. Blown out luminance, blown out specific colours, white balance way off. --Wikimol 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ack above. --Janke | Talk 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Astoundingly beautiful locales are not enough for FP, see above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Wikimol. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 23:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Good photo, but four words: graduated neutral density filter. –Joke 23:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose My parents came from Kerala, India! National Geographic numbers Kerala as one of the top 10 beautiful places in the world. This image certainly would have made FP standards if it had better resolution and with a few edits. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose good photo, but not quite FP level because of overexposure in sky. Johntex\^talk 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The star is in the way. Also, very obvious deformities along the tops of the peaks. Search4Lancer 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal computer

Here is a shameless self-nomination. This exploded view of a personal computer was created in response to a request for better illustrations for the article. I think it helps the article in describing what a typical (modern) personal computer consists of.

Furthermore, I would like to see more illustrations of featured picture quality in vector format (SVG) and I think this drawing is a good example of such. (If I count correct, currently there are only three featured pictures in vector format.)

• Self-nominate. –Gustavb 17:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given how the PC market is going currently, a laptop might be more appropriate.
• Support. Nicely composed and very illustrative. |→ Spaully°τ 19:06, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
• Comment I don't really like how the monitor is turned... why isn't it facing the same direction as the keyboard? Also, the motherboard is somewhat reversed. The processor is typically in the upper-left hand corner, and the face of the motherboard is supposed to be facing toward the left side of the case (in this drawing, the expansion slots would not line up with the back of the case!). ~MDD4696 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the monitor, yes I turned it away a bit in order to not make it too dominant. I haven't thought much about the placement of the components on the motherboard, the main thing was just to show them. Furthermore I'm not sure that all types of motherboards have the same layout, what about macs and SPARC based ones for instance? I've tried to illustrate something generic. But yes, you are correct about the expansion cards, they could be moved to the back, thanks for bringing it up. –Gustavb 20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support I'll support this version. The montherboard floating above the comp throws me off but it work well enough. -Ravedave 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Though I agree with Ravedave in terms of the motherboard throwing off the balance slightly. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Good work doing SVG, but expansion slots are too far forward (or rather the motherboard is the wrong way around) and screen is at funny angle compared to keyboard. —Pengo 16:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Support version 4 Even though it's merely flipped, I actually find the third version more athetically pleasing than the previous two. Perhaps because it doesn't jar with my preconceptions. I'd still like more stuff (like power cables, heatsink, fan, speakers, metal panes on the extension cards). Also i'm not sure why it needs to be all exloded rather than cut away (for the PSU and drives at least), but i'll support as is. My main issue now is that the IDE ports should be labelled, as what goes into them isn't immediately obvious from the diagram. —Pengo 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This isn't ready yet. With more work, this could be good, but I think that it's two or three revisions away from that. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in addition to the issues mentioned this far that you would like to see changed? –Gustavb 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mostly that the motherboard needs fixing and the monitor angle is weird, as stated above. In addition, the entire thing feels a bit "stark" but I wouldn't vote Oppose based solely on that. Also, you might want to add a floppy drive... some people still use those. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral for the time being. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. Version 4 or 5, good work! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here is a new version. I've rotated the monitor and rearranged things on the motherboard a bit. I hope it's better… –Gustavb 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's better, except the motherboard still, well, upside down compared to every computer case i've had. It's a good image, but as said by Dante Alighieri above, I think it needs a few more revisions to be ready. It hardly seems fair that a diagram takes so much more work than a photo, but.. well.. it does —Pengo 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, but in what way is it upside down? Is this motherboard upside down too? If I transpose the motherboard in my illustration down to the hinted outline, I think looks pretty much the same as the one in the picture. Yes, it sure takes a lot of work… I almost regret that I didn't do this as a 3D model in blender or something :) –Gustavb 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I can't make out any of the text in the image, I am 99% positive that that particular image has been flipped horizontally. This image is how just about every computer I've seen is oriented. ~MDD4696 02:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, of course, the illustration is flipped. Not an easy thing to change, I'm afraid… –Gustavb 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nicely done. I replaced all instances of Image:Personal_computer,_exploded.svg with the second version Image:Personal_computer,_exploded_2.svg. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Though it's not a big issue, this dialogue on "the mainboard is backwards" is stupid at best. The image was requested (by me) to illustrate what a PC might look like, not what ATX layout is. The image does not claim to be one of an ATX PC, nor has that been suggested by anybody here. Nothing at all mandates that PC (or otherwise) expansion cards are in any particular place in a microcomputer (look up the umpteen various standardized computer layouts and form factors). Again, I don't particularly care which way the mainboard is oriented since I requested this simply for illustrative purposes (and more specifically, to rid personal computer of those terrible shots of peoples' desktops), but your vote shouldn't be "oppose" based on a preconception that a PC must conform to ATX. -- uberpenguin 02:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sure, a computer could theoretically be built as a mirror image of ATX, but computers aren't typically built that way. Note that in the first image that the card slots don't line up with the back of the computer, so if you had a monitor plugged into this picasso-world computer you would have to leave the case off so the monitor could plug into the strangely internal backplane (or perhaps the monitor is meant to plug into the front?) This has been fixed somewhat now anyway, but I think it would be kind of embarrassing having a mirror-world or picasso-world computer in the featured image list, especially if it were to end up on the front page. It's a good image, and it's illustrative as it is, but it would be better if it reflected the real world (most computers use PCI cards, and that's what these cards look like), and it needs to be a better image to be a featured picture. I'd also like to see some indication of where things plug in (like the monitor or PSU), and perhaps include speakers and a heatsink+fan for the CPU, as are fairly typical on PCs. That said, it's definitely a good image, and a much better than I could draw. —Pengo 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Computers aren't typically built that way"? I am loathe to point out that there is quite a broad array of "computers" (and PCs specifically) that are arranged totally differently from ATX. I specifically wanted to avoid many of the specifics you are citing so the image would be more general in scope. The diagram should only show the very basics of what is typical in a PC, and this it does. Consider that this is intended for the article personal computer, which discusses (or will discuss) PCs in many shapes and forms; including those that existed before this century. Heatsink/fan? Come now, even within your lifetime there have been a multitude of PCs that required no heat spreading for their CPU. Several late Intel P4 designs required no heat sink for reliable operation, and many members of the P5 family only required a small passive heatsink (no fan). I reiterate that I think it's silly for you to oppose this image on grounds that it doesn't look exactly like the x86 ATX tower sitting next to you, however that is your prerogative. When I requested it be made, I wanted it to be uncluttered, general, and simple. The image more or less perfectly fills those requirements and makes an excellent addition to the PC (not ATX) article. -- uberpenguin 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support version two version four or five of this image as is. No additional clutter is needed in it. -- uberpenguin 03:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support version two. - Glaurung 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is a new version in response to the concerns about the "flipped" motherboard. I still agree with uberpenguin that it's not very relevant, but on the other hand I don't want anyone to think it's embarrasing if it ends up as a FP… –Gustavb 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A few last details: its non-obvious (remember, not everyone who looks will know what they're "supposed" to see) that the CPU goes with the CPU socket and that the RAM goes in the RAM slots. Also, you've included the IDE connectors but not labeled them. The only other thing I'd change is the base for the monitor which looks oddly off-center. Other than that, I think you've done an excellent job responding to the listed concerns. I've changed my vote to Neutral pending the further changes, which would garner a Support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignore comment about off-center monitor base, that was fixed in 2->3. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The microprocessor->socket thing is likely a valid concern here. I'm against labeling the "IDE connectors" because a discrete mass storage storage bridge interface (and specifically ATA) is not necessarily part of any PC. If ATA is even mentioned in the PC article, it will be purely as an example. Again, the diagram should only show the very fundamental components one would see in nearly all modern PCs. The diagram doesn't actually need the ATA headers, but I don't see much reason to remove them either. -- uberpenguin 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right, it's not obvious that the CPU/RAM goes with their sockets. What solution do you propose? "Hinting" lines (like the other components), moving them a bit closer, or moving them in place? –Gustavb 23:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • They're the only un-labeled components. They either need labels or need to be removed. I'm fine either way. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There are two questions that need to be answered for the viewer of this image: "What are those? (the unlabelled ATA headers) and "How does do the drives connect with the rest of the PC?" Leaving the ATA headers unlabelled fails to answer the first question, and removing them fails to answer the second. However the first question is more important, and as most of the connections between things have been left out (e.g. monitor cables, PSU to motherboard+power, etc), it would seem logical to continue this style and simply remove the headers. My preference, however, would be to leave them in and label them as an example of how drives connect to the PC. Give them a suitably generic name if necessary. E.g. "Sockets for drives to connect (ATA headers)" It doesn't matter that ATA isn't on every PC, and that it may connect elsewhere. This is an example PC, not every PC. It's more confusing to leave questions unanswered. And as for the CPU/RAM, I find their sockets/slots obvious enough. Pengo 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As for IDE not being necessarily a part of any PC: nor is the monitor, keyboard, mouse, optical drive, hard drive, expansion cards, or even the beige case. Pengo 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Haha.. I was hoping someone would say that. You're right of course; the real issue is that there's little reason to go into a diversion about host bridges in an article about PCs. As I said, for the purposes of this discussion I don't particularly care if they are removed. -- uberpenguin 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've tried to make it more clear that the CPU and RAM belong to their sockets… it's not perfect, but I think it's a bit better. So, now we have one version without ATA and one with ATA+labels. Regarding adding cables etc., I would say it's hard adding it without making it messy (at least I don't have the skill to do that). Furthermore, I think the illustration explains enough as it is. –Gustavb 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've supported either of your two latest (4/5) versions. Great work responding to concerns! Leaving the cables out is a wise decision. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support either of the last two, nice job! --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support versions 4 or 5 These two versions are sufficiently detailed to be accurate and plausible (the IDE cards in the front would be just silly) and also nicely composed and done from a graphical standpoint. —This unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 22:28 16 March 2006.
• Support 5. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-18 19:11
• Support Cleary shows all the important parts of a computer without being over-simplistic or over-complicated. Clear, artistic image. Msoos 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Version 5. There's no graphics/monitor/keyboard/mouse ports, so no point having ATA. And the ATA ports are usually to the right of the PCI slots. ed g2s • talk 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support 4 or 5, preferably 5. Great illustration. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Version 4 or 5. Great illustration. Not too much or too little information depicted. Canuck89 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: nothing special --Hetar 09:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This vote was cast after the picture had been promoted and was not taken into account. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Personal computer, exploded 5.svg This one took some time to review. Clearly, the image in any form was supported. Since the early votes were cast before the 4th and 5th image was posted, I think that those the early voters wouldn't oppose these versions. I also think 3-5 are more realistic in their depiction. Of the people who voted last, #5 seemed to be the favorite. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call of Duty

I found this picture of Call of Duty fascinating. I myself, I find that war in fascinating (although it is abviously bad). So every year there always a newer game out there were its the most realistic as possible. I though this would be a good picture to show how close we are to war.

This article appears in Call of Duty 2, and it is a screenshot of the game uploaded by Thunderbrand

• Nominate and support. - paat 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ineligible. Sorry, this image is can't be a Featured Picture as fair use images aren't allowed (Featured Picture criteria). If it weren't for that, I think it'd be an amazing image. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per PS2. My only idea for you would be sending the game developer an email in the hopes they might release a particular screenshot into the public domain, but I highly doubt they would. Staxringold 07:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted - Ineligible - |→ Spaully°τ 16:54, 27 March 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Swans

I don't often edit here, but I saw this image in the Swans article and I thought it was a shame it hadn't been featured. The image was created by Bowenpan and appears in the Swan and Mute Swan articles. The colors are bright and clear, and I thought the lighting was exemplary.

• Nominate and support. --Keitei 12:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Almost perfect, but not quite - thus a very, very weak oppose because of the slight overexposure (half a stop darker would have been right) - detail is lost in some of the feathers. Also, the glare in the water is slightly distracting - use a polarizer, next time? --Janke | Talk 16:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undecided It's almost too artsy, almost like a greeting card, I'm not really sure what to make of it, I'll ruminate on it for a while --Obli (Talk)^? 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too "bright" and I find the water ugly. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Dante Alighieri, the water looks oily. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 22:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with all the above comments. –Joke 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose too bright, looks more like a postcard. --Terence Ong 07:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very beautiful picture - Adrian Pingstone 15:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The glimmer of the sun is too bright. Burning it might ruin the whole quality of the image. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel terrible opposing, as it's a very nice image, but the sun just ruins it. I sat around for 10-15 minutes trying to darken the sun in a workable way, but it just ruins the pic as Alvinrune said. Staxringold 23:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, though slightly over-exposed, still beautiful, just beautiful. Phoenix2 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Phoenix2. Johntex\^talk 03:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --24.191.103.98 21:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is way overexposed. Also its a bit spotty, a fairly poor angle.. and low-res, which might've been a mask for lack-of-clarity. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. One of the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen, slight overexposure notwithstanding. I couldn't bear to deny anything so eye-catching featured status on such a quibble. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Phoenix2. --71.112.25.139 07:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support So striking and illustrative and it's a great desktop image. --Procrastinator-General 21:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I Like it --Fir0002 www 10:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belle of Louisville

This is an image of a National Historic Landmark and is known as the Belle of Louisville. This image not only holds a place in history but, in my humble opinion, its beauty has been captured for future generations.

• Nominate and support. - J.Steinbock 03:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Much too small at 500 px. Current "requirement" is 1000 px or more. Nice image though, I'd love to see a paddlewheeler as a FP - but maybe all of it... --Janke | Talk 06:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small of a resolution. I'd also like to see more of the boat instead of just a portion of the back end. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - too small - Adrian Pingstone 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small, incomplete subject. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Way too small. Like Janke said, atleast 1000 px (that is except for animated .GIFs of course). Alvinrune ^TALK 21:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too small, and I would rather see the whole boat, not just the back.
• Oppose. A steamship phote might well make an interesting entry. However I think it would be more striking if the image hadn't been a close up. As it is, I needed several seconds to identify the subject. --Philopedia 22:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Wizrdwarts 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Could someone remove this nomination? It seems the image has been deleted. ~MDD4696 04:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted The image was apparently deleted, so I am closing this nomination. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Budgerigar-Female-Benno

Photo taken of Benno, the female budgerigar by my friend, Craig Patten. This is Craig's partner's pet budgie. I have met it on several occasions and it and it is a dear thing. But more to the point, I am surprised and impressed by the excellent quality and composition of this picture. I don't know anything about photography and Craig is not a professional photographer either but the photo surpasses an amateur.

• Nominate and support. - Frances76 06:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for every reason under the sun. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, this isn't FP stuff - mostly out of focus, bad lighting & background, tail cut off...--Janke | Talk 14:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't agree with Janke, the background is pleasantly neutral and the lighting is pleasingly gentle. However, sadly, the off-centre placement and the blurred tail end irritates me - Adrian Pingstone 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too-shallow DoF and incomplete subject. In addition (and this is NOT why I voted Oppose, but only a side-note), it would be nice if any FP of a budgie could display wild-type plumage... or at least a more common domestic plumage. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like how its off-centered, and only a portion of his tail is not visible. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore River

This photo brings out the best colours and dynamics along the Singapore River. It shows Clarke Quay on the left, where the river taxis are parked. On the right shows part of Singapore' skyline (including Swissôtel The Stamford), reverse bungee (relaxed Laws of Singapore), and the colourful Old Hill Street Police Station. Photograph taken by Sengkang.

• Nominate and support. - Mailer Diablo 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Could maybe go in a few more articles as well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support very colorful. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 22:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support A surprising picture. –Joke 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why (just out of curiosity)? - Adrian Pingstone 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know really. I'm normally not excited by city pictures, but this has so many elements that make me ask: what's that? what's that? and that? –Joke 21:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, nice picture. --Terence Ong 01:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Bright clear colorful image complements article well and just became my wallpaper of the day.--Dakota ~ ° 03:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose That leaning pylon ruins it for me - Adrian Pingstone 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean the two white plyons? That's the reverse bungee, see this and this for closer shots. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I mean the large striped pylon on the left - Adrian Pingstone 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm mistaken, rectifying that would cause the buildings on the right to lean in turn. Circeus 01:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, you are mistaken. A clever command in Photoshop called Edit/Transform/Skew does the job - see pic attached - Adrian Pingstone 14:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see. ;) - Mailer Diablo 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice scene! I uploaded a slightly edited version. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. Edited version oversaturates the colours, looks more like Spain than SE Asia. Would support enhanced image with more subtle saturation. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose My assumption is that this photo attempts to contrast older, traditional aspects of life in Singapore, with the modern city. It's an interesting notion, made very relevant by the fact that Singapore went so quickly from a poor backwater to a rich and modern metropolis. Aesthetically though, the photo fails to please. Too much of the image area is taken up by irrelevant elements (sky, water). The image has a very amateurish. There must be better subjects in Singapore to realise this concept; and there must be relevant images that are better executed. --Philopedia 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Too much of the image area is taken up by irrelevant elements (sky, water)." ...the water is the subject of the photo, which is the Singapore River. "there must be relevant images that are better executed." ...I presume you have something better in mind to recommend then? :) - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The Light left side and the dark right side (because of the clouds) is distracting and brings down the quality. Wait for a sunnier day to take the next photo? -M^ask 22:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted 8/11=72.72% I don't feel that is a consensus. RfA voting gives the 75-80% range up to the closing bureaucrat and this falls short of even that. I left this up for a few hours extra hoping there'd be another vote to sway it one way or the other. If people object, feel free to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment This may well never be read on a closed nom, but for what it's worth I concur with the decision, though not based on numbers alone (I've certainly promoted images with 8/3 before, and will again). In this case I'd give the opposes more weight because of their specific rationales: in borderline cases I think you have to start weighting comments according to the criteria ~ Veledan • Talk 19:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I'd definitely give less weight to people who just vote "oppose" without explaining why in borderline cases. The pointafterall is to develop a consensus. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish shawl

This is a picture of a Spanish shawl used in the Nudibranch article. It illustrates three important features about the nudibranch's anatomy: The tentacles, the external gills on the back and the bright colors.

• Self-nominate and support. --User:Kjaergaard 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A bit blurry, but it's underwater, and the colors more than make up for that. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-13 03:00
• Support. Vibrant colour and clear enough for underwater in a canyon.--Dakota ~ ° 05:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wow! What colors! Pity the yellow background is a bit distracting, though. --Janke | Talk 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Ohhhh yes! nudibranchtacular.--Deglr6328 08:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support despite the background--K.C. Tang 08:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice colours! --CyberPolymerase 19:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is possible to selectively fade the yellow region by Photoshop? Or of course I should have asked it to pose in front of a neutral background... :-) Kjaergaard 09:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great shot. Nudibranchs are neat. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Incomplete subject. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Actually, nevermind. The image isn't an FPC candidate for illustrating this specific nudibranch, but specific portions of the nudibranch anatomy... which this image does well, despite the incomplete animal. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support –Joke 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I love the colours, good for an underwater picture. The background is a bit dull. --Terence Ong 07:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent critter. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice image…very colorful! Alvinrune ^TALK 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support but... Did anyone else notice that this thing's tail is cut off? :) —Pengo 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it's not, but it is partially obscured, which I intially did not notice. Changing my vote above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a different one with the entire nudibranch, but I like the other one better. Kjaergaard 00:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Lovely detail and colors Search4Lancer 04:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Spanish shawl.JPG --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Einstein

In honor of Einstein's birthday, I have identified these pictures as being worthy of a featured picture title. Due to my lack of knowledge in photography and the beauty of visual art, I am not able to see the qualities that others may find to oppose its worthiness of such a title. Therefore, I find no flaw in these photos and ask that he be remembered on this day. (I am not only nominating these photographs due to his birthday).

• Nominate and support. - J.Steinbock 03:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too low resolution. Also, copyright status unclear. --Janke | Talk 06:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The larger version is better, but a bit blurry (very shallow DOF, really). Also too dark/low contrast. Will fix that later, if no-one else does it first. --Janke | Talk 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Image:Einstein In Overcoat.jpg (1st one) Janke's edit — Nice idea! I'm no lawyer but I gather the copyright is fine on that one. Also, I have uploaded a high res version (over the top since it is the same photo from the same source) ~ Veledan • Talk 13:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't Image:Albert Einstein.jpg already featured? Circeus 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, but there are plenty of other examples where we have two or more FPs of the same subject. I'm not sure which of the two I prefer (the new nom or the old FP, that is)... let's see what people think! ~ Veledan • Talk 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Second image has no source info. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the second image because (1) it isn't eligible in any case without source/copyright info, and (2) its presence would likely cloud the debate over the eligible pic. J.Steinbock, I hope you don't mind, and feel free to revert me if you do ~ Veledan • Talk 21:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)z
  • I do not mind whatsoever. I was not aware of its copyright status. I am quite impressed with your consideration for me. :) J.Steinbock ^(Talk)
• Weak Oppose I prefer the old FP over this. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As was stated above, it is acceptable to have more than one image of the same object or topic. J.Steinbock ^(Talk)
• Neutral. I would rather see the famous tongue picture be the next Einstein photo promoted :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 04:21
• Comment I uploaded a slightly smaller version (no info lost), with contrast and brightness adjusted to better bring out E's facial features. Unfortunately, there are some artifacts due to the high compression of the original upload. --Janke | Talk 07:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I fear this could have been my fault: I changed the .tif to a .jpg before uploading. Janke, if you get a second would you mind comparing the original? ~ Veledan • Talk 21:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the note and link. I uploaded a new version over the old edit, there are now less artifacts, and also not quite so drastic a contrast change. --Janke | Talk 07:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cheers for that, I updated my vote ~ Veledan • Talk 20:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. (1st) It's not quite as good as the other FP, but it deserves some attention and it's definitely a famous photo.--ragesoss 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March 29 2006 solar eclipse

This is a perfect animation of the March 29, 2006 full solar eclipse done by NASA. It is used in solar eclipse and is currently on the main page as part of an in the news segment. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn due to copyright concerns, NASA policy states that media is uncopyrighted unless copyright is stated and on this animation copyright is clearly stated so it cannot even be used not to mention being a FP. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object it's not very high quality, in both colours and detail. Computerjoe's talk 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyramid of 35 Spheres

This image is a very interesting and colorful depiction of a animated .GIF created by a software called POV-Ray and was converted using Adobe ImageReady. The POV-Ray script can be found on its description page. Blotwell uploaded it using his Wikimedia Commons account, which is also Blotwell last August. It isn't linked to any files, but a smaller version of it Image:Pyramid of 35 spheres animation.gif is linked to the article Animation Computer animation. (Another smaller version is Image:Pyramid of 35 spheres animation large.gif.) The only downside is that it is 1.97 MB and that it can't be made a thumb.

• Nominate and Support Alvinrune ^TALK 20:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose Despite the fact that this is a great picture and a good animation I find the light reflection off the spheres to be very distracting even though it makes it look more realistic. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What reflections? Perhaps you mean the flickering of the shadows. —Tamfang 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Tip: always find a good home for the pic before posting here, because it's a criterion for FP that the images add significantly to an article, and you'll very likely get opposed if it doesn't. For this pic, I'd consider switching it for the low res dice in POV-Ray and maybe even swapping it for the lowish res header pic in Ray tracing ~ Veledan • Talk 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose It's not used in Animation. A much smaller version is in the sub-article Computer animation, but rendering details get lost in that size. Wish we had a really good example of computer animation on WP, something like this wmv example ;-) --Janke | Talk 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not that easy to make computer-generated animated .GIFs. I liked the .WMV link you gave. ;-) Alvinrune ^TALK 02:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It looks brilliant and shows of the best of Wikipedia. --Midnighttonight 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Certainly had that "wow!" effect on me. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think this picture is the best example of computer animation, nor is it an interesting illustration of what you can do with POV-Ray (see this [8]) Glaurung 10:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you put that up on FPC? I'd support! --Janke | Talk 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• • You mean Image:Glasses 800.png? Me too, though my vote for this one still stands too.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, I stopped it on a random frame, and it didn't lose anything. What is the purpose of this animation? What is it specifically trying to illustrate? —Pengo 11:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The scaled version that we're using here is over 600KB... I presume that we'd use a simmlar size image in the article. ... I just don't see how the animation is 600KB of transfer time better than a still, even for a user on broadband. --Gmaxwell 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's a bit too flashy - it's trying to do too many things at once, and although it looks flash, it is not usable for any particular article. Shen 10:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support: The effect of the refraction (although realistic) is a bit distracting. Can the same image be done such that the spheres are frosted? Sjschen 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Dislkie the reflections --Fir0002 www 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The animation is rotating _way_ too fast... Freedom to share 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree, rotating too fast, as well as the poor quality of the spheres. Looks wobbly, too, but that's probably just an illusion. Search4Lancer 04:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's well done, but for a truly superb and feature-worthy example of what you can do in POV-Ray (albeit unanimated), see the nomination above. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The top ball does not move at all, and looks weird (if that makes any sense). Makes this not quite FP-standard for me. Batmanand | Talk 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The top ball isn't supposed to move.... it's rotating Search4Lancer 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediterranean Fruit Fly

This is a brilliant image (even though it is only 640 x 496px). :) It is a Mediterranean fruit fly, or "medfly" (Ceratitis capitata) from here (I didn't upload it)

• Nominate and support. - Nippoo 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is a 2700px version of this same image available at the same source, but it is slightly too high res (noisy and badly compressed). I'll have a go at downsampling and uploading Beyond my photoshop skills I'm afraid. I have uploaded the full res over the original since I've not altered it and the original was just a reduced size version of this. Someone else can have a go at fixing it :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice image, but I tried to save it, but I keep seeing a lower resolution image, instead. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Click CTRL+reload if you use firefox. Something similar in IE.. Shift+Reload? ~ Veledan • Talk 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Compared to the fly photo that is going through FPC at the moment, the quality of this is terrible. Especially at full size. --liquidGhoul 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. --Janke | Talk 23:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, reluctantly. I was inclined to support, but the full size image has too little detail on the fly itself. –Joke 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 21:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5th Solvay Conference

Article: Solvay Conference

When people think "historic photograph of physicists", this is the photo that comes to mind. This is from the famous 5th Solvay Conference in Belgium, which brought together the greatest scientists of the world, including Einstein, Curie, Schroedinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, Planck, Dirac, Pauli, Lorentz, Born, etc.

This is the conference where Einstein stated, "God does not play dice," to which Bohr replied, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do." These people were the architects of modern science. Seventeen of the twenty-nine attendees are Nobel Prize winners. The rest received consolation prizes :)

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 06:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Interesting to see so much brainpower on a single picture! Technically speaking, why if one clicks on the high resolution version of the picture, one obtains a different photograph with the names unederneath, but of very low quality? I think it would be interesting to have the good quality picture, but with the name below it, because I am sure that everyone recognized Einstein, but I must admit that I had no idea of what Schrödinger or Plank looked like before looking at this picture. Glaurung 06:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You need to redownload the image. Try pressing CTRL+F5. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 06:56
    • Support Ok, now I see it correctly, and the legend in the article clearly shows who's who. Glaurung 10:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Historical significance is more important than image quality. (Could be reduced 50% with no info loss.) --Janke | Talk 07:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would keep it larger just so people can print it on a poster, for example. It's not like we're going to be using full-size images in articles. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 07:32

• Support Very good historical significance, but i couldnt find myself in the pic :) --vineeth 07:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I only recognised Marie Curie and Albert Einstein, but I recognise a few of the names. I have seen the photograph before, and it is great to think that so many great minds were around at the same time, and that they actually met. Imagine listening in on their conversations, and having no idea what the hell they are saying :) --liquidGhoul 12:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is way before most of the extremely esoteric terminology of quantum mechanics was invented, so lectures may have been easier to understand... at least, until they got into the actual mathematics behind it... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 13:25
• Support Superb. Though I don't know why Wolfgang Pauli thought he was excluded from having to look at the camera. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meniscus (talk • contribs).
  • I think he did it on principle. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-16 14:12
    • You should be excluded from Wikipedia for making that pun. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Probably the most famous image of theoretical physicists. It would be nice to have a really top-notch scan. –Joke 16:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - fabulous picture, very relevant and memorable. Johntex\^talk 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good to know such a picture exists. Remarkable.--Dakota ~ ° 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. great picture, not blurry, center. There is nothing wrong. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Famous, iconic image, nice digital version.--ragesoss 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Great quality, historic moment --Scot^t 15:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I'm not sure I understand the copyright status as labeled. This photograph is clearly not a work of the U.S. federal government (as it says, it was taken by Benjamin Couprie, Institut International de Physique Solvay -- just because a government website hosts it does not mean they created it). Do we know for sure that it is in the public domain? --Fastfission 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still working on figuring that out. It appears to be PD, but as it's a very famous image, the Institut would like to keep its status unclear. In Belgium, it's life+70 years for public domain, or if the institution owns the rights to the image (which appears to be the case with this), it appears to also be 70 years after publication, which would put this in the public domain. I've been talking with a lawyer Wikipedian to figure this out exactly. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 16:25
• Support --Fir0002 www 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support btw, why did you crop one participant from this picture? [9] :-) JdH 17:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support Fantastic picture, especially for the time Search4Lancer 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support as another of those absolutely classic photos that should have been featured a long time ago. Only five of the people in the photo are redlinked! Batmanand | Talk 10:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support A great picture! Canuck89 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Solvay conference 1927.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunbathe Buttocks

[[ Image: Sunbathe_Buttocks.jpg |thumb| Buttocks of a woman being tanned during August, 2004 in Romania ]]

This fantastic piece appears in the buttocks article. It was taken by a fellow named Clona. I thought I'd nominate it because it brilliantly illustrates the concept of buttocks and is also quite eye-catching.

• Nominate and support. - Heathead 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it is inappropiate to be displayed as a featured picture. --Thorpe | talk 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thorpe and J.Steinbock, just to clarify, what do you mean by inappropriate? The fact that there is a semi-nude female, or that it does not meet featured picture criteria? Nudity in and of itself is not a valid reason to oppose. ~MDD4696 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's easy to take nice looking snapshots with modern cameras... the only reason this image is eye-catching is because it's of a butt. There's little technical, artistic or encyclopedic merit. The image is not level, and the subject is not prominent (it doesn't look like the photographer was trying to frame anything in particular). This image doesn't really depict anything useful--everyone knows what a butt looks like. ~MDD4696 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoa there! Wait just a minute. Hypothetically speaking, if someone didn't have access to a mirrored surface, how would they know? You can't just suppose that everyone out there is either acrobatic enough to get a reasonable glimpse of their own butt or has a companion willing to showcase theirs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please tell me your joking. Please! --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I was joking. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per MDD. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• well... whatever. —This unsigned comment was added by Heathead (talk • contribs) 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC).
• Oppose. per MDD.--Dakota ~ ° 04:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice butt, but butt is not FP quality. Just a snapshot. --Janke | Talk 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose nope.chowells 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mdd4696. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This photograph is innappropriate. J.Steinbock ^(Talk)
• Oppose as per above. I think that the subject matter could be photographed better (too much angle on it). It makes the image not very encyclopedic. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are better pictures of butts out there than this one. --Midnighttonight 04:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support There is noing wrong with this picture. She is not nude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamerzworld (talk • contribs).
  • Granted, she is not nude, but you have to keep in mind that there are many children out there (me technically included) that use Wikipedia as a valuable source for research. Imagine what parents would think if this image appeared on the main page. It does nothing but worsen Wikipedia's image. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, no. Read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 17:52
      • I think you may need to re-read WP:NOT - it is not a policy that forbids us from excluding deliberately titilating images. It is more of a legal disclaimer that we do not guarantee to do so. Johntex\^talk 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As a woman, I know that I would be horrified to discover a photo of my butt on the front page of an open source website. Since this is not Girls Gone Wild, it would be best and most respectful to obtain the consent of these women regardless. Plus, the photo is poor composition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.182.51.67 (talk • contribs).
• Oppose for all the reasons stated above and any others to follow. TomStar81 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Copyright is touchy. Photographer doesn't appear to have asked permission. Little encycloepdic merit, bad composition. I've seen better photographs of butts. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Ugh. Agree with J.Steinbock, Janke and 65.182.51.67. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This picture is not "inappropriate" because of showing nude buttocks (we live in the 21^st century, not in the 19^th). But it is simply not sufficiently outstanding for FP status. Roger McLassus 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing distinguishes this particular photo of a butt from any other photo of a butt. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Simply absurd, if this passes as a featured picture we'll be having britney spears breasts being nominated!--Andeee 22:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you sure that wasn't supposed to be a support vote...? Sorry, sorry... ;) ~MDD4696 04:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Moral support - and look at that azz. --Cyde Weys 07:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• 'Weak Support - May be offending to some but other wise... nice butt. Leidiot a03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing artistically special. As a woman, I was slightly offended by this pic.
• Oppose Nothing special at all. Canuck89 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Covington 08:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong, Firm Support of that Sexy Butt Artistically, I think it demonstrates how perfectly smooth, supple, and round a human butt can be.
• Oppose Nice shoot, however I think if I didn't know what a buttock is, this photo would not help me. The first photo shown in the article should be more proffesional while having the same kind of Strong, Firm and Sexy Butt. Thx!

what a fine booty she thick how cna yu oppose

[edit] Colorado Springs

This photo shows off Colorado Springs. I think it deserves to be a featured picture since it shows a great landmark of the United States. User:Miskatonic has uploaded some really good quality images to Wikipedia (see user page) like this one I am nominating. It is currently used in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Garden of the Gods.

• Nominate and support. - Thorpe | talk 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose leans way toomuch Circeus 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose too tilty. Johntex\^talk 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• support The lean is an optical illusion. Notice the trees are straight up and down. Miskatonic 04:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, awesome picture. --Liface 04:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Does lean, too! ;-) Weak support for the rotated and slightly sharpened version that I uploaded. I think we might find an even better photo of this place... --Janke | Talk 06:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the new image. It is of much better quality now. --Thorpe | talk 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Second Image Nice veiw. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. It's an interesting image, and it makes a useful contribution to both articles. bcasterline^talk 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Been there twice and it's an accurate representation. Illustrates article well.--Dakota ~ ° 08:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Photo does poor job of "showing off Colorado Springs", as you can barely see any of the city. I've been to Garden of Gods several times and don't think this is a particularly striking photo of the park. --MattWright (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is a decent image, but I don't think that it is very stunning. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with above --Fir0002 www 23:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I live in Colorado Springs, and yes, I agree, it shows off our scenic area :) Indeed, most of the city is not showing, but isn't that the case in many landscape photographs? — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice scenery and nature, but the photo is not stunning or impressive. Ordinary quality of lighting, composition. Is this the best picture one can make of the subject??? --P199 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Weird colours. Mark^{your words} 13:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What colors are "weird"? Personally, upon very close inspection, I don't see colors that are out of the ordinary in this photograph of the Garden of the Gods at all. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This picture would be much better if there was a greater contrast between the rock spires and the background. And it needs more focus on the spires, too much bland greenery around. --192.75.88.231 16:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted No consensus ~ Veledan • Talk 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross country running

This is an image of a high school cross country invitational known as the Seaside 3-Course Challenge. It was taken September 24, 2004. This race in particular was 8 kilometers long. For the puddle, they bring in fire trucks and flood part of the course. I stood on the side and was luckily able to catch these runners struggling to get through. Someone suggested I nominate it, so here it is.

• Nominate and support. - Liface 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overexposed whites, and blurry where there's action. Circeus 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special, just a snapshot, good for the article, but not FP stuff. --Janke | Talk 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Circeus. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. In acquiescence with Circeus. J.Steinbock ^(Talk)
• Oppose as per Circeus and Janke. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing special --Fir0002 www 23:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing interesting. Looks very busy Leidiot 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)