Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2007

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 closing 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
2007:	January - February - March - April
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Contents 1 Comet P1 McNaught 2 A Chantar 3 Purity 4 Emma 5 Hurricane Katrina Landfall 6 Sunflower 7 Rebate Flat Tax 8 Cairns Birdwing 9 Downtown San Diego 10 Koffler accelerator 11 Yad Vashem 12 Robin eating a worm in spring 13 Sumatran Tiger 14 Torre Agbar 15 Metallurgist working by the blast furnaces in Třinec Iron and Steel Works 16 Boxer of Quirinal 17 STS-116e05968 Spacewalk December 12, 2006 18 Atomic Line Filter 19 Michelangelo's Pieta 20 Hrant Dink's Funeral 21 Honeybee landing 22 Bassoon 23 57 mm Gun M1 in Saint-Malo 24 Astronotus ocellatus 25 Edgar Allan Poe 26 Grid illusion 27 Motherhood and apple pie? 28 Rome subway graffiti 29 Blue Ringed Octopus 30 Phalloidin stained cells 31 Blue Angels 32 Little Death Hollow 33 Library of Congress 34 Antanas Smetona 35 Yalta Conference 36 Lesueur's Frog 37 Moons of solar system 38 Little Pied Cormorant 39 Alcatraz Island 40 Statue of Liberty Shadow 41 Kingman Reef 42 Schweiz graubuenden sent 43 2003 Canberra Brushfire Animation 44 Mount Shasta Rescue 45 Mole Cricket 46 The Palace of Westminster in London 47 Lilac chaser 48 SkyTrain at Rupert Station. 49 Sunrise at base camp 50 Smithsonian castle courtyard 51 FDR 52 Lambert Glacier Icefall 53 Eclipse Valladolid 54 Pierre Trudeau and Fidel Castro together. 55 B-2 Spirit vs F-16 and F-18 56 Peacock on Garden Bench 57 Desert 58 Porthkerry Park viaduct 59 Yosemite Valley on a Clear Day 60 B-2 Spirit 61 Jack plug 62 Common Eggfly 63 Bristol Channel from Porthkerry Park 64 Koala on tree 65 Zabriskie Point, Death Valley, Late Morning 66 NGC 602 67 Scenic Railway at Luna Park, Melbourne. 68 Japanese buddhist monk by Arashiyama cut.jpg 69 Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater 70 Lt Mike Hunter, aviator 71 Silvereye Juveniles being fed 72 Bengali wedding 73 Superb fairy-wrens 74 Sydney harbour bridge night 75 Kia Amanti 2005 76 Burrard Street Bridge 77 Aphthona flava 78 Santiago Calatravas' Quadracci Pavilion 79 Bohemian Switzerland 80 Airbus A380 in hangar 81 New Wembley Stadium under construction 82 Yellowstone - Lower Falls 83 CIExy1931 84 Terrestrial planet size comparisons

[edit] Comet P1 McNaught

A comet in the sky is really quite an amazing sight. You read about them and see photos but to look at it in real life is exceptional. Unfortunately I was skywatching a day late - the day before (the 22nd) it was apparently much brighter. However it was still OK on the 23rd when I took this shot. Taken at ~24mm, f/4, 20 seconds, ISO 800 and lightening in Photoshop the quality isn't optimum, but I believe the rarity of the sight makes up for it. Conditions were quite good, but as you can see there was some cloud matter still tinged red from sunset (the comet was only visible for a short time before it went behind the hills).

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very detailed picture.Im going to show it to my science teacher.Bewareofdog 05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support version first nominated (i.e. not original, maybe you should call it unedited?). --Cody.Pope 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support In fact, I was waiting for a FP quality shot of this... --Janke | Talk 07:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I had been too Janke.. ;-). Fir0002, you squeezed a lot out of that original, well done. I would have attempted a portrait format shot of it with the 85mm f/1.8 lens too though. I noticed one of the shots from South Africa in the gallery was taken at 280mm, so evidently it was looking only at the comet's bright head and not its impressive but comparatively dull tail, but I think the 85mm would have been a good short telephoto and would have allowed you to shoot at f/1.8-f/2.2 and capture far more light! Anyway, just a thought. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea and one which I had thought of but didn't try due to the cut off which would have resulted. I tried again last night to take a few shots with the 85mm, but it just cuts off too much tail. I guess a verticle pano would be possible but as a moving object I'm not sure how well that will work. --Fir0002 22:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It would work quite well actually as long as the exposure was reasonably short. You'd have less time to work with as it would start to motion blur quicker than with the 17-40mm, but as long as only one of the frames had the foreground (landmass) included, the motion of the earth turning would have no impact on the stitching. Everything would still be in the correct location relative to each other and as far as the stitching is concerned, the fact that the earth turned between frames would be of no consequence! It would be just like twisting the camera slightly which is something that is easily allowed for by stitching software. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Very nice picture. You should put this one on the main page ITN section. The other picture is super grainy. --Midnight Rider 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Don't like the grain, but I guess it was dark. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support, some grain. but rare sight.. - mw 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Suppot I agree that it is an amazing site that shows the beauty that the universe can give! I was actually going to nominate it myself but you beat me to it - Jhfireboy I'm listening 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sweet. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice picture, I like the colours, a little grainy, but I think thats because of the lighting.Voshvoshka 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I'm quite jealous. All the pictures from Victoria look so much better than whatever we saw up in Sydney :( enochlau (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support- quite impressive. Especially considering the original. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{02:25, Saturday, January 27 2007}
• Support Encyclopedic and highly detailed. Very nice! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderful photo! Fir0002, you continue your legacy quite impressivly. although, I'd like to see more information about the comet on the image page, in the commons way. - Jack (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I am impressed you got such a good exposure with so little motion blur on the stars, I wish I had a camera that had an ISO 800 worth using(I have ISO 800 but the noise is terrible, so I nevere go above 200). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing shot --froth^T 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Humm ... Excite! Ali 18:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Comet P1 McNaught02 - 23-01-07.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Chantar

Image:A Chantar2.ogg

Reason

This is probably a first, but there's no reason why we can't feature other media as well. This is a beautiful rendition of Beatritz de Dia’s song A chantar m'er de so qu'eu no volria, done by Makemi, who studied vocal performance and has sung professionally. I personally think it would be a great feature on the main page.

Articles this image appears in

Trobairitz; Beatritz de Dia

Creator

User:Makemi

Nominator

§hanel

• Support — §hanel 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support highly encyclopedic content created by Wikipedian to illustrate an article. I think it's pretty high quality, I can upload a larger version if requested. I believe it fulfills all the non-visual-specific featured picture criteria. Mak (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support because it is a professional-quality recording of an excellent performance of this song. I would also like to point out the second version above. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This isn't really a first, see Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates. Also once FSC gets underway I doubt this would be considered featured; it's like the old featured pics, they're crap --froth^T 02:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You might prefer to think of more constructive criticisms than calling it "crap" (which it isn't, IMO); the last thing we need to be doing is needlessly insulting people who are going to the effort to create new encyclopedic media (which we don't have enough of). Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Seconded. We're trying to keep things friendly here, and comments like that don't help at all. Raven4x4x 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh come on, you're deliberately missing my point. Like the really old FPs, there's really no standard at the time so a lot of crap gets through. I very much appreciate people uploading new media but I want to warn FC voters that they shouldn't let content through that isn't incredible or we'll regret it later --froth^T 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No Froth, I believe you are missing the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost - calling people's excellent encyclopedic contributions "crap" because they do not meet your interpretation of FPC or FSC criteria does not further the goals of the project. This isn't Fark.com or YouTube - it isn't a forum for snarky, denegrating comments. Let's shape up our act here, OK? Debivort 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • WTF, did you even read what I said? Anyway, I won't dilute my words. We're judging content, not the contributor.. if the content is crap then it's crap; it's not saying anything about the person who made it. --froth^T 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you need to realise the difference between objective and subjective. In your opinion, the audio is "crap". That does not mean it is, and you can't say it IS. That is a common trait of arrogance. Perhaps also you need to take a look at WP:ATTACK and WP:CIVIL and most of all, don't be a dick - Jack (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
            • You're still missing the point. All Froth is saying (and rightfully so) is that accepting content to be featued without a set of hardcore guidelines to abide to is only going to make more trouble for us in the long run. Have you taken a look down in the delist section before? Have you seen what's been featued? And secondly, it was never said that this audio was crap, only that featured pictures that made it through to be featured a long time ago that would obviously never pass today are crap. And that's generally true as well. Joe D 17:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
            • JDougherty: Even if we adopt "hardcore" guidelines now - it is likely that they will be obsolete in a year anyway - when 10Mpx cameras or 12Mpx cameras become common. To think that we could ever adopt a set of rules that would permit only those FPCs to pass that would remain FPs forever seems too optimistic. Moreover, our complaint regarding Froth's comments is not that he wants high standards, it's that he uses words like "crap" and "WTF" to disparage nominations and comments about them. These words are completely unnecessary and create an atmosphere of antagonism. On a nitpicky note, he did clearly imply this nomination was crap, by saying "it's like the old [FPs], they're crap." Debivort 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't think the submitted audio is bad at all, but like the now-crappy images that made it through FPC a year ago I don't think that it's going to be FC material when Featued Sound opens for business. It was just a moment where I could clearly see this getting unanimous "Delists" in 6 months or a year from now. --froth^T 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
                • So, you're going to stick with the "crappy" characterization... I'm simultaneously surprised and not. Debivort 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Froth, if you have an actual criticism of this recording, please state it. One of the reasons I proposed this as a possibility for nomination was that it was something that I could re-record if genuine concerns were raised. Mak (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'm sticking with "Good but probably won't be FC material once we hammer out guidelines for other media". I agree that it's extremely encyclopedic for its article but enc isn't the only requirement for FPCs, and it won't be for other FC media either, so we shouldn't go about featuring content that we have no guidelines for or we're just setting ourselves up for delists later --froth^T 23:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • Well, let's see, in my admittedly biased opinion, it's 1. High quality 2. Of a sufficient size 3. Is among Wikipedia's best work 4. Has a free license 5. adds a lot of value to two articles 6. it's accurate 7. It is pleasing (it was added by an unrelated editor to the frWP page with the comment "une chanson de Beatritz de Dia, drôlement jolie" 8. it has a good caption and 9. it's neutral. The specifics are changing all the time, but the basics are there, and are fulfilled. And it's not strange or undesireable for the criteria to change and adjust. Just because what we feature now might not be the best content in the future doesn't mean we shouldn't feature it now, or shouldn't have featured it in the past. We have to work with the level of content Wikipedia has right now. Right now, this is among the best of Wikipedia's free music content. I look forward to a day when that's not the case, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't highlight any music now. Mak (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Comment Whether or not this is among the best of Wikipedia's free music content is a matter of contention, not a matter of fact. I think we can separate criticism of using FPC for music files - which to my mind is a perfectly reasonable criticism of this nomination - and criticism of the music file itself. Pstuart84 Talk 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
                        • My point was that it can be evaluated by the current FPC criteria. Mak (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment FSC seems pretty dead for the time being. Mak (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support original (for now, if an actually improved version is submitted I might change, but I don't see obvious room for improvement). Good recording, interesting, obvious encyclopedic merit. --Gmaxwell 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all above. --Bob 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I would like to see more media being featured that isn't static images, and I think this is of comparable quality to the images that get featured. It's a nicely done recording that adds significantly to the articles it's in. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, this is a high-quality recording. I'd prefer it be released under a more free license, but that's not relevant to the quality. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 03:01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm happy to consider licensing it differently. Frankly, the many free-ish licenses confuse me, so if you have a suggestion of one that would make it more useful to the project I'm more than willing to look at it. Mak (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  Hello Makemi. Releasing it into the public domain is ideal, but you may not want that if you'd like to reserve some rights. I personally prefer the Creative Commons attribution 2.5 license, which requires that you be acknowledged as the author. Are there other rights you'd like to reserve? —{admin} Pathoschild 04:01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  Nope, basically just attribution. Should I multi-license it, or change the whole license (I can't change the license on MessedRocker's version, I don't think). Mak (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  For the record, whichever option you choose, I am willing to license my modifications under that. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker 07:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  There are no problems switching to the new license, then. Thanks. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question How is this a "photograph, diagram, image or animation"? Isn't that a reason not to feature other media? Perhaps the criteria should be changed? Michael Connor 09:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are good reasons why only visual media are considered on this page. The criteria for evaluating a photograph or an illustration have nothing to do with what makes good audio. This is why there are separate pages to determine featured articles, lists, etc. You should be working to get WP:FSC up and running. This isn't the place for sound files. --dm ^(talk) 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot judge the focus, exposure and composition of this featured picture candidate... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm all for featured media but this is not the place. There's WP:FSC on its way it seems and I remember an earlier sandbox about featured media. Please don't regard this as an oppose to the sound file in question, just the choice of here as a place to promote it. Pstuart84 Talk 15:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree. If this is not a photograph, diagram, animation, etc. it does not belong here. -Midnight Rider 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - look, until such time as Featured Recordings does get going there is no earthly reason why we should not use this process as substitute. IAR, anyone? Common sense? The recording quality is perfectly acceptable and the quality of the singing is of the highest calibre. We will not get many better recordings of this type of music and virtually none with what is flawless diction. Rare enough quality among sopranos in my benighted country, I can tell you. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it betrays a lack of “common sense” to argue that Featured Picture Candidates should be used for pictures and not sound files. Why not take the opportunity to get Featured Sound Candidates off the ground instead? Pstuart84 Talk 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Moreschi in terms of IAR. Seeing as we lack any kind of active FSC project, then why shouldn't it be nominated here? The file is of excellent quality, is encyclopedic and best of all, has a free license.  H4cksaw  (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Allowing this would set a very bad precedent.--Runcorn 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Vocally abstain, with apologies for unintended pun - If we had featured media or featured sounds, then I'd support straight away. As it is, we have FSC but it's not active. Well, why don't we use this as motivation and get it activated? It does seem contradictory for this to end up as a Featured Picture, but the lot of us arguing about whether or not it's a valid candidate could be spending our time much more constructively in finalising the FSC process. Any takers? --YFB ¿ 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ooooooh... - At the risk of a hearty slapping from various quarters, I've been bold and opened WP:FSC with this nomination. I also took the liberty of transferring Shanel and Messedrocker's votes, since I didn't think they'd object. I now intend to go into hiding while everyone accuses me of taking premature, unilateral and reckless action and generally being a Very Naughty Boy. Have fun =) --YFB ¿ 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Until we get "Featured Sound Candidates" off the ground as someone suggested, I believe we should recognize one of Wikipedia's highest quality sound files and a wonderful performance. —70.126.123.153 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Should have logged in first before signing votes. —ExplorerCDT 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pstuart84. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I have removed one comment which was made, most likely by the sock of a banned user, as a result of a request on a Wikipedia attack forum to attack the submitter of this file. I think it is unlikely now that we'll have a fair FPC since there are outsiders trying to influence it. --Gmaxwell 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I'm amazed that there's all this fighting over one beautiful song, sung by one of our own, and I'm shocked that some users have been bitter enough to encourage others to fight this. It's truly a shame. --Iriseyes 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's a great idea to expand into a few other media, and this is a professional-level performance, worthy of anything you'd find in the early music bin at your local CD shop. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Featured Sound Candidates is now open and this sound is the first nomination. I therefore propose that this FP nomination be withdrawn and that those yet to vote at WP:FSC add their opinions there. Happy editing, --YFB ¿ 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think thats a terrible idea. No only does support have the clear majority here, but we don't currently have enough of other types of media to justify a seperate process for them. --Gmaxwell 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This file cannot be a featured picture because it is not a picture at all, it is a sound file. Are you proposing that we should change featured pictures to featured media? --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yup. For now at least. It's gotten a certain amount of support on the FPC talk page in the past, it just sorta died in committee. Mak (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • But surely that process should happen before this is nominated. Would it not be slightly silly to have this as a featured picture? Trebor 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
          • We already have lots of FPC'ed animations, which are of course judged by a differing set of criteria.
          • I don't mean to insult the other experienced users who have already opposed here on this basis but really, opposing a great audio recording on the basis of FPC having 'picture' in the name really shows a sign of misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. If you think the name should be changed because having sound files be featured 'pictures' bothers you, then change the name.. Don't obstruct feature worthy content from being featured because you have an obsession over the name of a process. --Gmaxwell 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Why are you opposed to creating and sustainging Featured Sounds. Other media types would only benefit frm a designatied Freature system. This nomination already has immense suport at FSC, it makes absolutely no sense to keep this nomination up on this page. --Dschwen(A) 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
            • How do we know it's feature-worthy? I object to it being a featured picture because it doesn't meet several of the criteria; in fact, it can't meet several of the criteria. If there is featured-quality work not being recognised, then there needs to be a new featured process created (or at the very least an adaptation of an existing one), with new criteria. Without criteria, what are we judging it against? Trebor 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I propose that we wait for FSC to take off. It's been active for less than 24 hours. If it is a sucess, we'll merge it with FPC and create Featured Media, and if it stays fairly small, we'll keep the two seperate. --Iriseyes 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Let's get this project started! --Tewy 01:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I only noticed this wasn't on the FSP page until after I voted. I've moved my vote there. --Tewy 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yeah, let's get this project started... ...at WP:FSC! There is no point in keeping this nomination here, as it only keeps people from going to the proper page to vote. --Dschwen(A) 13:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a picture. go to WP:FSC -24.128.48.224 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please remember to sign in before voting. --Tewy 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted It's already at WP:FSC and appears to be gaining a consensus for promotion there. It's nonsensical that a sound could be both a featured sound and a featured picture at the same time. MER-C 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purity

Reason

The Beauty of Montsouris park

Articles this image appears in

Parc Montsouris

Creator

Zgalus

Nominator

Zgalus

• Support — Zgalus 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry but serious quality concerns, including (but not limited to) purple fringing on the tree limbs, blurriness. Also I particularly dislike the shading. No wow factor. ~ Arjun 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - fringing, and there seem to be white chunks spread over the legs and bushes behind, also a shot from the front of the stature might be more encyclopedic? Debivort 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose-fringing, blurry on left side. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:34, Saturday, January 27 2007}
• Oppose As all above - Adrian Pingstone 09:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Aside from everything listed above, the lighting is not great. Sun is too low. I have that problem a lot in the wintertime. Possibly retry the shot sometime when the sun is higher/brighter? tiZom_(2¢) 03:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Featured pictures are supposed to have a wow-factor. This is just a blurry picture of a statue. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I was very motivated by all the remarks by the committee and it stimulated my research on the very value of a pixel. Blurriness of my picture is the reason for its unanimous rejection and I'm sorry for the time it took for your eyes and respectful minds to even judge it. I read the criteria before even posting my picture but only your remarks made me see that blurriness and learn from it. The remark by tiZom(2¢) goes a world beyond the pixels and I appreciate it even more.

When I reworked my image and put all the pixels in their just places I obtained a "perfect" image … without a soul, with no defects and I decided I would never leave it hanging on my living room's wall even for a while. It's like the perfect butterfly (Cairns Birdwing) that is a technical achievement of the numeric photography that could be easily integrated into a page on what a perfect image is. "Emma" is the contrast to that ultimate technicality of the "Cairns Birdwing". There are not enough pixels to transform it into the supreme, extreme and extra CAT that is not a cat from the page "Animal shelter" any more and even less of a cat that's looking at you with those eyes of eyes.

Though we should start with pixels when evaluating an image, a wall is not only the collection of bricks. If you do not see a shelter in the cat's eyes you deprive the image of its semantics. It could be a minor argument for its retention and it would probably leave the image where it is now. Perhaps the Picasso's paintings would confront some difficulties in passing the Wikipedia entry pass as well.

I'm a regular reader of Wikipedia articles and I appreciate the illustrations included. Their quality is assured by people like you. But sometimes when I look at certain of them I say to myself what a wonderful world … is it that of mine? Of course I went to see what and how the committee members performed on Wikipedia Pages and I found that most are exceptional works indeed.

There was at least one exception to the rule that I cite here: MaryQueenoftheuniverseshrinejesus.JPG (User:Sharkface217). Having seen it I'm very confused about the blurriness notion now. Very sincerely --Zgalus 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the image page of that MaryQueen photo, you can see where it appears - and it has never been nominated for Featured Picture status, and it would certainly be "shot down" rather brutally here due to the focus problem. If a better image is uploaded, it will certainly replace that one. The main problem with your photo is the blurryness - especially visible in the corners of the full-size image. My guess is that you used a "compact" digital camera, most of which cannot compete in sharpness with the exchangeable lens cameras. Downsampling, or stitching of several images may help you in the future. --Janke | Talk 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Haha, interesting how you noticed that it was my image. That said, I would never nominate that image for FPC. It is far from FP material. It does, however, illustrate the subject. The the MaryQueenoftheuniverseshrinejesus.JPG illustrates the subject well enough (for now, anyway). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emma

Reason

beautiful picture that adds a lot (of emotion) to its article

Articles this image appears in

Animal shelter

Creator

User:ForrestCroce

Nominator

Towsonu2003

• Support — Towsonu2003 07:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Fails resolution guidelines and drop shadow is distracting. —Dgies^t c 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per resolution. JorcogaYell! 07:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not sure if this is serious, but I'll take it that way. Resolution, frame and drop-shadow are the tech flaws. DOF can be taken as a compositional tool. But the enc of the pic is zero. Its just conveying emotion and very POV. --Dschwen(A) 08:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, you're a new user so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... but please read featured picture criteria before trying to post another candidate. Looking at some of our featured pictures and reading some of the old nomination discussions will also be helpful. If you have any questions feel free to ask people about featured pictures. Also, someone with an editor better than Paint might want to crop this image. gren グレン 10:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, is it April? I hadn't noticed. Please read the criteria before nominating an image: the resolution is too low, the border is distracting and unnecessary, the encyclopaedic value of the picture is nil, unless you want to illustrate soppy-looking cat home adverts. 'Cute', 'emotional' or anything along those lines has never been a criteria for making a picture an example of Wikipedia's best work. And re: gren - the nominator is not a new user, he/she has been here for over a year. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I made that claim based on the nominator having only 250 edits... :O gren グレン 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm very biased against cats, but I'd oppose even if I wasn't. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Would have more impact if kitty were crying. Also, electrodes not visible. No seriously, I'm opposing on all image flaws already listed above. --Bridgecross 16:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty boring picture. No enc value and no wow factor. -Midnight Rider 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Hey, nice to see so many polite people together... A simple "oppose" + "low resolution" would suffice, but who would expect that from such polite people? ;) Towsonu2003 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, sorry, but don't you want detaied reasons for the oppose? Frankly the steno style would annoy me. --Dschwen(A) 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't want trolling, flamebait, and personal attacks implanted into legitimate-looking votes... Towsonu2003 21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, there tend to be a lot of snarky, hyperbolic comments in the FPC world. I hope you'll stick around and try some other nominations though! It's a pretty rewarding, if patience-testing process. Debivort 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry but the low resolution really hurts its Featured chances. Also per all the other flaws stated above. ~ Arjun 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Terrible resolution. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina Landfall

Reason

One of very few pictures taken during the landfall of Hurricane Katrina.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#Mississippi

Creator

Judith Bradford

Nominator

Arrmed

• Support — Arrmed 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose "One of very few pictures taken..." - that is hard to believe! Katrina was one of the most photographed natural disasters. Also needs cropping, the print edges are showing. --Janke | Talk 08:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Out of focus, lack of contrast, bad border, not interesting. Sorry!! - Adrian Pingstone 09:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I do like the playing cards plastered to the window in an subtle reference to the destruction caused by the gambling barges on the Gulf Coast as they broke their moorings and wreaked destruction on the land..... O_o gren グレン 10:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Totally agree with Janke - there is no shortage of Katrina photos. This image is certainly interesting but not at all high quality. Below par by FP standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry I just dont think this Image has what it takes to be a featured image. Tellyaddict 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely riddiculous. The whole picture is out of focus, and there is a black line at the top which looks like it was taken from a car or something. P.S. everyone in America was photographing the hurricane and its events and it was all over the TV. How could it be "One of the very few."? -Midnight Rider 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• How does it help to call this nomination "riddiculous"? Please be civil with all nominations. Debivort 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, agreed with the other opposes. Also, is that a finger I see in the top right corner? --RandomOrca2 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose there are certainly other ones of better quality out there. Sorry but not up to par with the featured picture standards. ~ Arjun 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I generally don't like to have the fingers of the photographer in the picture (see the upper right hand corner). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunflower

Reason

This image is well composed, it shows the sunflower in a pleasing light.

Creator

Eagle Owl

Nominator

Eagle Owl

• Support Eagle Owl
• Oppose - Focus problems all over, entire flower is not in frame. —Dgies^t c 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Subject cut off; subject not in focus. Pstuart84 Talk 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dgies. The focus problems are pretty bad. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its not in any article. I pointed this out to the nominator and he added it to the gallery of Sunflower but after looking at the image in comparison to others, I don't feel it even belongs in the article, as it is made redundant by similar, higher quality pics. I've removed it from the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Part of the image cut off and that bee on the flower is a little blurry. Tellyaddict 12:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - the focus issues should never have suggested this as a candidate. The flower looks withered too. However, I do like the bee in there. --Iriseyes 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, bee is distracting. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:19, Monday, January 29 2007}

Not promoted MER-C 06:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebate Flat Tax

Source: http://www.geocities.com/kmar86/EZtax.xls

Reason

Interesting concept. Color coded. Simple. Transparent. Easier than the current income tax code and proves it can replace Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment insurance in the United States. It can save billions.

• Strong oppose please read WP:WIAFP and also WP:NOT. Mak (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I read those before. Specify.Kmarinas86 06:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close Soapboxing. ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for specifyingKmarinas86 07:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose First of all, it isn't in any article. Second, this isn't "the best wiki has to offer", third, it is not very pleasing to the eye, fourth.... no need to continue, really? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Incredibly strongly Oppose - It's a screenshot of Microsoft Excel for crying out loud! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close Per all above, and potential copyright problems, as this is clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted program (Excel)... [However, I don't know enough about this type of copyright to make the deletion request] tiZom_(2¢) 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted . Nom closed early per above (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, the image is not used in an article and there are possible copyright problems). --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cairns Birdwing

Another lovely image from the butterfly enclosure at the Melbourne Zoo. This time it's of the very colorful (and large) Cairns Birdwing.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support anything you can't make into a featured picture? Jorcoga ^Hi!_{11:42, Saturday, January 27 2007}

I guess you're pretty new around here ;-) Yes there is plenty, my record is far from perfect! --Fir0002 00:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I started editing in March, but I haven't been at FPC for very long. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{05:43, Sunday, January 28 2007}

• Support - just like "Mary Poppins": Practically perfect! --Janke | Talk 14:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent composition. --Tewy 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I abstained on the last butterly pic because I didn't like the way the flash affected lighting but this one is a bit better. Could do with being slightly brighter though. Ironic considering you try to brighten just about every picture I upload... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - So pretty! Why is it that I'm freaked out by all bugs except butterflies?  :o) Also, love the peculiar sideways angle. Is that how it was walking? tiZom_(2¢) 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Surprisingly good. Very nice detail. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it needs some leveling (particularly in the whites.) --Marumari 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Image is technically excellent, and it shows it's subject in a clearly encyclopedic fashion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very good photo. - Darwinek 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support More bugs? Great! | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cairns birdwing - melbourne zoo.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Downtown San Diego

Reason

This caught my eye while I was surfing through the various downtown pages to see how many there were. Aparently the photograph caught someone elses eye as well, this is already featured over on the commons.

Articles this image appears in

Downtown San Diego, Central business district

Creator

Original by Commons User:Rufustelestrat, His res version by Commons User:Gorgo

Nominator

TomStar81 (Talk)

• Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This almost looks like the clouds are Photoshopped in. Noclip 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is beautiful, but the subject of the photo, the actual city, leaves much to be desired. tiZom_(2¢) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Regrettable Oppose Doesn't illustrate downtown San Diego very well. It is really about how cool the moon looks. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. At the very least, I feel that it should be cropped so that the clouds/moon is at the top of the frame. It improves the composition a lot. I'd still oppose, seeing as it is the moon that is the notable part of the image and somewhat distracting. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The image is portrayed at a slight angle and them clouds are OK but a little disracting. Tellyaddict 12:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The clouds—although very nice—distract viewers from the main purpose of the image. There is a strange 15-pixel-wide smudge in the left edge of the image, right where the buildings are.--enano ^(Talk) 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, blurry - Jorcoga ^Hi!_{07:42, Monday, January 29 2007}
• Support Just too cool.--Mactographer 23:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Koffler accelerator

Reason

Eerily futurist looking building, exemplified here by the twilight. Yes, it has grain and the building isn't immaculately focused, there are colour balance issues and the light at the bottom is blown, and a little distracting; but I think the colour and the dazzling light add to the effect.

Articles this image appears in

Israel / Rehovot / Weizmann Institute of Science

Creator

User:Physicistjedi

Nominator

Jack (talk)

• Support either — Jack (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose per nom, grain, soft focus, exposure and color balance problems. The foreground is distracting from the subject. I am sure this picture could be retaken to be a featured picture because it is a wonderful subject. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There's quite a bit of noise in the sky, and as HighInBC said, the foreground bushes aren't really necessary. It's a good photo, just not up to FP standards.  H4cksaw  (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Distracting plants, grainy, and a bit out of focus. Good capture though.--enano ^(Talk) 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, but could support. This picture has lots of good things going for it. Great colors and lighting, interesting shapes. Dream-like night setting. But I agree with Enano275. I think the picture would work better if the foreground plants were cropped out. Greg L 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad ENC composition with the plants. dust etc. from probably a scanner. grainy. nice subject and lighting. -Fcb981 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What dust? I think the white dots in the sky that don't appear anywhere else in the image are stars. And the black dots on the tower are probably rivets of some sort - Jack (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, you may be right, some of the stars have some weird shapes but given that they only appear in the sky that is probably right. Even without the(dust) I still don't think it will make it. -24.128.48.224 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, but I'll support a version with the plants cropped out. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:28, Monday, January 29 2007}Support cropped version. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)23:35, Sunday, 4 February '07
• Support cropped version This picture has lots of good things going for it. Great colors and lighting, interesting shapes. Dream-like night setting. It certainly looks like the sort of picture that would make people stop scrolling and take a moment to check it out. Greg L 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support cropped version - Per above --Arad 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yad Vashem

Reason

Fulfills the requirements of Featured Image criteria, is a striking picture in its contrast, very clearly demonstrates the subject in question.

Articles this image appears in

Yad Vashem

Creator

User:Chabuk

Nominator

Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]}

• Support — Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Little to no wow factor, building is cut off on the right, image is tilted to one side.  H4cksaw  (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per H4cksaw. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. -Midnight Rider 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose yeah, there also appears to be some fringing on the corner, I also dislike the angle. ~ Arjun 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's not really an interesting picure. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{07:37, Monday, January 29 2007}
• Oppose per above. S.D. ¿п? § 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be better if it covered the right side completely.--enano ^(Talk) 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Seriously leaning lamp post - Adrian Pingstone 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Chabuk, are you able to take another photo, bearing in mind some of the comments above? There's no reason why an outstanding photo of this subject couldn't be a FP. Pstuart84 Talk 16:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Response Unfortunately, no. I live in Canada, this was taken when I was on vacation in Israel. I'll certainly keep these comments in mind in the future though. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robin eating a worm in spring

Reason

I got really lucky with this one, I saw a robin under thick thorny bushes, and it did not flee because it had a worm. This is one of the first robins of the season here in Victoria, BC. The bird is in focus and well framed, it is shown in it's natural environment demonstrating natural behavior. I believe this picture adds to the American Robin article in that it is the only picture showing a robin feeding. It also shows how the Robin's coloring helps it blend in with the broken/patchy light under a bush.

Articles this image appears in

American Robin, Earthworm

Creator

HighInBC (Ryan Bushby)

Nominator

HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)}

• Note Edit 1 has been modified to remove the branch, I don't think this is an unencyclopedic doctoring, as the subject of the photo has not been modified, only the out of focus background/foreground. If you think you can do this better please do, I know it is not the best job in removing an object. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, My Edit fixes the foreground issue maybe not as obviously. The original felt a little low on the contrast side so I adjusted the levels. I'll change my vote to a neutral... -Fcb981 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support — HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose preference to Edit 2 Only a few things bother me about this. One is the distracting object in the upper right corner, the other is the blur on the beak of the bird. The background is also kind of distracting and the lighting on the bird is not very uniform (this is pretty trivial) but the bird eating a staple food is very ENC. This one is very close. -Fcb981 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose As above. Midnight Rider 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering both the head and the worm are in focus, I don't think the beak is out of focus, I think it is just dirty from digging around. I agree that branch in the corner is distracting, it was my only angle. However the background and lighting are typical of the birds natural hunting ground, they prefer hunting under bushes for safety, so I think it adds encyclopedic value. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I wish it were more crisp, and I agree with Fcb, the lighting is uneven over the bird.--enano ^(Talk) 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a nice picture of this bird in the open, this picture brings something new to the article because the bird is in situation. This bird is colored to hide in uneven light in front of a broken background. Encyclopedic value should should be considered along with aesthetic concerns. Anyways since this is a self-nom I should not argue too much, perhaps I am biased. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose edit 2 the contrast adjustment blew up some of the highlights on the background twigs. I personally do not find the branch that distracting. in fact, I think the little green bit in the top left corner is much more distracting. Weak Support original, neutral to edit 1 (when I use tabs and compare original to #1, the cloning looks bad, but it really isn't that noticeable otherwise).-Andrew c 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• hmmmm, You don't like the blowing of the highlights. When I made it I thought that the contrast gains were worth the blown highlights. Obviously I could upload the edit without the contrast adjustment and it wouldn't be that hard to edit out the green bit on the left and I probably will do that if other people: 1)agree that highlights suck 2) think the focus and lighting is good enough on the original regardless of any edits (this is kind of how I am leaning. Let me know =) -Fcb981 02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there will be enough support for this image to pass, regardless what is done. Some people just do not like the shadows on the subject. If you'd like to try another edit for learning sake, go right ahead. You may want to adjust the curves, because it's easier to make contrast adjustments to certain ranges, while keeping the highlights (or shadows) from being effected. Or you could use a mask to have control over what areas you want effected. Good luck.-Andrew c 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree this is looking like a lost cause. I though the lighting was a benefit, but the taste of the community has shown otherwise. Feel free to tweak it though, because the article can still benefit from a higher quality version. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sumatran Tiger

Reason

Very good quality picture, highly encyclopedic, doesn't show a trace of the fact it was taken in the zoo.

Articles this image appears in

Melbourne Zoo, Sumatran Tiger

Creator

Fir0002

Nominator

Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:51, Monday, January 29 2007}

• Support — Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:51, Monday, January 29 2007}
• Comment Maybe this would be better used in camouflage? Noclip 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Very enc for camouflage, and a nice shot. Too bad about the foreground plants, but still OK. TotoBaggins 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. About as enc as it gets but the back left paw is completely out of focus --froth^T 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The right half of the animal—specially the legs—are in motion.--enano ^(Talk) 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose All the plants are really quite distracting. The back half of the tiger are blurry. For a picture of a magnificent subject like a tiger, this is very dissappointing and there have to be better pictures. -Midnight Rider 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as much as I love pictures of tigers, the plants and the foliage camoflauge with the tiger, making it hard to see. Sorry, but oppose. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• oppose distracting blurry bit in corner--195.194.158.20 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torre Agbar

Reason

This is a very high res vertical panoramic image of a landmark skyscraper building in Barcelona. Being a somewhat simple cropped side-on view, the wow factor may be somewhat low, but the wow for me is in the amazing detail and architecture, somewhat reminiscent of the 30 St Mary Axe building in London but also very distinct.

Articles this image appears in

Torre Agbar and Barcelona

Creator

Diliff

Nominator

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

• Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow, amazing detail! I thought it was blurry in the thumbnail, but I see that's just aliasing from the lattice structure. TotoBaggins 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Tecnically great - phallic but sterile... Don't like the foreground, though, but what can you do? ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you on both points. It was completely surrounded on all sides by very industrial looking buildings/fields. That was the best view that I could find that included the base all the way to the top. I only regret I didn't get a chance to take a photo of it at night. It looks very impressive/bizarre [1]. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice. Composition is probably about as good as possible considering the surroundings. But is it just me or is it tilted slightly to the right? —Dgies^t c 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great quality and nice lighting.--enano ^(Talk) 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful, I ran some plumb lines and it looks pretty straight. -Fcb981 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support- great picture. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{01:53, Tuesday, January 30 2007}
• Giant Dildo Support. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support another great panorama. I'm always amazed at the color quality and balance, contrast, and of course detail. Though the little dot (hot pixel or star) towards the top/center of the sky almost ruined it for me (j/k).-Andrew c 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some people seem to have a problem with a hot pixel so I slaved for hours to create this (I believe) faithful reconstruction of what the sky should look like. See edit 1. Pretty darn nice catch though Andrew c. --froth^T 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Guys... I've looked at the original raw file and that 'hot pixel' exists there too. Given that I have never seen a hot pixel on my camera before, I'm going to have to assume that whatever it is, it is something that was in the sky at the time. Froth, you have way too much time on your hands to bother uploading an edit based on that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I did some trajectory calculations: it is the international space station!!1!!eleven!! Wow, this adds tremendously to teh enc!!11!! --Dschwen(A) 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - Orly? --Iriseyes 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Thats 800km to the north...--Dschwen(A) 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Heh. --froth^T 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Hmm, if astronauts can't see anything smaller than runways looking down from the ISS, how would we see it looking up? Noclip 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Because it stands out against the solid sky --froth^T 04:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                • And also we don't see the world with the equivalent of a 150mm camera lens, nor do we have the same ability to resolve 13mp of detail (well we do, but in a very different sort of way). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Just ordered World of Warcraft today over this very thing. I was holding off on buying it because I was afraid I wouldn't have enough time to play, but while uploading this pic I just laughed at myself and ordered :D --froth^T 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • You'd have even more time if you got up before 3pm ;-) --Dschwen(A) 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support It looks rusty in the thumb, but thankfully, it looks good in the high-res verison (just how it should be :-). | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Diliff - assuming the stitched composite is downsampled, could we see a full-size view of that "hot pixel"? As is, it does look like a hot one, with jpg artifacts. But if it's more than one pixel in your original, it's either a high-flying bird or plane - or the ISS? --Janke | Talk 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now if we only had the Metadata, we might even back-up my crackpot claim... --Dschwen(A) 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No need; I've overlaid the pixels from the image and a nice shot of the ISS for everyone's convenience --froth^T 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Imagine if that was true. It meant Diliff's camera worth 1 million $. Superb try by the way --Arad 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

**Heres the 100% crop (actually magnified to 3200% or so) taken straight out of the RAW file and saved as PNG. Still possibly a hot pixel (due to the Bayer algorithm) but as I said, I've never noticed it in the past or in any other images. In fact, I actually took two sets of panoramas at lightly different focal lengths and I just compared the same location in both images and there is no hot pixel at the same coordinate in the other, nor is there a 'UFO' in the other panorama set. Whatever it was, it was there during the panorama featured here, but gone 1:33 seconds later. My conclusion: Not a hot pixel - likely a satellite or possibly a high flying distant bird. At a focal length of 150mm, I can't imagine anything but a satellite being a mere couple of pixels on a 13 megapixel camera. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • ... If you geocoded it and included an accurate timestamp we could tell if it was a satellite. :) (hint hint) .. although about the only satellite you'd see during the day is an iridium. ... You didn't happen to really taken this on the 7th at about 9am local time? [2] did you? Guess not.. 19deg is too low for that UFO anyways. --Gmaxwell 02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Support - I agree with Janke and looks like David agrees too. But this building is amazing at night. I would strongly support a night shot. --Arad 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The building is surrounded by buildings; you can't do much about that. But that mysterious object ruins it for me. We can't have imperfections of that magnitude in any image. It's elementary; if you're going to photograph something, take it at an angle that excludes the distractions! I can't believe such a simple rule could be so blatently ignored. And for what? Attention?! I really should just strongly oppose, it's so distracting, but I suppose I'll follow consensus and stick with my vote. --Tewy 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The artistic genius that is EDIT 1 fixed that monstrosity. Vote for it, I want to get a picture featured for once! --froth^T 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah...on second thought, the speck adds significantly to the image. There's no way in a million years that it could be captured just so. I mean really, it's just floating in the sky! That's incredible! And the enc, oh, the enc! Can it get any better? I don't think so. Removing the object is like removing the subject itself, so I simply cannot support your edit. --Tewy 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • What did I do :( --froth^T 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - and for the record - you guys have far too much time on your hands! --Joopercoopers 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metallurgist working by the blast furnaces in Třinec Iron and Steel Works

Reason

Great photograph showing hard (and hot) work of tough men in the iron and steel works. Appears in a few articles, it is illustrative, encyclopedic and ... ... quite rare, as they won't allow everybody to enter the mill .

Articles this image appears in

Blast furnace, Ironworks, Steel mill and Třinec Iron and Steel Works

Creator

Třinec Iron and Steel Works

Nominator

Darwinek

• Support — Darwinek 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Ineligible - Photograph is copyrighted and "used with permission". —Dgies^t c 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My bad, it is still a free license. —Dgies^t c 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not very interesting and you can't really see what the man is doing.--enano ^(Talk) 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. Plus the black square in the bottom left and the rod on the right distract a little bit. -Midnight Rider 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha. Photographer should have moved them before taking the photo? - Darwinek 09:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but you could crop them out, or photograph from a different angle Jack · talk · 00:07, Friday, 2 February 2007
• Support. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are there are particular reasons why you support? Which of the FPC Criteria do you believe it fulfills? Pstuart84 Talk 00:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: it is just a personal feeling, I think it fulfils the crtierias. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - good subject, but I agree with Enano275, it would be much better if it was immediately obvious what he's doing. Reminds me of this image of a man welding, which leaves little to the imagination - Jack · talk · 00:05, Friday, 2 February 2007
• Oppose. Poor angle, size, resolution, clarity .--Jean-Pol Grandmont ^(Talk) 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support cool image :) Petr K 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Striking but subject is unclear. —Dgies^t c 08:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose – Nice image but IMO fails C5, it's not clear what the man does there or what it is all about either. It would be nice if it was explained at least in the caption. I also don't like the promotion of the (corporate) author of this image – copyrighted work used by permission with attribution.--Pethr 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boxer of Quirinal

Reason

Cool! Simply impresing. Look at the darkness of the eyes area, how his opened mouth expres both impacience from waiting the result of the fight and tiredness, and how the copper which represents blood creates a perfect balance between the black sculpture and the white background. Simple colours, good focus, big resolution (2304x2920).

Articles this image appears in

Boxer of Quirinal

Creator

German Wikipedia user MatthiasKabel [3]

Nominator

Caciula

• Support — Caciula 19:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• support either with preference for the full figure, as it shows his cesti. Debivort 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the second one the face is out of focus, in the first one there are severe technical problems with graininess (look at his eyes and his mouth. --froth^T 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the graininess is unfortunate. This is one of those amibuous cases where it seems like a downsampling would fix the noise, i.e. if this image was 1200x1000 (or whatever) most of the noise would go away - but downsampling only reduces information, so I like to support images that would seemingly appear noise free if downsampled to meet the 1000px limit. That said, I understand your disaproval of the noise. Debivort 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The body shot seems to be out of focus, and the headshot (impressive as it is) does not illustrate the statue well enough. I'd vote for this version, though. TotoBaggins 01:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I`d vore for that one too, if this one fails. Caciula 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, odd. Those photos don't look like they're of the same statue - the one you link has large amounts of green oxidisation, the one nominated here has none. Is this one actually a reproduction? TSP 03:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it`s after the restoration work. Check the article Boxer of Quirinal: In preparation for the exhibition of both Quirinal bronzes at the Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Bonn ... both bronzes were meticulously conserved and published by Nikolaus Himmelmann. Btw, there`s also a closer view of this too [4], though not as good. Caciula 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if the Photoshopping were done properly the white background would be annoying, but it isn't, so double oppose. ~ trialsanderrors 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose bad cut-out. no WOW factor. Enough said. -Fcb981 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STS-116e05968 Spacewalk December 12, 2006

Reason

Although there was a recent candidate of the same subject, which was featured, I think this an even more beautiful picture.

Articles this image appears in

none so far, but you could add it to STS-116 and probably some others too

Creator

NASA

Nominator

Wutschwlllm

• Support — Wutschwlllm 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe featured-worthy but we shouldn't have two featured images of the same spacewalk, and the other one is better --froth^T 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Now hold on, why is it that we can have two of nearly the same image (also this one, in which case not even the angle but just the time of day is different) and of the same subject featured when they are created by Diliff? Why the double standard? Noclip 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it is a double standard, but I support it. I find it much more important to encourage original contributions. Whether we feature a NASA pic or not won't have any impact on the pics those astronouts take. --Dschwen(A) 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's interesting, because I recently nominated an original image taken from a different angle and at a different (and in my opinion more encyclopedic) time of day than Diliff's already featured version which failed partly because it was concluded that two images of the same subject shouldn't be featured. Noclip 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Because your nom had glaring examples of duplicate people :D --froth^T 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Or, should we say, two images of the same subject in the same image? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
          • In fact, the "duplicate people problem" has been addressed and corrected in an edit. Therefore, this should not be the reason for not promoting the image (so much for the consensus; how deos consensus work, if people vote because of problems, that don't exist anymore and these votes are counted after all?). -Wutschwlllm 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The other image is better: I find the composition and colouration more attractive, and it's sharper. STS-116 is well-illustrated already and I don't see how this would add anything useful. In future please ensure you follow the criteria - images should be nominated because they illustrate an article well, not stuffed into articles just to back up a nomination. --YFB ¿ 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{01:55, Tuesday, January 30 2007}
• Oppose The other one is better for various reasons, a major one for me being that you can recognize the land masses in it (NZ). TotoBaggins 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose not in any article. Write an article about Curbeam, add the picture and I support. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, we already got one: Robert Curbeam. I put it in there, Support if it sticks. ~ trialsanderrors 07:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with YFB, I've said it all along...--Dschwen(A) 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic Line Filter

Reason

I believe this graphic I created (though converted by Phidauex) is both of featured quality and contributes very significantly to Atomic line filter, for which it was meant. Things that may need to be improved: caption, spacings, and the titles of the axes (I'm thinking "space" might be "time"). I'm no expert on vector graphics or image design, but I feel the image and idea have great encyclopedic value. What are your thoughts? -- Rmrfstar 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Atomic line filter

Creator

Rmrfstar

Nominator

Rmrfstar

• Support — Rmrfstar 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Encyclopedic, but no "wow factor". Compare this or this.
• Oppose Really, although informative I could make something as good as that in 15 min on powerpoint. no wow factor. -Fcb981 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, no... unless it somehow creates vectors now O_o. gren グレン 00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• SVG file type. sorry I clearly jumped to conclutions far too quickly. I'm not totaly sure what this is and maybe at some point I will look at the article on Vectors but until then (as I am unable to look at svg?? file type on my mac) I will strike out my vote. Sorry again, I just clicked on the picture and saw some lines and arrows and figured that was it. Does it move or something?. Anyway, as you can see vectors are lost on me next time feel free to call me on it sooner. -Fcb981 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per criteria 3 and 7--neither of which this image can ever achieve. You did a great job and you probably can't make a better image for the subject but--it's just the wrong subject for getting an FP.

Well I can't argue with you about Criterion 3, but I do think it satisfies #7, as best as can be hoped for this subject. Ideally, I think, any illustratable subject should enjoy the possibility of being represented by a featured picture. Indeed, the subtitle for #7 is, "It is taken or created in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image. The picture makes readers want to know more." I believe it is satisfactory even in this respect. If you do not, I'll respect your judgement on the matter. -- Rmrfstar 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelangelo's Pieta

Reason

It is very encyclopedic and a find example of Christian art.

Articles this image appears in

St. Peter's Basilica

Creator

Stanislav Traykov

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 01:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I don't like the glare all over the marble but this is a masterpiece and oh so enc --froth^T 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support- as encyclopedic as it gets. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{01:54, Tuesday, January 30 2007}
• Weak Oppose This image is encyclopedic I guess but the background is pretty distracting and I think its a little off angle. It also lacks the WOW factor. -Midnight Rider 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - very enc, and it got a wow out of me. Too bad about the tacky background, but I don't think 'chopping it improves it (see GIS for examples).
• Weak Oppose I don't like the composition. The angle could be better (higher, either perfectly front on or between 33 and 45 degrees) the pedestal is distracting and (this may have been impossible) the background would look better blurred. Other than the comp. it's got all the aspects. -24.128.48.224 03:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry the above was me, I wasn't logged in. -Fcb981 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You're right they do look pretty bad without the background.Bewareofdog 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose subject is enc, but the annoying object that's about to lobotomize her destroys the composition. Quick check tells me with the right angle this can be avoided. This is a much-photographed sculpture, so we should look around for the best picture. Where's Diliff? ~ trialsanderrors 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, let's just send Diliff off to Rome. I remember seeing this the last time I visited the Vatican; your view was obstructed by an intense grailing. --Iriseyes 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• mm, better tell him to bring along some thermite then --froth^T 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• An intense grailing? Isn't that what you get if you find yourself in an argument with a Da Vinci Code fanatic? ;-) --YFB ¿ 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wikipedia pay Diliff his plane ticket? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, they just raised over a million. I bet they can do it. Haha, yes about the grailing. It was intense. --Iriseyes 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Poor angle - Alvesgaspar 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Standards have to be pretty high when the image is essentially a photo of a statue.. That said, I may be visiting Rome sometime mid-year so I'll consider trying to get a better shot, or at least a good shot of the interior of the Basilica itself, which of course is very very beautiful. However, if Wikipedia were to send me there early, I'm sure I could make allowances for it... ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose If Diliff is taking a photo. Support Otherwise. --Arad 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Delist later if Diliff's is better. Noclip 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This version should be judged on its merits, not on the possibility that Diliff might come along with a better photo some time in the future. Pstuart84 Talk 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Answer Well, people here believe that this is the Best possible. and if it can be better, then it's not the best. That's not what i think tho. --66.36.145.42 06:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I think it's well done... but, I would be willing to delist for a better one. gren グレン 21:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wonderful! And when Diliff posts a better photo, I'll support it, too. Fg2 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support An all-around good picture. Sharp. No depth-of-field issues. I'd like it better if it was cropped a bit tighter. Greg L 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Shouldn't be that challenging to take a better photo of this and a lot of the people who've voted support seem to have done so just as a "carry-over" until a decent shot is available. There's nothing hideously bad about it, but I'm left thoroughly underwhelmed by the composition and shooting angle; it gives me the impression of a reasonably-executed-but-dull tourist shot. I also agree about the imminent lobotomy - whatever that is above her head is a severe distraction. Definitely not the sort of exceptional image which deserves an FP tag. --YFB ¿ 07:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a cross. In defense of the photographer, it's certainly not easy to take a picture of the Pieta these days (and not only because of the intense grailing). It's protected behind bullet-proof glass panels, so you get reflections and vertical lines where the panels connect. That plus the lobotomizing cross... ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per YFB ¿. Pstuart84 Talk 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hrant Dink's Funeral

A panorama from Halaskargazi boulevard. One hundred thousand mourners marched in Dink's funeral, protesting his assassination. The office of the Agos newspaper, where Dink was gunned down, is near the right edge of the image; it is in the first house to the right from the one with a large black banner hanging down.

Edit 1 by Diliff. Re-stitched with PTGui with better projection and blended with Smartblend. I've had a look at the crowd and can't find any stitching faults but with that many faces, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were ;-)

Reason

A striking image from recently assassinated Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink's funeral. Over 100.000 protesters walked against the ultra-nationalist ideas that killed him, carrying placards reading "We are all Hrant Dink" and "We are all Armenians" in Turkish, Armenian and Kurdish. The picture dramatically covers the crowd overflowing from the Halaskargazi Boulevard. The Building towards the left with the black banner is the office of the Agos newspaper, where Dink was Gunned down.

A little bonus in the picture is the appearance of Murat Belge, a famous Turkish journalist, towards the middle (Straight down from the red light with 1 second remaining. He is the one with white beard)

Articles this image appears in

Hrant Dink

Creator

Ombudsee

Nominator

Ombudsee

* Support — Ombudsee 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1. Dude, you are a wizard!. When sending the originals, I did expect better than my stitching; but this is just unbelievable, way beyond expectations. Teach me! I'll be your slave !:)Ombudsee 08:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Holy crap that's a lot of mourners! The image is extremely warped at the ends, and at the right side you can see half of someone's face taking up most of the height of the frame --froth^T 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Cropped a little on right did auto-contrast.Ombudsee 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support Comment. Definitely needs cropping on the right. gren グレン 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -- It has some problems, but, it's pretty good and I have seen nothing similar that could replace this. gren グレン 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I like that it's warped; it probably was intentionally done with a lens. I think it adds to the magnitude of the setting. Plus, it's a good photo. --Iriseyes 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually it's not warped. it's 7 photos of a straight boulevard stiched together in a panaroma. taken from the same point, of an angle a little less than 180 degrees causes that warp effect.Ombudsee 22:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, between the distortion and the skewed angle, it's not very striking. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tough scene to shoot a pano of. There are stitching errors all over the place. Maybe a pano is just a lost cause here. Or you have to put a lot of work into fixing it (but for that you need lots of source pics, with lots of overlap). --Dschwen(A) 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fully Support! I found maybe one stitching error. But it wasn't of any significance. If there are others, they don't detract from the historic moment this photo captures. I find it striking, well exposed and of high encyclopedic value.--Mactographer 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Enc, but not striking visually, especially when not at full size.. I withdraw my oppose, on the grounds that it's an historic event. TotoBaggins 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support (also for Edit 1). Photograph shows important event in history of Turkey in clear way. It has caught the feeling of the moment very well. Of course it has its "distortion", how else is 180° panorama picture to be on flat plane? Hevesli 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support We have plenty of FPs with flaws which we overlook for various reasons; historical value, difficulty of shot, etc. This photo has high historical content, and it's a panorama of moving people of course there are going to be some stitching errors. It's an event that will not be captured again and it was done very well. --Bridgecross 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A historic event from a creative perspective. This picture has artistic, political and social importance and deserves to be a featured picture. Deliogul 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  The picture doesn't have any importance. It's the events that are important. I haven't seen this picture having any impact politically or socially. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• My Two Cents: The picture, to coin a phrase, "is worth a thousand words." In this case, probably more. The picture (or more often the photo) is one of our most important tools to have been created in the last 150 years in documenting historic events. Thus, this picture has significant historical value in describing the "event." Thus, this picture is important. Thus, I think you are mistaken. Thus, I am finished with my soapbox. --Mactographer 01:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• P.S. If pictures aren't important, I'm just guessing that Playboy wouldn't sell as many issues as it does. Could be wrong, just a guess...--Mactographer 01:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you've misinterpreted Night Gyr's comment. There are a number of pictures that are in and of themselves important, without regards to the subject they depict (for example, The Blue Marble, Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, that one from the Vietnam War with the naked girl running from napalm). This picture has no significance of its own. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support edit 1 Flaws, but the momentousness of the occasion makes up for it. We can always take another shot of the Pieta, getting those folks together again will be pretty hard. ~ trialsanderrors 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Might someone among the "stitching gurus" here, do a better job by re-stitching this to avoid the curving? It's a historically important image, so it would be great if it could be technically improved by re-stitching. --Janke | Talk 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to give it a go if the originals are made available. Ombudsee, would you be able to email them to me? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Document of an important event, thus making the picture important (see Mactographers comment). -Wutschwlllm 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 changed vote because of edit -Wutschwlllm 12:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Agree with mactographer's comments too. The quality is quite good and the significance of the event pushes it into FP territory for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - high enc, high quality image of historic occasion. --Janke | Talk 10:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1, how you can get that few stitching errors with that many faces is beyond me. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)00:22, Saturday, 3 February '07
• Support - per nom. Nareklm 14:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Janke -- Davo88 16:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 per Janke. -- Aivazovsky 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support An important event, thus making the picture important. Also high quality picture. A striking image. ROOB323 20:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit. That's a very powerful picture.--ragesoss 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I notice in the edit... I see this one man a few times... once he's right next to himself and it's close to where an adult's head transforms into a kid's... gren グレン 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha nice catch, it's unavoidable in a moving crowd though. --froth^T 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I think it's alright because the point of this image is more to catch the feel. I do think that we should put a dislaimer on the image page so that people don't think this is just an incredibly wide-lens panorama (which I did at first). But, I must say, it works out poorly that the error is in the least bust part of the photograph. gren グレン 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Even a true single-exposure panorama isn't immune to this: I once read an interview with a guy who would take such pictures of large groups of school children with a camera that scrolled from left to right, and would get a kid to stand at one end, wait for the exposure to start, and then dash behind the crowd to the far end in time for the camera to scroll to him and thereby capture him twice in the same image. :) --TotoBaggins 02:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Maybe that's his twin. ♠ SG →Talk 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I look at the image and I'm not impressed; it's just a picture of a crowd. Looking at the caption puts it into perspective and makes it somewhat interesting (but not really that interesting). Many images can get away with being subpar because the context is so fascinating, but I don't think this isn't one of them. --froth^T 08:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Down from the Anadollbank, at the bottom, the women with the glasses appears twice. So do the people around her. {Slash-|-Talk} 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 This image is incredible. I don't see it as "just a crowd" because of the signs and the fact everyone is walking in the same direction. Also the doubled people are not obvious unless you start playing Where's Waldo? with this image. Spebudmak 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps, if this gets approved, it could be fast-tracked to appear on the Main Page soon, due to its topical nature? Spebudmak 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 - This is perhaps the best picture of that funeral. I have not seen anything even similar nor equal to this on a newspaper, magazine or t.v.. We're just lucky here that the owner releases his rights. Great panaroma too and the edit worked out well nice. Nerval 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. mstroeck 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1 - David's Magic. But there is also many many flaws. As stated above, right under Anadolbank you can see a few people twice and also some other having signs instead of head. It's good for a laugh. --Arad 03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC) --Arad 02:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support (also edit 1) --Absar 13:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Dinkfuneral3.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honeybee landing

An incredibly hard shot to get (I think I was shooting for about 2 1/2 hours), and hence one which looks quite amazing! With the 8 or so millimetres that are in focus at 150mm and f/11 there is not much room for error. This image, though perhaps not absolutely perfect, I feel is a worthy candidate for FP. I hindsight I really should have taken this image on a much smaller flower as there would have been less area for the bee to land on (allowing me just to leave it a a certain focus point). However at the time of year this was taken, there wasn't much else flowering around the place ;-)

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - can I have your camera? Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)06:21, Wednesday, January 31 '07
• Support original only. Slight motion blur, particularly on the legs, but otherwise a very good capture of a very difficult capture (and I should know. I've attempted similar things before with lesser results). The alternative is simply too motion blurred though so I Oppose that one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Your effort is much appreciated. :-O | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Exceptional shot! I don't like the alternative though --froth^T 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• SupportBeautiful shot, excellent composition, just the legs are a little blurry in the alternative. Nonetheless nice shot. Voshvoshka 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support original. I like in the alt. version that you can see more of the plant, but the bee is blurry. The bokeh in the first one is very nice, depth of field, color contrast, detail are all FP quality. It would have been nice to have more of the plant in frame in the first one, but not enough for me to oppose. weak support.-Andrew c 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Honeybee landing on milkthistle02.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bassoon

Reason

Highly enc, amazing technical quality

Articles

Bassoon, List of woodwind instruments

Creator

Gmaxwell

Nominator

Alvesgaspar

• Support Alvesgaspar 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I have long loved this photo. A great illustration of a bassoon, highly encyclopedic. Mak (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support High enc, high quality. Errors are slight: DOF of left bassoon (actually, I think it's just two shots of a single one... ;-), slight "cut" into left top of right one (should be fixed), unavoidable blown metal highlights. --Janke | Talk 17:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support highly enc, and great overall. Minor tech probs can be overlooked imo. ~ Arjun 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support A very high quality shot of one of my favourite woodwinds (oboe and recorder being my absolute faves). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. --Tewy 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful quality shot; nicely done. TotoBaggins 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. High quality, overall I like it; however the bassoon to right has its mouthpiece not parallel to the one on the left. William Pembroke 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's because it's not two bassoons, it's two different angles of the same bassoon. Also, bocals swivel, also oppose, turban color not typical. Mak (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:FoxBassoon.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 57 mm Gun M1 in Saint-Malo

Reason

Just great image with very nice visual angle and so on. Caught my eye and decided to scan it (eventhough at greatest reso it has some marks, which though aren't visible on paper.)

Articles this image appears in

Ordnance QF 6 pounder

Creator

(US Army)

Nominator

Pudeo (Talk)

• Support — Pudeo (Talk) 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, the ISBN you gave doesn't resolve, so I can't check the book you got it from. Also, the quality as far as colors, detail, blur, grain, etc. isn't very good. I like the poses, and it's a good shot, but I'd rather we got a higher quality version than a thirdhand scan. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, very interesting but yeah it would be much better to get a scan of the actual photo --froth^T 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• NeutralI agree with the abve statements. Voshvoshka 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This picture is grainy, has bad colouring and bad lighting. The vertical lines where the sky meets the sea make it quite unpleasing. The composition isnt very good either as your can mostly just see out the window because thats where the focus seems to be. The faces of the soldiers cannot be easily seen and the cannon is hidden behind the troops. The empty shells and crates seem to stand out also. -Midnight Rider 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to inferior quality - this is a scan from a printed page, which causes severe moirés. --Janke | Talk 10:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per MidnightRider. TotoBaggins 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Vertical stripes on the largest version - Adrian Pingstone 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, not very high quality. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)00:35, Saturday, 3 February '07

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astronotus ocellatus

Reason

High resolution, quality image, striking DOF use.

Articles this image appears in

Astronotus ocellatus

Creator

Jón Helgi Jónsson (Amything)

Nominator

Cody.Pope

• Support — Cody.Pope 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 07:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice picture; striking. What a cute oscar -- Havocrazy 09:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose Great quality, but enc is seriously hurt by this being just a fish head... --Janke | Talk 09:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I don't think that being only a head really hurts the enc relevance. We have FP of human heads and also of flowers (instead of the whole plants). This one is scaring! - Alvesgaspar 12:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good find! I don't think the head only is a problem either. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - good image for what is present, but over half the fish is cut off, ruining the encyclopaedic value - Jack · talk · 19:27, Thursday, 1 February 2007
• Support Magic! Two points: we don't always need the entire object visible if what's seen is enc, and it's not a "fish head", lots of the body is seen Adrian Pingstone 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subject cut off. --Tewy 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Consistent with my peacock votes, I oppose on the basis that the subject is cut off. I also see dust and some blurring. Pstuart84 Talk 00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support A great image, and there's no law that we have to see the whole subject. 100% of our presidential portraits are "cut off", too. :) --TotoBaggins 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • However, for enc, it is a good rule to capture as much of the subject as possible, as some distinguishing or important features might otherwise be lost. You're right about the portraits, because cropping from the waist up helps the composition. But in the case of this image, of an animal, it would be nice to see the rest of the fish (for me at least). --Tewy 04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This is already a featured picture. It should be removed. -Midnight Rider 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's only featured on Commons. --Tewy 04:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Excellent image sharpness and lighting --Fir0002 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, amazing. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)00:33, Saturday, 3 February '07
• Support Impressive lighting and "you are there" 3D depth. It made me stop scrolling and click on the picture. Eerie, ethereal quality to it. This is a darn good picture! Greg L 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support I completely agree with the above, just excelent quality. ~ Arjun 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the fade to black addresses the cut-off detraction, and I believe a photo of a fish head can still be highly illustrative of a species. I think it should be downsampled a bit though - it seems a tad bit pixelated at full res. Debivort 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have a problem with downsampling it; it is huge. I'm not at my regular computer though, so someone else will have to take a shot at it. --Cody.Pope 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Beautiful image, and extremely detailed. Excellent quality, and fair use. Dkkicks 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Striking image, large size and as said before excellent quality *Greg* 02:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Very nice picture. (That is one scary looking fish!)
  'WiiWillieWiki→^{(Talk) (Contrib)} 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Astronotus_ocellatus.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Allan Poe

Reason

The most famous image of Poe and a good example of a daguerreotype... what more could you ask for?

Articles this image appears in

Edgar Allan Poe, Daguerreotype, and a few other miscellaneous places

Creator

W.S. Hartshorn

Nominator

howcheng {chat}

• Support — howcheng {chat} 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support however it may be copyrighted, (that was a joke) :p. Seriously highly enc, can't ask for more. ~ Arjun 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have made an edit of the original to remove a lot of the dust and other things. -Andrew c 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think removing the dust was very successful, however I'm still thinking about removing the writing which gave copyright information. I know we have a practice of removing watermarks or not accepting watermarked photos, however to my mind this is more equivalent to a signature on a painting. It adds provenance and authorship and is part of the encyclopedic story of the image. Are there other physical copies of this daguerreotype which do not have the date and name? Do we know who added that information? For myself, I think I would prefer to see a version with dust/spot removal but which left the copyright tag intact. Mak (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. In my opinion, editing historical pictures is something that's done too quickly here. If the copyright information is on the original image, it has to stay there (after all this is an encyclopedia!!!!). I am even a little bit bothered by editing out scratches, dust and so on of historical pictures, especially if they are part of the source. This is just unscientific and I would even go so far as to call it unethical. (see this nomination for another example. -Wutschwlllm 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with that too. The Library of Congress doesn't say why the copyright statement exists, but it definitely seems to have been added after the fact (after all, the image was made in 1848 and the text says 1904), but I don't think editing out dust/scratches is bad -- most likely they were not there when the image was originally created, but have since accumulated on the surface. howcheng {chat} 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • If people want, I can supply a dust removed version with the text intact. But Poe was dead in 1904, so the 'copyright' information is only confusing. I imagine this scan came from some sort of collectors reprint or post-card, because we can all agree it isn't a scan of the original (unless someone would sign the original 50 years after the fact), plus the copyright has expired. As for the more general question of removing dust or not, the original image taken over 150 years ago didn't have dust and scratches and finger prints. I don't see how noise and distortion like this add to the encyclopedic content. But if you disagree with me, don't vote for my edit. I won't be that offended :p-Andrew c 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC) I have uploaded a version with the writting in tact.-Andrew c 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in that time period would write on an original image in their collection. Looking into this image further, as well as daguerreotypes, I'm even more strongly against this edit. It looks like the person who added the signature to the image was the owner for some period, and his widow then donated it to the Library of Congress. This, as I mentioned, gives important provenance of the object. Also, daguerreotypes were easily damaged, and so were kept in glass-fronted cases. In my mind, it's possible that the print removed belonged either to Poe or the original photographer! At this time there is no way to know, but wouldn't it be sad if this information were lost? To be fair, I think I tend to see such "photos" more as artifacts than Andrew c does, and I think there can probably be appropriate times for the cleanest, nicest image of Poe, and of a faithful representation of an early Daguerreotype of Poe, with all the smudges, signatures, and dust which go along with that. I wasn't trying to criticise, but start a conversation about what's being captured here. A photo or an artifact. Mak (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. I mean to say that my understanding now is that the signature exists on the only extant original, in the possession of the Library of Congress. Mak (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree completely. In my opinion, if the original version has all the scratches and dust on it, they should not be removed. If it's just a copy (like a postcard or whatever) and this copy is a bit "dirty", there's nothing bad about editing dirt out. But editing out the dirt of an historical picture changes it's historical value to zero. I know, some people here are quality fanatics, but if the original version looks that way, I'm really not sure if editing something out is the correct way. I think this is highly debatable. -Wutschwlllm 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose edit great image, encyclopedic. Support original for now, see above comment. Mak (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Support Edit 2 Very enc. I would also support a de-scratched version with the extant signature. --TotoBaggins 02:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original per TotoBaggins. Madman 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support The edit is very well done. For a picture this old, it is pretty good and it holds encyclopedic quality. -Midnight Rider 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original - edit went too far. Edit 2 is better, but I retract my vote for now. --Janke | Talk 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 very clear for something 150 years old. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)00:29, Saturday, 3 February '07
• Support edited Wow that is an awesome picture!! Good all around.--68.203.112.214 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, Strong Oppose edits See my comments above -Wutschwlllm 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit Good picture of him. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose edit — I agree with Wutschwlllm, the edit is a bit too much. If this image is representing daguerreotype, then removing the scratches and other artifacts is simply not acceptable, it would be creating a false representation of an old image. If this were simply an old photograph of a man, then maybe the edit would work; but this is a special type of photography. ♠ SG →Talk 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree completely that if we are trying to illustrate a deguerreotype, then we shouldn't edit the image. However, after reading [5] and looking through the images, I do not believe this would be a featured picture quality reference for a deguerreotype. I believe including a color image with frame would be more encyclopedic. And I am also skeptical that this image isn't a reproduction (due to the signature and quality of the image). On those grounds, I would not vote support on the original if it is meant to represent a deguerreotype. And if this is supposed to represent E.A. Poe, then I see nothing wrong with my edit and would support promotion to FP under those grounds (a historic portrait of a notable person in American literature).-Andrew c 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I am no expert on this subject, I'm not sure if a Daguerreotype could have been duplicated in 1904. In fact, a Daguerreotype cannot be duplicated in normal circumstances (one reason why it was replaced soon by the negative-positive photography). The only why (I can think of right know) is to a.) take a "normal" picture of it and b.) scanning it (which was definitely not possible in 1904). Since this picture is from the Library of Congress, I do believe that it is an original and someone just wrote on it. Of course, there are "better" Daguerreotypes, but on the other hand this one shows one of the most famous poets.... Even if it does not represent a Daguerreotype that well, it still is an Daguerreotype and therefore should not be altered (in my opinion). -Wutschwlllm 11:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Image:Edgar Allan Poe 2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grid illusion

Reason

Yet another excellent optical illusion, this can keep you staring for hours. Originally created as an svg version of Image:Grid_illusion.png.

Articles this image appears in

Grid illusion and Optical illusion.

Creator

Foobaz

Nominator

Michaelas10 (Talk)

• Support — Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose While this is indeed one of the classic examples of an optical illusion, it isn't particularly encyclopedic. Noclip 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you please explain? I believe it makes a very helpful addition to Optical illusion as a well-known illusion and especially to Grid illusion. We also have a few other FP/FPC optical illusions (e.g. Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.jpg and Image:Wikidec2005cani.gif). Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The second example you cite is very effective at drawing in a user's attention to the topic. This (and the first FPC you cited) simply have no "wow" factor, do not look like they will interest the reader in exploring the topic further (than looking at the image for a few seconds), and are not encyclopedic enough to make up for it. Noclip 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I would normally agree if the image wasn't an optical illusion. However, optical illusions aren't supposed to colorful or well-designed, it's the illusion itself which attracts readers to the article. This illusion in this case is certainly strong and becomes visible immediately. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose While it's very enc it doesn't have much else to speak for it. It's pretty much a 15 minute Photoshop job. ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. That thing gives me a headache. Also per trialsanderrors --froth^T 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motherhood and apple pie?

Reason

Represents the all-American life.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_the_United_States

Creator

Scott Bauer

Nominator

Nyla1

• Support — Nyla1 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This was just nominated in November. tiZom_(2¢) 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict!) sorry but it recently went through this and failed. I completely agree with the last nominations points. ~ Arjun 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Arjun. S.D. ¿п? § 00:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated this was already nominated and failed. Is there any way that we can tell whether a picture has been put through for nomination already because I did this once on accident? --γιατί ^{Sign Here | ESP.} 03:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To find previous nominations you can look through the "File links" section at the bottom of the image page. If the image has been previously nominated then the nomination page will appear in that list. Look for any page that is called "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/<title>". That's the only way I know to easily check if an image has been nominated before. Raven4x4x 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. Also as on the previous rejection. -Midnight Rider 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Close nomination because it is far too soon for the same picture. Articles which can change and get better have longer waiting periods... gren グレン 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per last nomination (which I nominated, by the way). The flag is being disrespected, see the picture's talk page. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, same as last time. It should be "Mom, baseball, and apple pie." howcheng {chat} 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rome subway graffiti

Reason

Shameless self-nomination

Caption

What sets the Roman metro apart from that of many other European cities is that graffiti on its trains is near ubiquitous. This is a photograph of a one of the stations in central Rome, and the state of this particular train is pretty similar to the state of many other trains in the city.

Articles this image appears in

Rome metro

Creator

Levan

Nominator

Levan

• Support — Levan 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You'll definitely need a caption (just what station that is, something about the graffiti in the Roman metro and so on; it doesn't need to be an essay).
• Support AHH!!! Vandalsim! Just kidding, seriously it looks pretty nice and illustrates the article well. ~ Arjun 21:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support- matbe this should also go in Graffiti? Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)00:11, Saturday, 3 February '07
• Oppose Nothing dramaticly great about it - nice picture, but nothing that really "stands out" above other pictures. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Wrong angle, muddy colors, everyday topic. ~ trialsanderrors 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see how this is a FP! As pointed out in the nom. it is not unique, yet nor is it a particularly attractive photo or particularly good spray-art. Also, this doesn't repreesnt the Roman subway any more than any other ill-maintained metro system. Witty lama 01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Right side unfocused, too dark/muddy, unspectacular. --TotoBaggins 02:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It is decent but when it comes down to it I must agree with trialsanderrors on this one.--γιατί ^{Sign Here | ESP.} 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — To me, graffiti is not FPC material. Too dark and stuff like that. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree; we should have an FP of graffiti but this just isn't a very good shot --froth^T 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Ringed Octopus

Reason

Beautiful picture, with octopus in focus. Over 1000px and probably contributes more it's article than words could ever aspire to.

Articles this image appears in

Blue-ringed octopus and Octopodidae

Creator

User:Jnpet

Nominator

Dark jedi requiem

• Support — Dark jedi requiem 06:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but it is too grainy/blurry, and I have a hard time identifying the subject. tiZom_(2¢) 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, blurry. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)00:24, Saturday, 3 February '07
• Weak Oppose Very encyclopedic, and very interesting, but it is quite grainy which doesn't make it Wikipedia's best.--γιατί ^{Sign Here | ESP.} 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Why1991. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unless the subject is camouflage, the subject is too hard to see because of the background. —Dgies^t c 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Motion blur. I don't mind the difficulty seeing the subject, as that's how it appears in nature, but the blur is just too bad. howcheng {chat} 08:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The picture is too blurry and it is impossible to discern what is is through the thumb. User:pel99 3 February 2007
• Support Powerfully beautiful. I actually like the motion blur on the substrate: it makes me feel as if I'm being buffetted by waves, in danger of bumping into this beauty. I've read about these, but never seen a picture, and I'm extremely glad I just saw the picture. I have one minor issue, but it's about the caption, not the picture ... just leave the "to science" bit out and I think it communicates the idea much more clearly. Enuja 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phalloidin stained cells

Reason

This remarkable image displays endothelial cells' DNA, proteins and actin filaments in blue, green and red respectively. The red flourescent phalloidin is actually the toxin isolated from the death cap mushroom (often used in cellular imaging for this very purpose). The image presents very little cell crowding/confusion to the eye. It is eerily beuatiful; natural yet alien. One might as easily believe this was taken from the Hubble telescope as from a light microscope.

Articles this image appears in

Phalloidin Cellular biology

Creator

National Institutes of Health [6] (US)

Nominator

István

• Support — István 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose size, resolution, clarity --Bridgecross 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Size. It's beautiful, though, and I'd happily support a larger version. --TotoBaggins 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Same for me - is there a larger version that we could re-evaluate? tiZom_(2¢) 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, if you poke around the web for fluorescence microscopy, you find some absolutely gorgeous pics. We can definitely do better than this nom. Look at this series for mitosis: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/fluorescencemitosis/index.html
    • We actually have some right here: Mitosis#Timeline_in_pictures Jack · talk · 14:06, Sunday, 4 February 2007
• Oppose, too small. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)00:30, Saturday, 3 February '07
• Oppose It must be 1000px in one direction and its about half that. It's best when pictures aren't in jpg format, then you get the best picture.--γιατί ^{Sign Here | ESP.} 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose purely on resolution. —Dgies^t c 08:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• oppose, per above Jack · talk · 14:06, Sunday, 4 February 2007

Not promoted MER-C 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Angels

Reason

It is an amazing picture,It has the wow factor and it is very encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

Blue Angels

Creator

Jon Sullivan

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 05:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The lighting seems off. But the picture is definitely spectacular otherwise. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Very cool, but the harsh lighting just ruins it for me --froth^T 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Wish the lighting allowed you to see detail on the planes. tiZom_(2¢) 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Per all above. For it to represent Wikipedia's best it must excellently fit all of the criteria.--γιατί ^{Sign Here | ESP.} 03:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little Death Hollow

Reason

I think it is a very pleasing picture to look at, and also is very imformative about Little Death Hollow.

Articles this image appears in

Little Death Hollow

Creator

user: Jimbo Herndan

Nominator

Jimbo Herndan

• Support — Jimbo Herndan 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — a similar and better featured image can be found here. Article is uber-stub, and while the subject may be "famous" locally the subject doesn't seem significant IMO, and I doubt much information could be gathered from this one image. Jack · talk · 23:59, Thursday, 1 February 2007
• Oppose Per above. Focus problems. A bit confusing composition wise. I like the shot though, artistic and beautiful just not best for enc. -Fcb981 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. Also, there is some serious glare in the top left. -Midnight Rider 04:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It is good but it's gotta be better than the other version of this and I don't think it quite cuts it.--γιατί ^{Sign Here | ESP.} 03:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not bad, but the sky is blown out in the upper left, which is causing the rock in that area to be slightly overexposed too. howcheng {chat} 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Library of Congress

Reason

A very crisp, clear and informative picture

Articles this image appears in

Library of Congress

Creator

User:Diliff

Nominator

Ahadland

• Support — Ahadland 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support A bit of grain, but it is nonetheless a stunning image. Noclip 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Please fix the stitching errors mentioned by TSP. Noclip 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great composition and stunning subject, but there's glare on the floor, purple fringing on the lamps on the far sides, and it's grainy --froth^T 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to find that some of your comments are a bit silly and overly critical, froth. The 'glare' on the floor is reflections from ceiling lights, sheesh! I don't see how that is a significant concern. I'm going to have a go at re-processing this one as I'm not 100% happy with the white balance and I might see what I can do about the shadow noise. As far as I'm concerned the purple fringing is very minor and I might also be able to minimise that in post-production. Hold that vote. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Diliff, is there anything you can do about that lamp on the left? Mak (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • What were you thinking of exactly? I might be able to minimise the purple fringing but you haven't been very specific. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It just looks a bit "burnt out" is how I would put it. It's slightly distracting to me, but not enough to oppose. I just figured if you're going to be editing it anyway I might as well point it out. Mak (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • There isn't really any detail on the bulb that is being blown and the light isn't washing out detail elsewhere. And I don't see how Diliff was supposed to cut the glare on the floor... I suppose he could have gone down to the floor with some sand paper and taken some of the shine out of it :( -Fcb981 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Ok, it was actually a question from someone who didn't know, and so was asking a question. Mak (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All this nitpicking is starting to get very counterproductive. This image is highly encyclopedic, is one of Wikipedia's best images, and it is likely that is nearly impossible to do better. Noclip 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely has a lot of wow factor.  H4cksaw  (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• strong support have you ever taken a bad pic ;). Seriously though, nice and the little tech probs don't bother me at all. ~ Arjun 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Minor technical faults, but very nice overall. —Dgies^t c 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Fixes white balance and perspective issues. Slightly better detail in shadows too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Most excellent pic. Here follows a rant: I am bored with nitpicking: yes, the lamp on the left is blown out but that's what lights do, they glow brightly!! Yes, there are some reflections in the floor but that's what shiny floors do, they reflect!! End of rant. - Adrian Pingstone 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd probably support this in any case, but it seems to me that there are considerable stitching errors in both versions. They're quite obvious in the beams on both sides of the top middle skylight of Edit 1; and a bit less obvious but still visible to the left of that skylight in the original. There are also visible errors on the balcony balustrade running across the middle of the picture - largish ones on the first version, more subtle ones on the second. Can anything be done about these? It's still a great image, but at least the second edit's roof errors all seem fairly obvious to me. TSP 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 It's not perfect, but it is good enough to be featured. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either Sure, small problems, but the image is overall wonderful. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I'm glad Noclip pointed out the unfairness of all the nitpicking we're becoming famous for on FPC. This is a great image. --Iriseyes 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - When I grow up I want to be able to do a pano like this - Alvesgaspar 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Ack Arpingstone et al. What was Janke's comment? Rivetcounters! --Dschwen(A) 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Weird projection, perhaps unavoidable due to very wide FOV, the room just does not look like this when you're standing there. Very noisy in the dark areas by the bibles. No geocoding, no exif, no accurate timestamp... from a metadata tracking perspective it's not the best we could offer. Finally the licensing data is contradictory: It claims that attribution to the copyright holder is required, yet the CC-by-sa-2.5 license that it's released under only provides attribution if the content hasn't been submitted by a downstream licensor to a site which takes attribution for itself via its terms of service (see cc-by-sa-2.5 4.c.ii). --Gmaxwell 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sorry Gmaxwell - but WHAT?!! Exif data in a stitched panorama? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the strong impression that nearly everything gets wiped when you stitch simply due to the impossibility of showing information of multiple images in a single image! Ditto with the timestamp - and who really cares about the exact minute it was taken at? Maybe if it was some kind of famous event like the signing of the declaration of nuclear war perhaps time would bear some kind of enc relevance but for general use this is not the case. Geocoding? Like as in GPS? Yes I'd like to be rich enough to afford a GPS too... This kind of nitpicking is going too far! --Fir0002 23:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Anyway, the metadata issue has a grain of truth. But it can easily be fixed. For geocoding you just need google-map. Although EXIF data could be implanted back into the pano, a propperly filled out commons {{information}}-template would do the job too. --Dschwen(A) 23:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, as far as meta data goes, that is still in the original pictures, as far as geo-locating goes, I don't think that room moves around much. A timestamp I could take or leave. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Per Dschwen. Stiching doesn't preclude exif, nor is exif required: Information template is good enough (plus it is trivial to add exif data with exiftool, .. we really should be putting our copyright data inside the images). GPS isn't required for geocoding, and it is something we should be looking for in our features pictures, especially with cool location aware tools like Dschwen's WMA showing up. We're going for the best we have to offer, So fix it. :) --Gmaxwell 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think the exact timestamp is that relevent, date is specific enough. My preferred edit does include all relevent info in the info template (which didn't exist - at least on the upload page - at the time of upload of the original). Geocoding COULD be added but lets be fair. I think the article is a better location for that sort of info but if the image info template is missing something that you feel should be included, it is a relatively trivial job to add it. That sort of thing shouldn't preclude your support. As for the licencing, you've obviously spent more time studying it, but I was under the impression that attribution to the author/copyright holder is always required? I have always stated the same attribution requirement and nobody has ever commented on this previously. In fact, if what you say is true, then I suspect a lot of contributors will be as troubled by this as I am. The licencing requirements on commons are quite strange... I am yet to have explained to me the reasoning behind losing attribution or the requirement of allowing commercial use of media contributions. As I see it, we are donating images to Wiki for educational purposes, not giving them away as stock to any commercial entity to profit from and provide nothing - not even attribution - to the copyright holder. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. Evidently my understanding, and the understanding a number of our contributors, is lacking on this subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either, preferably original. Original looks more natural. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:25, Monday, January 29 2007}
• Oppose edit 1 the color correction seems overdone, like now there is a blue tint to everything. I prefer the warmer colors, especially for an interior shot where the light typically used is on the warmer side of things. Weak support original.-Andrew c 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow that building's big. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 - Another good image from Diliff. This is the resolution we want. And I don't see a reason to oppose. --Arad 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support either. I can't make up my mind. howcheng {chat} 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit. Looks great to me! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg Raven4x4x 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antanas Smetona

Reason

Historically valuable and rare picture, presenting the first President of Lithuania with decorations. Among other orders and inter-war Order of the Cross of Vytis, which was reinstituted in 1991.

Articles this image appears in

Antanas Smetona, Order of the Cross of Vytis

Creator

unknown

Nominator

M.K.

• Support — M.K. 10:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately, that shadow behind him makes it look like he has a feather coming out of his head. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hahaha, that was funny and it's true. --Arad 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for ruining this picture for me :( --gren グレン 10:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe crop this image top a bit that this "feather" do not distort the view? M.K. 10:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That would mean cropping it so that there's no space between the top of his head and the edge and that wouldn't look very good either. It's unfortunate, because other than that, I would support (and I can't overlook it because he looks too much like a bird). howcheng {chat} 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Presented new version (B). Now you have to have vivid imagination to see a bird instead of President :). M.K. 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain for now. I think I need to see this as a new nomination in a few months so that I don't see the bird/Las Vegas showgirl thing anymore -- that just totally ruined it for me. howcheng {chat} 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - rare, historically valuable pic. Great quality too. Renata 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support edit 1 yeah the whole feather thing ruins it. The edit makes it look better though ~ Arjun 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak support edit 2 (the tight crop hurts composition), very weak support edit 1 (my total support is weak because the sharpness and grainess could be significantly better, even in an old photo, e.g. the thomas edison pic). Debivort 00:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• support edit 2. Lokyz 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 Fixes the feather problem. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The right side of his coat is out of focus --froth^T 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral on first edits but Oppose feather removal (since it changes the reality) gren グレン 16:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC). I was joking above about it being ruined--but, I do have some more serious complaints. Edit 2 ruins the reason to support this--that it's historically important since it changes the reality of the image. But, there is that weird stamp at the bottom. I also don't see why this is so important. I know there are lots of old BW photos and maybe it's a lack of appreciation for Lithuanian history but this just doesn't seem that important to me. gren グレン 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to disagree a bit with you. First , mark - if I not mistaken contemporary marks do not prevent images to be selected as FP, we already have some images with marks, which are FP (like Abraham Lincoln with copyright tag :)). About importance's issue - it is almost in all cases could be used not important issue. Person in question is an icon in Lithuania. Presented awards could be tremendously important to people who interesting in awards their history and reinstitution. Despite person is very well known in Lithuania, such type of image is rare; also currently WP:FP do not have any close equivalent at all. M.K. 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The mark isn't that bad... vote changed. gren グレン 16:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose edit 2, Neutral other versions In my opinion, you can't just edit out something of an historical picture. This just seems wrong to me, even if it looks like there's a feather coming out of his head (and most of the people wouldn't even notice this). -Wutschwlllm 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Netural original, support edit 1, oppose edit 2. The orginial needed cropping, but airbrushing out the shawdow seems to be a step too far. Seeing edit 1 in isolation would leave few, I would suggest, distracted by the appearance of a feather coming out of his head. Pstuart84 Talk 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose edit 2, Neutral other versions Completely unnecessary manipulation of a historic picture. Yikes, in an encyclopedia, this makes my toenails roll up. --Dschwen(A) 12:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

• Comment So, having made the controversial plumeless edit, I just want to say I have no great loyalty to it. In fact, I'd weak support any, as I am in a "we need more FP diversity" mood. As for the encylopedicity of the edit - I feel that the enc of this image does not come from the age of the photo, but rather from the portrait of the guy, and the view of his medals. Therefore, one should consider whether an equivalent manipulation of a modern photo would be objectionable. If you think yes, please oppose it, otherwise, I don't think the manip should be a problem (my position). Debivort 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I'd oppose this manipulation regardless of the age of the photo (and I think I've been fairly consistent on this point during my time on FPC). Anyway, I'm opposing the edit, not the editor. You are just presenting a choice.--Dschwen(A) 10:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I believe that a similar edit to a modern image would be objectionable too. I believe that some people here are too quick in editing stuff out. Maybe it looks better, but..... -Wutschwlllm 18:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original A great pic.Bewareofdog 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Antanas Smetona 2.jpg Raven4x4x 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yalta Conference

Reason

Incredible, iconic, and overall striking picture... epitomizes WW2 and the 20th century... so many important people in one place.. Definite WOW factor. Also, very high resolution for an older pic. :) Cheers another FP --Tobyw87 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Yalta Conference

Creator

Unknown (comes from the national archives)

Nominator

Tobyw87

• Support — Tobyw87 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support pending clarification of copyright status (almost definitely public domain). Noclip 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This picture is very iconic and has great historical value. The reason for my opposition is that the photograph seems to have scratches and other lines. These defects can be fixed easily and when fixed, it will earn my support. --Midnight Rider 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great historic picture.Bewareofdog 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should be able to get a better copy of such a famous photo. —Dgies^t c 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This photo comes from the national archives... I looked through the entire website that they have and I do not think a pic of greater resolution or size exists. It is 60 years old for peets sake! I think it is very good all things considered. If someone can find a better pic, all the better. --Tobyw87 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is only 60 years old for peets sake! this pic is even three years older, and its quality doesn't suck this badly. So please stop excusing picture quality just because it is 60 years old. The exposure is terrible, it goes from black to gray, with the lightest grays containing no details. Aynway, enc is undisputable, it is a typical textbook picture. --Dschwen 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow kinda sounds like the definition of something that is encyclopedic... typical textbook picture.. hmmmmmmmm --Tobyw87 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Ehmm...? You nicely restated my point, thanks :-) --Dschwen(A) 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Very historic and encyclopedic. Uh, maybe the reason there are "scratches and other lines" is because this photo is over 60 years old. --UCLARodent 07:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose In my opinion this image is the one I connect with the Yalta Conference (and just because the other one is b/w doesn't mean it is historically more valuable than it's "brother" (or "sister" for that matter) in color). The only problem about the color version is, that it's a bit small. (and the scratches don't bother me that much; historical value makes up for this, but just taking the b/w, because it looks more historical, seems a bit fishy to me). -Wutschwlllm 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• neutral I'd like to see a version of the color photo mentioned by Wutschwlllm which strikes me as the more iconic photo as well. Debivort 10:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment I agree that the color image is much more iconic however I cannot find a version of it of the same quality as the image that I nominated. If someone could look for that, that would be highly beneficial. --Tobyw87 20:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• support The fact that this photo has scratches/etc is irrelevant in my mind. It is still a wonderful picture and deserves to be featured, if simply because of its historical impact and recognition factor. There is a similar copy in color here but I don't think it has quite as much "oomph" as the bw version (mainly due to the demeanor of the "big three"). Srilina 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Wutschwlllm above. highlunder 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Iconic photo.--DaveOinSF 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I should have a scratch free image finished soon. Support Edit 1 With the scratches removed, I see no reason as to why this image shouldn't achieve FP status.  H4cksaw  (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Support Edit 1. TotoBaggins 02:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further input required. Raven4x4x 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I prefer the colour version. That might pass as a FP, despite its size, given its historical value. I've not really judged the b&w one on its own mertis, but I note the criticisms of Dschwen. Pstuart84 Talk 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support But the picture still needs more work to clean it up. Edit 1 has too much blue in it.WindsorFan 09:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's too muddy. Needs more brightness or contrast or something along those lines. howcheng {chat} 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. B&W doesn't detract significantly. The resolution is good. Extremely iconic. --froth^T 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesueur's Frog

I've already had an unsuccessful FPC nomination of this species, but I think this image is definitely better than the other two I nominated previously. Good sharpness, interesting context (in water) and all areas of the frog are visible.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The front and back of the frog aren't in focus. The water on the frog's head is blown, though this probably wouldn't bother me as much if the whole frog was in focus. Looks good in thumbnail though.  H4cksaw  (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I disagree, I think the large version looks much better. 99DBSIMLR 14:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support DOF is a little small (right hind leg) but the focus on the body of the frog is outstanding. The lighting on the head looks like its from a flash but it's avery nice picture. -Fcb981 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Frog's body is amazing, great detail - but not one of four limbs is entirely in focus... tiZom_(2¢) 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support nice , best of your frog pics thus far, clear. ~ Arjun 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This picture is way off your usual standard, Fir, because too much of the image is not in focus - Adrian Pingstone 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Frogs seem to be a challenge for you Fir. You've been getting beautiful insect photos of late, but the frogs aren't keeping up. I am mainly opposing for the focus problems. Compared to current frog FPs, this isn't that great. Just as a note, this is a weird specimen. The blotched back and thin line (it's usually much thicker) through the eye are unusual for this frog. --liquidGhoul 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support There is not one bit of criteria that it doesn't pass. This is an excellent picture!!!--γιατί ^{Sign Here | ESP.} 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nicely done. :) ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 04:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support per DOF issues, I love the pic though --froth^T 08:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted , although close. Raven4x4x 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moons of solar system

Reason

Very encyclopaedic and attractive image, high res and easy to understand. Couldn't really illustrate the natural satellites of our solar system any better.

Articles this image appears in

Natural satellite

Creator

NASA

Nominator

Jack · talk · 19:20, Thursday, 1 February 2007

• Support edit 5 — Jack · talk · 19:24, Thursday, 1 February 2007
• Oppose. Artifacts on Charon and Titan. Can someone advise whether this would render in svg? Pstuart84 Talk 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not aware of any higher quality Charon photos, but I've replaced Titan. I don't think SVG would work out very well in this case. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These are photos, not drawings, so SVG doesn't make sense. And that's as good as it gets for Charon, AFAIK. It's far away. --TotoBaggins 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment NASA chose a curious title to display in the image. "Scaled to Earth's Moon" may indicate the method the artist used in figuring out how big to make the photos, but from the viewer's perspective, the words are irrelevant, as the result would have been the same if they had scaled to any other moon or to the Earth. Also, the Earth is included without any indication that it's not a moon. It just gets curiouser and curiouser... Fg2 01:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit2 - In Edit2 I've made the same changes as Edit1, plus replaced the Earth drawing with a photo to match the other photos, and changed the title, per Fg2. TotoBaggins 02:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support All of them are good. This gets my support through encyclopedic quality only. Kind of like a poster in a science class. -Midnight Rider 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. No opinion on edit three. Like midnight rider, I'd be happy to pass this on its encyclopedic qualities. We shouldn't oppose it if there's no better picture available of the artefacted moon left in there. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please lower the Mars and Asteroid Ida moons to the level of the Saturn and Uranus moons. The image of Ganymede also seems a bit blurry. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3 Edit 3 is Edit 2, plus, per Michaelas10: I aligned Mars and Ida moons. Aligned "others". Replaced blurry Ganymede with public domain image from http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Ganymede . --TotoBaggins 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I support now. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support all versions generally, and Michaelas10's comment. However, Edit 3 has introduced a very reddish Ganymede − which is misleading. If a normal colour image can't be found, this Ganymede picture should be made greyscale. Deuar 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now implemented this in "Edit 4". Deuar 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose; 1) It's only selected moons, and their selection makes it look like Saturn has a lot more moons than Jupiter. 2) Others? Are these moons? If so, who do they orbit? Very shoddy that the image doesn't say. It would be like having all of the moons listed except for Mars, then say "Other: Phobos, Deimos". 3) Triton needs a better picture, at least one of the full orb. I can live without this one, though I would suggest we turn it so the dark area is on the side rather than the top. --Golbez 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support TotoBaggins' edit (#5), BUT I suggest we also mention moons that aren't shown; like, "Plus at least 60 other moons" for Jupiter, or what not. --Golbez 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support with thanks for the editing, which has really improved this. Fg2 01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Omg!!! There are way too many edits!!! Oh well I guess it's for a good cause though. I like the fourth edit.--γιατί ^{Sign Here | ESP.} 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 5 -- Per Golbez, Edit 5 has Triton tilted, unaesthetically-named cubewanoes removed, and Dysnomia labelled as orbiting Eris. Last edit for me (promise!). --TotoBaggins 04:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 5 And now, can Earth please move over to the right... Yes... Now, everybody, SMILE. (No, seriously, if Earth is brought into an axis with Charon it will line up to the right with Dysnomia. OK, I'll stop complaing now.) ~ trialsanderrors 09:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support consensus image. Good diagram and quite encyclopaedic and interesting. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support consensus image. High encyclopaedic value and interesting, as Diliff pointed out. S.D. ¿п? § 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — I think we've got enough edits, so I uploaded the last image (edit 5) to Commons:Image:Moons of solar system v7.jpg, including a list of changes made by each of the editors. ♠ SG →Talk 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 5 Wow, so many edits! It's much better like this IMHO. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You might want to specify that the scale (1 pixel = 25 km) is at full resolution. IronGargoyle 21:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I think the scale would be easier to understand if there was a graphic scale bar. <nitpick> Also, I think the first letters of the words "Moons" and "Scale" should not be capitalized. </nitpick> --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Moons of solar system v7.jpg Raven4x4x 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little Pied Cormorant

A tranquil image of Little Pied Cormorant, which despite being taken in a zoo looks (at least to me) very natural. Good image quality, good enc value.

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support what can I say, another great image by Fir. ~ Arjun 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Technically detailed and encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - That's some sexeh bokeh, but the neck feathers are unattractively blown - did you boost the contrast or is it just a little overexposed in the camera? Lovely image otherwise. --YFB ¿ 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately the contrast of the scene was too high - they're blown on the original --Fir0002 08:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wow. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{07:36, Monday, January 29 2007}
• Support. Very good shot, as always :). - Darwinek 12:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I go against the crowd here. The blown neck spoils it for me, and the background is a bit messy with all those splotches of light. Try again on an overcast day? --Janke | Talk 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. So sharp, I love it.--enano ^(Talk) 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Have to agree with Janke on this one. Anything with both black and white details is always going to be tough to capture, but it seems 1/3-2/3 stops overexposed. I can see that parts of the black details could be lost as a consequence though, so it is probably a no-win situation. Perhaps raw may have proven handy.. ;-) Nice job, but just not quite there for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Quite nice. -Midnight Rider 02:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose agree with Diliff and Janke. On top of that, and I've mentioned this with another image (I believe it was the giraffe) I just do not like the bokeh quality of that lens for certain long shots. All the little circles are distracting. But that is a subjective thing because you received a compliment on the bokeh above.-Andrew c 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per the others. The background is too distracting for me, especially because the Cormorant is black and white.

--Iriseyes 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support per others above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support The water droplets on the feathers do it for me. Enuja 09:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's okay, but nothing FP worthy. --Indolences 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcatraz Island

Reason

Large panorama that shows the entire island very well. I can't see any technical details that would prevent its promotion, besides perhaps very minor focus issues

Articles this image appears in

Alcatraz Island / Image stitching / Digital photography

Creator

David Corby (User:Miskatonic)

Nominator

Jack (talk)

• Support — Jack (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I noticed this pic a few days ago, and was on the brink of nominating it myself. Nice atmospheric perspective. Note how you can see the campanile on the Berkeley University campus in the background. --Dschwen(A) 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Vertical res is a little on the low side and the focus is a bit soft, but this must be a super-duper teleshot, probably from GGB. --Dschwen(A) 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The picture is very good. It's a bit fuzzy in some areas in the left part of the island, but the rest is sharp enough for me.--enano ^(Talk) 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Definition of ENC value. Great Panorama with (trivial due to big size) focus issues. -Fcb981 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Highly encyclopedic as well as a great shot (or set of shots). This panorama is among the best stitching I have ever seen. -Midnight Rider 03:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support A good picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - It's a nice image and a great view of the island, but the vertical resolution is too limited for me to support and it doesn't look like there'd be any more detail in a less-downsampled version; focus and sharpness is marginal in several places (classic long-tele-digicam syndrome). --YFB ¿ 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Overall resolution is quite good, and clarity, while not tack-sharp is adequate and made up for by good composition and technical difficulty. —Dgies^t c 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I was going to nominate this too. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:18, Monday, January 29 2007}
• Oppose - The image doesn't compare very favourably to the other panoramic FPs we have. Rather small, little detail, soft... mstroeck 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Mstroeck. Also, the crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose perfect... if only better resolution. gren グレン 22:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the detail of the prison itself is very low, many of the windows are blurry and artifacted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support You folks have been spoiled by Diliff and co. Noclip 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If we all throw in $5 will he take a trip to San Fran and retake this picture? gren グレン 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • He can stay at my place... ~ trialsanderrors 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support I'm very impressed with the the comprehensive content of the entire side of the island. - Bevo 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I love the fact that you can see the Cal "C" and the campanile, but was the background run through a blue filter? This looks horribly discolored. You'd expect the East Bay to be greenish grey. ~ trialsanderrors 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this version is an edit of the original. So, you live in the Bay Area... --Dschwen(A) 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I live about five fingers to the left of the picture... The original is actually decent. Not sure if this gets promoted, but this should be listed in our "What not to do with Photoshop" gallery. ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Great content, nice composition, but it's such a hard subject for photos. The horizontal resolution is so high, but the vertical is so low. A true conundrum. Goyston talk, contribs, play 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry but the sum of problems put this below the FP level. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Alcatraz03182006.jpg Raven4x4x 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statue of Liberty Shadow

Reason

A well-known, historical icon is the focal point of this unconventional display.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

Creator

Pderuvo

Nominator

Nyla1

• Support — Nyla1 19:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The backlighting makes it impossible to make out any detail on the statue, and besides, it's at an awkward angle. howcheng {chat} 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Maybe with the whole statue in "countre-jour" from a better angle. Alvesgaspar 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - A great Windows wallpaper. But other than that, really doesn't carry any encyclopedic value... tiZom_(2¢) 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A great wallpaper, if you're into that kind of thing ;) -Fcb981 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. -Midnight Rider 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with those above, not enough detail and bad angle *Greg* 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above as well. Its a nice picture, but the statue is really too dark; looks somewhere in between the statue and a silhouette. --Havocrazy 05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above.--Absar 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingman Reef

Reason

This is a very pretty photo, and a very rare one. As the Kingman Reef is very hard to get to (see Image:Orthographic projection over Kingman Reef.png ). This is also something most people are not aware of, and a lot of people could learn something from it.

Articles this image appears in

Kingman Reef

Creator

User:Joann94024

Nominator

Indolences

• Support — Indolences 17:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I realize that this is a difficult photo to obtain, but it just looks like a sand spit that I might see at some beach. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Tilted horizon - Adrian Pingstone 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What about this?
    

    

    edit
    • Perfect! - Adrian Pingstone 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - nice shot, but lots of jpeg artifacts. And to be honest, I do agree with howcheng - It looks sort of ordinary, lacking wow factor. Is there anything else around it that could be included in the shot, that might make me want to learn more? tiZom_(2¢) 23:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above...Also, the picture is quite blurry and that red rope in the bottom completely takes away from the asthetics. -Midnight Rider 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first problem is that it's not very good at representing the reef. It shows a small part of it which, while aesthetically pleasing, does little to represent it in an encyclopedia article. Try the commons, maybe? gren グレン 04:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose nice for a desktop, not exactly great for Featured Image, per above. And "if" we were to go into aesthetics the red rope kind of ruins it for me :/. ~ Arjun 04:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't be that hard to get to, since someone left a rope, a pottery plant and an empty bottle there. Also, it tells me nothing about the reef other than that it's made of gravel. ~ trialsanderrors 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a closer look. That isn't gravel; it's shells. The rope is i'm guessing connected to the boat the photographer arrived on. The bottle might have a message inside. The "pottery plant" appears to be a coconut with maybe a palm growing out of it. As for it being not so hard to get to..

Yes, it is pretty darn close to Palmyra atoll, but Palmyra is uninhabited. The closest thing is either Johnston atoll, which only military is allowed on the last time I checked, and Kiritimati (the largest atoll in the world), part of the island nation of Kiribati. Kiritimati has 5,000 or so people. Think Mcfly, think! --Indolences 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schweiz graubuenden sent

Reason

Beautiful winter landscape. Good size and focus, stunning subject.

Articles this image appears in

Switzerland, Sent

Creator

User:Umbricht

Nominator

Fcb981

• Support — Fcb981 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Not striking enough. --TotoBaggins 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice snow scene, but nothing really special. There also seems to be a lot of noise in the shadow areas. howcheng {chat} 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lots of artifacts, not a crisp scene (see tower in back right). Lots of extraneous things that should probably be cropped out (person, tree, etc) tiZom_(2¢) 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 Canberra Brushfire Animation

Reason

Excellent animated illustration which demonstrates the rapid expansion of the fires on January 18 and 19.

Articles this image appears in

2003 Canberra bushfires

Creator

Martyman

Nominator

A mcmurray

• Support — A mcmurray 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• question I'm not sure what it illustrates - brush and forest fires normally move as a line, not a region - what does the red area indicate? The areas through which the front of flames passed? Debivort 07:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Caption and image page says, map showing progress over time. I didn't create it but I am assuming it is showing the area burned. I suppose the author might know more.A mcmurray 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not that interesting, really. A better graphic design could make it, but not this one, sorry. --Janke | Talk 12:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Janke. Also, what are the yellow areas and why doesn't the fire spread into them? howcheng {chat} 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think they may be urban/populated areas shas 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - yes, they would seem to be urban areas, but if the map doesn't say that outright, then the image page should have. Similarly, what is the black line? Presumably the Canberra limits?? Improvements to this image would include:

• Widening the frame of reference to include the areas off to the left (west).
• Putting this in some frame of reference for us non-Aussies - where in Australia is this?

Thanks, MapMaster 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment:The southeastern part I believe. Regardless, don't think it's going to make it. :)A mcmurray 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The black line is the boundary of the Australian Capital Territory, which is in the southeast of Australia, between Sydney and Melbourne. Stevage 13:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Although the idea is good, it leaves too many questions and should move at most in 6 hours intervals. The jump from Jan 17 to Jan 18 is just too big. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I saw this on the page its from a few months ago and I was pretty unimpressed. Its more like day to day pictures then a smooth animation. -Midnight Rider 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:I'll find something one day.A mcmurray 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was going to support because I think this is an interesting / new idea... but, there is absolutely no source given to prove that this represents reality. (and the compass is ugly) gren グレン 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Shasta Rescue

Reason

Dramatic moment in mountaineering

Articles this image appears in

Mountain rescue

Creator

Phreakdigital, Mike Grindstaff

Nominator

Phreakdigital

• Support — Phreakdigital 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry but to me personally I think that the subject(s?) are too far away and in the thumb you can hardly see the people. ~ Arjun 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well it is the wide shot for reference...if you click through to see the image in full size...you can clearly see the people. Phreakdigital 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know but in general most people who read the articles they don't click on the image and zoom in, the image should be clear on what is going on and etc. ~ Arjun 04:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. As arjun said, the subject is too small in the thumb. But in the closeup you can barely see the beautiful mountain context --froth^T 04:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment see http://mikegdesign.com/Sierra/Shasta_Rescue/Mt_Shasta_Rescue.html for the whole story Phreakdigital 05:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• support either with preference for original. Debivort 07:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternate on the first one; the subject is small. The second one however is quite nice. Nerval 16:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- No WOW factor; if I didn't know it was a rescue, it would just look like they'd been skiing and were heading back to the lodge for cocoa. --TotoBaggins 16:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment they are lodging in the helicopter? or like heli-skiing?..lol...CHP helicopter...person being carried...where is the cocoa? the lodge?..its obviously a rescue man Phreakdigital 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesnt look like a rescue. Its also not very exciting. -Midnight Rider 00:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: Not excting - who cares about exciting? What matters is encyclopedicity. What would a rescue look like if not this? Debivort 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support either, prefer original. Think it would make a good FP *Greg* 02:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose alternate because of the blur... I don't know about the original. gren グレン 04:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Very nice shot, rare, and a good depiction of a "common" mountain rescue (as opposed to what one might imagine having only watched dramatic scenes in movies or something). howcheng {chat} 19:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mole Cricket

Approx 3 and half centimetres in size this is a very interesting little critter. Rarely seen above ground I found this one whilst digging in the garden. Taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria in December 2006

• Support Self Nom, --Fir0002 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Mole_cricket02.jpg Too bad the legs are so out of focus, but still FPC material (in part because it's such a weird critter) --TotoBaggins 14:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, there was a switch-up, but I still like the blurry-legs one better, since the head is more visible, and the tail thingies are in focus. Too bad he changed his pose, or we could maybe stitch it. --TotoBaggins 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Image:Mole cricket.jpg has a better focus on the legs, why did you replace it? Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I was gonna put it up as an alternative! --Fir0002 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Support alternative. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Cool. Thats all I have to say. -Midnight Rider 03:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support But I refuse to accept that that is a cricket. It's half 'roach, half crustacian, and half beetle! Wait, that doesn't add up... ;-) · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original one. Faugh! and Bleh! - Darwinek 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Either. --Cody.Pope 06:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Either - SRIUHGJBG what is that?! --Iriseyes 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support either. Freaky! howcheng {chat} 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Did you try to photograph it directly from the top? It would make a good combination with the original from the side. ~ trialsanderrors 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Either A very, very freaky bug in HiDEF. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Either Wow, that has to be one of natures proudest achievements to mix a roach and cricket, and add claws. Love the picture.Cablebfg 17:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I wonder if he the critter watches The Mole... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mole cricket02.jpg Raven4x4x 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Palace of Westminster in London

Reason

I had never really been particularly satisfied with the existing FP of the Palace Of Westminster but had not had the chance to take a photo of it at an atmospheric time of evening until recently. The old FP is a bit dated by current standards and I think is due for a delisting. This image is a 2 x 6 segment panorama so the detail is excellent. As Fir0002 has done previously, I have decided that I will probably upload only lower resolution images in future as the licencing arrangements are not very photographer-friendly. In any case, here is not the place for a soapbox, but this image is actually downsampled from 14000 by 7600 pixels so sharpness is excellent. You may be concerned that the lighting of the Palace is bit patchy. This is actually by design, as the portions that are not lit are actually on the water, so there is no way for it to be lit up from below - unfortunate, but this is the reality of the scene!

Articles this image appears in

England, House of Lords, Parliament of the United Kingdom, London, Palace of Westminster, City of Westminster and Reform of the House of Lords.

Creator

Diliff

Nominator

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

• Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — I like it, but it seems like the building details are very odd due to JPEG artifacts. How about uploading the full 14000x7600 version at JPEG-100? ♠ SG →Talk 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You evidently didn't read why I didn't upload a higher resolution image in the first place. I don't think whatever issues you are seeing with building details are due to JPEG artifacts. What exactly are you seeing? I've looked at it up close and I think you'll find the detail is about as good as it can get for this resolution. There are some very slight artifacts around the towers but nothing that you wouldn't see on any other image out there. If you like, I can upload a copy of it saved at the lowest compression setting available (resulting in a 250% increase in file size for virtually no benefit!)... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks more like the details have been cramped together. I would like to see it at a higher resolution, so that I could actually see if there are missing details. I don't see why it would be a problem, unless you are on a slow connection which wouldn't allow you to upload the file in a reasonable amount of time. ♠ SG →Talk 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I downsampled it by a factor of 4 so there shouldn't be any artifacts introduced by downsampling it at a peculiar ratio. The reason for not uploading a higher resolution image is not for practical reasons (such as having a slow connection), it is because I am not happy with the situation where others may take very high resolution images and use them outside the reasonable boundaries of Wikipedia. Ie I don't want others to take my pictures and use them commercially for their own benefit which is something that can happen under the present licencing. Keeping the resolution sub-optimal is one way of limiting this use, although certainly this image is still more than high enough resolution for commercial use :/.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Not an idle threat either... I would definitely steal your pictures and sell them if I wasn't such a nice guy. they are, of course, good enough : ) -Fcb981 06:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • If you don't want commercial reusers to benefit, wikipedia isn't the place for you... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd like to think that Wikipedia is whatever the community wants it to be. We're the ones that fund its existence, we're the ones that contribute to it. As it stands with regard to licencing, you're right that perhaps it isn't, but that is a shame because it isn't that I'm being greedy and I don't want to share - I do, and I think photographers in general have an innate need to share their art. What I don't want is people who have contributed nothing to the website to benefit financially from contributors' hard work. Presented this way, I'm sure the vast majority of contributors would agree with this sentiment. I'm confident that at the heart of Wikipedia's goals is the idea that the writhing masses, the Average Joes, the proletariat, etc (call them what you will) will have access to our combined knowledge. I don't see how limiting use of the contributed images to the project or at most non-commercial use is in contradiction to the purpose of Wikipedia... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Absolutely, you shouldn't be forced to chose between not contributing and contributing and getting ripped off. I'm sure the lisencing wasn't intended that way but it shouldn't be the effect. -Fcb981 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Support I shouldn't hold diliff to a higher standard... Needless to say (this is diliff after all) the clarity and stiching are fantastic. It also may be true that this is better than the existing FP however there are some things that could be better. the dark areas on the subject are distracting and not ideal. Diliff, maybe you could try adjusting the levels with the RAW files although you know better than I what the limitations on that are. you should crop the right side a bit more so that we arn't blessed with a close up of some randome bridge, maybe to the first fully visable pillar. other than that it looks pretty good. -Fcb981 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but as I explained, the dark areas cannot be helped at this time of the evening (and during the day the building isn't nearly as visually impressive.. a no-win situation in that respect I suppose). The shadows have already been lifted as far as they will go before it starts to look a bit nasty. This scene may be more suitable for some HDR tone mapping or something as the luminance range required is too high for a single exposure but I didn't bracket exposures. As for the bridge, I thought it added a little to the composition but tastes vary. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support A great image, and definitely better than the current FP. Separately, the thumbnail looks incredibly blurry for some reason (e.g., on the clock face). TotoBaggins 02:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Good composition and extremely well-stitched. But the dark areas are just so grainy.. By the way, does the clock tower actually look like that? It looks kind of distorted, especially near the top --froth^T 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Nice image, very sharp. I guess people seeing "jpg artifacts" are using LCD monitors, which can bring out things in the shadows that aren't there on a CRT... BTW, is that the ISS, a star, a plane(t), (or Superman?) close to the left top corner of the tall left tower - or do you actually have a hot pixel in you camera, Diliff... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe it is Venus, Janke. :-) Suddenly everyone's an expert! You're not the first person to confuse stars/planets with various other phenomena! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I would prefer a larger resolution (ca. 5000 px should be enough to bring out the details) but looking at what we have now it's almost laughable that we find error in this one. ~ trialsanderrors 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, I'ts an awesome image, but there's something weird on the full res. It looks like it's been downscaled suboptimally, leaving some harsh edges and aliasing, rough pixels, etc. Do you have a higher res? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't believe it has been downsampled suboptimally. It was bicubically downsampled (reliable smooth downsampling - the default in Photoshop) by a factor of 4 from the original. Perhaps you're confusing aliasing with the fact that it is pretty close to actual pixel detail. This sort of phenomenon is minimised when an image is not sharp but I wouldn't say they're artifacts you're seeing either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Look at the roofline in the middle, there's practically alternating pixels of sky and roof there. It's clear here's additional fine detail being hidden, and it just leaves the image looking excessively sharp, because there are harsh transitions, but you can't actually make out the details. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I see them. They look about as good as they could look given the resolution. Would you prefer a straight roof without that detail? How do you figure that detail is 'hidden'? Its there, just at the pixel level. I've attached a 100% size crop of the roof to show you what the roof actually looks like. Downsampled by a factor of 4, you get the kind of detail visible on that image. See if you can downsample it and get a better result if you like, but I'm not sure you will.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you try to downsample in multiple steps? ~ trialsanderrors 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you upload the full size of the original resolution? All the extra details would be a wow factor for me; as it is "pixel level" detail doesn't do anything for me, because I can't actually derive any information about it from the alternating pixels. Seeing those things along the roofline is much better. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • As I've said over and over in this nomination, I'm not prepared to upload a higher resolution image due to the licencing allowing commercial use. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • See nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Too bad some places aren't lit though. :-( · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Very Very Weakish Oppose - Perhaps it's not the best work of David. And I agree with him that the licensing is seriously not photographer-friendly. But as mentioned above, the Clock Tower looks seriously flat (IMHO) and sort of distorted. And the black areas are annoying (in contrast with light areas). In addition this is not much superior than the existing FP, except that it has more resolution. And for a building of this detail, I think this resolution is a bit low. I was hoping for a bit bigger one, at least something more than 4000px on the longest side. And I think the image is too much down-sampled, the details look weirdly sharp. But still it's good image. I might reconsider my vote in a later time, because right now maybe I'm not in the mood to support. --Arad
• Weak oppose. Given the level of detail that's available in the full-size version, it just seems cruel to tease us with it. In comparison, the smaller size is lacking. When I know there's something better out there, it doesn't seem right to settle for a less-worthy edition. howcheng {chat} 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The thing is, the larger version isn't 'out there'. I'm reserving my right to keep my best work for non-commercial use (or commercial use at my choosing). In my opinion, the fact that uploading it to wikipedia instantly revokes my right to control its commercial use outside its boundaries is a big problem for an encyclopedia that presents itself as a non profit by-the-community-for-the-community website. I didn't tease you with it either, Night Gyr was bugging me to show him the full 100% version and I wasn't prepared to so I uploaded a crop as an example... ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I know this is OT but you DO realize that GFDL and CC-BY-SA require that the resulting product have the same license right? This is usually unacceptable to almost all companies. Additionally, there's nothing keeping you from uploading the same photo at the same resolution to both here and iStockPhoto, for example. Then you kind of have the best of both worlds -- the image is available for free as long as users keep it free, or they pay a small fee for its use instead and keep their resulting work copyrighted. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Also can't you just upload it with your own restrictive license and just live with it not being featured? Wikipedia prefers content that's commercially-usable but it by no means has to be. --froth^T 08:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, for user-created content it does. We can only use fair use images under a limited set of circumstances, and this would not qualify. howcheng {chat} 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose.--Absar 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful, high enough resolution to see any detail I'd ever want to see, but of a size and cropped that it's actually also fun to look at in "full" size. It's the image one thinks of when one thinks of London, but it's better than any other image of the subject I've ever seen. Enuja 09:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Better than current, and as per Enuja this captures the iconic way I see London in my mind's eye.Pedro |  Talk  09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very good view, highly encyclopedic, and beautiful. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg Raven4x4x 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lilac chaser

Reason

This is an image which is, while not great aesthetically, is such a cool optical illusion that I think it deserves to be featured.

Articles this image appears in

Lilac chaser

Creator

Jeremy Hinton, who developed the illusion

Nominator

howcheng {chat}

• Support — howcheng {chat} 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support very interesting, I could stare at this all day! ~ Arjun 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - To give this encyclopedic value, the caption should explain why this works... just a thought. tiZom_(2¢) 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well... that's what the article's for, innit? Seriously, putting that in is going to make the caption really long. :) howcheng {chat} 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I should have nominated this earlier... and I agree with tiZom. --Tewy 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. --Tewy 19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Personally I would prefer the image borders to be removed as well as the "instruction" to stare at the center. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. High quality. I agree with Arjun: it's incredibly hypnotic! --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Opppose Having the "stare at the centre" within the image itself is unnecessary, adds clutter and makes it look like a lift from another site. I'd prefer if it was just illustrative of the illusion itself, not the instructions for achieving it. Leon 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Weak Support Edit 1 Leon 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is a wonderful optical illusion. -Midnight Rider 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Could the words be cropped out? --Tewy 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. I already took out a watermark. Taking out the instructions is just as easy. howcheng {chat} 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also dislike the "stare at the centre" in the image. Aside from my jingoistic opposition to British spelling, a word-free image would be easier to use in other language wikipedias. Also, I don't like gif's telling me what to do. Are you trying to hypnotize me? --dm ^(talk) 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 -- Very enc for optical illusions. I like it. --TotoBaggins 05:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. (Withholding vote, see below.) We should get more optical illusions featured! --Janke | Talk 10:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Certainly interesting but I don't think there's really anything very good about the image itself to make it featured, it's just the effect on the eyes that makes it interesting. Also, whats with the diagonal lines all over the picture? Last time I saw this, it was plain grey --froth^T 17:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I did say it wasn't aesthetically exciting, but it's the image that creates the effect on the eyes -- the two are inextricably intertwined. By increasing the "prettiness" of the image itself, it would detract from the illusion by introducing more distracting elements. howcheng {chat} 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • btw, I don't see any diagonal lines. Debivort 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you view it in full resolution, you can see that the grey isn't a solid color, but is actually slightly textured. --Tewy 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's ugly and doesn't work for me Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • are you perhaps color-blind?Debivort 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • ... maybe only impatient? You need to really fix your gaze on the cross for 10, maybe 20 seconds. --Janke | Talk 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • This must be included in the caption - "look at the cross, not the pink blobs"! I looked at the darn blobs for some five minutes - that's what the caption suggests - no greens! NVO 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I've updated the caption. --Tewy 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - While the illusion is not my favorite - it convolves two illusions - low contrast fading and color adaptation - the implementation is nice and will attract attention to the article.Debivort 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I like these kinds of illusions. Good picture as well. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment there's a distinctive artifact that flashes when the 1-o-clock dot disappears. Someone really needs to fix this if it goes featured --froth^T 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't see any - describe, please! (Is your display rate fast enough, or is there a pause when the animation repeats - that might be the explanation.) --Janke | Talk 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I see it ... it's at an angle between the two and three o'clock dots (imagine a triangle consisting of the 2 and 3 dots and the "artifact" towards the center, midway between the two). howcheng {chat} 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, got it now. Didn't know what to look for at first. It appears to be an artifact due to the gif color conversion. Could we get a version without the "rasterization" of the gray? Should be easy to fix. Withholding vote for now. --Janke | Talk 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I removed it. Force a reload to see the non-artifacted version. howcheng {chat} 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment can someone make a PD edit of the original? It seems really stupid someone to license the version with cropping... they can do it, but... gren グレン 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh, yeah it's kind of dumb; the GDFL relicense doesn't make a lick of difference since the same exact content is in the public domain --froth^T 08:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 Fixes the problem of the original. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose So isn't anyone concerned that the supposed non-dot actually has a different color than the background? I guess people like to be deceived. ~ trialsanderrors 08:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha yeah, it's because of the stupid striped background --froth^T 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Pause the animation (by taking a screenshot or something) and look at the background. It's not green; that's just part of the illusion. I suppose there is a slight blue tinge, however, if that's what you meant. --Tewy 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I opened it in Photoshop. The background is patterned (or striped). The "non-dot" has a single color, which doesn't match any of the background colors. This is why, when you follow the "non-dot", it appears as a blueish-grey dot on a redish-grey background. The green effect seems to be real, even though it might be original research and the validity of the article itself is questionable. But this is just an inferior version of the Flash original at michaelbach.de. ~ trialsanderrors 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, Michael Bach's version is derived from this. Jeremy Hinton (creator of the image) is the one who devised the illusion in the first place. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Corrected. Main point stands. Also more of an argument that this is OR. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Whoa! That's great! :-) Ilikefood 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support (Any edit that has the best support). This is a neat illusion. Having it featured on Wikipedia's main page one day would be great. Greg L 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lilac-Chaser.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SkyTrain at Rupert Station.

Reason

This is a very good looking picture. The colors are balanced, it's pleasing to the eye, and is of high resolution. I think it's enough to be featured in the Main Page.

Articles this image appears in

Millennium Line, Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit SkyTrain (Vancouver)

Creator

PoYang from Flickr.

Nominator

-- Selmo ^(talk)

• Support — -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - If it's a picture of the train, there's a barrier in front of it obstructing the view. If it's a picture of the station, there's not nearly enough of it in the image to be encyclopedic. If it's a picture of a train in a station (for added images in an article about the station, for instance), it is, in my opinion, not interesting enough to be a featured picture. JHMM13  06:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose No there there. ~ trialsanderrors 07:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. One of those "good for the article but not feature-worthy" pictures. howcheng {chat} 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. -Midnight Rider 01:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunrise at base camp

Reason

I think this is a beautiful image, and it shows the reader the landscape of the area.

Articles this image appears in

Philmont

Creator

I created this image.

Nominator

Gert2

• Support — Gert2 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Erm, must admit I'm struggling to make out the landscape... Pretty but not encyclopaedic. --YFB ¿ 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - we have a few sunset pictures already; for example Image:Red sunset.jpg, Image:Sunset with funnel clouds.jpg and even Image:MarsSunset.jpg. It's pretty, but not that pretty and not very encyclopaedic Jack · talk · 23:01, Tuesday, 6 February 2007
• Oppose. Per YFB. --Tewy 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose A pretty pic but not FP material. Nothing is seen of Philmont (the bottom of the pic is nearly black) and we have much better sunset pics around - Adrian Pingstone 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The fact that there are other sunset pictures is moot. Each pic should be judged on its own.Rlevse 11:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smithsonian castle courtyard

Reason

Somewhat high detail achieved using the patented Diliff method.

Articles this image appears in

Smithsonian Institution

Creator

User:Noclip

Nominator

Noclip

• Support — Noclip 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support either Beautiful! --TotoBaggins 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely nearly support - Excellent image, rivalling (crikey!) Diliff standards. My only (very, very) minor niggles would be that the sky could do with just a smidge of noise reduction, and that I've spotted a 1px stitching error in the left-hand wall of the central tower. Both easily fixed, I'd have thought. Great work, Noclip. --YFB ¿ 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Excellent job there Noclip. One issue... thats some serious luminance noise in the sky there. Not a deal breaker but it is so simple to fix I couldn't help but upload an edit. I've run noise reduction specifically on the sky only so no other detail is lost. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way Noclip, what method/equipment did you use for this? How many segments? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • 23 images, not all of us have 13 megapixels to work with. By the way, how did you manage to fix the brightness discrepancy in the sky? I slaved over it for a while but never could get it to appear perfectly seamless. Noclip 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you were referring to before you struck it out.. I did notice that in the sky though but you can't really see it when you view it full sized. The thumbnail just squeezes it all together. You didn't really answer my question fully though. What method did you use? Ie what program did you use to stitch it/blend it? That might be part of the problem of the discrepancies in the sky. I use smartblend and find it to be pretty much as good as anything else I've seen. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I used the standard enblend. Should I try restitching? Noclip 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You still haven't really fully answerwed though.. What program do you use? Enblend does the stitching but you need a GUI to create/warp the segments. I'd recommend using smartblend over enblend. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I use hugin, but I could never get smartblend to work (it would open a command line window and close immediately yielding no output file) so I settled for enblend. Noclip 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Not sure why it didn't work but I use PTGui. You can download a trial version and run it with smartblend to see whether it'll blend better for you, at least. If you can be bothered anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Check out the new enblend version 3.0. It also has blendline-optimization (just like smartblend) and huge speed-improvements. --Dschwen(A) 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Based on my limited testing so far, enblend 3.0 is pretty fast but the stitching/blending isn't quite as good. Smartblend seems a bit 'smarter' in choosing the seam lines to minimise parallax and sliced people. Will keep testing and see what conclusions I reach... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 The great focus, detail of the shot definitly out-weigh the somewhat mundane subject. -Fcb981 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, criteria 8 says you need a good caption. I'd also recommend you add information to the image page about date taken, author, type of camera too... since all of your metadata was removed when you photoshopped it, it seems. Those are all useful things to have an in the future can help to alleviate any copyright concerns. It'd also be nice if you put it on the commons. gren グレン 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 assuming gren's concerns are addressed. A very well technically composed image of a notable building.-Andrew c 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like large crisp pictures. Very nice! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
• Support. If the Diliff method is patented, are you paying him license fees? :) howcheng {chat} 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Kudos to the photographer for making this look interesting. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Smithsonian Building NR.jpg Raven4x4x 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FDR

Reason

A historical picture of FDR .

Articles this image appears in

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Creator

Elias Goldensky

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I dont know why the picture appears on top.Bewareofdog 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --KFP (talk | contribs) 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I love the picture and the detail, but those smudges are really killing me. Can someone send up the photoshop signal in Gotham? JHMM13  07:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. No wow factor. Its just a portrait, a commodity picture, nothing special. --Dschwen(A) 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose editd 1 and 2. Come on guys are you just judging the thumbnail? Sorry, but on a technical level alone the edits are suboptimal. Edit 1 created a big black spot next to the face, and has visible brush strokes. Edit 2 has a discrepancy between focus unsharpness and masking unsharpness, plus it cuts of some of FDRs hair. --Dschwen(A) 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've added an edit to remove the dust and scratches. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thanks for the edit, Pharaoh Hound. It looks much better. However, now that I've had a chance to really examine the image, I must say that the blurriness on the sides really throws me off. I do like that it is an extraordinarily high-quality image, but it's too blurry on the sides. JHMM13  18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose edit, Neutral original I'm still the same opinion as before and as long as nobody tries to convince me, it's not gonna change. If the original photo is dirty, it's dirty. End of story. No photoshop. -Wutschwlllm 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Original When I think about it, I actually believe that the picture just lacks in quality. I can't believe that there's no better picture. And it's definitely not Wikipedia's best. -Wutschwlllm 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone is confusing the subject with the picture again. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose orginal, support edit1. The original is too dirty and dusty to be approved. The edit clears up those issues. The shallow depth of field does not detract from the subject, because the face is very sharp (in fact, this is part of the draw of the image, it makes things more interesting without reducing the encyclopedic value). This is a very good portrait of a very historic figure. I don't know why people are complaining about no-wow factor. It is a portrait. What, do you expect his head to be on fire, or him juggling or something? Very encyclopedic, historic portrait.-Andrew c 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • He he, this reminds me of the Amazing Hard Hat of Lightning. --Dschwen(A) 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose all. Horrible quality everywhere on the image, even after edit. Grossly out of focus. They had better photography than this in the 30s. --froth^T 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose edit 1, it creates a halo effect around his face where you can see the edge of what was edited. I'd rather have the signs of time on it than the signs of photoshopping. gren グレン 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lambert Glacier Icefall

Reason

I found this amazing satellite image of the an icefall feeding into the Lambert Glacier looking for government free image sources. I was just completely wowed by it and had to upload it immediately and add it to applicable articles. I hope that I may have found something everyone will like.

A description: The Lambert Glacier in Antarctica, is the world's largest glacier. The focal point of this image is an icefall that feeds into the Lambert glacier from the vast ice sheet covering the polar plateau. Ice flows like water, albeit much more slowly. Cracks can be seen in this icefall as it bends and twists on its slow-motion descent 1300 feet (400 meters) to the glacier below."

Articles this image appears in

Icefall, Lambert Glacier

Creator

NASA, Landsat 7

Nominator

A mcmurray

• Support — A mcmurray 07:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• question - is it false colored? It should also be a high quality jpg instead of a png, to save on download times. Debivort 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I will invetigate and re upload.A mcmurray 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More: Alright. I don't know much about it. This website seems to explain their levels of processing and also implies that the images available from Landsat 7 that are available to the public, which this one is included in the gallery and can be purchased, undergo one of three processing types.A mcmurray 21:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I can't make head or tail of what's going on in this image --froth^T 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ack froth, looks almost like schlieren photography to me. --Dschwen(A) 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes they shined a light on it from space.A mcmurray 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here?! --froth^T 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A light from space, what might that have been? --Dschwen(A) 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Aliens! This is what is going on here: "The Lambert Glacier in Antarctica, is the world's largest glacier. The focal point of this image is an icefall that feeds into the Lambert glacier from the vast ice sheet covering the polar plateau. Ice flows like water, albeit much more slowly. Cracks can be seen in this icefall as it bends and twists on its slow-motion descent 1300 feet (400 meters) to the glacier below."A mcmurray 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but it's not ice, it's a big blue blur --froth^T 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I can't understand this picture either and if I don't know what I'm looking at then the pic has no purpose for me. It seems blurred and the colours are peculiar - Adrian Pingstone 09:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• oppose - no explanation of coloration or imaging technique. Debivort 22:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• support - very clear indeed Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• support - very good illustration of an ice fall, in my view a high quality shot. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eclipse Valladolid

Reason

Beautiful, rare picture of solar eclipse.

Articles this image appears in

Solar Eclipse

Creator

Mario Ramírez Ferrero

Nominator

Zack Howes

• Support — Zack Howes 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose -- Nice, but too small. --TotoBaggins 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The size doesn't bother me as much as the clouds and somewhat strange perspective. While you can see the eclipse ok in full size even at the intermediate size the subject is poorly illistrated. -Fcb981 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see clouds, a bird, a TV antenna and ten pixels of sun. A telephotolens would fit the subject better. Sure, there is no drastic advantage in having a featureless white circle 900px in diameter rather then 10, that's why I don't think a picture like this of a solar eclipse is that stunning in the first place (as opposed to the actual event itself). --Dschwen 06:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and this was nominated before. --Dschwen(A) 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Trudeau and Fidel Castro together.

Reason

I thought this picture is a great picture with great encylopedic value, resolution, and composition.

Articles this image appears in

Fidel Castro and Pierre Trudeau

Creator

Cameron, Duncan

Nominator

Voshvoshka

• Support — Voshvoshka 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — Way too small. Iorek85 04:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — while historic photos may be allowed lower resolution, this image does not seem to show anything historically significant. What exactly are they looking at? And how did it change the world? Jack · talk · 05:19, Thursday, 8 February 2007
• Oppose — Way too small.--Absar 13:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support--dannycas 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because 1976 should have better quality images. And... this doesn't seem to be of such great importance that we can ignore that. gren グレン 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain 1976 in the States/Europe is different from 1976 in Cuba, especially given that the image was probably state sanctioned. Also, I'm not sure what they are doing but they are two world leaders which seems significant. I might support a higher-res, less-cropped, better explained image. --Cody.Pope 06:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Revised I was wondering if i should take this image and enlargen it on photoshop or something.Voshvoshka 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah sure, but please refrain from uploading it :-). Seriously, upsampling adds no additional information. So except if you like looking at big blurry pictures it makes no sense. --Dschwen(A) 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then how else am i supposed to get it on here if i shouldn't upload another bigger image?Voshvoshka 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would make for a good caption contest. It's Cuba's finest weed, man! –Outriggr § 02:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Dude i don't think their looking at weed or smthg, lol. Voshvoshka 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-2 Spirit vs F-16 and F-18

Reason

Alternative proposal to the B-2 Spirit nomination below. The detail in this image is similar to the alternative due to a better angle, but it offers more encyclopedic value due to the size comparison to two types of fighters and a number of humans. Also, the contrast of the airplanes against the tarmac makes for a nice composition.

Articles this image appears in

B-2 Spirit

Creator

U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III

Nominator

trialsanderrors

• Support — trialsanderrors 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting, but the tarmac is distracting and messy, and the planes are too far apart (by far most of the image is plain concrete) --froth^T 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with froth - mottled tarmac takes away from the planes too much. — Zaui (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the "mottled" tarmac, although admittedly it doesn't look that good in the thumbnail. I doubt the distance between the airplanes can be fixed. I'm sure that's mandated by safety rules. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support technically fine, I like the mottled concrete, and there is rich detail in things like the people and the little red carts - gives much more of a sense of the "system of a plane" than just the plane against sky. Debivort 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, it's an awesome angle and really gives a sense of scale to the planes that's usually missing, but the concrete is just not helping aesthetically. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support This photograph (even in thumbnail) drew my eye immediately and made me examine the full photo and read bits of the B-2 article. Highly enc and gives a great sense of perspective. The other nomination (while a pretty picture) isn't as informative.CaseKid 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- per froth. --TotoBaggins 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sure, you get some scale to the picture, big deal. Imagine looking at the artical about the B-2 and right up there in the info box is this picture with 60% concrete, 20% other planes and 20% subject, yeah, really great. I want a picture of an airplane in the sky. How would it look if all the boat pictures were of boats in dry-dock, or all the pictures of cars in a garage. The angle is bad too. You get no idea of perspective with a birds-eye view and all they are good at illistrating is maps and dimentions. The picture below is one I could actualy imagine seeing as the main picture. This one I could bearly pass as the 5th best picture on the article. -Fcb981 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. As opposed to above I like that this isn't in the sky. When I saw it I was quite surprised at just how much bigger the B-2 is than normal fighters. I think this illustrates the size of the plane very well giving it some context. gren グレン 07:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not even close. A crucial detail that must be evident in any encyclopedic photo of this plane is the curvature of the surfaces that are so crucial in its stealth. A photo taken directly above the plane, particularly from a height such as this, doesn't provide such detail. Meniscus 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That seems to be a problem with both proposed images, or pretty much all I looked at. Care to offer an image where the curvature is visible? ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The background gets in the way of adequately portraying the subject. Noclip 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. This should be a FP on the commons, where artistic merit is good enough. The image is very interesting, and the texture only helps that. I am also quite fond of the spacing between the planes. However, as noted above by other editors, these things are distracting when it comes to encyclopedic value. -Andrew c 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice 8thstar 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful. This is execellent for a realistic size comparision. SINFUL OCTOPUS 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock on Garden Bench

Reason

A beautiful view of peacock's plumage flowing downward. Is actually a pretty clear image, it looks blurry when made into a thumbnail.

Articles this image appears in

Peafowl

Creator

Amanda Grobe

Nominator

Nyla1

• Support — Nyla1 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Size isn't great. There are artifacts all over the head and elsewhere. The setting isn't very natural taking away from the ENC. The angle of the subject is debateable. -Fcb981 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Opposethe source is Image:Pavo cristatus ag.jpg which is a much better quality picture. I don't think it could become an FP but with a better crop that source at least has a chance. If someone wants to do a proper crop and put it up as edit one I think it would change some oppose votes to neutral (like mine). gren グレン 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support and Comment added edit 1, tried to neutralize color (seemed odd on my monitor at least) and aligned image, also increased resolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cody.pope (talk • contribs).

Thanks, the higher resolution helps a lot. Somehow the other version had played with the colors, it seems. gren グレン 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Artifacts in the original nomination, blurry in the other two, and an unpleasant background in them all. --Tewy 17:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose- not natural (I'm talking about the background). Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)07:39, Friday, 16 February '07

Not promoted MER-C 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desert

Reason

Great composition and color; extreme natural beauty; big

Articles this image appears in

Desert

Creator

From flickr.com

Nominator

TotoBaggins

• Support — TotoBaggins 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment umm Image:Erg Chebbi.jpg already is a FP. Your proposal is taken from the same basic location. I prefer the current image because the shadowy side of the dune makes the image more dynamic. On closer examination, I might think that this image is just a crop of the other image. They are awfully close regardless.-Andrew c 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the composition of this one more, but technically the existing FP is better --froth^T 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I'm not normally one to oppose because we already have a "similar" image featured, this one is really TOO similar to the existing one. If anything, it's less FP-worthy, in my opinion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this is derived from Image:Morocco_Africa_Flickr_Rosino_December_2005_84514010_edited_by_Buchling.jpg which was derived from Image:Erg Chebbi.jpg. --- RockMFR 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrew JanSuchy 16:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porthkerry Park viaduct

[[Image:

Reason

An important architectural landscape in southern Wales-the viaduct has historical signifcance in that it used to transport coal down from the Welsh valleys to what was once the largest coal port in the world

Articles this image appears in

Porthkerry Park Viaduct

Creator

Ernst Stavro Blofeld-Self nom.

Nominator

Ernst Stavro Blofeld

• Support — Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but the image is unsharp, especially in the top right corner, and the sky is "blown out" on the left. Regretfully, a small digital camera (which I assume this was shot with) seldom produces FP quality. --Janke | Talk 16:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Second the thoughts on the camera. Would definitely be worth an upgrade, as this picture just doesn't look sharp. Nssdfdsfds 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's not so great at showing the viaduct--too many trees in the way. gren グレン 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not that inspirational, tree obscuring view, focus problems. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. --Arad 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yosemite Valley on a Clear Day

Reason

This picture is the one of the best pictures out there of Yosemite Valley. It is high resolution and you can see everything really clearly.

Articles this image appears in

Yosemite National Park, Tunnel View

Creator

Kyle D

Nominator

K1000

• Support — K1000 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The focus is really pretty bad. There are compression artifcts and the shadows on the left are a bit dark. If the focus wasn't so bad this could be a very good shot though. -Fcb981 06:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice pic but not sharp enough for FP - Adrian Pingstone 09:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Too fuzzy. Nssdfdsfds 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like it its just that focus that people do not seem to like. At full size it is a bit fuzzy, but at the size that most people will see it it looks sharp. - None 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Disappointing at any size above thumb size. Lacks detail, looks washed out, halfdome and sky blend into each other. This view is photographed hundreds of times a day (possibly thousands) as it's accessible by car and motorcoach. For such a shot I cannot accept anything short of technical perfection. --Dschwen(A) 09:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-2 Spirit

Reason

Vivid and detailed picture of a very advanced aircraft.

Articles this image appears in

B-2 Spirit

Creator

Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III

Nominator

Trevor MacInnis (Contribs)

• Support — Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. I wish it was bigger, but I do think it is an aesthetically pleasing image of an encyclopedic subject. JHMM13  03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded the original source image, but it's just more sky. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks...I like that version a little better as it gives a sense of really how high up the plane is. JHMM13  07:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great, nothing wrong here. Cool subject, hard to get similar shots -Fcb981 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Larger - I prefer the one with more sky, but either one is nice. Very enc., and beatiful composition. --TotoBaggins 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original — Not enough sky on the crop; makes it look like an alien spacecraft for some odd reason. ♠ SG →Talk 06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • When I was little, there was a picture of one of these on my "play room" wall and for the longest time I thought it was, in fact, an actual picture of a spaceship because the image was shot from the direct side angle so I couldn't see the V-shaped wings. Amazing how imaginations run wild at that age. JHMM13  07:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Good quality image, but wrong angle reduces enc. Also completely without Wow factor. ~ trialsanderrors 07:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree, trialsanderrors. I think the angle is perfectly encyclopedic as it displays the famous V-shape of the aircraft. JHMM13  07:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • But there are tons of images that do it better. Quick search of the af.mil repository brings up this and this and this and this and this and this. ~ trialsanderrors 08:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think any of those pictures are a good picture of the B-2. One or two might be good pictures of the B-2 in the midst of a mid-air refueling, but none as striking as it alone in the sky from above. JHMM13  09:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well this one isn't from above, it's mostly from the front, and poor on details. ~ trialsanderrors 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Just a comment: for me this pic demonstrates the most enc thing about this machine: it looks like something from outer space. :) --TotoBaggins 02:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • <snark> Well, shouldn't that be a reason to oppose the image - the plane not being from outer space and all? </snark> Debivort 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• support either Debivort 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support nice picture with enc, good comp, and resolution too Voshvoshka 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing special compared to some of the other plane images we have. I think the image above is nicer and gives the plane (and its size) some context. gren グレン 08:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support A good picture of the B-2. —Pixel8 12:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support I actually like the angle.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Not the ideal image of this aircraft (angle is a bit low so less detail is visible) but close enough. Noclip 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not the ideal image of this aircraft. IMO, the best B-2 Image on Wikipedia is still this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? I was about to replace it with this one, until I realized it's unrecognizable in thumbnail. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That one works, too. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Larger The left "wing" is higher than the right. Rotate it. Otherwise, I think it's a better picture than this one. RMelon 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original - I've always liked the B-2, and yes, I see what you mean about the spaceship. I think the original looks far better because the bomber seems more 'atmospheric'. Mrug² 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:B-2 Spirit original.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack plug

Reason

It's an accurate depictation, eye pleasing, and a great 3D representation.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_plug

Creator

User:Peo

Nominator

Cyrus Jones

• Support — Cyrus Jones 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree the 3D representation is quite good. But the oversized tags spoil the illustration. Alvesgaspar 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. -Midnight Rider 01:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 -- Made numbers smaller, per Alvesgaspar & Midnight Rider. --TotoBaggins 03:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would support a middle ground. I think the original numbers are too large, but the edited ones are far too small to be useful in an article. JHMM13  03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Edit The lables should be visable in thumb nail. -Fcb981 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Edit 2 has them in between. --TotoBaggins 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original / Weak Support Edit 2 / Oppose Edit 1 - the large numbers are nice because you can make full use of the image from the thumbnail. Debivort 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Definately doesn't need to be that high-resolution. It can easily convey all possible information about the subject (labels of a headphone jack) without taking up my entire screen --froth^T 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose edits — The labels are not too big, they are perfect. Most images like this are utterly useless in thumbnail size, simply because you cannot read the labels (hence my opposition to the edits). This allows you to see the numbering perfectly in either thumbnail or full size. If you want a nice compromise, try a size between edit 2 and the original. And froth, did you just oppose this image because its resolution is too high? You've got to be kidding me. ♠ SG →Talk 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I did. We like high resolution in photos and stuff because it brings a lot of detail, but when there's just no more detail possible, it's a waste --froth^T 17:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But of course I'm not opposing purely on the basis of it being too big; I don't think it's worthy of an FP (just a headphone jack with some numbers on it) and I was pointing out an additional flaw --froth^T 17:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean, but there IS more detail at higher resolutions. Remember, these images are free to use; that means someone might eventually need a high resolution version of this image. If a small version were used, they'd have to blow it up, meaning loss of detail. Besides, at its current dimensions, it just barely passes size requirements. ♠ SG →Talk 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is it just me or do the edits look like the image has been tilted somehow and the colors have changed? I'm trying to analyze it from all sides here, but I still can't shake that sense. I would support the original picture with slightly smaller numbers. I think the "compromise" edit 2 was really more of giving an inch when a half mile would have done just fine. JHMM13  08:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The tips of the plugs look "disembodied", floating in space, due to the (probably optically correct) reflections. Fix this, and I'll support. Version 2 looks best to me - maybe a little larger labels? Too big on original... --Janke | Talk 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, as per Janke said, or add a solid link from stem to the tip NVO 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Coment These illustrations are supposed to be the best of the best (aesthetics included). Then, why do the position and orientation of those segments and labels seem like random to me? They should be as discrete as possible, but IMO they are not and spoil the illustration. I would try not putting any tag in between the plugs - Alvesgaspar 12:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose with a complete lack of understanding towards froth's oppose. I think the 3D is okay, but, I think the reflection detracts from clearness and clarity of the diagram. It seems to me that this image would work better as an SVG... I think scalability is more important than 3D in this case and I think you could make something look just as good. gren グレン 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Legibility is good.Circeus 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Legibility is good. I really don't understand what's wrong with larger labels, in particular because they in no way interfere with the subject. There are many vision-impaired folks out there. It's easy for them to increase the text size, but they can't do anything about labels in the pictures. Let's write an encyclopedia for everyone Madman 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original - images should work as a thumb, edits make the labels too small. --Peta 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original per above. Noclip 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original per above, thumbbing makes the subsequent edits useless. Recury 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Whichever one gets consensus is fine with me. Very useful! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. If we're going to thumbnail this into articles, I'd like people with bad vision to be able to read the tags. They're not that much of a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Per those points made before me. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Jack plug.png --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Eggfly

Perhaps not the best specimen, but the best I could find. I really like the setting of the butterfly, surrounded by deep green leaves - really makes a nice overal composition IMO. Appears on Hypolimnas bolina

• Support Self NOm. --Fir0002 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice picture. An off topic comment: the bug and butterfly pictures are getting to be too many and too boring/ repetitive. But whatever. -Midnight Rider 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great image. --Cody.Pope 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support An amazing picture!!Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I miss link to related article(s) JanSuchy 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Fir has fallen out of the habit of including the article illustrated in his nominations, but you can tell what it is by going to the bottom of the image description page and looking at the File Links section. Debivort 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry --Fir0002 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice guy ;). - Darwinek 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great quality. - jlkramer 11:04, 10 February 2007 (PST)
• Support Very nice. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support- but if you could refrain from nominating butterflies for a while, I'll bribe you with a strong support. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)06:35, Sunday, 11 February '07
• Oppose Never have been wowed by an insect. Nice picture though.A mcmurray 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please base your opposition on the criteria rather than the subject of the image. Maybe you're not wowed by insects, but we're here to judge the photo, not butterflies in general. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the criteris a featured image is one that has a definite wow factor. Please base your insolence on something real.A mcmurray 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Or eye catching in some manner (which I would say is synonmous with a wow factor). There is nothing eye catching about an insect. Even if it is a good picture. It becomes irrelavant. Not to mention the fact that I think your previous comment was absurd, and out of line. I am not a child, don't condescendingly act like I have never read the featured picture criteria and that you somehow have some greater knowledge of them than me. I do not appreciate it.A mcmurray 11:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who is making comments way out of line. You are the one demonstrating insolence to a high degree. --Fir0002 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, you're effectively saying your vote is based on the subject matter: you will never vote for an image of an insect. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of FPC. Stevage 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't say that, I said I haven't ever been wowed by an insect. I don't consider insects to be eye catching which is one of the criteria. Would it be right to say support for something I don't consider eye catching? No. It wouldn't. Regardless the condescending tone of mr.admin from the Netherlands was uncalled for, I didn't ask for him agree that it wasn't eye catching.A mcmurray 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration: My point is when I see a picture of an insect (usually, especially boring ones like this) on the front page it is so not eye catching that I completely ignore it. So i believe my oppose was in the spirit of the FP criteria. I didn't realize I had to explain myself with a novel, no one else does. I have been hanging around here for at least a month with little activity just trying to get the hang of everything. I probably won't be back. This is just too cliquish. I feel like I am in High School or something. This is absurd. I don't like that picture deal with it.A mcmurray 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, your opinion is not important. Neither is mine. This isn't supposed to be a forum where we all get to make ourselves feel good by sharing our incredibly important opinions with each other. There are clear FPC guidelines, and as far as we can be objective about the quality of images, that's what we do. Maybe I don't enjoy certain types of images, but I can certainly recognise technical and artistic merit. Try leaving your ego to one side, and just comment based on whether the image in question is worthy: since other people clearly appreciate well-executed macro shots of insects, try and adapt, and we'll all be happier. Stevage 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're opinion isn't important then what is the point. The fucking criteria says eye catching.A mcmurray 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A mcmurray, your tone is extremely offensive - far worse than the "condescending" tone of MGM. Comments like yours are not acceptable on FPC. Comment on the pic not the people. And at the risk of descending to your level, I would think based off the maturity of your above comments, being in High School is an experience you either haven't yet come to or are just beginning... --Fir0002 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good I hope I made you angry. Because Stevage and the other person made me angry.A mcmurray 05:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration:My beef isn't with you or your picture. My beef is with the other two users who I tried to rationally explain my oppose to. That wasn't good enough for them. So thus the descension to what you have termed my "level."A mcmurray 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I am stepping away now per WP:DR, regardless, use of the word "fuck" is not a reflection of maturity.A mcmurray 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, people, speaking of maturity. I probably am not as old as many of you, however, I have seen enough of this world to know that both condescending comments (which they were) and offensive language (which it was) are counter productive. The fact of the matter is that the subject of the image needs to be eye catching or have wow factor. These, unfortunately, are the very definition of subjective terms. If I submited a picture of some gray pixles no matter how good the focus, lighting, exposure and composition, I wouldn't get a single support vote. My point is that mcmurray's reasons are perfectly justified. One would hope people can overlook any baises and judge just the technical aspects of a picture but the criteria explicitly state that the picture needs to be eye catching. Who is to say then the difference between this picture and my gray pixles? surely not you MacGyverMagic. Please think before being mean. -Fcb981 06:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Because this isn't a beauty contest. It's not up to each person to vote based on whatever criteria they come up with. The idea is to leave personal biases to one side as much possible, and collectively decide if the image meets Wikipedia's featured picture requirements. If someone says "I vote oppose because I hate black", that reason is simply invalid, and it is not condescending to say so. They're wrong. Their vote should not be counted. Stevage 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A mcmurray's reason is justified. This picture doesn't have the wow factor for him and we have to respect that. His language wasn't offensive at all. He said fuck the rules (and probably he was angry). So he didn't attack a person. I agree with Fcb981. --Arad 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Come off it Arad! He was clearly over-reactionary/offensive towards a statement which is entirely in keeping with FPC policy. --Fir0002 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Superb image. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Boring. "offensive language" that's funny.67.80.223.204 22:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You need to sign in for your vote to be considered. This is in order to avoid sockpuppet votes. --Janke | Talk 08:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Flawless from a technical standpoint. Noclip 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Common Eggfly02 - melbourne zoo.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol Channel from Porthkerry Park

Reason

A stunning atmospheric picture contrasting light and dark with a rare vertical rainbow

Articles this image appears in

Bristol Channel, Rainbow

Creator

Ernst Satvro Blofeld

Nominator

Ernst Stavro Blofeld

• Support — Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to rather poor image quality - soft focus, artifacts of jpg and/or oversharpening. Composition is a little uninspiring, and the horizon is tilted, to boot. --Janke | Talk 16:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly because of the tilted horizon and uninspiring composition Goyston talk, contribs, play 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think you've captured half of a sundog not a vertical rainbow. Sundogs are rare too, but it would have been better to have both of the dogs in the frame --Fir0002 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Koala on tree

Reason

Pleasing to the eye, captures well a Koala, some image noise, but the amazing composition balances for that

Articles this image appears in

Koala, Marsupial, Fauna of Australia, Otway National Park, Phascolarctidae, Vombatiformes, Phascolarctos, Australia, List of Australian mammal emblems

Creator

Diliff

Nominator

Althepal

• Support — Althepal 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Close Nom It already is FP, see this, the image page just got vandalised, which I've reverted. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, wow! Well, at least the photographer knows I liked the picture. :) Althepal 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zabriskie Point, Death Valley, Late Morning

Reason

Shows the incredible landscape and natural colors of Zabriskie Point.

Articles this image appears in

Zabriskie Point

Creator

jlkramer

Nominator

Jlkramer

• Support — Jlkramer 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Fascinating-ly desolate, but fairly boring composition (just a lot of low rolling dunes)--froth^T
  • Oppose because the watermark makes it ineligible for FP --froth^T 21:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already have Image:Zabriskie Point-Panarama-edit2.jpg, which I believe is a lot better. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Attention! A copyright appears in the bottem right corner of the image reading: ' Copyright 2006 Jonathan L. Kramer www.CableTV.com ' because of this I must Oppose. -Fcb981 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Somehow the composition is a little weird; I can't put my finger on it but hey, it's still a good picture. (without Copyright). -Fcb981 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Edit conflict) I'd probably otherwise be swinging toward neutral or weak support but in the bottom left corner is a watermark advertising an unrelated site. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I agree with Fcp981 that the composition could be slightly better, (just seems unbalanced and lumpy but I can't put my finger on it either) but the resolution is there and although I don't think the previous FP was oversaturated (it was taken at a different time of day, and seemingly a different view), the colours seem quite neutral and pleasing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Compare it with Image:Zabriskie_Point-Panarama.jpg. The edit jacked up the saturation quite a bit. --Dschwen(A) 09:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean, but I think the majority of the difference is due to contrast adjustment. I took the original image and lifted the black point up slightly to increase contrast and it looked pretty similar to the edit, without touching the saturation at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to be fair, the picture has a reasonable resolution (twice that of the current ZP FP). Of course the colors are not that insanely sexed up, but thats good thing. The watermark must go if you want my support. And let me suggest two things, upload your pictures to commons insetead, and wait a few days after uploading and inserting the pic. I hate to repeat myself, but FPC is not a my new pretty pic competition, but... ...read the criteria. --Dschwen(A) 08:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Copyright notice - Adrian Pingstone 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from JLKRAMER: Sorry, I didn't realize I had uploaded the image with a copyright notice. I have removed the notice and uploaded a clean version. No offense to the community intended! As for the colors, they are very nearly as seen on the December morning. It is an amazing place of amazing colors. Please reconsider. Thanks.
• Support. Technical quality is way better than the current FP and it has nice natural looking colors (eat this, saturation-junkies! ;-). One more thing though, if this is Image:DSCN2857pano.small.jpg, where is Image:DSCN2857pano.regular.jpg or Image:DSCN2857pano.big.jpg? --Dschwen(A) 09:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from JLKRAMER: Dschwen, I named it 'small' since the original full size image is about 15 MB. If anyone would like the full size image I'm happy to post it, but it will be a slow download without a high speed connection. Jlkramer 04:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, it's a wonderful image, but why did the watermark claim copyright? You've released it under CC and that is irrevocable. Noclip 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm mistaken, you still retain the copyright to the image unless you specifically release the copyright. You're only releasing the image under a particular licence with CC. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support- higher quality, larger and more natural looking than the current FP. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)07:36, Friday, 16 February '07

Oppose Dull colors, quite probably as a result of taking the image at the wrong time of day or on a hazy day. Interesting landscape which I feel can produce a better image. Perhaps taken at sunset or with a polarizer --Fir0002 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from JLKRAMER:No, Fir0002, the the photo notes indicate that I took the picture in late morning (a but before 11 a.m.). No filters were used, much less a polarizer, which would have altered the true colors shown in this picture. --jlkramer 11:02, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Promoted Image:DSCN2857pano.small.jpg Raven4x4x 07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NGC 602

Reason

Natural beauty

Articles this image appears in

NGC_602

Creator

NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration

Nominator

Flex (talk|contribs)

• Support original — Flex (talk|contribs) 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As much as I like these NASA pictures, there are already a bunch of astronomy-related pictures here. JHMM13  20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I don't mind that we have "a bunch" of similar pictures, this PARTICULAR one doesn't strike me as terribly exceptional. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. oppose edit Yeah we got a bunch of astronomy-related images, but this one is easily on par with them. I'd like to hear in astronomy terms what makes this one different from Orion Nebula and Crab Nebula. ~ trialsanderrors 21:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ehh, well, it is a different nebula. :) Like Matterhorn and Alpamayo are different mountains. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the Crab Nebula is actually a supernova remnant (an exploded star), meaning it is a bit bigger than one star and is thus not a star-forming region. This nebula is more akin to the Orion Nebula (ON) in that both are much larger than a single star (which are quite huge to begin with) and are active star-forming regions. The chief difference between the ON and NGC 602 cum N90 (that is, the open cluster of stars + the surrounding nebula) is that the latter is shaped and oriented such that it is easier to see how star formation is taking place. The open cluster is much easier to pick out than in the images of the ON, and these stars have blown back the surrounding dust causing elephant trunks to form and coalesce into new stars. These elephant trunks are similar to those in the most famous Hubble images: the "pillars of creation" in the Eagle Nebula. There has been considerable excitement accompanying published research related to this cluster and nebula in the past few months. On a less technical level, it looks like a big monster or Pacman chomping on some dots. :-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, I never noticed that. It's going to devour us all! ♠ SG →Talk 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I have uploaded a higher resolution version compressed from the TIFF file at [7]. There is some noise but I think that it is acceptable as the subject is about 1,890,000,000,000,000,000 kilometres away. --KFP (talk | contribs) 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. oppose edit — I thought it was 1,854,263,570,000,000,000 kilometers away! ♠ SG →Talk 06:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Awesome in full size. You don't see many galaxies through the Orion nebula! Support is weak due to the graininess of the image. --Janke | Talk 16:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I guess people here aren't aware of the baby's face in this image? It's looking downwards and to the right, nostrils, chin, closed eyes and forehead are all visible. Stevage 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Uhh, OK. I'm sure that adds to the enc value -Fcb981 05:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • hehe. People will support for baby's face. But I see a skeleton head look downward to right. Or maybe a boy. But we can see it in many ways. And that has a very "high" enc value per Fcb981.--Arad 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Meno25 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Pacman version ;) Seriously though, rather encyclopedic picture that looks great.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support If someone would get rid of those annoying stars and just have pacman :) (just kidding, support) --froth^T 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Edit 1 Info - Ok, I made an edit removing noise (but keeping those which I thought are little objects (dust or whatever) in space. And the bleu dots removed (the bleu dots are those bleu-ish sort of dots creating bleu looking noise on the image). If you look at original, you'll see what I mean. Hope it helps those who don't like the noise. Don't worry ididn't remove any star. You can count them if you want. --Arad 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to oppose this edit. Not only do I oppose removing noise from a scientific image, but your edit has distorted the colors of many objects (many of them are now white, though they were yellow before). ♠ SG →Talk 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment. And that's the reason we are here to vote right? If we had same opinion then this whole thing would be useless. --Arad 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I still don't find any yellow stars. Maybe they were supposed to be white after all. --Arad 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • There are plenty, they're just faint. As a matter of fact, just look at the large and bright yellow stars on the left; they go from yellow to khaki. Blues become less vibrant, and are more steel blue/indigo. ♠ SG →Talk 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 - I still prefer the edit. And I also give a weak support to original. --Arad 06:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, prefer original over edit, but edit is fine. enochlau (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:NGC602.jpg Raven4x4x 07:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scenic Railway at Luna Park, Melbourne.

Reason

It's a good action photo of the scenic railway. You can see the wooden structure that holds it up, the brakeman between the two carriages, and the usual variety of reactions from terror to joy.

Articles this image appears in

Side friction roller coaster, Luna Park, Melbourne, Roller coaster.

Creator

User:Stevage

Nominator

Stevage

• Support — Stevage 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Not very big on wow factor or size but really a very nice shot. Beautiful clerity for a picture needing short exposure.-Fcb981 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great composition but all of the lighting is blown --froth^T 17:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is absolutely not true! A knee-jerk oppose, just because some areas appear white. Take a closer look. There are about 128 totally white pixel, the rest are shades of light gray. --Dschwen(A) 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, it's been nine days now. Whats going on here? Voters should check back regularly on voting pages to see if their concerns have been adressed. And they shouldn't be afraid to correct mistakes they have made. The above vote is just unfair and unsubstantiated. --Dschwen(A) 13:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not everyone is smiling. ;-D...just kidding. I actually like this picture, but I agree with Fcb981 in that the wow factor is pretty...meh. I wish the whole framework of the coaster was in the shot. JHMM13  18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • He doesn't look sick as much as he looks like he has some kind of retardation.. his wrists are crossed, his back is arched, and he has a lazy look on his face --froth^T 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? "A lazy look" on his face?? Can we please try to minimize nonsense like this? Debivort 03:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Come on, you know what I mean. Just commenting; it doesn't make the image worse or anything --froth^T 07:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Anyway , the composition is pretty great, and it nicely captures rollercoaster-riding. --Dschwen(A) 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support fantastic composition, the tech faults are not much of a factor in this situation. ~ Arjun 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Biased support. Composition is excellent and while others are right that the scenic railway is missing that wow factor, it is a notable subject and a good depiction of it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• support per nom. Debivort 03:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent composition and a great capture overall. Also, it's something completely different than our existing FPs. howcheng {chat} 07:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support It illustrates the subject fairly well and has good composition - although like Diliff, I have a Melbourne bias... Leon 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support- I'm biased too. I live in Adelaide but I wish I lived in Sydney or Melbourne... Anyway, it's a good picture, and it illustrates the topic well, but I wish you could see why it's called th Scenic Railway. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)06:29, Sunday, 11 February '07

Probably when it was built it was quite scenic. But now it's surrounded by houses, shops etc. There is a bit of a view over the beach, I guess. Stevage 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - the photo should not have to be viewed at full size to see the details. And the kids in the front just look bored. But I do like the term "scenic railway" over roller coaster.--Indolences 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Images need to be judged based on their full size --Fir0002 05:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Original is a little dark, but I support either with preference to edit. Quite different to what we usually see here content wise --Fir0002 05:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although the faces of the passengers could be displaying more pain :P I have edited the orginal images summary page, but there needs to be more emphasis on the ride operater standing in the middle of the carriage! --Ali K 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unfortunate he wasn't standing more prominently. He must be a newbie, frequently they stand right on the edge - and no safety belt or even a barrier to keep them in. And agree with your comments about wanting to see more pain. Stevage 11:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Luna Park Melbourne scenic railway.jpg Raven4x4x 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese buddhist monk by Arashiyama cut.jpg

Reason

This is a picture I took a while back in Arashiyama, Kyoto. Maybe it doesn't have much of a "wow factor" but I think it's a really nice and representative picture of a begging monk. The background looks pretty nice too. I put this picture up at Picture peer review a while back and the comments were , although few, positive, so I decided to give it a go. I know there are some problems with the picture (like the blown highlights) but I'm hoping that isn't too big of a problem. I've uploaded the original too, maybe somebody else can make a better job out of it.

Articles this image appears in

Kyoto, Zen, Buddhist monasticism, Mendicant

Creator

User:Mackan (Marubatsu at Commons)

Nominator

Mackan

• Support — Mackan 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, I'd prefer if the posts were vertical, it seems slanted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Seems pretty nice to me. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Slanted posts, glare on the hat, some noise on the clothes and looks excessively noise removed. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Shows the culture really well, explains a lot, it is informative. Maybe just fix some of the technical aspects of the picture as mentioned above. --JonM 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Forgive my ignorance but is this a genuine mendicant monk? The face is shaved, the nails treated, the cloths clean and appearing to be new, a quite modern suitcase instead of a packing-cloth sac... I know Japan is a wealthy country but this seems just wrong. - Alvesgaspar 15:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually ask him, but that's what mendicants look like in modern Japan.

• Support, agree with the nominator that the minor technical problems don't really detract from the photo's quality. Recury 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry, but cropping the suitcase looks like cutting out reality in order to create a sentimental representation. Also, lots of technical problems. ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think leaving it in would distract from the subject? I can't imagine more people would support the picture if it were included...Mackan 21:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A catch-22, I know. ~ trialsanderrors 22:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, btw, I'd like to ask you to be more specific about "lots of technical problems". Mackan 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Blown highlights (water, hat, sleeve), slanted posts, concrete tiles OOF. I think most has been mentioned already. ~ trialsanderrors 04:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, not a moving enough photo to make up for the blowout/blur. gren グレン 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what blur are you referring to? Mackan 10:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support cropped version. Good informative picture. Technical aspects are fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, informative and fairly striking. Not overly happy with some of the technical aspects of it, but it's still feature-quality nonetheless. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think this is really representative of an Asian mendicant monk. Alvesgaspar 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds? I can assure you it is, of a Japanese monk. If it was a picture of a Chinese monk, it wouldn't be representative of a Japanese one, and vice versa. There is no picture which could represent all "Asian mendicant monks". Mackan 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, but "some are more equal than others". We associate mendicant orders with poverty and begging for alms, and I believe that is still the case with the majority of mendicant monks in Asia. That is why I don't think this one is really representative. - Alvesgaspar 12:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that judgement is really unfair, with that rationale no picture of a Japanese monk could ever become a featured picture, but instead of saying more about that, I'd like to remind you that this picture is also used in the articles of Kyoto and Zen. It seems unfair then that you would oppose it of you're only gripe is the fact that it's not representative for a "pan-Asian" mendicant (whose appearances could be discussed).Mackan 14:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Lovely. --Iriseyes 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Great composition, enc, but blown highlights on water, hat thingy, etc. Great editing consideirng original.--HereToHelp 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Mackan 12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - It's not the best possible. --Arad 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support nice, fulfils featured picture rules. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not quite FP material in my opinion. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater

Reason

I think it is a great picture of the Bryce Canyon Amphitheater.

Articles this image appears in

Bryce Canyon National Park and Hoodoo (geology)

Creator

Digon3

Nominator

Digon3

• Support — Digon3 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Very nice composition; however I am left a little unsatisfied. Seems a little washed out, maybe a little grainy too. Nice shot, I just don't think it is FP material. ~ Arjun 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by washed out? --Digon3 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Washed out usually means it is lacking in contrast. I think Arjun01 was refering to the same issue as me which is that it is slightly overexposed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Diliff; that was the word I was looking for. ~ Arjun 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So to improve it, I should increase contrast and darken it a bit? --Digon3 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It lacks detail which cannot be recovered by increasing contrast. By the way did you perform any kind of post-processing on this version, the sky has weird looking patches. --Dschwen(A) 15:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I noticed, you uploaded a new version over the original(?) four days ago. I don't quite get why you did that. The edit is no improvement at all, but introduces weird artifacts and slightly unnatural colors. --Dschwen(A) 15:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I reverted it back. --70.153.199.145 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. A little overexposed and soft. Not a bad composition but this is such a well-photographed location I think we can expect more. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The whole thing is fairly blury.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lt Mike Hunter, aviator

Reason

Two of my longstanding favorites from the Office of War Information archives at the Library of Congress. Lt. Hunter was to my knowledge not notable in the Wikipedic sense, but with his flight suit, aviators, and general demeanor he's the archetype of a military pilot. These versions are taken from the original large-sized tiffs, cropped, downsampled and cleaned up manually. The focus of the first image is on the propeller of the airplane, so it has some slight OOF issues which are only visible in full size. I selectively sharpened some details, but I'm in two minds about this and would like to hear some feedback (see unsharpened version in the edit history). An alternative would be to downsample the images by another 50%, in which case it would be sharp and still above size requirements.

Note: Those are two separate pictures, only the photographer and the subject are the same (and apparently the facial expression, which seems to create some confusion). Originals are here and here. ~ trialsanderrors 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles these images appear in

Aviator, Aviator sunglasses

Creator

Alfred T. Palmer (1942)

Nominator

trialsanderrors

• Support originals , oppose Fir's edits. I'm not against removing dirt and fixing deficiencies, but I'm not in favor of changing the hue of a historical image unless there is reason to believe it changed over time. ~ trialsanderrors 08:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as you note, the focus on the propellor is gorgeous, whereas the pilot himself is slightly blurry. A pity. The other odd thing is the photo doesn't look genuine somehow. Until I saw the October 1942 I thought it was a modern guy posing in retro gear. But yeah, illustrates Aviator well. Stevage 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support the propeller version. Rather nice picture. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 13:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support — SINFUL OCTOPUS You gotta admit, with those sunglasses and ring, this guys got styles. 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only I was kindof surprised to see these up here. But in all honesty it is a very high quality pic. ~ Arjun 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What does "original only" mean? ~ trialsanderrors 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It probably means "first image only". Multiple images usually mean the original image plus some edits, so that's probably why Arjun said "original". Raven4x4x 04:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose... I'm not sure it represents an aviator well... a lot of his body and gear are out of focus... he's not the center of the image... it's not that having a plane in the picture is bad (since it's pretty essential to an aviator) but it should add to the fact that the person pictured is an aviator... not be a large behemoth sitting over his shoulder. Good picture for commons, maybe. gren グレン 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • All of this would be solvable by cropping Picture #2 (which is perfectly in focus btw). Although I don't think it will get majority support, and I'm loath to do it myself, since the backgrounds add enc context. ~ trialsanderrors 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support all Very good, encyclopedic pictures. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeI do not like photos that have been flipped. Please note the text on the prop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.153.52.2 (talk • contribs).
  • It's rotated, not flipped - look at the right prop. Totally legible Debivort 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• support either. Debivort 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Fir's changes (#3) --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support Fir's edit The original looks great, but not as clear as the touched up version. The pic is historical, but not historical in the sense of photography advancement. If the photo was the first color photo ever taken, then it would make sense to promote the original. However, this particular pic has no major significance in the development of photography. Plus, the clean-up version is more pleasing to the eye. =)
  Oh...and the pic is encyclopedic and unique. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not photographically unique, but it's early photographic stock with its own characteristic properties, and any Photoshop manipualtion reduces historical accuracy, so it should be reserved for obvious deficiencies. I played with the saturation and contrast levels myself, but in the end the loss in accuracy isn't outweighed by the increase in prettiness. We're trying to be enc here, prettiness is for Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with having a prettier pic? When an edited version exists, users usually prefer the cleaned up version: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. An exception is when the type of photo is by itself historical: 1. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • To repeat: making things prettier should by itself not be a reason to photoshop if it lowers accuracy. Correcting deficiencies might be, but it should be done conservatively, or it could end up as photomanipulation. JMHO, YMMV. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
        • What does JMHO and YMMV stand for?!? I'm not that good with acronyms. =)
          Anyways, I think sharpening the pic is only a minor manipulation with far greater benefits. It'll be a problem if the edits take out scratches or other major blemishes. Fortunately, this pic doesn't have any flaws, only being a shade too dark in my opinion. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Reread my nomination. It's already been sharpened. The only changes I see in Fir's edit are downsampling (which I've offered to do, but I haven't even seen a request for it), reduced jpg quality, and increased saturation/brightness. JMHO, YMMV = Just my humble opinion, your mileage might vary. ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lt Mike Hunter 1.jpg Raven4x4x 07:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silvereye Juveniles being fed

This shot was taken in an orchard (thus the OOF netting in the BG) the two juveniles on the left are sharp and clear, the adult is, unfortunately OOF but it still adds to the image as it is feeding the chick some fruit.

• Self-nom and support.--Benjamint444 05:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I can clearly see that the focus, lighting, etc. of the picture are very good. what is obvious though is the high levels of artifacts. As it is now I would have to oppose but if you have an uncompressed version I would try uploading a much less compressed alternative and I might support. -Fcb981 06:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support An interesting shot, good enc, sharp where it needs to be. The technical problems (grain, shallow DOF) could be minimized by some downsampling - it's now over 3500 px. PS: I'd put it as a thumb with a caption on the silvereye page, a one-pic gallery is kinda goofy... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How would downsampling minimize the technical problems, esp. DOF? Your wouldn't get more detail in the slightly out of focus regions, but instead you would loose detail in the perfectly in-focus regions. Sounds like a foul deal to me. --Dschwen(A) 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "How would downsampling minimize the technical problems, esp. DOF?" - well, a smaller picture always looks sharper - can you see any DOF problem in the thumbnail? ;-) Seriously, if an image is downsampled by, say. 50%, you really don't loose that much detail (especially if done from the original - here, it looks like the image has been sharpened), but the downsampled image looks much better on-screen. We shouldn't stare ourselves blind on max. resolution, it's more important how good an image looks on screen. In this case my feeling is that downsampling might work - but I wouldn't suggest it for one of Diliff's megapanoramas, for instance. Also, for me, print resolution is of secondary importance. I don't think Wikipedia's possible future print version needs 3500+ pixels of this image. (As for non-wiki use, I certainly couldn't care less. ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • A sarcastic counterargument would go as follows: 640kB sould be enough for any user. ;-). But seriously, with picture-zoom-buttons in every decent browser, who needs to have the downsampling done for him? (dialup-users? sheesh those shouldn't download fullsize pics anyways) --Dschwen(A) 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • In browser downsampling isn't so great... gren グレン 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Use Konqueror with gwenview as a fullsize imageviewer. Fixing problems caused by faulty software on the user-side by uploading degraded pictures seems like a bad idea to me. --Dschwen(A) 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, criteria 8, "Has a good caption", is not met. I would also argue that criteria 5, "Adds value to an article" is not met because it's a little thumb sitting below the text with no explanation. Fix those and I'd probably give at least a weak support. gren グレン 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have addressed the problems mentioned by gren and Janke, I didn't realise user:Brett.donald had made changes to the article and made a mess. I will downsample the image if there are more requests for it but the commons voters haven't had any problem with it so far. Benjamint444 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - Very nice subject, poor setting though. Mrug² 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Strong Oppose - Well done Trialsanderrors - Mrug² 15:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I don't mind the blurriness but one side effect is that whatever the chick is being fed is unrecognizable. Also, the full frontal flash creates an oversharpening effect. I'm surprised no one tried to edit this though. ~ trialsanderrors 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, until the following is clarified: Might this be an edited image? There is a "seam" of sorts between the two juveniles, especially notable in the green leaf, which kind of disappears halfway. The wire they sit on appear to be mirror image of one another (note the duplication of dirt and rust spots). Can we see the original image(s), please? --Janke | Talk 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • See my comparison edit. The left part of the image is a mirrored version of the right, and it is very likely that they depict the same chick. (Note also the background and the leaf.) ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• strong oppose - per Janke and trialsanderrors. Debivort 23:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• strong oppose. Clarify manipulation issue. --Dschwen(A) 08:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This picture is currently a FPC at Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, The Image is a composite and it does show the same chick twice, I'll see if I can find the originals, And I have A query, does it matter that it's a composite? the chick on the left certainly adds to the enc. value, also without the extra chick the image would be cropped much closer making the OOF adult much more noticable. --Benjamint444 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment from benjamint444 The Image is a composite, but you hardly need me to confirm it. Theres a lot of people opposing this image here and on commons because you can tell it has been doctored but it dosn't seem to say anywhere in the criteria that images can't be composites, they have to be factual certainly. And their is nothing fictional about this image the fact that their are more than one chicks merely condenses more enc. value into the photo. Does the fact that it was done in photoshop instead of outside really deteriorate from the image that much? The image nearlly got the whole way through the commons FPC without anyone noticing different? No, I answer myself. This image and the Blue wrens one here and on commons have for a large part been opposed because they are both composites, not that they both have technical problems. In neither case does the fact that it is a composite detract from the enc. value. Can anyone quote where it says in the nomination criteria that images must not be composites? Benjamint

Well aside from the fact that its tacky, suggesting that this is the way a mother would feed multiple chicks or that they regularly coexist like this, that is, sitting on different objects instead of all together.. (however subtle or unimportant the implication), makes the image factually inaccurate. Seriously, If anything you should've moved the two birds on the right down and placed the bird on the left next to them on the wire so that you don't have a mirroring effect. drumguy8800 C T 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, just a suggestion, a flash is never a good substitute for a tripod.. and if you're using a tripod, you shouldn't be using a flash unless you're using a handheld one that you can aim so that it doesn't provide a distracting gloss on the shinier parts of your subjects and so that the coloration isn't skewed. drumguy8800 C T 06:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I opposed this one on technical grounds before Janke pointed at the potential manipulation issues, but I agree with the general sentiment that falsifications such as this should not be made FP since the image with only the adult and the chick once depicts the scene more accurately (a FPC criterion). And this doesn't even touch on the false statements you made in your nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I made no false statements on my nomination, I didn't mention that it was a composite since nowhere in the criteria does it say it's an issue to be voted on. I observed several fammilies of these birds feeding together and there were often times when chicks even from seperate nests would sit together or just a few feet apart and be fed by the adults. For the practicle purposes of this image the chick is two different birds and very likely to be from a seperate nest, it is therfore unlikely for it to sit any closer to the other chick as it would be being fed by a different set of addults. --Benjamint444 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

===Penns Sunrise===

;Reason:I think this is a very high quality photo, that deserves FP status.

Articles this image appears in

Penns Creek, Sunrise

Creator

Daniel Wise

Nominator

WiiWillieWiki

Support per nom. WiiWillieWiki

• • I'll just withdraw this one and go crawl in a hole somewhere...WiiWillieWiki 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Brace yourself, this is not going to be pretty. If you want a little preview check out the archives for previous nominations of pretty sunset/sunrise pictures. And check the other nominations to readjust your definition of high-res and very high quality. --Dschwen(A) 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Janke pretty much sums it up. --Dschwen(A) 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not FP quality: low enc, very unsharp in full size, strong jpg artifacts, rather uninteresting composition, snapshot-like. --Janke | Talk 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bengali wedding

Reason

Image exemplifies traditional Bengali wedding costumes and ceremonies. It adds a lot to Wikipedia by showing the diverse cultures and wedding traditions. Also, it's a colorful picture with bright, vibrant colors. The photo has the dimensions 1486x992, and is an original scan.

Articles this image appears in

Bengali wedding, Culture of Bangladesh, Wedding

Creator

User:Ragib

Nominator

Ragib

• Support — Ragib 08:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reasons: Unsharp in full size (scanned from a print?), severe jpg artifacts, also, contrast and tone scale is off (color cast over whole image). --Janke | Talk 09:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose needs to be edited at the least, possibly rescanned as a TIFF then edited then converted to JPG. - Francis Tyers · 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. Witty lama 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I uploaded an edit of the image, but the size is still small and JPG artifacts have probably increased. It's better but still probably not up to quality. Asiir 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted (original replaced with edited version in articles) --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superb fairy-wrens

This clear and informative image shows a nesting pair of wrens with the male in his breeding plumage. I think the fact that both genders of the species are included adds significantly to the encyclopediac value. --Benjamint444 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• self nom and Support --Benjamint444 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support the colors are almost too saturated, which upsets some folk. However, it is reasonably sharp, reasonably well composed, the exposure is very good, and so is the composition. It is also featured on the commons, which can be a plus. Good work, it has my support. And I agree, having the male and female right next to each other ups the encyclopedic value (plus, capturing that situation isn't the easiest thing to do).-Andrew c 06:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Yes, the "blown blue" severely distracts. Otherwise, very nice. --Janke | Talk 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Per Janke. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support meh; I felt like opposing due to the blueness but all in all it is a nice image. Good enc value. ~ Arjun 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Oppose - Very nice. I hope the birds are ok with that flash. --Arad 16:41, 15

February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm opposing not because I don't like the image, but because I feel betrayed by the uploader and the nominator (both the same user: Benjamint444.) You should have told us that this is made out of two images. --Arad 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I agree with the others. It is very nice, but the over-saturation makes the picture too hard to look at. Partially desaturated the blue as an edit, and I think it will be worthy. Althepal 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• conditionalstrong oppose - there appears to be a stitching error on the left side of the male. It is most obvious in the fence and his tail. I sould switch to weak support if this was fixed. Debivort 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What's a stitching error? And why does the picture show that it is a featured picture already? - Oh, that is for the commons. I wish Benjamint444 would replace the picture with my edit. Althepal 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • A stitching error occurs when two images are aligned to make a single larger image. It is typically noticable as discontinuous edges, or repeated elements such as in this picture. Here is a blow up of the stitching error in this nomination. Debivort 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, wow, I didn't notice that! Maybe reduce noise for the left edge of the picture would help a little. Anyhow, I still think that my edit is featured picture worthy, even with that error. Althepal 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It's in the original too, not just your edit. I'd like to see it fixed though... Debivort 23:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• A stiched pic, are you kidding. Like the bird would hold still for multipul shots. -Fcb981 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well look at it - it's some kind of seam. It's very apparent. As Stevage points out it might also be compositing from separate shots. I'm switching my vote to strong oppose. Debivort

• Is it possible that it is a software, ram, editing thing. Like someone ran a Despeckle filter that because of lack of ram or something crashed partway through the image. That sounds farfetched even to myself but a stiched image? Idk. -Fcb981 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Stiching seems extraordinarily likely now, considering the other nominee by this contributor is a composite. Debivort 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 - Great pic without the 'blown blue'. Iorek85 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment how do you know the edit is closer to how those birds looked?! And you cannot just unblow a blown region. Blown means information is lost. Desaturating doesn't bring it back. --Dschwen(A) 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a lot of photoshopping going on along the fence, and forming two large rectangles, one around each bird. I strongly suspect this is a composite of at least 2 - one with just the male, one with just the female. See the vertical line between the two birds? See the very obviously photoshopped place where two bits of wire cross at the very bottom of the photo, towards the left? See how the wire that the male is standing on doesn't really seem to connect up with the bit on the other side of the bit the female is on? Also the background has been worked on, sometimes it's sharp, sometimes blurry. The "stitching error" noticed is probably due to differing focal lengths. I don't object to photoshopping per se, but this is just clumsy. Stevage 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like the male was stitched over the picture of the female. I'll try to make an edit which hides this... - It is too hard to fix this. Althepal 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support either Oppose - Now I see it; I don't think the birds would be looking at each other like that anyway. This is unrepresentative of the species, and therefore unenc. Mrug² 15:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Neither bird casts a shadow. ~ trialsanderrors 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose both on technical grounds (bad photoshopping). Such a montage isn't wrong per se, but it has to be clearly labeled. This makes me feel deceived by the uploader :-( --Dschwen(A) 08:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could we please see the unphotoshopped original(s)? Thanks, --Janke | Talk 11:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment See also the other nomination by the same uploader: WP:FPC/silvereye juveniles. ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Image suggests that it is an untouched photograph and not a composite; if it is composite, there ought to be some obvious element (like a line) separating the parts. — brighterorange (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad you are opposing, but ARG! there are several lines that have been pointed out in the discussion! Debivort 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think they were suggesting what changes should have happened to the photo if it were a composite, not what symptoms there should be of a composite. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh haha, of course! Thanks for point this out Diliff. Sorry to have jumped on you brighterorange. Debivort 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Image is a composite, but you hardly need me to confirm it. Theres a lot of people opposing this image because you can tell it has been doctored but it dosn't seem to say anywhere in the criteria that images can't be composites, they have to be factual certainly. And their is nothing fictional about this image even the fact that the birds are perching together, this not an uncommon occurence, merely uncommon to have a photo of them sitting together. All I have done is spend some time doctoring the photo instead of spending some time outside with my camera. The mistakes are clumsy as user stevage said, but do they deteriorate from the image that much? The image got the whole way through the commons FPC without anyone noticing so does anyone here really think that they would be noticed by anyone not scrutinising the image? Someone using this image for enc. or identificational purposes would certainly miss these. If I uploaded another version of this image without the clumsy photoshop mistakes would the reaction from voters be any different? No, I answer myself. One of stronges reactions to this photo has been from user:trialsanderrors who has also voted for it's delisting on commons, many people including trialsanderrors have also voted against my Silvereye nomination here and on commons, The common link between these images are that they are both composites, not that they both have technical problems. In neither case does the fact that it is a composite detract from the enc. value. Can anyone quote where it says in the nomination criteria that images must not be composites? Benjamint

• There is something fictional about the image - the existence of two birds in it. If it was a matter of time spent outside or equal time spent photoshopping, I would suggest the time outside. The bulk of the rest of your argument boils down to "this forged dollar bill is OK because if I had done a better job forging it, you wouldn't have noticed it's a fake." True there is no criteria banning composites, but yours are more than composites, they invent a reality which never existed - thereby reducing the encyclopedic value. An alternative, which would likely have passed, would have been simply placing two well cropped images, one of each sex, next to each other with a little strip of white space in between - like the scientific panels you see in field guides. No made up reality there, and no shock among the FPC crowd when they realized it was assembled out of multiple images. Debivort 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• 'This reality' didn't exist at the moment when I took the photo but to say "a reality that never existed" is taking it to far, scenes such as this happen every day - Is there anyone here who has never seen two birds perching together? --Benjamint444 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then stake it, don't fake it. --Dschwen(A) 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Why don't you make the noise levels and contrast in both pictures 100% equal before stacking? Althepal 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would support a better stitch. --Arad 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Somehow, I don't think this image is as pleasing to the mind now, knowing that it is not original. Mrug² 13:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The uploader has not been straight about the provenance of this image. When it came up for FP consideration on Commons he made the extremely misleading comment that "I only get a few weeks each year to get a got shot and they rarely stay put for more than a few seconds in direct sunlight, thus the flash. It's also not very common for them both to be on the same perch for long enough to get a photo", clearly implying that it was a hard image to get as he had to wait for both birds to be in shot together. --MichaelMaggs 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose and comment As much as the picture seems OK to me (I don't have the knowhow to scrutinise too closely), I am afraid I have to agree with the "pictures should reflect reality" stance most people are taking, and as it appears people who have expertise have noticed technical problems due to the stitching I would suggest uploading separate images (if they're big enough) would be the best way forward for the uploader, especially as he might get two FP's out of it (if people haven't been put off by their initial contact with the uploader). Terri G 12:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney harbour bridge night

Reason

A very high resolution image. And I think it's going to become rare since David is not giving us anymore super high resolution images. And I don't see any technical problems.

Articles this image appears in

Sydney Harbour Bridge

Creator

Antilived

Nominator

Arad

• Support — Arad 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided - It's got some great points, but is let down by the invisible road deck and the star pattern on the lights (is that a special lens?), and of course the blurred flags. I note that I'm using a particularly dark monitor - can only just make out one of the 4 circles at the top. Stevage 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it has good points, noteably the resolution and focus, but a few thing kill it. Maybe what botheres me most is the composition. The subject seems to be the bottom of the bridge (where there is no lighting or interesting detail), also, we get a better view of the opra house than we do of the bridge. basicaly it poorly illistrates the subject. Then there are the bizzar star pattern on the lights which are very distracting. -Fcb981 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This shot has a lot of good things going for it, but the lighting is just too dark for me. --Tewy 02:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't know why people complain that the image is dark. On my monitor it's pretty good. And the light effet is also very nice. I think the creator used a special lens. And we are seriously becoming too picky. This image and the image above are pretty good, and we discussed about this issue that the voter should lower their expectations from free contributers. --Arad 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No special lens used, just the diffraction pattern from a small aperture (f/8) per WP:RD/M#.22Stars.22_in_lights_in_night_time_photography. The tech data is just 3 sec exposure (which explains the blurred flag), f/8 using the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and Nikon D50 @ ISO 200. The bridge itself is very very dark in real life when I took it, so probably wrong time to do something like this... --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Experiments with the RAW files (4 stops brighter) showed that the sky is actually brighter than the road deck itself. I doubt that the road deck can be shown in any night time photograph without heavily blown highlights or editing. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The whole pic is too dark - Adrian Pingstone 09:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Good image quality, but central subject (the bridge) is too dark - 85.139.196.32 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Good shot Antilived, but as you said (and as I try to do whenever possible), the lighting isn't ideal and it would have been a much better shot at twilight where the ambient light is a bit better. A similar shot to mine and probably only the equivalent of about 20-30 minutes later, but the lack of light makes quite a lot of difference. By the way, what ARE those blobs of black between the bridge supports? Looks like bad cloning or something. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Those blobs are just my attempts to correct some green dots (lens flare I presumed) and thought that the background was black so I just painted black over them. Now I've uploaded a new version that properly cloned them out. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, as above. enochlau (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, its a picture that deserves to be recognized. I like the opera house in the background. Yaanch 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kia Amanti 2005

Reason

I believe it's a nice image to show the Amanti. The background doesn't detract from the subject, and it's a clean car.

Articles this image appears in

Kia Opirus

Creator

~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!)

Nominator

~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!)

• Support — ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose it has no wow factor, and the reflection of the car isn't very attractive. Also the background takes away from the rest of the image. ~ Arjun 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The resolution, wow factor, lighting (flash reflection) and background all aren't Ideal. One thing the picture has too much of though is artifacts which can be seen on the wheels and elsewhere. -Fcb981 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I can upload a 2856x2142 version with fewer artifacts. I can also try editing out the flash reflection on the turn signal. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  uploaded. Image:Kia Amanti 2005 big.jpg ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 01:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the image is slightly worse, as it shows that simply it is just a car sitting in a neighborhood driveway. ~ Arjun 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not really FP material. There are blown highlights in the sky and the background is quite distracting. --Tewy 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The opposite leans on the buildings kill it for me - Adrian Pingstone 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Quite grainy.. it could be much clearer than this. And the reflection of the silver SUV in the side of the car is glaring. Also the background is surreal- a pure white sky, perfect grass, a long row of identical drab buildings... where did you take it? --froth^T 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  I took it in the hangar section of a small local airport. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Ugh. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, this is just a perfectly ordinary gleaming car in a rather drab setting... Mrug² 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just out of interest, where's the registration plate? Please excuse my ignorance. Mrug² 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In Michigan, license plates are only required on the back of a car. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not that this nom need any more opposers, but I do think that cars should be shot with a polariser to at least reduce the reflection if not eliminates them completely. Flash probably shouldn't have been used in this as natural light seems to be more than enough. Last, I believe you have quite a large speck on your lens when your took it as shown in the front shadow of the car. --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any polarising filter for a consumer camera? I shot it with a Kodak EasyShare, as you can see from the Exif data. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Polarising filters are generic. You can simply get one for SLR's and just hold it in front of your lens! --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose- Not only is the picture fairly grainy, but the subject itself is generally bland. Its just a Kia, if anything someone needs to upload a picture of an Aston Martin or some other sort of expensive luxury car.--Kmd15 21:07, 17 February 2007(UTC)
  • A common car and luxury car can have the same encyclopedic value. There are plenty of featured pictures of "bland" subjects. --Tewy 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burrard Street Bridge

Reason

Self-nom. An picture from a photo session. I'm quite proud of the outcome of the pictures. The color is balanced, is free of image noise, and it illustrates the bridge well.

Articles this image appears in

Burrard Street Bridge

Creator

Selmo

Nominator

-- Selmo ^(talk)

• Support — -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Massive Artifacts, tilted... -Fcb981 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• oppose artifacts probably make it unfixable. Debivort 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to do this (in photoshop?) worth a try. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• well maybe, if you have an uncompressed version there is hope. Not with editing but I bet you handled the file incorrectly. Basicaly you need to save that origenal at a much higher Jpg quality level. It dependes what kind of programs you are using to import the files from your camera etc. Most generic importers don't compress this badly so my guess at how it happened would be when you went to edit it with photoshop you saved the edit badly??? if that happend and you did the 'save as' feature you may have picked a Jpg quality setting way below what is Ideal. -Fcb981 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think its completely unsalvagable to be honest. Looks like extreme(ly poor) noise reduction or something. It was taken at ISO 100 so the noise shouldn't have been that bad, but it was taken with an HP camera. HP have never had a good reputation with digital cameras. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. As above. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, recommend withdrawal. Noclip 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdrawal policy is not formalized as far as I know, and I see no great reason to withdraw any image - would it just be to save on download time of this page? I say let the nominations proceed through the full protocol. A lot of nominations that have had little chance of success have generated helpful comments for the nominators and otherwise helpful positive discussions. Debivort 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to think that would be the case, but FPC is pretty brutal of late and I suspect what it would actually generate is sarcastic/disparaging remarks, neither of which are helping either the contributor or Wikipedia. Perhaps everybody would like to prove me wrong? ;-) --YFB ¿ 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're right, FPC can be a bit like running the gauntlet sometimes, but lets face it, some images are clearly very flawed and it is a bit frustrating to see them appear on FPC when WIAFP guidelines (and I would have thought common sense) justifies pretty clearly what is expected. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

• Totally true, but that doesn't justify a lot of the biting that we see here. No suggestion that you're guilty of that, by the way - your comments above are constructive. I was really just agreeing with Noclip that withdrawal might be easier on the nominator's feelings. --YFB ¿ 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawal is not easier for nominator's feeling. It'll just make him more disappointed. We have to incourage people to make more effort and create better works. And ofcourse give them positive comments and edits. Many of the images I nominated on FPC didn't pass, but I got out of them, some edits from talented users who helped the image quality a lot and made some of them actually Quality Image on commons. We're here to help not to withdraw. --Arad 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose With all due respect to the creator, my old junky camera made by "DSC" could have taken a better shot, and the outcome looks like it was put through one of the "artistic" filters in Photoshop. Editing the picture to make it more yellow does not make it better. Keep trying though. :) vLaDsINgEr 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any evidence of filtering and what was useful about saying that your old camera could have taken a better shot. There wasn't anything productive in your comment and all it served to do was put down the nominator. -Fcb981 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aphthona flava

Reason

Very clear picture

Articles this image appears in

Aphthona flava

Creator

Agricultural Research Service

Nominator

Ernst Stavro Blofeld

• Support — Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - poor focus, posterisation. Failed a previous nomination. --YFB ¿ 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- per Yummi --TotoBaggins 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Out of focus, grainy - Adrian Pingstone 12:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose very much out of focus and rather grainy, an interesting composition though. ~ Arjun 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Though out of focus, it is still an acceptable resolution and illustrates the subject rather well. If the grain is removed, I will change my vote to "support". Jellocube27 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While colorful and good compositionally, the technical aspects of this photograph are too great for me to support. --Tewy 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santiago Calatravas' Quadracci Pavilion

Reason

Self-nomination. Very sharp photo, very crisp, and high resolution. Illustrates the Brise soleil well. The Quadracci Pavilion was Calatravas' first commission in the United States.

Articles this image appears in

Milwaukee Art Museum, Brise soleil

Creator

Steven Andrew Miller

Nominator

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk)

• Support — — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, this does not clearly demonstrate its subject. I don't know what it is. Witty lama 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the two large pictures from Milwaukee Art Museum better. howcheng {chat} 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I like it as a picture but I have no idea what it is, sorry. Terri G 12:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this is a good image, the other pictures in the article are taken from a better angle. I'll have to check out the beautiful museum the next time that I'm down in Milwaukee! Royalbroil ^T : C 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - per very awkward angle...agree with Terri G, don't quite know what it is. tiZom_(2¢) 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bohemian Switzerland

Reason

It is a capture of the bohemian switzerland in the spring, looks like a gate to the deep forest of the nature reserve near the river.

Articles this image appears in

Bohemian Switzerland

Creator

Tulkolahten

Nominator

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈

• Support — ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Those trees could be virtually anywhere. Hard light, dark shadows, and unspectacular image quality all add up to an oppose. --Dschwen(A) 09:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Dschwen. It's a nice image but it's not as informative and striking as it could be. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks guys for your comments, if there would be e.g. cross (on the left there is a holy place with the christian cross), should it be better ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Oppose This scene could be anywhere so doesn't represent the Czech Republic, and there's nothing very interesting to look at. I don't even think it illustrates the article well. However, this is a good try so please try again. (In reply to your question, I don't think a cross or whatever will help) - Adrian Pingstone 13:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, this must have been the harshest, coldest blooded, in-your-face support vote I've ever seen on this page ;-) --Dschwen(A) 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Huge apologies to all. I meant Oppose of course! - Adrian Pingstone 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No problem :) It was clear from the context. I put that image to peer review to avoid this situation, but nobody answered, commented or opposed for a weeks there :-( ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, not the "best work" of Wikipedia. Witty lama 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral pretty but boring! I'd like to go for a hike now, though. -- drumguy8800 C T 09:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airbus A380 in hangar

Reason

A striking shot of this truly massive aircraft. It could be bigger but it meets current guidelines.

Articles this image appears in

Airbus A380

Creator

User:Marcusaffleck

Nominator

Noclip

• Support — Noclip 16:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak support In fact I doubt that this will contiue to be a truely special shot once the A380 is more common. but really the only problems are the subject being cut off and the angle on the shot. Idk. -Fcb981 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support as per above Ahadland 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm fussy, I want the tail as well - Adrian Pingstone 18:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Its a good picture but its just not eye catching enough.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Another case of confusing the subject with the image. The subject might be high enc, but the image is only a poor representation. ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Image doesn't represent entire aircraft. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Wembley Stadium under construction

Reason

Self-nomination. I'm very happy with this picture - it was quite hard to take, as it involved finding a slightly openable window on a high floor of a nearby hotel and then holding the camera outside pressed against the ledge. After several attempts, this was the result, which is both a clear, nicely composed image and a view not found outside Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Wembley Stadium

Creator

ProhibitOnions

Nominator

ProhibitOnions ^(T)

• Neutral An interesting composition- though it has a tilted horizon, and is a bit grainy (nothing that can't be corrected). Jellocube27 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral It is on a slight angle and it's a good image its just not eye catching enough.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 20:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appears to be a lot of noise in the sky and the clarity on stadium details isn't very good. JHMM13  04:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Can someone increase the brightness and/or contrast on this? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Fascinating photo, perhaps just needs some work in photoshop (colors/contrast/ unsharp mask etc) --69.123.110.75 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not eye catching or stunning. enochlau (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowstone - Lower Falls

Reason

High Quality, Great Resolution, Superb color, Meets all FPC criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Yellowstone National Park

Creator

Adam Olson

Nominator

Adam Olson

• Support — Adam Olson 08:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Beautiful composition but it's very grainy and the mist obscures most of the image --froth^T 10:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Great view, but perhaps the picture could be taken with a different camera, maybe even at a different time of day (I daresay it's obvious, but has anyone noticed the rainbow?). Mrug² 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Odd colours, and I don't think that's rainbow, I think it's lens flare. Surely the rainbow would be curved? - Adrian Pingstone 16:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - I like the image so I did an edit. I hope that this is a rainbow. If it's proven to be a lens flare I oppose. --Arad 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yes, I think Adrian Pingstone's got it right. Mrug² 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is a really eye catching image and has a lovely combination of colours, would make a great featured picture.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ack Adrian. Lensflare. --Dschwen(A) 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely lens flare - rainbows don't look like that. The view has lots of potential but the image quality isn't quite up to scratch. I'd love to visit and have a go myself though. ;-) Still waiting for that wiki sponsored world trip... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that the quality is not good enough for FP standards. But I don't think we should reject so lightly that this is a rainbow. If the sun is behind the camera and there are water droplets in the air, that is the simplest explanation. The angular size is too small for the curvature to be visible. Alvesgaspar 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to stand corrected, but for a number of reasons I don't see how it could be a rainbow. To begin with, the 'rainbow' repeats at least three times with no break. This is not consistent with actual rainbows from rain droplets. If there is repetition, there should be a significant gap (see Rainbow#Variations). Secondly, you can see from composition that the angle of view is reasonably large (at the bottom of the frame, you are looking down at what I'm guessing is about 30-40 degrees below the horizon) and this should be more than enough to see the curvature of the rainbow. Thirdly, look at the top right hand corner of the frame. The 'rainbow' disappears prematurely and suddenly. This is definitely lens flare IMHO - and the simplest explanation! A very common problem in photography that presents itself differently from lens to lens... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • yes, I think you are right, too many rainbows! - Alvesgaspar 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIExy1931

Reason

Stunning colors (obviously), great illustration of the nature of color. See the image description page to find out why the three-pointed star shows up.

Articles this image appears in

Color, International Commission on Illumination, CIE 1931 color space

Creator

PAR

Nominator

Lesgles (talk)

• Support — Lesgles (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I dunno... it just looks a little to MS Paint to me. The coloured section appears to be cut/paste in from another picture/programme, and the line-markers (especially and the extremities of the curve) don't look professional. It's definately an encyclopaedic topic but done in a very unispiring way. Sorry. Witty lama 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there any chance we could get this in SVG? enochlau (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly. I'd probably support it. Not just because of the file type but because it would probably be much cleaner. Can anyone make it?--HereToHelp 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Edit conflict) Per above; not Wikipedia's best work. --Tewy 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Encyclopedic topic but what kills the picture for me is the bottom-left corner. Dan M 05:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Shucks. Lesgles (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Image too cluttered. Needs a more elegant solution concerning the axes, grid, tick marks and labels. - Alvesgaspar 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- horribly inaccurate. Most of the colors on that picture can't actually be produced by monitors, so the color of it is just fakery. Would maybe support a version showing the sRGB gamut colored and the rest of the shape grey. --jacobolus (t) 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't care if monitors can accurately reproduce the colors, this represents a principle. But what it is doesn't become clear from the image, and the caption doesn't help either. ~ trialsanderrors 06:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrestrial planet size comparisons

Reason

Shows the terrestrial planets perfectly. Fulfils all of the FPC criteria, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be promoted, though perhaps it could be a bit larger...

Articles this image appears in

Terrestrial planet / Planet / Solar System / Mercury (planet) / Earth / Venus / Mars

Creator

User:Brian0918

Nominator

Jack · talk

• Support either — Jack · talk · 12:03, Wednesday, 14 February 2007
  • Introduce edit 1 - much larger resolution image, but worryingly isn't that much larger in file size. Worried it was murdered when converted to jpg from bitmap. Still have the bmp version, if anyone knows how to compress losslessly? Jack · talk · 13:18, Wednesday, 14 February 2007
• Comment the earth comes out much lighter after the edit. I prefer the darker version in the pre-edit. - Francis Tyers · 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As do Mars and Venus...but Mercury is darker somehow. I prefer the dark versions.--HereToHelp 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Blame the clouds. As far as I know, that's a true colour light photograph of how the earth looks from space. Mercury is doctored, though, and Venus is even a radar photo! (only to make it actually look interesting, rather than cloudy) Jack · talk · 07:13, Thursday, 15 February 2007
• Conditional support edit 1 only. Before I'll support, Mars badly needs antialiasing. Also why is there a bite taken out of the Mars southern hemisphere? I don't mind Venus's bite because I guess there's no information about that area and it's filled in with yellow, but there's not actually a huge chunk missing from Mars as implied by the Mars picture. Also about the color, the darker earth looks better but the darker Mercury and Venus don't really matter; it's probably false color for venus anyway (it looks topographical, which would be impossible unless imaging with radar, which is insensitive to color). --froth^T 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is misleading to have this layout. The planets should be placed in order of orbital radius. —Dgies^t c 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - They are placed in order of orbital radius. Uberlemur 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh now I feel dumb. I didn't look that closely and just judged on the very red color of Venus. —Dgies^t c 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Lol, no problem. We all make mistakes... So do you support now? Jack · talk · 07:15, Thursday, 15 February 2007
• Comment is there a better image of earth anywhere? At the higher resolution, earth doesn't look as sharp when compared to the other 3 images used.-Andrew c 06:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Self-support either, although it would be nice to get a higher res Earth photo to replace this one (sorry, I threw the image together in a couple minutes and wasn't expecting any sort of FPC). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-02-15 21:45Z
• Weak support original, oppose edit 1 - Original has inadequate resolution, edit 1 has nasty aliasing on Venus and Mars. —Dgies^t c 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice idea, but needs much more work to be considered FP. Compare the recent moon picture. ~ trialsanderrors 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)