Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by 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 Incandescence 2 Rocket Man, 2005 Melbourne Show 3 Hurricane Floyd 4 Canon A95 5 Monarch Butterflies 6 Shisa2 7 Common seal 8 Crepuscular Ray Sunset from Telstra Tower 9 Blue Mountains - Three Sisters 10 Human Cannonball 11 Remembrance Poppy 12 Eastern Banjo Frog 13 Air Pollution over LA 14 Lillee Marsh Stand 15 Missouri’s Veterans 16 Arcing pickup shoe 17 Our Rose 18 Annapolis graduation 19 Peanut Butter 20 Two feathers 21 An American breakfast 22 Cola de Caballo 23 Avalon 24 Superb Fairy-Wren 25 DrugChart 26 Lorenz attractor 27 Wolf howling on glacial erratic 28 Hubble Ultra Deep Field 29 San Juan Mountain Panorama 30 Plumed Basilisk Portrait 31 Zion Angels Landing 32 Dried Paprika 33 Single-phase transformer 34 Malta Knights.jpg 35 Deep Impact Probe Collision 36 Lake Clearwater 37 F-16 Fighting Falcons above New York City 38 White's tree frog 39 Turbulence 40 Animated horse 40.1 Nomination reopened 40.2 Original nomination 40.3 Nomination for delisting 41 Wingtip vortex 42 Moscow 43 Apache Wickiup 44 Spiral Notebook 45 Cows in green field 46 Binoculars 47 Nez Perce warrior on horse 48 Clyde Dam 49 Black Spot 50 Montreal Twilight Panorama 51 Lewis and Clark expedition map 52 Leaf Morphology Chart 53 Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica 54 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky 55 Rooster 56 White-breasted Nuthatch 57 Elphant and castle 58 Castle Neuschwanstein 59 Brooklyn Bridge at Night 60 SFO at night 61 Resin wound 62 Uncle Sam poster 63 Passionfruit Flower 64 Schloss Vaduz, Liechtenstein 65 Self-immolation of Thích Quảng Ðức 66 Draget Canal 67 Gecko 68 The Blue Marble 69 International Space Station 70 Green Tree Python 71 Swainson-Tukan (Ramphastos swainsonii) 72 Space Colony 73 Mourne Mountains 74 Star Ferry and the IFCs 75 Grimsvoetn 76 Image:Fire02.jpg 77 Trickey Pond Sunrise 78 DTW Edward H. McNamara Terminal 79 Cymbidium orchids 80 Supernova 81 Hay Bale with bird 82 2003 UB313 artist's impression 83 Formal Gardens at Lake Forest Academy 84 Intentionally blank page 85 Albert Dock Panorama 86 British Museum Great Court 87 Hoverfly

[edit] Incandescence

This image appears in the article Incandescence. I took the picture, and chose to nominate it for the following reasons. First the illumination for the image is provided in part by incandescence itself: the sparks are visible because of the incandescence of the metal embers composing them. Moreover, the exposure time is long enough to show some very dynamic behaviors such as 1) the sequential fragmentation of larger embers into smaller ones, 2) the cooling of the embers as manifest in their color shift from white to orange to red (see blackbody), 3) small embers being whisked upward by the flame's convection, while heavier ones fall, and 4) that neato little ember that bounces off the bunsen burner top.

• Nominate and Support. - Debivort 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Are you sure the blue is carbon incandescence? AFAIK that is yellow, not blue, and it is seen when you lessen the air flow to the flame. Black-body radiation starts in the red region of the spectrum. So, the blue is something else. As the article Flame states: Complete combustion of gas has a dim blue color due to the emission of single wavelength radiations from various electron transitions in the excited molecules formed in the flame. If you agree, please correct the text in the incandescence article, too. --Janke | Talk 09:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the correction! Have revised the text both here and there. This actually reminds me that the photo would be a decent image for the Flame article too because the sparks portray the concept of an activation energy needed to initiate a flame. Debivort
    • You forgot to change the photo's caption here, so I copied it. BTW. I support - it's a beautiful photo. --Janke | Talk 07:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pretty pic, but I think the other image in the Incandescence article does a better job at illustrating the concept of glowing due to heat, which probably is the reason it is already featured. --Dschwen 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The other is an excellent picture. What is the consensus regarding using the same image in multiple articles? It could be easily moved to flame, or even blackbody. Thoughts?Debivort 00:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Using the same image in multiple articles is no problem whatsoever, infact it should be encouraged if the image can illustrate multiple articles. I'll leave it to others who know about this area to add it, but if you feel it illustrated the above mentioned articles by all means add it. Raven4x4x 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, in contrast to the above reason, I think it is an excellent illustration of the concept. This photo was perfectly timed to receive this phenomena, an exceptional photograph. -- Natalinasmpf 16:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, the incandescence can only be seen in the tiny overexposed sparklets. There is no perfect timing involved, just opening up the shutter and blowing some iron filings into the flame. The relation between temperature and color does not become clear in the picture and the flame having such a prominent role in the frame could lead to misunderstanding the whole concept. --Dschwen 11:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am sympathetic to Dschwen's concerns, and think that one way to adress them is to also include the image in the Activation Energy article, which currently has no illustrations, and is more directly related, given that steel embers provide the activation energy for lighting the burner. Here is the caption I provided there (The sparks generated by striking steel against a flint provide the activation energy to initiate combustion in this bunsen burner. The blue flame will sustain after the sparks are extinguished because the continued combustion of the flame is now energetically favorable). I am open to the possibility of switching the article affiliation of this FPC to activation energy, assuming this doesn't violate any FPC taboos. Cheers Debivort 05:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's a good solution. The pic is much better off in this article. In fact in this context I'll happily support it. --Dschwen 08:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've added the image to Activation energy. The new caption is shown in the third image. Debivort 21:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Eynar Oxartum 06:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support now that is has found a good article home. enochlau (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - yeah, nice.--Deglr6328 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image: Incandescence.jpg. I'm glad to see a suitable article could be found. Raven4x4x 04:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket Man, 2005 Melbourne Show

Nice photo of the well known Rocket Man from the Melb. Show

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• The surroundings of Rocket Man are a bit overexposed. Also, wouldn't a shot where he is actually flying (as I suppose he can) be more spectacular/descriptive? Phils 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with Philis, also the cut off at the bottom doesn't do the pic any good. --Dschwen 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah maybe that would be good, but this photo shows The Rocket Man a lot better than if he had his full suit on. I have an an alternative of the actual flight, but unfortunately I wasn't able to get in a good spot. --Fir0002 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so the pic is not perfect. It is still a nice addition to wikipedia, but does it have to be featured? --Dschwen 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, and I raised this with Fir0002 once before. While I don't think anyone is downplaying his photograpic contributions, perhaps he should be more discerning with the images he chooses to submit for FPC, as the vast majority that have been submitted recently have been vehemently opposed as being relatively mediocre or flawed by the majority here. If that comes across as blunt, I apologise. :) I just think that the number of 'junk' images here need to be lowered. Difficult to judge, I know, but someone who has been participating here for a while has a pretty good idea of what is considered FPC material and what is flawed. Fir0002, this is a reasonably good photo in isolation but I personally don't believe it is of sufficiently high standard for me to support it. Just give us your exceptional shots, not everything you can possible contribute to an article, please! ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well see to me this is a very nice photo. I'm not making a personal attack or comparison, but I think it is much better than say the already featured "posing starlet" photo. To have gotten a nice closeup of Dan Schlund (the rocket man) who if you read the article is the only one in the world actually flying the rocket belt, is pretty hard to do. So for these reasons I don't feel this is "mediocre" but of course you are free to disagree. And I would appreciate not being referred to in the third person if you don't mind. --Fir0002 20:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I did read the article. As I said, I do think its a good photo and contributes to the article since there was no previous photo, but that doesn't automatically qualify it for FPC. It still has to have good composition, exposure, etc. As for refering to you in the third person, I started off the comment responding to Dschwen and then added a comment to you by starting the sentence with "Fir002, ...". I don't see how refering to you by name in a comment not directed to you is inappropriate. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose : Disturbing foreground (truck and flag). Too bad the picture wasn't taken sideways, so we can better see what he has on his back Glaurung 07:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Too messy, not a stunningly good image. --Janke | Talk 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose now that it is voting time. See above. --Dschwen 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• It looks like me (younger...) with a vacuum cleaner on my back ;-). I want to see him flying !Ericd 01:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mediocre composition with distracting foreground and background. Camerafiend 02:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. enochlau (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - awkward cropping, distracting elements everywhere, not remarkable. -Vontafeijos 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Floyd

This image is currently featured at Portal:Tropical Cyclones and has an interesting history of its own as it has often been cited as being from hurricanes other than Floyd as noted in Floyd's article. The image is from the NOAA.

• Nominate and Support. - Cuivienen 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although it looks almost like it were generated with a computer and not a satalite. TomStar81 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Striking. I'm pretty sure it is a computer generated image, albeit using satellite data. --Janke | Talk 08:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, but I don't see what distinguishes this photo from the many other hurricane photos there are. In addition, we already have a few hurricane/cyclone photos that are, IMO, more stunning than this one. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose There are many more and better hurrricane images than this, and all are free for the asking. Denni ☯ 02:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think FP hurricanes are yet at the nebula level of saturation. The scale provided by Florida makes this special for me. Mark¹ 12:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with D. enochlau (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canon A95

This photo adds significantly to its article and I think it's a good product shot. Alternatives can be found here

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Mb1000 15:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Also included possible second version - slightly colour corrected and cropped, I thought the original was a bit too yellow and had a bit too much negative space on the left, but I will support either of them. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah good edit, thanks --Fir0002 08:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support - I don't think you'll find a more illustrative image of this camera. It makes a good photo out of a less than thrilling subject :) Raven4x4x 10:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ordinary ad-type shot. Neutrality^talk 04:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose There's nothing that makes this photo "special". Also, that carrying strap behind the camera is distracting. --Janke | Talk 07:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. Camerafiend 03:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fir0002, perhaps you should be a little more discriminating in selecting pictures for FPC. I've just been noticing a few more opposes than usual for your images. (Of course, maybe you've just spoiled us rotten with your fabulous pics :P) enochlau (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That might be one reason, but I'm not sure everyone appreciates how hard it is to get a product shot like this. --Fir0002 22:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It's been said before: Choosing a FP doesn't depend on how hard it is to shoot/make. I've made lots of product shots, using studio flash lighting, umbrellas, reflectors etc., and semi-opaque acrylic with underneath lighting to get rid of shadows, etc - but I woudn't even think of submitting any of those for FP. There should be an element of "WOW!" in a FPC, if you ask me... like your 2nd "crepuscular rays", for instance - that one is a "Double-WOW!" --Janke | Talk 09:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with comments above. -Vontafeijos 16:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monarch Butterflies

I think the coloration is excellent and the subject is very clear and crisp. It appears in the Monarch Butterfly article, and Drumguy8800 created it.

• Nominate and support. - Drumguy8800 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I like the composition in this one. Foreground is very much in focus. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support It'd be nice to have it at higher res, but a nice photo nevertheless. --Fir0002 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support as per my comment above. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Crisp, nice composition, higher res would be good. --Dschwen 13:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There are higher res versions available.. I'll stick a 1600x1200 (or something near that) up once I get access to it again. The place my server is stored is having a power outage, unfortunately. If the power comes back on, there's even a version that's upwards of 3000 pixels wide.. but for the sake of logic and space, I'd say 1600 would be sufficient. Drumguy8800 22:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Higher Res Uploaded at 1600 x 1200. What template do you use for the "nice desktop ratio" thing..? Drumguy8800 23:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Space is not an issue. Policy is to upload highest res for future compatibility, printing etc. --Dschwen 10:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay then ;) the complete highest res will be uploaded..Drumguy8800 23:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • 2764x2073 version now up. Drumguy8800 23:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful colors. IMHO, the DOF should have been extended to have the second butterfly in focus Glaurung 07:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice. Camerafiend 03:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice pic. The plant was misidentified, it is a juniper, not a cedar - MPF 13:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. You know, I noticed that cedar trees here on wikipedia looked completely different than the ones we call cedars here in north texas -- there's even a city called Cedar Hill and hey have the juniper tree on their street signs. (At least I think, I've never seen a Cedar anywhere in Texas...) Drumguy8800 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just kidding, it is known as a cedar, though it is unrelated.. it's known as the Eastern Redcedar or Eastern Juniper. I'll replace the juniper thing with eastern juniper.. just for clarification.
      • Comment. Yes - that's an Eastern Redcedar (I live in Cedar Hill, Texas where they are indeed called 'Cedars' - ironically, my home is just off of a street called "Juniper Ridge"). SteveBaker 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful. I particlarly like the inclusion of the second butterfly. enochlau (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image: Xvisionxmonarch.jpg Raven4x4x 04:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shisa2

This shows the full body of a shisa against a contrasting background. Sidelighting reveals details of the musculature, mane, and tail. The shisa has a fierce and protective expression. The off center placement adds interest. Nothing in the background distracts from the photograph's primary subject. The supporting structure is made from concrete, the most popular building material in modern Okinawa, and shows an electric doorbell. This illustrates the figure's guardian role. The image uses a simple palette of red, white, and gray.

(Apologies for the broken heading link and no links on the caption - this is my first nomination).

This photo has not been published previously. Photographer: Durova

• Nominate and support. - Durova 18:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've fixed the nomination up for you. You had it at Template:Wikkipedia:Featured pictured candidates/Shisa2 or something like that, so I've moved it to the proper location: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shisa2. Also, I've fixed your redlink. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. My motherboard actually failed while I was trying to fix this. Working from a borrowed computer today. Caption still needs improvement, but not sure I can atm. Durova 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem. However, oppose - image isn't centered, and that distracts from the quality. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing special about this photo. At very least, get in a little tighter on the subject. Denni ☯ 02:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose No offence, but a very poor photo IMO. Not very sharp/well composed and none too interesting subject. --Fir0002 08:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject of interest is only about 10% of the picture's surface Glaurung 12:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per Glaurung. The surroundings do not add anything to the subject. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above. Camerafiend 03:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A pity about the subject's surroundings. enochlau (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common seal

I was asked to nominate this image by cele4. I also think it's a wonderful image; clear, certainly large enough and very illustrative. It appears in the Common Seal article and was taken by cele4.

• Nominate and support. - Raven4x4x 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sure that being cuddly is going to help this little bugger through the process. Do you by any chance have an image with it looking straight into the camera or one which shows him entirely from head to tail? - Mgm|^(talk) 14:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've asked Cele4 to respond to your question. Raven4x4x 07:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's a new version from Cele. I'll gladly support this one as well. Raven4x4x 09:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks! I'd be happy to support the second image in the voting period. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• I kind of like the first one better, but I'll support both versions. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support either. Extraordinary detail. Enochlau 13:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support either. Good shot. Durova 19:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support first image. The seal in the second image is not centered properly. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support both - ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support either of the closeups. Uploaded an edit which is lighter --Fir0002 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the background, unfortunately. It's too visible it comes from a zoo. In that respect, the close-up is better though. --Bernard Helmstetter 13:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment If it means anything, I didn't even notice that it was a zoo, especially in the first image. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Seen better, seen cuter. --Janke | Talk 07:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support I love them both! --Kilo-Lima 16:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are much better seal pictures. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Seehund11cele4.jpg. I'm slightly unconfortable promoting an image I nominated, but as I nominated it on request from cele4 I think it's alright. Raven4x4x 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crepuscular Ray Sunset from Telstra Tower

Really quite lucky to have such a great sunset on our visit to the Telstra Tower. It was phenomenally windy though, so the exposure bracket (which is the second photo) was really hard to get.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I like the second pic, first one is too dark, although the rays themselves come out better. Which one is nominated? --Dschwen 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well see I couldn't decide, nor my team of experts :). I thought I'd see the reaction of others. My preference is for the second one --Fir0002 23:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• The second one is incredible. I'd support it.PiccoloNamek 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. --vaeiou 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The foreground is a bit too dark, but the second one is quite a candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support the second. Quite beautiful. Enochlau 02:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support the second one. Awesome work.PiccoloNamek 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second – although I don't have any real problems with the first, the second is indeed spectacular. Raven4x4x 10:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second. Brilliant work. Alr 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support first. Masterful. Neutrality^talk 03:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second. Wow. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support either. Nice shots. TomStar81 23:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second. Fine candidate for a featured pic. Dragonlord kfb 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second. Beautiful. Zafiroblue05 07:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second. __earth 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Support second I cannot believe it, I was just about to support the second pic, but it does not appear in a single article. The first one is one in many pics at the bottom of the Crepuscular Rays article, which makes me think it does not add significantly to that article. I really don't want to be the party pooper here, but I thought FPCs should fulfill other criteria besides being pretty. --Dschwen 16:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Suggestion: It'll take Fir just a minute or two to exchange the pic in all articles, by uploading version 2 over the original, so both can be considered FPC candidates! I prefer and support the second one. Nice to have some detail in the landscape. --Janke | Talk 17:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I'll do --Fir0002 08:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support either Truly awesome. SoLando (Talk) 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support first, Strong support second. Both are great pictures, but the second is amazing. - Cuivienen 01:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support second, magnificent. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose second, weak support first. Second is just yet another of tons of crepusucluar rays pictures. Its a pitty the tons of them are not yet on commons, but thats no reason for featured pic status. The first is much more interesting because of the spots of light on the ground. --Wikimol 11:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Executive veto style oppose - they add nothing to the articles (the second one isn't in an article) and the first has no caption. It can't be promoted. Broken S 14:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me but the first one clearly has the caption "crepuscular ray sunset". And adding it to the article by removing on of the less spectacular non FP quality photos would take approx 10 seconds. --Fir0002 10:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond, yes I know the voting is over, I feel I ought to defend myself. By "no caption" I mean no useful caption. It adds no information. It's not a full sentence and introduces no more information about the subject. Wikipedia:Caption isn't as clear as it should be. Also, since it is so small it can't really draw in the reader. I didn't want to slap the other picture in to the article without a caption. Pictures without captions belong at commons (there is a link to commons at the bottom). Pictures on wiki should provide extra information not just be pritty. Note: It is already an FP at commons, so voting submit to commons isn't possible. People aren't paying enough attention to the captions here at FPC. Broken S 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg. I added the image to the crepuscular rays article in the lead section (with a caption), replacing an image which I moved to the gallery. Raven4x4x 04:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Mountains - Three Sisters

I took this panorama of the Three Sisters in June 2005 on a cold, wintery, overcast afternoon shortly before sunset. It is a 2x6 segment panorama so the detail is much higher than could ordinarily be achieved with a single image. It is 3200x1780 resolution which is resampled and cropped from an original resolution of around 8000x4000. While I can understand that it is perhaps not an exceptionally spectacular photo, it is a significant tourist attraction and part of the fantastic scenery of the Blue Mountains National Park.

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - marvelous. Raven4x4x 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - indeed. --Janke | Talk 07:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I didn't know it was a panorama until I read your description! enochlau (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Great resolution --Fir0002 05:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Natural wonder! Neutrality^talk 06:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support What a beautiful picture. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely stunning. Cobra 09:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support This is a wonderful image of a breathtaking natural wonder. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image: Blue_mountains_-_three_sisters.jpg Raven4x4x 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Cannonball

Pretty good image of a not too easy subject - a person being shot out of a cannon!

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 09:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Could you tilt the pic a little to get the pillars vertical? The "dutch angle" isn't so appropriate here. Pity you don't have the whole cannon in the shot - great timing, though! --Janke | Talk 09:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I rotated the image myself (4.7 degrees clockwise), but the amount of cropping that needs to be done really throws off the composition of the image. You lose everything below the white ad board, and it looks funny, so I didn't upload it. ~MDD4696 (talk •contribs) 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I tried it with skewing as well and you end up losing nearly as much :-/ ~ Veledan • Talk 22:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. The reason its at a bit of a funny angle is because I was quite startled at the noise of the explosion and must have lost my balance a little. Good thing I still pressed the shutter! --Fir0002 08:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, lack of a better picture ist no reason for FP promotion. --Dschwen 10:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

hence Oppose --Dschwen 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, since nothing can apparently be done to the composition. --Janke | Talk 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - tilted. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sure it was a difficult shot, but it's not very well composed and unpleasantly tilted. Not up to FP standard. Camerafiend 02:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. enochlau (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, as above, I took the image, rotated it and then cropped it. It looks better I think, but it still seems "off". —Locke Cole 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• comment. Maybe someone can get it where the background of the stadium is moved AND the cannon adn person so they line up better. I think that may make it look better.schyler 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remembrance Poppy

A lovely photo of a red remembrance poppy at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I support yet another work of brilliance and tranquillity from Fir0002. Merry Christmas. Phoenix2 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• My God, that's an amazing photo. {{User:Vanderdecken/StrongSupport}} —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 11:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sigh, this is only used in the Poppy article. But it is an artificial poppy. How is this contributing significantly to that article? --Dschwen 12:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, it should be removed from there, or put in a section about symbolism, and instead put in articles like Remembrance day or Armistice. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed it from the Poppy article. A pic would have to be replaced in Remembrance Day. From the encyclopedic value I don't feel the move justified, maybe from the aesthetic value. Another pic I'd rather see at commons FPC. --Dschwen 17:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I dunno, it might make a good comparison to the photo of the UK poppies. Maybe replacing the dark and quite small image second from the top? --Fir0002 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The annoying thing is, that you picture looks really good :-). But the second one on Remembrance day shows the poppies in context on the crosses, which has a higher encyclopedic value IMHO, so I wouldn't go and just replace it. After all this is an encyclopedia and FPC is not my newest pretty pics but precisely what it states in the first paragraph on top of WP:FPC. --Dschwen 09:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • In fairness, I believe the poppies are in a similar context in Fir's photo--a wall of remembrance, unless I misread the caption. The caption ought to clearly identify that fact (as it does my mistake, the caption doesn't, but the nomination does...the caption ought always to note the Wall of Remembrance, in my opinion), but I think the context is seeable even without caption help. While the photo is atmospheric, I can't help wishing the poppy in focus was one whose face was at the camera...the side/back view of the flower is distracting to me, and less effective. Not sure about my vote here. Jwrosenzweig 23:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - TomStar81 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, looks like you found a good place for the pic, the Remembrance article. While I'd prefer it to be the other way around (have the pic in an article and then considering it for FPC) it is arguably an eye catcher. Then again, looking at the article, it is one single scentence and a bible quote. --Dschwen 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll rather go with Flcelloguy and oppose as well. --Dschwen 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - doesn't really contribute to the article. In fact, it's not really an article - it's a dicdef with a quote. I'm going to AfD that article; perhaps another suitable article could be found for this good picture? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - --Deglr6328 07:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think this image has at least some value in showing the poppy in the context of the wall. Furthermore, I believe the image has captured a suitable essence of tranquility well. enochlau (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - It bothers me slightly that the poppy is fake.. not sure it would so much if it were a little more obvious that it was fake, though. (Not sure how you'd acomplish that, so, maybe not.) Also there appears to be part of a dandelion hanging off of one of the flowers.. and the in-focus poppy at the top is chopped off. Also, the depth of field appears to be tampered with.. it cuts off pretty quickly? (More like part of the image was blurred with a computer.) Because you have such excellent photos, I hesitate opposing, it is still a nice, crisp, clear image that does feel serene.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No that's natural bokeh, f/3.5 at 75mm can make some pleasing effects. Interesting comment though on it bothering you that it's fake but only because it isn't obvious! Thanks for your opinion though --Fir0002 05:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Very striking photo. Dramatic, high quality and shows the remembrance poppy in context. - Cuivienen 17:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC

sorry unregistered users can't vote. --Deglr6328 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I was logged in at the time. - Cuivienen 20:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Remebrance poppy ww2 section of Aust war memorial.jpg Raven4x4x 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Banjo Frog

I like the sharpness and colors of this photo and although in the cut out his top RHS leg looks a little funny, the cut out is pretty good.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment lighting looks a bit boring, just the flash on top of your camera, right? The second one looks more like an icon. Tint it blue and use it for Azureus. --Dschwen 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose not stunning, and see above. --Dschwen 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- of the two I much prefer the non-cutout version. The background is admittedly bland, but preferable in my opinion to the disembodied feel of the cutout. I will say that I'm not sure how I would vote once the waiting period is up--I'm thinking it over. Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a cute guy that makes me smile but I've seen much more striking frog pics. I think last weeks' nominated frog had the edge on this one, but that wasn't quite FP standard for me either. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support first. Sharp picture contributes to the frog's species article. I'm not bothered by the background. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would prefer to see more of the frog in focus. Also, I dislike the (apparently) artificial lighting used. enochlau (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support original. I like it, actually. Yes, it appears flash-lit, but in comparison to another frog pic recently submitted, I don't feel like the blown out reflections are that bad in this pic. Image is very sharp. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support first - like the contrast between the frog and the background. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Depth of focus. --Wikimol 23:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Pollution over LA

This image is another panorama - a 2 x 10 segment panorama that originally extended far further to the right, showing much more of the urban sprawl all the way to Hollywood. However, I've cropped this one to include just the Los Angeles downtown area and Griffith Observatory on the top of the hill for contrast. This image demonstrates the effect of air pollution as you can clearly see the thicker smog blanket that extends horizontally across the city at approximately the height of the skyscrapers. This is contrasted by the Hollywood Hills in the foreground which are relatively untained by pollution compared to the background, showing the cumulative effect that air pollution has on visibility.

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support You know, I would love to see the full version. It's very crisp at all depths, and what better than Los Angeles for an air pollution article? Nice stuff. Drumguy8800 06:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer, actually Houston would be better, since it surpassed LA in air pollution a few years ago. But maybe I'm just saying that because I used to live in LA... ;-). But some insane datail in this image, just like the three sisters. While the crops make sense for the FPCs, can you make the full versions available too? --Dschwen 09:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• By request, here is the original[1]. It is quite a bit longer and a little taller. While it does extend far further to the right, the visibility gets much worse too. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, I edited the caption of the fullsize pic and here on this page. The image extends only to Hollywood. Santa Monica is much further to the right. That is not even West Hollywood at the right of the frame. --Dschwen 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I stand corrected then. :) Sorry for the confusion. Hard for me to tell given the visibility. I was merely a tourist! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. See above. --Dschwen 08:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral for now - the hill takes up a majority of the picture, and IMO, distracts from the point of the picture. I need to come back to this one. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I would support a version that cut off the observatory and part of the hill (starting the photo right where the hill starts to go up again, say), so the hill doesn't overbalance the picture. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I did think about cropping to show just the LA skyline and a little of the hill, but it loses a lot of context when you do that. I know that the image appears a little off balance with so much of the hills in the foreground and on the left, but I like to think that it shows the observatory looking down on the valley. What could possibly be done is to crop it more horizontally but that would increase the aspect ratio, and really thin panoramas are usually not as effective. I'll submit an edit soon, perhaps, but I suspect it won't have the same support. I could be wrong though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Striking and well-executed, great illustration of air pollution. Camerafiend 02:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I suspect this photographer, (and/or other photos) can show the layers more distinctly and I agree that the hillside takes up too much of the photo. The detail of the Coastal sage scrub is super high, however this nomination is based on polution, not shrubs. Cafe Nervosa | talk 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The detail is reasonably high across the entire photo, not just the scrub. I challenge you to find a photo that does show the detail of pollution. Air pollution by nature is diffusive to light. ;) I completely accept your reasoning, though, that there is too much hillside, but I think compositionally it looks awkward if you crop most of it out.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Despite the hill, I think it conveys its message well. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Ugh! I can almost taste it! I'm not fussed about the hill. It's essential for contrast and context and if it is a little big, so be it. This photo is a great illustration of its theme. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. What he said. --Kizor 00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great resolution, practically perfect stitching. --Janke | Talk 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't really care about the hill, I think it gives it a sense of perspective. It's good resolution, and the pollution... see Veledan's post. -- Charm Quark^?? 17:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It has good resolution and is quite representative of the LA smog (spent part of my childhood there) and the hill is no impediment.--Dakota ~ ε 08:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Los_Angeles_Pollution.jpg. I hope my home city of Perth never gets like this... Raven4x4x 02:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lillee Marsh Stand

Nominated 03:48, 17 December 2005

Stunning photo showing the high of the light tower, the cricket in action, Perth's weather and the attendance at the ground. Currently appears in the WACA article and taken by hamedog

• Nominate and support the new edit by Enochlau. Hamedog 14:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Next time, please don't erase your previous comment. Use the <s> tag to strike out your previous comment. It might have confused the bot, because somehow it got moved to the bottom of the page. enochlau (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've made some edits to the photo. Ran it through auto contrast/level/colour in Photoshop and rotated it 0.5 degrees clockwise. Enochlau 13:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sky looks great, but it dominates the image and places much of the stand in shadow. Warofdreams talk 18:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The stands are too dark, and the rest of the picture isn't all that striking. Camerafiend 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The stands are supposed to be dark - the members don't want to sit in the sun from as early as 8 am to 6pm. The only reason the sky is there is because I wanted to get the light in. I have another version with only the stand which I will link. Hamedog 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

different photo

.

• Oppose, the picture doesn't illustrate why this stand is different to the countless others around the world. It looks very unremarkable a thumbnail size. Thryduulf 11:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, nothing exceptional. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose all edits, including my own. Content-wise, unexceptional. enochlau (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missouri’s Veterans

Last time I had a picture of a single vetern, this time I have a picture of a bunch of veterans! These are the former crewmebers of the USS Missouri (BB-63), who served on the battleship from World War II all the way down to the 1991 Gulf War. The photo is a US Navy picture, and can be found on the USS Missouri page and on the Veteran page. (It can be found on my user page too, but I get a felling that that does not count:-).

• Nominate and support. TomStar81 18:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: is it just me, or does the photo appear to be tilted? Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If anything it appears tilted so the right is slightly higher, however this might be an optical illusion due to the photographer not being square on to the line of seated people. Thryduulf 22:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that nobody is looking at the camera is enough to rule this one out itself. That a vanishingly tiny percentage of the Earth's population can relate to this image is another. And yes, the horizon's tilted. Denni ☯ 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Denni. --Dschwen 19:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sure why the tilting of the picture necessarily matters, but this image doesn't have any kind of spectacular value to it. Maybe knowing someone in the picture could pull at your heart strings somewhat, but otherwise its just another snapshot. Beyond that, there's nothing going on in the photo. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Agree with Denni --Fir0002 05:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with User:Denni. enochlau (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too busy, no real subject. It's not striking at all. Camerafiend 03:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arcing pickup shoe

This photograph by SPSmiler is a striking image of the power of electricity, and of the dangers of third rail electrification. It is used to illustrate the Third Rail and Electrical arc articles.

• Nominate and support. - Thryduulf 12:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the front of the train appears blurry, and the colors of the train and sky don't help. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The train is slightly blury because its moving - a requirement for the effect to happen. Thryduulf 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a common sight with trolley buses running on overhead lines, especially in the winter. I oppose this photo on the grounds that it is a common phenomenon and hardly awe-inspiring or breathtaking. Denni ☯ 02:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per Denni. Glaurung 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - even though I'm a train nut... ;-) Seriously, this is a good pic for the articles in question, but not for a FP. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Just a bright blue tinged light --Fir0002 05:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - it does show the concept very well and definitely helps explain the action.. the picture though is far from stunning. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting, but the blurry train and the sky make for one uninspiring photo. enochlau (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above. Camerafiend 03:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry. Too common, not special, horrible surroundings, not clear. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral sorry about the blurry train, but it was moving, and although I do not recall the exact aperture / shutter speed information I would have chosen the option for maximun depth of field, which would have resulted in a slower shutter speed. The image was captured using 35mm print film, which let me capture it when I choose - unlike digital cameras which have a slight time lag. The sky of course reflects the weather of the day. The image shows a London-bound train about to cross over an access track to Ealing Common depǒt (railway depǒts, sidings, etc., are never pretty) as it leaves Ealing Common station. Whilst everything about this view may seem common or ordinary (or even slightly boring!), in years to come - when civilisation and technology has moved on - it will be scenes such as this (which depict the real-life daily events of the present era) which historians will find the most interesting. As this is my image I will refrain from voting either for or against the nomination. SPSmiler

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our Rose

• Nominate and support. - Very Beautiful image that my sister took from our garden. Person22 08:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm going to have to make a template for my rantings. Say again, which article does this pretty pic significantly contribute to? --Dschwen 08:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Since the 2day comment period got silently killed off I might as well oppose right now. --Dschwen 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose As far as I can see, no articles use that image. A criteria is that it adds to an article. Besides, there's many beautiful flower pictures, which is not FP. See Nightshade-article for one. --Vidarlo 20:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, featured pics must contribute significantly to an article. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose As in life, beauty itself is not enough. This image is nothing special in the rose photo department. Denni ☯ 02:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It is meaningless without the cultivar name, and is also missing its edges - MPF 16:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not clear, cropped awkwardly, poor lighting.. If there's a non-cropped version of the photo, upload it and let someone edit it.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful image --Fir0002 05:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, it is a fine image, but it is not linked in any article. It is a criteria that it adds significantly to the article. It is not a criteria that it is a beutiful image. --Vidarlo 12:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then link it! --Kilo-Lima 13:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: First, I think this is wrong attitude. One should find a article the image adds to before proposing it as a FP. Second, I can't really think of any articles that'd be significantly improved by this image, at least until we get the species of the plant, and so. There is images of roses out there, better than this. Look in the Rose article. See no need for more images. And those who are there, are better than this So no, don't link it. I'd say delete it. --Vidarlo 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with User:Denni. enochlau (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose In terms of beauty, I like more this cc-by rose. --Wikimol 22:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not bad, but it isn't used in any articles. Camerafiend 03:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support Simple. --Kilo-Lima 13:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - YAFP (flower post) --Deglr6328 08:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annapolis graduation

Annapolis, Maryland. (May 27, 2005) - Newly commissioned officers celebrate their new positions by throwing their Midshipmen covers into the air as part of the U.S. Naval Academy class of 2005 graduation and commissioning ceremony. The “hat toss,” now a traditional ending to the ceremony, originated at the Naval Academy in 1912. The “hat toss” has since become a symbolic and visual end to the four-year program. Nine hundred-seventy six Midshipmen graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and became commissioned officers in the U.S. Military. President George W. Bush delivered the commencement address and personally greeted each graduate during the ceremony. The men and women of the graduating class were sworn into the Navy as Ensigns or into the Marine Corps as Second Lieutenants. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Daniel J. McLain (RELEASED)

• Support. Neutrality^talk 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - very interesting image of quite an iconic scene. Raven4x4x 05:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great camera angle! --Janke | Talk 07:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great photo! -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - <really deep voice>Oh Yeah!</really deep voice> TomStar81 10:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Now this is an FP! ~ Veledan • Talk 18:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I like it! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Me like! --65.87.105.2 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Even high-res! This is an excellent photo.. perfect angle and capture. FP definitely. Drumguy8800 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Yep. Camerafiend 02:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I always did love this picture. Nrbelex ^(talk) 02:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Cafe Nervosa | talk 19:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support FireFox 21:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Either version, but it is a bit low res coming from the US millitary IMO --Fir0002 05:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fir, I removed the 2nd thumbnail to save confusion. You added it yourself and it was a link to the same image... Now fixed... I've replaced the copy of the original with the version you uploaded just before and I guess meant to display! ~ Veledan • Talk 11:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. That is one good picture. enochlau (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This photo is awesome... well done! -Vontafeijos 16:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support either version. —DO'Neil 03:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant! Alr 22:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support Since the high-res one will be the FP, it will have to be added to an article; and the older one removed. --Kilo-Lima 13:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The two images are the same resolution. The second is Fir's edit and I assume he has adjusted the levels a bit to make it brighter on screen. If the edit is promoted, you are right it'll be swapped but at the moment it looks like everyone is happy to support without specifying the version, so the original will likely be kept. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, unless the US Naval Academy invented the hat-toss tradition, I don't think that this image helps aid the US Naval Academy article. It's a great image, but perhaps it could join the Graduation article? --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 17:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I have added the image to the graduation article. Raven4x4x 10:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:AnnapolisGraduation.jpg. Kilo-Lima is correct; without anyone specifying their preference I promote the original version. Raven4x4x 05:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peanut Butter

Saw this image when looking up peanut butter, thought that the lighting and composition was very nice. High resolution version retains sharpness and clarity. Image created by PiccoloNamek

• Nominate and support. - Elfer 03:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - I wouldn't nominate this.PiccoloNamek 03:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, the out of focus rim of the jar it is in detracts from the photograph. Also it doesn't really make much sense without the caption. Thryduulf 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Out of focus rims is distracting, and background could do with some work with the blur tool to remove the noise. --Fir0002 05:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose If you really want to illustrate peanut butter, spread it on a slice of bread. Denni ☯ 00:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Fir0002 and Denni. enochlau (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, it's just boring - Adrian Pingstone 09:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not very interesting, and the rim of the jar is distracting. Camerafiend 03:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, echo of Camerafiend's comments.--ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 17:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two feathers

Two beautiful, delicate feathers. Nominate and support. Neutrality^talk 06:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose taken under bad lighting conditions, whitebalance is off, not very sharp. --Dschwen 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral until the image is cleaned up. Perhaps drop the background.... drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 07:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's got pixelation in the background. I can see it even when I don't enlarge the image. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that is the texture of the surface behind the feathers. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry to say, but the lighting is pretty awful. Dropping the background is practically impossible, due to the fluffiness of the feathers. --Janke | Talk 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Could be sharper, and the shadows are annoying. enochlau (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the unpleasant brown background is the same shade as the feathers - Adrian Pingstone 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Pretty ordinary feathers, I think there are better ones out there. This one for starters: Image:Green parrot feather.jpg --Fir0002 00:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not particularly striking or well-executed. Camerafiend 02:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Neutral Feathers are OK; but background is a bit off-putting. --Kilo-Lima 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An American breakfast

An American breakfast: blueberry pancakes (complete with blueberries and butter on top) bacon, scrambled eggs, maple syrup, and slices of pineapple, grapefruit, and orange. Striking.

• Nominate and support. Neutrality^talk 06:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The photo is quite grainy, though it is clear. Might also need to be from a different angle.. but if it is cleaned up I might end up supporting it.. I also don't exactly know what article it (currently does or possibly could) adds significantly to. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. In fullsize the image looks washed out and has strange speckles, not really sharp, lighting could be better (bacon is pretty dark) and the composition looks a little off-center. --Dschwen 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - This looks unbelieveably delicious right now but sadly is not FP quality. (grainy,underexposed).--Deglr6328 12:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ordinary. A bit dark too. enochlau (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - too dark and too much in close-up - Adrian Pingstone 09:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Technically not the best, and I find it borderline on repulsive when considering what it would taste like. Sorry but truly I find that very far from appetizing. --Fir0002 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not enough vegemite? :) --Deglr6328 21:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether it looks appetizing is beside the point, but it isn't terribly striking. Camerafiend 02:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support Mmm... Tasty. --Kilo-Lima 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not very striking at all, slightly dark. And I agree with Fir0002 on how appetising it looks.

—DO'Neil 06:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Pancakes look a bit dark, Butters melting, Scrambled eggs look a bit funky, and the syrup is sorta big, and one of the fruits looks like its rotting. Agree with Fir0002. Cobra 09:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cola de Caballo

I'm pretty proud of this image, so I thought I'd self-nominate it. It illustrates Cola de Caballo.

• Nominate and support. - Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry to do this to you but Oppose - Focus is poor, hazy gray cast over everything, sky is totally blown and highly distracting with all that purple CA and the shot angle feels very awkward. --Deglr6328 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Deglr6318. Plus, I don't find it particularly striking. Alr 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Why does the water appears to be so flat? It's like you've over applied a remove noise filter and it removed the details is well. Also, there's quite a bit of purple fringing at the top of the picture and the shrub at the bottom is blocking too much of the waterfall. I would've supported it if you go a few steps closer or to the right to get that shrub out of the way. --antilived ^{T | C} 00:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The picture in its full size actually isn't as bad as it is in the middle page (except the purple). It really doesn't look good in the middle size -- not mainpage material, and the un-resized image is just too huge. --JPM 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So as not to prolong the misery and waste everyone's time, I'll withdraw the nomination. Thanks for the feedback!

Nomination withdrawn --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avalon

Good composition and colors. Taken by Aaron Logan and appearing in the article on Avalon, California.

• Nominate and support. - Alr 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Would possibly support a higher resolution image. Its slightly lacking in detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral pending support. The hills appear to be washed out and its too low-res. No detail. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'll go with oppose on this one for now. Resolution is far too low for a pano. Also I notice some stitching problems in the lower part. --Dschwen 13:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ok composition, size too small. --Deglr6328 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- This picture is really good, but it is really the sort of picture that really begs for higher resolution. There is so much in the image that I would like to be able to see more clearly. If a high-res version were nominated, I would have to support it. --jackohare 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose - it seems to be sloping (look at the sea horizon) and needs 2.5 degrees of counterclockwise rotation. This might seem over fussy but I apply high standards to Featured Pics - Adrian Pingstone 22:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - slanting, or is it just an optical illusion? Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw this nomination in order to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the rejection. However, I continue to stand by the picture as being one of my favorites on Wiki. Alr 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn as per Alr's request. Raven4x4x 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superb Fairy-Wren

I took this recently, and it was instantly one of my favourite photos; appears in Maluridae and Superb Fairy-Wren. --liquidGhoul 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Wow, this is very superb. How on Earth did you get so close? drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I went driving, and got out to photograph a kookaburra. Then I noticed a family of wrens, and that one flew right up to me without noticing. I took a few photos, accidentally moved, and it flew off. --liquidGhoul 04:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Incredible luck and even more incredible photography! Congratulations --Neutrality^talk 06:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - So cute i want to eat it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• WOW!' Support. Neutrality^talk 06:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great detail. ---Aude 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support,this really is a superb pic of a fairy wren. --Dschwen 15:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great pic! - Mgm|^(talk) 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Superb indeed! I'm amazed that you got such a great close up. —DO'Neil 03:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed, nice shot of such a flittery subject. Support. --Janke | Talk 20:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Although I would've liked to see a slightly larger margin above the subject, I think it's a fantastic shot. The image has great quality and detail. I also like the attitude; it looks to me like the bird is saying "Get outta my face, punk!" ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with the above. enochlau (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - magic picture - Adrian Pingstone 09:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- great. Longhair 09:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - excellent shot, the only current candidate that really made me go 'wow!' Halsteadk 14:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great capture --Fir0002 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful. Camerafiend 02:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support- It is so Very Beautiful!!!!!!!!!!! Australia boy 09:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
• Support --Romeo Bravo 22:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support Love it. --Kilo-Lima 13:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice angle. :) Cobra 09:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support.Very good photo and an adorable subject.--Dakota ~ε 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, is it standing on barbed wire? I would prefer a natural habitat.--ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Its natural habitat is incredibly dense weeds, which is impossible to get close enough to photograph. The barb wire illustrates the birds' ability to live near civilisation. --liquidGhoul 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support It speaks like... Hey! What are you looking at? --AllyUnion (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The photo visually captured this bird, which is the best way to capture them. JQF 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Superb_fairy_wren2_LiquidGhoul.jpg Raven4x4x 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DrugChart

This image appears in the Psychoactive Drug article and was created by user Thoric I nomintate because it beautifully illustrates the relationships between the confusing myriad of psychoactive drugs. Please see the main article for the wikified version.

• Nominate and support. - TimL 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note this is a nomination for a diagram not a picture, please evaluate on the basis that it is a diagram not a picture. TimL 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Really, it is not a stunning picture. It adds something to the article, but is meaningless without the article. Thus strong oppose. --Vidarlo 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, it's not that stunning, and appears meaningless at first. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  Clarification: I oppose both versions (with and without the text). Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Neutrality^talk 21:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Not stunning, it is confusing, subjective, and violates wiki's ban on original research. [2] --65.87.105.2 21:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You must be logged in to vote. --Dschwen 07:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

One does not need to be logged in to vote. EOM.--24.55.228.56 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but do note that: "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)"

That is absurd. There is no original research here. TimL 08:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The image relects original research which is prohibited. there is no source attached to the image and the creator regularly changes the groupings. Please compare original to current. Check out the psychoactive talk page.--24.55.228.56 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Note: the nomination was for the image with the overlying wiki-links. The actual image is meant to be a clean and light diagram. It is also not subjective as the grouping is based on existing medical drug classifications. (As for the "meaningless" comment, according to the top of this article -- "the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Pictures that are striking but do not illustrate an article can be submitted to Featured picture candidates on the Wikimedia commons.") --Thoric 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. This sort of nomination should be valid and the diagram does add significantly to the article. We just have to figure out how to handle it on FPC (if we can). -- Solipsist 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If indeed "the grouping is based on existing medical drug classifications," then where are the citations? These groupings are subjective and constitute original research byThoric. --65.87.105.2 21:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • They are common knowledge. I've added some citations to the talk page, and will add more if requested.
        • I have asked the creator to cite one source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics as depicted in his chart. He has been unable to do so. If there is no source, then this is clearly original research prohibited in wiki.--65.87.105.2 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
          • This is fully explained in the talk page. 65.87.105.2 is being deceptive. --Thoric 19:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Meaningless without text. Denni ☯ 02:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Charts are meaningless without an appropriate caption. Glaurung 07:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The picture is too small, it is impossible to read the names. Make it as big as it appears in the article and I won't oppose anymore Glaurung 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I gave it a try: the full-size picture was perfect, but when resized (for example on this page) the text was ugly so I reverted to the original version. I now understand why such a low resolution was chosen, but if there is no way to read the text, it is not more informative than the version without text... Glaurung 07:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The low-res version is only for the purposes of a thumbnail view. I've now replaced it with a full size version that looks fine as a thumbnail (at the expense of file size). --Thoric 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support OK, now this is perfect. This is a very informative diagram. Congratulation for turning the dynamic diagram which is in the article in a readable (therfore also useful) static image. On a side note I'd add that diagrams and charts are so different from pictures in the criteria that make them remarkable that the process of featured diagrams and charts should be created in parallel from the process which already exists for the pictures. But this is another story. Glaurung 14:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree, the image alone is nothing spectacular, it is the organization it give the overlying wiki that makes it beautiful. If I could I would nominate the "whole shebang", but I can't. TimL 08:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support the "whole shebang" (why can't we). If it needs the caption/text give it the caption. Broken S 13:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I added an image to hopefully solve this problem. Please base your votes on the image containing the text labels. --Thoric 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm still against it. Yes, it adds to the article, but I can't see that this is really special in any way. It is not terribly creative, such things have been made before I'm sure. It's nor too striking, so I'm still holding my oppose stance. --Vidarlo 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I challenge you to find an example of something similar. How is this any less "creative" than something such as Downtown Chicago plan? --Thoric 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is more creative than image:Chigaco_top_down_view.png, and I do see that it contributes to the article. I don't think either belongs to featured pictures. It ain't a extremely nice, such as others that has been presented, but I agree in that it adds a lot to the article. So, whilst I've moderated myself, I'm still against it. --Vidarlo 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, I respect your decision.
• Support: I really liked the diagram 'cause it just puts all kind of psychoactive drugs on only one diagram. And I can't figure out what is incomprehensible about this? --Quinlan Vos 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This adds significantly to the article and is a pretty original contribution (please correct me if it is just a rip-off ;-) ). --Dschwen 07:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a great diagram, very informative, and is perfect in the context of the article. But I can't imagine it as a FP (in thumb size, without working links) on the Main Page of Wikipedia... --Janke | Talk 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - My thinking is that this does appear to be a very good illustration to help explain the topic. I'm not comfortable with any of the compromises so far for featuring this on POTD, but that is a different problem. We could for example make an exception and not show it on POTD, we might be able to find a trick for redirecting HTML if you clicked on the image, or I could just spend half the POTD caption explaining that you go and read the article to see how it works. Either way, I would hope that featuring it, would encourage its translation over to several of the other language Wikis (the Spanish are already halfway there) and get other editors to think "how can I make a diagram like this to illustrate my favourite article" — and that's what Featured Pictures should be about. -- Solipsist 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • eek, the spanish page is using my tables-based chart which I created before I figured out how to use divs to overlay wikilinks on top of a graphic ;) --Thoric 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You created that table based chart, Oh Lord! ;) TimL 13:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I created the original black and white graphic first (image:Drug_Chart_version_1.0.png), and from that created the table-based version, using color mixing to make it make a little more sense. Once I figured out I could overlay wiki-links over a graphic using divs, I then made some adjustments to the original graphic to reflect the gradual changes to the table-based chart, added in the color, and so the current chart is the offspring of the two ;) --Thoric 15:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it would go well on the Main Page, given the size issues, but it is a superb image which greatly improves its article. I awarded Thoric a Graphic Designer's Barnstar for his efforts :) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• support: Great work on graphic that quickly and concisely conveys substantive info. Ombudsman 05:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly Thoric's original research. JFW | T@lk 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The chart is based on the underlying (linked to) articles. You claim of WP:NOR is dubious. TimL 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thoric suggests his diagram is a synthesis of books he has read. That's original research. His unique compilation cannot be found in any specific source.--24.55.228.56 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sources for the information in the chart is cited in the psychoactive drug article, and the actual graphic cannot be found published elsewhere since I drew the chart, which is allowed by Wikipedia's view on original images which states, "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy. Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them". --Thoric 19:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Thoric is ignoring the key parts of the NOR policy: "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." and "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." The features in Thoric's diagram cannot be found in any source. I have repeatedly asked him to cite one source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics as depicted in his chart. He has been unable to do so. According to the talk page, Thoric believes "the anti-psychotic part is controversial, mainly because there are a large number of doctors (esp. psychologists) who believe that anti-psychotics are poor medicine attempting to pharmacologically control disorders which have little to do with physical brain function, and all to do with psychological issues that can be fixed through therapy.e" The chart reflects this fringe POV.--24.55.228.56 20:01, 26 Decsember 2005 (UTC)
          • 24.55.228.56 is purposely selectively ignoring my responses. I already explained that the intersections in the chart can (and mostly do) represent areas that do not fall under the parent groupings as compared to items that are completely within the parent groupings. For example, many of the psychedelics are in the intersection between the stimulants and the hallucinogens, but those psychedelis are not classified as stimulants, and by many accounts not even classified as hallucinogens either. --Thoric 22:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
            • But that is not clear from the image/diagram. --WS 23:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Tim, the sources were inserted today, and I urge you not to refer to other users' opinions as "bogus". JFW | T@lk 23:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I don't know about the sources you refer to but is 'dubious' OK? TimL 00:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: too simplified view. --WS 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That is the whole point of the chart, too simplify something really complex. What would a better chart look like? TimL 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, way too boring for FP. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 17:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User Thoric posted a message on my talk page, so I am clarifying here. I think that images that are to be featured should be inviting (aka good looking). Diagrams and maps just don't do that (most of the time). That's why I am opposed. I have no problem with all these diagrams and I congratulate whoever put all the work into making it, but that doesn't mean that it deserves to be featured. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. perhaps the best lay-out of psychoactive drugs based on scientific classification that i've ever seen. it is not original research, but simply a very coherent chart outlining the actions/accepted classifications/relations of various drugs, fully supported by the literature. He made the chart from easily available and accepted classifications. --Heah ^talk 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Illustration is cluttered and difficult to read. A higher resolution version would help, but an SVG version would be even better. ~MDD4696 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Request for help. I've been trying to decide what to do with this picture, and I really can't. It seems that the version with text has consensus, but the article version isn't this one. It does appear in the article, in a manner of speaking, so I'm not sure if it's valid or not. And what do I make of the original research allegations? My feeling is promote it, but I'm not quite that bold. Please could someone help me decide what to do with it? Raven4x4x 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Who can help? What happens now? TimL 10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The original research allegations have been addressed in the article and talk page. The version with text is for the purpose of FP such that it can be seen as a thumbnail. The image page has a link to the proper article. --Thoric 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • (Copied from User talk:Raven4x4x) My personal opinion is still oppose (and I'll clarify that on the nomination page). Regarding the nomination, here are the two choices: either fail it now (there are nearly as many oppose as supports, and not all opposes are to the version without links), or extend it for one or two more days. If you choose the latter, I would recommend contacting everyone who has voted or made a comment on the page and then just informing them that the debate has been extended for 24 or 48 hours, and that they may wish to check out the page again (I would abstain from any mention of the problems, as that may bias the notice.) If the vote outcome still stays approximately the same, the image should not be promoted - there's a considerable amount of opposition (10/9). Alternatively, as I said above, you could just close it as a not promoted because of the significant amount of opposition - a large influx of "support" votes would be required to make this image pass. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, one of the trickiest nominations we've had for a while. Well on the one hand it is quite straight forward — there is quite a mix of supports and opposes (10:9) and comment, but there isn't clear concensus to support — so it fails. However, when determining concensus, one ideally takes into account the nature of supports and objections and it is quite clear that some of the oppose votes are misguided or haven't been retracted even when some of the issues appear to have been addressed. If all votes were carefully weighed and revised or discounted it might be possible to seive out a consensus for support, but that would be quite hard and somewhat controversial. I don't think extending the vote is going to help much in this case. So my suggestion would be to let it fail for the moment, regroup, then renominate it in a month's time — preferably with a more clear introduction explaining that it is an untypical illustration and that although it is being represented by thumbnail the nomination is actually about the diagram as used in the article. -- Solipsist 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

After speaking with a few people, I've decided that Solipsist's suggestion is the best for now. Thanks to all those who helped in this decision. Raven4x4x 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lorenz attractor

Lorenz attractor. Given the canonical parameters of the system (kind of reference case, used in majority of articles about the system) and minimalistic projection, there aren't many degrees of freedom left to play with. I think here they are used well.

Appears in Chaos theory and Lorenz attractor, created by me.

• Nominate and support. - Wikimol 11:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC) - (both alternatives) --Wikimol 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• What do the different hues represent? Debivort 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If the colour of the trajectory changes time to time it is easier to follow it. And, IMO, looks better. Othervise nothing. --Wikimol 00:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I think it is a nice aspect - and just wanted to clarify. Debivort 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Is it possible to get the program that you used to draw the lines antialiased? enochlau (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, would you be able to draw it much bigger (4x maybe?) and downsample. Either way, it might look better if it weren't so pixelised. enochlau (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    1. By writing the antialiasing code - don't know if it counts is as yes or no :-)

    2. That would be easier, but has its own problems. Now the original is 2048x2048 and looks reasonable when downscaled to anything between ~300 - ~1300. In smaller versions individual lines are hard to distinguish. If the original was 8kx8k, the lines will look nice and will be distinguishable at 4kx4k. When downscaled to 1kx1k, lightness of individual line would decrease 10 times, it will be hardly observable ang whole picture would be very dim. The way how to get around this would be to make the program draw thicker lines or play with the source image.

    I'm not going to do either now. The question can be transformed to "what resolution is enough". If the original was 8kx8k, the pixelation would be at 8kx8k. IMO the picture is ok at 1k x 1k, and 1k x 1k is enough for current WP usage. I could have uploaded the version downscaled to 1k x 1k as the final product (or I can save it as alternative) - but I like it better to make availiable the "source" as well.

    If improvement, I would go for conceptual one - exporting the trajectory to some vector format (the longer internal float represenation, the better :-). Pieces of trajectory between points can be saved as polynomial curves (derivates are ready availiable). Bitmap image would be than generated e.g. by some postscript renderer... with resolutions up to ~ precision of computation, e.g. 1 mega x 1 mega pixel :-) If lacking things to play with, I'll eventually try to create such "ultimate Lorenz picture" -but - sorry - not now. --Wikimol 11:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I can't decide what to make of this nomination. I am unable to support because I haven't got a clue whether this diagram or whatever it is makes a significant contribution to an article or not. The words Lorenz attractor certainly occur in both articles linked above, but does this picture help explain the concept? Not to me it doesn't. The article Lorenz attractor restricts itself to technical definitions apparently for those who are already familiar with all these concepts and doesn't communicate anything to the intelligent lay reader (not this one, anyway) — and that is the level an encyclopaedic article should aim at, in my opinion. What exactly is this illustrating? Having read Chaos theory a couple of times I now understand what a phase diagram is and how it can be a fascinating way to spot a pattern in otherwise apparently uncoordinated patterns of behaviour / development but the bit about strange attractors still left me scratching the head. I wouldn't like to oppose a nomination just because I don't understand it, but even so if why this image is a significant contribution can't be explained in terms I find intelligible then I suspect the subject itself may be too esoteric ever to have a meaningful FP. ~ Veledan • Talk 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Regardless of the quality of the associated article, this image is very illustrative of the concept. As I understand it from my math undergrad days, this is the Lorenz attractor. Debivort 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Veledan, read the attractor article first. If you understand the concept of attractor, it shouldn't be hard to understand main surprise of Lorenz attractor, and meaning of the picture. It's not esotheric at all, its simply kind of trajectory. Or more exactly "picture of the trajectory" - like if you would have a barrel of colour in your car and paint a line all the way you go. Now, this is line in phase space - you don't have to understand that concept to appreciate the picture. What you should understand is the trajectory is in fact in 3 dimmensional space, and the picture is projection to 2-dimmensional plane. Now, i you compare with trajectories of things like you, planes, pendulum... you should see the trajectory of Lorenz system is somehow very complex, yet simple ...strage.

  I agree the article is not in the best possible shape - its not that hard topic after all - but I cannot agree every article has to communicate it's main points to every intelligent lay reader and be self-contained in this aspect. Articles can assume the reader understands (or is able to found using wikilinks) some basic concepts needed for the explanantion. For example, in article telemark skiing it is reasonable to assume its reader has some idea what a ski or a ski binding is. In article about Gauge theory it is reasonable to assume understanding of e.g. Lagrangian. IMO in case of Lorenz attractor one such reasonable assumptions is understanding of attractor --Wikimol 11:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This is difficult. Yes, it's the attractor, all right - I remember seeing a similar image in Scientific American, years ago. But the aliasing of this image prevents me from supporting - if you can get a version with good anti-aliasing, I'll reconsider. --Janke | Talk 06:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Treat the 1024x1024 downscaled version as "the image". --Wikimol 11:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, where is that 1x1k image? The thumbnail gets me to a approx 600x600, and clicking that goes to the 2x2k. They all look badly pixelated in Firefox. --Janke | Talk 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Chaos never looked so good. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-30 04:26

• Oppose, looks only good as a thumbnail. Did anyone besides Janke check out the fullsize? A pic like this should be done in SVG anyway, you'd get the antialiased lines for free. --Dschwen 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm working on an SVG version of a lorenz attractor which will not look pixelated. This is a work in progress, colors can and will be changed (changing hue with time as well). --Dschwen 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support SVG. --Dschwen 18:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Can't open easily in standard browser = I'm not bothering and neither will 90% of other users. --Deglr6328 01:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I already commented on your talk page, I cannot let this FUD stand here uncommented. MediaWiki converts it to png for viewing. Higher res and zoom in will be available for people with high res displays and modern browsers in the future. --Dschwen 09:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why its fud at all. I can't easily open the full resolution image in either IE or Firefox, therefore I won't support it. --Deglr6328 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Firefox 1.5 natively supports SVG. And a vectorbased format is just a little more farsighted. Anyway my FUD comment was a bit snappy, please excuse me. Peace, out. --Dschwen 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - while SVG is superior format for the image (wow, I discovered its so simple :-) its 2kx2k rendering by Wikimedia servers doesn't IMO look any better than the PNG image criticized for pixellation. Higher resoltuion SVG renderings look good only for those who are able to do it themselves. Images are interlinked so those who would use in some resolution-critical application can now easily find the SVG.

I believe both alternatives are illustrative and eye-catching as bitmap in resolutions commonly used on Wikipedia pages, so it won't hurt if both are featured. On the other hand IMO it would be a bit sad if both are rejected, one because of pixellation and not beeing SVG and the other for beeing SVG :-( According to WP:FP there are only 2 feautered pictures in matemathics and 4 in physics, so I would like to recommned those voting oppose to reconsider if their technical criteria aren't too strict. --Wikimol 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you are right. Apparently MediaWiki only renders it for the size given in the SVG source (500x500 in this case) and calculates other size by scaling the bitmap. I guess thats a matter of computing power. --Dschwen 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lorenz attractor yb.svg Raven4x4x 03:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf howling on glacial erratic

I uploaded this picture a few months ago when I was helping the Gray Wolf during a peer review/fac nomination. I was looking through the pictures I've uploaded today, and figured that this has potential to be an Featured Picture. So I decided to nominate it here for the approval of the voters. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Unfortunately, this photo is not very sharp. --Janke | Talk 09:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, this has no chance at all, it's too blurred - Adrian Pingstone
  • I did a touchup to the picture with photoshop, does that help at all? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Photo is unrecoverably blurry. Edit has noticeable artifacts. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - This photo *could* actually be recovered fairly well in photoshop.. just very skillfully. Don't worry about the rock being sharp.. because when you apply the sharpen filter to the entire image, you're just causing unnecessary damage to the entire thing. Just do a pixel-select on the wolf, sharpen it, then edit the contrast/levels to make the photo a little brighter and more attractive.. if I had photoshop on this machine I'd do one for you but unfortunately I do not. Good luck. Might change vote if the final edit looks better.
  • Comment You are incorrect about being able to recover the image in Photoshop. Using a sharpening filter does not add detail to the image; it enhances the detail already there. It is a powerful program, but it's not magical enough to defeat the laws of mathematics. All image processing programs use the equivalent of a "high pass filter" in signal processing to sharpen images. That is, it actually removes "low frequency" (subtle gradient) image information so that "high frequency" (edge) information is more apparent. Anyways, in this particular case, sharpening any part of the image, even just the wolf, makes the JPEG artifacts in the sharpened areas significantly more noticeable. They're already there in the original, they're just very subtle. To remove those artifacts, even with a custom artifact removal filter, the image processing software must do some guesswork that results in some blurring... which defeats the purpose of editing the image in the first place! ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Of course, you could edit it all by hand (with the paintbrush or something), but then it becomes more of a digital painting rather than a cleaned up photograph. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I didn't say you could add detail, but it certainly could be adjusted to look a little better. Even if not a featured picture, the actual image deserves cleaning up for its use in the article. I'm sorry I used the word "recover," I do realize that implies retrieving data that no longer (/never did) exist. Some good folks at Stanford (I think) have though figured out a way to adjust the depth-of-field after the picture has been taken, though it requires a special camera. very interesting stuff. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too grey, too boring, wolf is too small. Alr 22:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not bad, but not FP quality. I agree with the comments above about it being blurry; the edited version has simply enhanced the artifacts, especially near the wolf. Also, too much rock for my liking. enochlau (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Agree with enochlau --Fir0002 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blurry background is distracting, and it bothers me that so much of the wolf is obscured by the rocks. Camerafiend 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The wolf is much too small. It can barely be seen because of the rocks. Cobra 09:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, at first I thought the snowy rocks were the purpose of the picture... Wolf should definitely be focused in on.--ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 17:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Few images are a grand achievement in and of themselves. This is the grandest of those few. Eleven days' exposure reveals thousands of galaxies in a pinprick of sky. It is the deepest image ever taken in visible light, and the light from the most distant galaxies shows our universe over 13 billion years ago.

• Nominate and support. - HUDF 10:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• This photo is interesting - it does not show something visually spectacular compared to other space photos, but it *does* show the oldest visible object that we can see. I think that warrants a support. --vaeiou 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm afraid. I find this image not visually striking, shocking nor informative. Without the accompanying text it just looks like a collection of lights to me. Sorry. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think this image IS visually striking and highly informative WITH the accompanying text. If you actually open the image to full size it is obvious and immediately apparent that it is not a mere 'collection of lights' but is in fact full of galaxies each containing billions of stars, bright nearby stars and (likely) a few extremely distant quasars. Open the full image and look at it again, you are looking at an area of sky smaller than the area of your fingernail held at arms length. The image is not merely stunning, it is completely mindbending. --Deglr6328 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Even upon first sight this is obviously more than just lights or stars - it is human astronomy at its peak.
• Support. Agree that it is visually striking when viewed full size, particularly when, as Deglr6328 mentioned, you consider what each of the 'lights' are. I have uploaded an edit which has an adjusted black point, meaning the background is now darker and closer to what I image deep space looks like, and as far as I can tell, there is no major loss of detail as a result. The original, when viewed at 100%, has a washed out dark grey haze in the background which I assume is the due to the CCD's long exposure, not the light from the actual scene. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to stand corrected but I think my image is more 'correct' and visually pleasing. Comments? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support darkened version - the previous contributors have said it all - Adrian Pingstone 09:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support After all the problems with the original optics, Hubble can now go this deep into space. Fantastic image. --Janke | Talk 18:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support edit. I normally look askance at FP nominations where you need the text to understand why the pic is interesting, but this one is such an amazing pic that all other considerations go out the window! Nice noise reduction Diliff. I did download the max resolution (over 100MB) version of this pic from the source site with the intention of trying to do something about the background myself. On that version you can see that what was rendered as washed out gray in this smaller version was a noisy speckling of coloured pixels, mostly blue with some green and a little red. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - A pity Hubble isn't going to be repaired. A pity that 3 billion dollar total cost of Hubble is too much to renew - while we lose 9 billion per month to war. But I don't suppose the FPC page is the right place to get all political. Debivort 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking all you have done is point out a fact. It gets political when you take a side, which have not done. TomStar81 08:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, preference for the darkened version -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support edit. The sky is full of candy.--Eloquence* 03:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Snakes 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --TomStar81 08:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support The edited version is spectacular! --Ironchef8000 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Top stuff --Fir0002 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've always loved this photo. enochlau (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• User:JQF/Support second. It displays the complexity of the world beyond very nicely. JQF 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image: Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg Raven4x4x 05:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Juan Mountain Panorama

I think this image deserves FP status because it is a high-quality 360-degree panorama of a beautiful moutain range. It illustrates the great number of peaks in the San Juan Mountains, and the vistas available in their heights. The annotation names these peaks and gives their elevations without interfering with the image itself. The stitching of the panorama is pretty seamless IMHO. It is 4812 x 800 px, downsampled from ~24,000 x ~4,000. I took the pictures, stiched in Photoshop, and annotated in Illustrator. The image appears in the San Juan Mountains

• self-nominate and support. - Debivort 03:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Good work! One thing you really should do is to include mountain heights in meters, too - when that is done, I'll support! --Janke | Talk 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Two sets of numbers would make parts of it look too cluttered and difficult to read 24.11.71.242 15:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Not at all. Make one set white, the other yellow, or orange. No problem, there's room for both. Remember that the majority of people in the world use the metric system! --Janke | Talk 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with Janke. I will probably support regardless as it is a very good quality panorama, but it is typically americentric to not consider that there are other more widely used units of measurement outside the confines of the US. I'll try to keep it brief to avoid a rant. ;) I guess for the metric system to be included in the panorama/diagram, the annotations would have to be redesigned somewhat, assuming the author can be bothered and/or still has the original illustrator file to work with. I'd like to see that, however, as feet doesn't mean much to me either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Hello Diliff and Janke - I've made a metric version. Am working on uploading it now, but my wireless is down so I am relying on dial up. I've also increased the size of the actual photo so that the photo is now 800px high, rather than the whole thing being 800px high. Should be up at some point soon .... Debivort 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Great work, thanks Debivort. And the more photo resolution, the better! While we're talking, would you mind telling us what camera/lens/panorama stitching program you used to create it? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
          • All right. Having conquered slow connections and several accidental CMYK uploads, here is the higher-res metric version. The 11 portrait images comprising it were taken with a Nikon Coolpix 5600 (my normal Canon 20D was too bulky to take up the moutain), and stitched by hand in PhotoShop with manual geometric and color correction. Debivort 20:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: just magical. Raven4x4x 09:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Jaw dropping not only for image quality but also for informational content. Near perfect. --Deglr6328 21:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great work! Neutrality^talk
• Strong Support, especially if a higher resolution/metric version is uploaded. Now this is the kind of encyclopedic image that impresses me. ~MDD4696 07:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - outstanding - Adrian Pingstone 09:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support second. Outstanding. --vaeiou 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks Debivert - all my requests have now been satisfied. ;) Great panorama and very informative! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy promote. One of the best. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-29 01:03
• Comment. There is a slighthly annoying 'white line' in the west part of the image, (go to Wilson Massif and look up), it looks like a meteor or something. Prehaps someone would be able to remove it? --203.54.74.167 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Jet contrail. Could be easily removed. I'll do so if the consensus builds up. Debivort 04:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • My vote is "leave it alone". In this case, it doesn't really affect the scene, but I don't think its distracting or annoying either. We've been through this a few times recently and I think the consensus is that unless it detracts significantly, it should be left unedited as it would be a misrepresentation of reality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree--don't remove it. ~MDD4696 18:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wholehearted support, now that there is metric info, too. Superbly encyclopedic! (Re. that contrail - removing it wouldn't be messing with reality, since sometimes you have them, sometimes not. Removing a mountain peak, well, that would be a "misrepresentation"... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This is an excellent addition to the wikipedia! This kind of information really makes the wikipedia stand out as a very high-quality work, in some places far better than other works like the Brittanica Encyclopedia. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This image is too big to be opened in my browser (Netscape 7.0); I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem. I think it is important to remember that Wikipedia needs to be accessible to users with older, lower-end systems too. It is not all that long ago that this image would have been heavily criticised for its size. Could we perhaps have an image about a quarter the size of this one? Denni ☯ 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • An alternate version can be provided for less capable browsers, but Wikipedia is mainly about articles, not images. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-30 04:23
• Support - wow TomStar81 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. We need more FPs like this, with actual encyclopedic information in them (as opposed to just being pretty). —Cryptic (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I definately second this. Nice work! --Dschwen 12:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support metric one -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support very nice --rogerd 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice. --Snakes 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very informational, and lovely photo too. Camerafiend 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• I absolutely love it (the bottom is fantastic!) Renata3 05:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Definitely one of the best --Fir0002 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful subject, well photographed, but the annotation makes it for me - WP should have a lot more informative pictures like this. --Surgeonsmate 06:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. enochlau (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wikimol 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great picture, very informative. Only complaint could be the border... is there a way to make that nicer? (smaller?) gren グレン 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image: Telluride Panorama annotated metric3.jpg Raven4x4x 05:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plumed Basilisk Portrait

Portrait of the plumed basilisk

• Nominate and support. - cele4 19:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment People may also be interested in checking out commons:Image:Stirnlappenbasilisk3cele4.jpg by cele4. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not used on an article. Even if it was used on Plumed Basilisk, it would be largely redundant with Image:Plumedbasiliskcele4 edit.jpg, which is already an FP. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The other image Finlay mentioned also shows part of the thing on its back. The only way I'm going to support another Plumed Basilisk is if it's shown in its entirety, not just its head. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question What do you think of the commons image I linked above? Still not enough of the lizard? ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • comment Now, portrait such an animal is find interesting I one sees the individual sheds as well as perfectly the eye range sowas not therefore surely sees one on a complete body picture an interesting admission (translated with babel fish)cele4 06:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I am trying to find a better way for Cele4 to communicate with us... he only speaks German! Unfortunately it seems that Babelfish doesn't do a very good job. ~MDD4696 07:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 00:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support I like love it. --Kilo-Lima 13:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose not used in any article and we just had a niced FP for Plumed Basilisk, which shows more of the critter and which I like slightly more than this and the linked pic. (fuer cele4, es wurde gerade ein etwas besseres Bild eines Stirnlappen Basilisken gefeatured. Das vorgeschlagene Bild wird auch keinem Artikel auf en.wp.org verwendet, und das ist Voraussetzung fuer ein FPC!) --Dschwen 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, too dark, and not as good as the already featured pic -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The other picture is better. Cobra 09:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose nice image, but i like commons image mentioned above better --rogerd 03:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current FP is nicer, and shows more of the animal. enochlau (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zion Angels Landing

Created by Diliff. It's simply magnificent. Excellent composition and filter use. It appears in Zion National Park and Graduated neutral density filter. Many other great shots are created by the same photographer is well.

• Nominate and support. - antilived ^{T | C} 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Amazing...«LordViD» 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support per nomination... I can't find the words to describe it! ~MDD4696 07:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• The valley appears a little too dark to me, but it may be my monitor: I'm using a different one than I usually do. If others have no problems with darkness, then support - a stunning picture. Zafiroblue05 07:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although I would prefer it a little bit less saturated to give it a more natural look. Glaurung 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -a little too dark (even allowing for the sunset), strange colours (again , allowing for the sunset), not great focus. Sorry to seem so negative - Adrian Pingstone 08:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What image are you looking at? ;) What do you mean a little too dark even allowing for the sunset? Sunsets almost always have bright skies and very dark foreground shadows due to the angle of the light. The scene is pretty well balanced under the circumstances, due to the use of the ND filter. It would look completely fake if the valley shadows were lifted up any more than they already do. Also, the focus is fine. It is actually a panorama of three 6 megapixel images taken with a Canon 10D and stitched vertically. With some overlap, that means around 12 megapixels. It just doesn't look at all blurry to me. Finally, the colours are reasonably natural - a warming filter was applied to the sky so the colours are slightly 'rose-tinted' so to speak, but aside from that, the colours look fine to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm looking at your Zion Angels image, of course! Yes, the focus is fine, I removed the focus comment on a previous edit so I can't understand why it's still there. I stand on my colour and darkness comments because I still see an unnatural look that is impossible to explain in words. Be assured my comments are genuine and considered. But what does all this matter , I see you have support from everyone else at my time of writing this :-) Adrian Pingstone 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great - looks almost like it's been 3D computer rendered, such vibrant colours and caught with the perfect degree of natural light. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support So real; it looks fake! --Kilo-Lima 13:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice! --Janke | Talk 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, impressive. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great composition. Phoenix2 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Like the colors and balanced exposure. Great Picture. --Dschwen 16:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful image. Denni ☯ 20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks like the painted backdrop for a bad western. Mark¹ 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Beauticious. Cobra 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Rogerd/Support Great image --rogerd 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice. Camerafiend 16:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, of course. I would prefer a version with a lower JPEG compression, as there are some visible artifacts, especially in the clouds and in the clouds/mountain transition (zoom in to see them clearly).--Eloquence* 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --TomStar81 08:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Incredible picture. --Ironchef8000 21:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I thought for a while on this one but couldn't decide either way. It's a good photo because of the difficulty of the capture (getting the nice exposure), but I agree with Mark¹, it's oversaturated and looks fake. I would upload an edit but with your response to my other edits I think I'll leave it up to you. --Fir0002 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you responding to me? ;) I didn't submit this photo for FPC so I guess you should be talking to someone else. But I agree that it could do with some adjustment. I could go back to the original images but I'm not at my usual computer right now and that sort of thing is difficult right now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've uploaded an adjusted version. Please tell me what you think. --antilived ^{T | C} 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd support it - It is slightly desaturated without losing the sunset colours that the original has. It seems to have come too late in the FPC process though.... thanks anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great image. Thryduulf 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. enochlau (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Zion angels landing view.jpg Raven4x4x 05:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dried Paprika

This is my first nomination for a FP - I saw the pic in the Paprika article and thought it's beautiful and adds significantly to the article - hence the nomination.

• Nominate and support. - Dunemaire 11:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And for the record, I prefer the no-head version myself Dunemaire 16:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Focus isn't quite as sharp as it could be, some of the reflections in the center bunch are a bit distracting, and the woman's head in the background is a minus. These are all minor issues, though. —Cryptic (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - Uploaded an edit... not sure if I support it yet though. Still blurry. But, I adjusted the contrast and color levels to make it a little more appealing. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Woman's head spoils the image; colors in edited image are oversaturated and highlights are blown out. Denni ☯ 20:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice job of photoshopping out the head. Contrast and saturation are much better in this version. Support
• Comment - Here's version 2.0 without the woman's head and with the highlights toned down. Dunemaire 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Problems with focus, graininess and compression artefacts are serious and the subject matter is not sufficiently novel to overlook them.--Deglr6328 01:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - Yes it's fine now, but the focus isn't the best. If, somehow, it is fixed, I'd gladly change my vote. --Kilo-Lima 16:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support only for version without head. Oppose otherwise. TestPilot 03:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose not really stunning, the bunches are cut at the top and what is that thing in the top right corner? Plus I strongly oppose photo manipulation. Happy New Year. --Dschwen 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - top right corner is distracting. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support it looks okay to me. --Snakes 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like Edit #1 If you could just get rid of the head. Version 2.0 is just too orange. --Ironchef8000 21:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I find the response to this photo, and in particular the edits quite interesting. When I removed a leaf from Diliff's photo there was a huge outcry against it. But here, a persons head is being removed with actual encouragement and compliments (the response I would give), perhaps this discussion should be continued on the FPC talk page and a definite resolution be made --Fir0002 07:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a message about this to the talk page, so future discussion on this issue should take place there. Raven4x4x 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Focus and the thing on the top right. enochlau (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single-phase transformer

I created this and thought it might be worth a try here. The diagram is currently illustrating transformer and shows the magnetic flux linkage in a stylised single-phase two-winding transformer.

• Nominate and support. - BillC 20:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A nice image, illustrating the article very well. -- Vidarlo 23:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, great diagram but very boring. Needs some color. Neutrality^talk 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per above. Neutral for the colored version, which is good indeed for the article, but not a striking enough graphic for a FP. Also, I think the secondary current should go outwards - looks a bit funny with the arrow pointing inwards... --Janke | Talk 21:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Conventionally, in a 'two-port network' as is shown here, current is defined as positive for flows into the device. But aesthetically, yes, it looks better pointing outwards (see pic #3), and this is also common for textbook descriptions of transformers. --BillC 11:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support - illustrates the article just perfectly, the lack of colour doesn't bother me - Adrian Pingstone 10:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Alternative colour version Image:Transformer3d col.svg on right. --BillC 13:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks a lot better. moderate support because it illustrates the article well. --vaeiou 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• I like the red and blue wiring a lot, but the yellow text is hard to read at thumbnail size. —Cryptic (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Third version Image:Transformer3d col3.svg loaded on right, having coloured the core to steel-grey, reversed the arrow on the secondary current, and changed the flux and text to green. I'll let this be the final version I upload. --BillC 11:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support the coloured version. It is nicer than the bw. --Vidarlo 12:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'll support this one. Thank you for your responsiveness. (The text is still slightly unclear here, but not when resized to 400px, as in the article.) —Cryptic (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: it's the best picture of a transformer I've ever seen, it's very clear and the last colored version is very nice. Alessio Damato 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support the third version. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Is the green line with arrow misleading as to the magnetic flux? The way it's drawn seems to suggest that there is a changing magnetic flux only in the metallic part, which is incorrect (it's everywhere). I know it's hard to illustrate it being everywhere, but one could be misled that flux is some kind of "stuff" that only "flows" along the transformer core. enochlau (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The diagram shows an idealised transformer, that is one with no core or copper losses, and one in which primary and secondary windings have perfect mutual coupling. There is an article (and diagram) at leakage inductance, which illustrates the effect of imperfect coupling you refer to. --BillC 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Support third version. enochlau (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - good diagram, but very bland for a FP. Renata3 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• support diagrams (prefer 3rd version). It sounds odd, but it would be even better if you could provide a reference for the image Broken S 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Now done (on 3rd version). --BillC 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Transformer3d col3.svg Raven4x4x 05:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malta Knights.jpg

unusual well-defined photo. It was taken at Fort Saint Elmo, Valetta, Malta, on 8 May 2005 by User:Briangotts. It appears in the articles Knights Hospitaller and History of Malta.

• Nominate and support. - Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, sorry. The image is not stunning, unfocused, and the three heads at the bottom really destroy it. «LordViD» 14:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Oppose Sorry, the heads destroy the image. --Kilo-Lima 16:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above comments. Alr 01:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per LordViD. Cobra 09:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's leaning - Adrian Pingstone 12:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose it looks like they are just standing around, waiting for something to happen. It would have been better if the if they had been doing some demonstration or some kind of military formation. Also, the three heads detract.

Point of fact - The commandante is conducting a troop review. This is part of the "demonstration or military formation" --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Washed out ground, tilted, and distracting heads in foreground. The lack of action makes it uninteresting. Camerafiend 16:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - tilted. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Busy, blurry, tilted, out of focus. --Ironchef8000 21:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose As above --Fir0002 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slightly corrected version. I still have no view on whether I support it or oppose it, so this is not a vote. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Their faces and the front of their bodies are in shadow, which makes it harder to see the details. enochlau (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Impact Probe Collision

This is an image of a high velocity copper impactor striking the surface of comet Tempel 1 creating drastic brightening that lasted for hours afterward. Created by the Deep Impact space mission on July 4th., it is perhaps the most striking scientific image of 2005. --Deglr6328 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Deglr6328 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support good image of unusual occurance --rogerd 22:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment What causes the ripples that apear in the left? Debivort 02:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • When DI flew, it carried (I think) one of the largest telescopes ever on a deep space mission. In designing the telescope, the engineers basically have to guess at how the composite materials that make up the optics design will behave in 0g and with highly varying temperatures of space. They guessed a little wrong and the optical path that light took through the telescope was either a little longer or shorter (can't remember) than anticipated. This can be corrected for however, using a mathematical transformation on the resultant blurry images returned in order to recover most of the lost resolution. This is called optical deconvolution and though it worked very well in this case it is not perfect and it causes some artefacts. I strongly suspect that is the reason behind the fringing effects seen in the image. The small dark rings seen in the lower part of the plume are from dust on the telescope's lenses. --Deglr6328 06:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think Debivort was just talking about the lines in the left-center of the image; looks like some artifacts. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 06:39
• Support. Striking image! (excuse the pun). --Janke | Talk 15:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious supportCirceus 19:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 06:39
• Support, though I wonder if we can get a bigger version. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps later when the full dataset is released to the NASA PDS. The benefit will be negligible though. Thee CCD on DI is a 1024 x 1024 Split Frame Transfer type and this image is already 900 X 900.--Deglr6328 07:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Stunning image. enochlau (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A marvelous image. Greatigers 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• support Amazing image that i am convinced will draw a lot of people toward it --Ali K 15:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Deep_Impact_HRI.jpeg Raven4x4x 05:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Clearwater

••***...whatever... this image despite some of it's shortcomings evokes further images of maybe ... a beach house down by the shore, a small jetty and row-boat, sunsets on evening strolls and picnics, a lazy afternoon/evening fishing with BBQ's and friends - bird-watching and digiscoping with that new Zeiss scope T* coated BUT hold on... is there broadband here? Peace then and a much slower pace. A lot of time to work on another picture for these pages. Maybe try and PhotoShop this picture so it will please every person's eyes that trace these pages... I don't think the person who took this pictures really cares too much what we think - we all have different agendas and dreams. Now where's my rod and digicsope?

This picture is a very beautiful capture of Lake Clearwater, Ontario, Canada. It is crisp and very pretty.

• Nominate and support. - Mike 22:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspect people will find it washed out and a bit out of focus. Debivort 02:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Explain?Mike 03:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose - The colours look bleached (pale), and the picture is not as sharp as it could be. EvilStorm 1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lake_Clearwater&action=edit&section=10:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've seen far better lake shots, and besides, the focus of the photo seems to be that tree, rather than the lake itself. I also agree with what Debivort said. —DO'Neil 06:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sadly, no, my breath is in fact, not taken.--Deglr6328 06:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I guess I have a unique sense of beauty. Love the sarcasm, Deglr6382. Mike 08:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nowhere near FP standard, crisp (by which I mean in focus) it most certainly is not, uninteresting, low contrast - Adrian Pingstone 09:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As mentioned above, the colors are washed out and the contrast is very low. Camerafiend 16:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose washed out. Circeus 19:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you could photoshop it to make the colors a bit more vivid and the picture more crisp, I would vote to support. --Ironchef8000 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Pretty ordinary --Fir0002 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose. The original isn't crisp enough and the edit is too saturated. Thryduulf 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mike.. don't let all these opposes get you down, k? The edit is unbelievably over-saturated.. both versions are unfortunately not crisp at all. Also poor composition with the tree right there. Consider the thirds rule. This also appears to be taken with either a camera phone or a 35mm (or disposable) and scanned in at a low dpi. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This picture was indeed taken with a disposable camera and scanned at (300DPI?). I never intended it to be a featured picture candidate, just a pretty picture. silsor 14:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above. enochlau (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-16 Fighting Falcons above New York City

• Nominate and support. --Neutrality^talk 18:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support good image --rogerd 22:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is a beautiful photo, but it adds nothing at all to the only article it's in, New York City. It might be better at Thunderbirds (squadron), but that article is already ridiculously image-heavy. —Cryptic (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• It leans to the left a bit for me, and might benefit from a bit of down-sampling to sharpen up some of the in-focus features, like the planes. Will likely support. Debivort 02:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now that issues are fixed Debivort 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Great. --Kilo-Lima 15:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Nice picture, but definitely appears tilted. I'm also not sure it significantly contributes to the New York City article. Camerafiend 18:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The towers in the background make a beautiful contrast with the planes in the foreground. A true collage of human-build stuff.SoothingR 22:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've uploaded an edited version of the image (rotated to correct tilt, increased contrast) and added the edit to the Air show page. I think it's a great addition to that page. ~MDD4696 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've uploaded the modified version over the original on the Commons. ~MDD4696 05:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with SoothingR. —DO'Neil 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support now that the issues have been resolved. Camerafiend 16:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the dark sky and some of the blurred buildings distract from the photo. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too gloomy. I prefer cheerful or striking pictures. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should feature your signature ;-) --Dschwen 21:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support I like the image. I think it illustrates the airshow article quite well. --Ironchef8000 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like the background. Renata3 05:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Any version. Great action shot, although still a little bit noisy/lacking in sharpness --Fir0002 06:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support The second shown version. (#2?) very nice capture. Also the angle shows the formation well.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 07:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Shows its subject matter well. The buildings, while busy, provide context and don't detract much from the subject. enochlau (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Sarah Ewart 13:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Duran^talk I prefer the second one, it looks pretty neat. 21:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  Thx for the cool sig Ukdragon :P

Promoted Image:F-16 Fighting Falcons above New York City(2).jpg Raven4x4x 07:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White's tree frog

I found out that my last photo for White's tree frog was up for Featured Picture candidacy after it had been disapproved. I didn't particularly like the image (for technical reasons, the frog is beautiful), but most of the opposition was for image size, of which I have updated since. Someone should have told me it was up. I have been trying to get an improved image for ages, and then I found this one that lives on/near my house. This was the best photo I took. Appears in White's tree frog, and taken by liquidGhoul 06:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

• Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 06:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks great! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-2 06:32
• Support, good use of surroundings. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks good and has relevance to its article. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 16:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yay!! We've had a couple of frogs turned down recently and I've been hoping a really exceptional one would come along. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nice work. --Kilo-Lima 20:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice picture. Colors are especially nice. --Ironchef8000 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice work --Fir0002 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Looks a lot better than the last one of this frog i nominated. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice photo. The frog is nicely framed, while still looking natural. JQF 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit - That's much better! Doesn't make me fell nose to nose with the frog. JQF 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support ooo! that is an exceptional picture. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Nice and clear, but it's a little too tightly cropped for my liking. enochlau (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I can easily fix that. I will now. --liquidGhoul 11:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done --liquidGhoul 12:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support new version. enochlau (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support the edit. Renata3 05:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the new version, yup Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edited better DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support second, much better! --Dschwen 07:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version Eyesclosed 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support second Julien 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Caerulea3 crop.jpg Raven4x4x 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turbulence

I think it is a fascinating illustration to the turbulence article.

• Nominate and support. - Circeus 02:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, looks good, but it is difficult to understand exactly what it is. If you look in the article, the submarine picture provides a clearer definition for turbulence. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Reflection on water is disturbing. It took me some time to see what this picture represented Glaurung 07:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - The reflection is mainly the off-putting thing, and as with Glaurung, above, it also took me sometime to actually understand what it was. --Kilo-Lima 20:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I still cannot figure out exactly what it is, or from what angle the picture was taken. The top is alright, but the bottom is blurry and rather unpleasant looking. --Ironchef8000 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Agree with Ironchef8000 --Fir0002 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks pretty, but like the others, I can't make heads or tails of it. enochlau (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as above. I think the image would be a lot clearer if the photographer had been a bit farther back from the subject. As is, it looks like an abstract photograph. --jackohare 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like it but the general consensus seems to be against it. Oh well. sikander 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral If none of us can figure it out, how does it help the article..? Perhaps there should be a more explanatory caption.
• Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Featured picture has to be distinguishable in context as well as out of context. Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wingtip vortex

I just ran across this photo and thought it was an extremely striking and effective visualization of wingtip vortices. It's certainly an unusual image of a subject that is difficult to photograph. Perhaps you'll agree.

• Nominate and support. -- uberpenguin 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, shame its so fuzzy. Also, i almost think theres too much red, it barely seems like a vortex at all until you look carefully. Im on the fence on this. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 06:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Pretty cool pic, but I have some problems with the quality. Have uploaded an edit, but I'm not sure I'll support yet. --Fir0002 06:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's horrible at high quality and pretty burned out and dirty at any resolution. The colour looks overstated, too. Not good enough for FP in my opinion even if it is a rare pic. I do like the shot though and I'd support if a better quality version could be found. ~ Veledan • Talk 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Wikimol 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• 

  

   Weak Support
    I like the edit.. a clearer picture would of course be better, but this is still cool. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The image isn't all that appealing. There's too much red, and it's not that grand of a vortex. --JPM 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per JPM. enochlau (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. This is a really neat picture, but I wish it was clearer. --jackohare 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose bad quality and I don't get it. Renata3 05:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but just. Sometimes, image clairity has to take a back seat to showing what an article is talking about. --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the last vote, that sometimes hard-to-capture phenomena have to sacrifice a little picture quality. But it's one of my all-time favorite aerodynamics pictures, and captures some fascinating and beautiful behavior in a striking way. Aerodave 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think some people are a bit spoiled by noisefree digital photos taken under optimal conditions. The quality here is not that bad. Properly some compromises was made to get more detail. This is a truly amazing photo. --195.184.122.26 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yes, image quality sucks big time, but it's really interesting. Eyesclosed 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• support I agree with jackohare (and others) --Treffer 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Airplane vortex edit.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow

A striking image - great composition and colours. Copyright by Dmitry Azovtsev and used in Wikipedia with permission, appears in the Moscow, Red Square and History of Moscow articles.

• Nominate and support. - → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like the background. --Kilo-Lima 20:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The detail is really good and the colors are stunning. Nice Picture --Ironchef8000 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, what a pitty it is cut at the bottom. Looks irritating this way. It is used in the red square article but not a single brick of the square is on the pic ;-) --Dschwen 21:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true it could've been cropped better at the bottom — you see only the heads of people, but not the square itself. I think cutting it a bit higher would be appropriate, I might even give it a try tomorrow, but I don't find it a problem we can't deal with. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I really like the lighting, colors, and crisp focus of this image. I too am a little concerned about the cropping, though, and would like to see an alternative version. Camerafiend 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support I like it --Fir0002 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent color and detail, don't think it needs to be cropped higher.--Dakota ~ ε 18:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Here's the cropped image I promised, It wasn't as easy as I expected and I guess it could be done better, but anyway, I hope you like it :) → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 19:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Uhm, well, I was kind of aiming for the opposite direction :-), showing more at the bottom. --Dschwen 22:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well... you can't actually reveal what was left out of the borders of a photo :) Achieving what you want is almost impossible, involving very good photoshopping skills, a whole bunch of suitable Red Square photos from the same position, possibly some talent in digital drawing and a load of free time — and it would be just a collage, not the real photo that was taken. So forget about it :P → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support both - I'm not bothered by the heads. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support first. The second has a cut look at the bottom, while the second has more of a natural look to it. JQF 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately St. Basil's Cathedral is in a very poor spot in the photo. The sky in the center weighs too heavily on the composition and St. Basil being so low down completely batters it. If there's a version with more space to the left, upload it. Also its very low res and you cannot see much detail of the buildings.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The lighting on St. Basil's Cathedral is too weak, and the middle of the picture is too empty. As for the edit, cropping it higher is unnecessary. Edit: Forgot to sign, doing it now --JPM 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The positioning of the buildings is not ideal to illustrate them in any real way. Too much of the buildings are in shadow. enochlau (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Small image size, large very underexposed areas, poor compo. --Deglr6328 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I think it was actually better before the crop, but even then the image composition is a bit awkward. A different angle would help, I think. There is a big empty space in the middle of the image. --jackohare 18:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The crop was a complete misunderstanding, the opposite of what I wanted. I'd support a retake with less sky and more red square.--Dschwen 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was a misunderstanding, as other people actually suggest cropping it higher, and you retaking is impossible... → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean retaking is impossible? But the red square is still there, is it? So the pic can be retaken, if not by you then by someone else. Like this I cannot support it. --Dschwen 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support I like uncropped version a bit better, but both are interesting. Eyesclosed 20:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apache Wickiup

Highly-detailed photograph of an Apache wickiup, taken in 1903 by the famous photographer Edward S. Curtis. It shows in detail the structure, art, and pottery characteristic of the Apache tribes.

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 11:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Beautiful! support. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 06:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Sorry, but I don't find it all that special --Fir0002 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - very detailed. Colors would have been nice :) Renata3 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. The rest of the picture seems a bit busy to me. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Still neutral. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the *copyright* is 1903, the other date is 1898. This is actually quite interesting since it still appears to be in use.. which makes it a pretty rare photograph, I'd assume. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That isn't a date, it says 898, apparently photograph number 898. The LOC entry says Curtis no. 898. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-6 06:55
• Oppose. Same as Fir0002. enochlau (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, neat. What a quality photo to have come from 1903! Good even by today's standards (color issues aside). --jackohare 18:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support In general not very stunning, but it was taken in 1903! DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've modified the original image to make the wickiup stand out from the background, and changed the contrast a bit. Better? Worse? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-12 06:15

Promoted Image:Apache Wickiup, Edward Curtis, 1903.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiral Notebook

I took this picture of a spiral notebook. The spiral is really cool. It is on the "Spiral" page.

• Nominate and support. - Rkstiner 00:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think it would look a lot better if the part that was closest to us was in focus. I'd also like a greater depth of field. --vaeiou 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a neat picture, but it illustrates the spiral rather poorly. It is also far too small for FP status. ~MDD4696 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - too small. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't really illustrate a spiral at all since you can't see the entire structure. Nice photography but not encyclopaedic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, artsy fartsy, not encyclopedic, and too small. --Dschwen 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unremarkable, non-illustrative.--Deglr6328 07:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Technically speaking, this is a helix, not a spiral. But regardless of what article it belongs in, the photo is too small and doesn't illustrate the concept very well. Camerafiend 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Too small, but I'd probably support a higher res version --Fir0002 23:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose does not show the structure of a spiral.. nor does it show the function of it. Not sure how you would manage showing the function of the spiral in a picture.. but eh. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Attractive, but doesn't quite do its job on an encyclopedia. enochlau (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small and while I do like it, I don't see it as serving much of a purpose on an encyclopedia... unless it somehow represents a style of photography. gren グレン 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - almost unencyclopedic. Doesn't show the entire notebook, or even the entire 'spiral' part. Great quality photo, but not at all belonging as a Featured Picture. Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd support if it was higher res. Eyesclosed 20:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cows in green field

I like the strong rural themes in this photo. Rotated version didn't seem to be as popular on the commons, but I'll leave it up to you to decide.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Colorful, impressive environment. Houses in background show it's level with the horizon. No rotation needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rotated version anyway, for picky people. Not me, I Support either. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate your zeal and large "improved" template, if you read what I intially said I already have a rotated version. Yours is lower res and has the mountain cropped out. --Fir0002 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Yours... has the mountain cropped out." Eh? Not from here it doesn't... Anyway, that's fine, I'll just IfD the rotation. And, even if you don't like my efforts, I'd appreciate it if you didn't replace my pictures for me. As you said, I didn't read properly, and a rotated version was already supplied. I'll still Support the original. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 12:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support either. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-5 20:42
• Support either. I like how it's captured the mountains in the background. Really adds to it. JQF 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Actually, the house in the background show that it was not level with the horizon. The rotated version makes the house level. Although the rotated version is more "correct" (I think?) the tilted version seems more natural to me, for some reason. Both are great! ~MDD4696 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The house is actually not completely level in either image. The thing that everyone is perhaps forgetting is the effect of perspective. The edge of the field is extending diagonally along the photo because it is moving further away, and will therefore appear to be sloping. There is no horizon to refer to so it is impossible to know for sure exactly what 'level' is in this case though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - What a pleasant scene! The two cows facing the camera on the left look like they were pasted there or something.. though I'm assuming they weren't. Not sure why it looks like that to me. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Magical. I think the rotation is a little over the top though - maybe somewhere in between the two. enochlau (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the first one. Sarah Ewart 13:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Masterfully done.--Deglr6328 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support second, oppose first Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support da first one. --Darwinek 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the first ver. Eyesclosed 20:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support second - there's a teensy bit more sky, which balances the composition nicely. --Janke | Talk 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful and yet so simple. My only problem is that it isn't the right dimensions for a computer wallpaper. - YB 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cows in green field - nullamunjie olive grove03.jpg Raven4x4x 02:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Binoculars

This image of a pair of binoculars is used in the former article, and was uploaded to Commons by Neutrality. Depicting a set of binoculars, a ship and helicopter can be seen in the reflection on the lenses.

• Nominate and support. - Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great image, very illustrative. The lense reflection of the ship and helicopter really adds some precious detail and, umm, makes it interesting :) → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 22:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: A beatiful picture, but I do not see a source on the picture’s page. TomStar81 10:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  After Googling the comment, I've added a source to the Commons page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Unconditional Support Awesome shot. TomStar81 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Tom. This needs a source as well as a copyright tag. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  See above. I'm not sure what you mean by it needs a copyright tag - there appears to be one already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Also seems to work as a stereogram. If you cross your eyes until you see a complete third lens in the middle, and make sure your head is level so that the two lenses overlap, eventually it will come in focus and appear as a 3D image of the ship and helicopter. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-5 20:34
• ( + ) Support Great image. Dunno about the effect Brian discribed though, didn't seem to work for me - probably just can't cross my eyes enough :-) --Fir0002 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The reflection in the binoculars makes for an awesome photo, as it helps sets the scene and provides context. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the reflection.. a lot. Also good for implicating what the device is used for.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I love the reflections. enochlau (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Sarah Ewart 13:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Going against the tide on this one, but the binoculars itself are not sharp, and while the reflection looks nice it does not really stand out to me. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Renata3 05:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It is a bit too tightly cropped for my liking. Ah, and Brian, thanks for the headache ;-) --Dschwen 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Great shot, great idea... I think it has too many problems with fuzzy, etc. However, this is too unique for me to want to oppose like I have for others with the same problems. gren グレン 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Intresting perspective. PPGMD 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great! Hessam 06:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Navy binoculars.jpg Raven4x4x 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nez Perce warrior on horse

I uploaded this several months ago and forgot about it. Titled "The old-time warrior--Nez Percé", photographed by Edward S. Curtis, and used in Nez Perce.

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I like the image, but the drab sky detracts from it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the emptiness of the sky? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-5 01:00
    • Yes, that's what bothers me - I like the large amoung of sky, but the emptiness does detract from the overall quality of the picture, in my opinion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support- I like it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support- It's very iconic, although it could probably be cropped to focus more on the warrior. JQF 21:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Wow, that picture is very clear for the time at which it was taken. Very detailed. Any 'dedrabbing' of the sky would require the image to be colored, unfortunately b&w photos just don't have much adjusting potential.. though adjusting the contrast might improve it slightly. --The above unsigned vote was made by Drumguy8800
• Support. Stunning. enochlau (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support.The picture remains clear under high resolution. Superb image.--Dakota ~ ε 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Darwinek 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Nez Perce warrior on horse.jpg Raven4x4x 02:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clyde Dam

This pic was taken by User:Tristanb. I accidently discovered it and I like it. It's a great picture of a dam. It's not for nature lovers, but it shows how a dam works.

• Nominate and support. - Renata3 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, not too stunning, and the striped hills in the left-hand corner (effect of camera?) detracts. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Impressive. TomStar81 10:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• New version, now with a Support. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! Thanks. Renata3 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Flcelloguy. Alr 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It adds to the article, but it isn't exactly visually striking. Maybe if it demonstrated something the dam did functionally in an interesting way, it would be FPC material. Higher res might also help. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:drumguy8800. enochlau (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's ugly, the dam isn't exceptional and the image isn't the best quality. - Blake's Star 16:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Supportthe second version. It is a sharp image and it is in an article which helps.--Dakota ~ ε 10:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not striking enough to be a FP. Eyesclosed 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Spot

Even though it is a diseased leaf, I think it looks nice. Also illustrates all the stages of the disease: yellow, black and completely dead tissue.; Features in Black Spot, and was created by liquidGhoul.

• Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Yes it's clear and probably illustrates the topic well, but the backgournd and subject matter are poor. --Fir0002 07:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I can understand the background, though I personally don't mind it, but what do you mean by "the subject matter [is] poor." --liquidGhoul 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I was reffering to the fact that it hardly grips the audience with fascination. Mundane. Certainly the actual leaf demonstrates the disease well but thats about it. --Fir0002 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - the fuzzy background detracts. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It isn't really that crisp, for some reason. I know it *looks* clear but it really isn't that easy on the eyes, for some reason. Not enough contrast? The Background? dunno.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not striking. enochlau (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. ACK. --Dschwen 11:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mundane --Deglr6328 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Eyesclosed 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  New user. Only edits are on FPC.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal Twilight Panorama

This image newly appears on the Montreal page, as I took it earlier today. This is actually a 5 segment by 3 row panorama stitched in landscape format. It is one of my highest resolution (9118x2774!) panoramas yet and I'm pretty happy with the results. View at 100% to appreciate the details available (beware the file size however :/ - ~8mb).

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I love the "busyness". --Kilo-Lima 15:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Awesome! Tell us, how did you stitch this? (I'm curious, since I'm into panoramic photography myself, I even own a rotating-lens camera...) --Janke | Talk 17:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I used a program called PTGui and a blending plugin called Smartblend to aid in smoothing any vignetting/exposure differences (although there shouldn't be any differences as I use the same white balance/exposure settings for each frame obviously). Works very well. :) There is a demo version of PTGui available but it places an annoying watermark on the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• You said it a large file size - no more. From 8Mb to 3.7Mb. And that puts me with a Very {{User:Vanderdecken/StrongSupport}} for either pic - amazing level of detail. The only reason I didn't go smaller than 3Mb was that I was afraid I'd lose all of the fantastic detail, like the folders lying on a desk in the central office block. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I thought you were joking about the folders on the desk until I downloaded the whole image in all its glory. --Surgeonsmate 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-5 20:46
• ( + ) Support Well done Diliff. Only tiny complaint is that there is probably too much out-of-focus branches in the foreground - a little is good for the scene but IMO there is too much. But spectacular and definetly FP material --Fir0002 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good stuff. Alr 00:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support of course. Raven4x4x 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Incredible image with amazing sharpness and detail, FP definitely. Camerafiend 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 03:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great image, however I don't support the lower resolution version. That's what the preview page is for. ~MDD4696 03:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Sarah Ewart 13:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Echoing MDD's comments.--Deglr6328 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - TomStar81 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but we do not need the low res, the server scales it down automatically -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. I have a little problem with the huge Improved by Vanderecken box for just resaving it at higher compression, so my support goes to the original only. --Dschwen 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We're commenting on the image, not the description page. I agree that box was a bit large, I downsized it yesterday. And also, please try to spell my name right. Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V are two very simple key combinations. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. Wow. enochlau (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very nice, and I'd give it a "good image" if there was one... but, I'm not sure that it's the best time or location of a panorama of Montreal. So many good pictures coming in lately, that I'm not sure it matches up to all of the competition. (Also, keep the largest size image they say) gren グレン 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What time/location would you suggest? Mount Royal is well known as being a great lookout onto downtown Montreal, and as far as the time goes, I can show you a similar panorama that I took a couple of hours earlier in the day from that very spot, and I don't think it is nearly as striking[3]. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Darwinek 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --TomStar81 02:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Impresive! Andrew₁₈ ^@ 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg Raven4x4x 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis and Clark expedition map

The famous historic map created by Lewis and Clark, detailing their expedition across northwest America, which forever changed mapping of the U.S. Among collectors, this map has become quite valuable, and even modern copies of it are expensive. The image had to remain large for all of the text to be readable. Currently used in Lewis and Clark Expedition.

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Shame its so small though.  :0) --Deglr6328 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Strongly Oppose Yes, the map is famous and very articulate, but the image itself is as captivaging and aesthetically pleasing as a 4 year old's doodle on gray paper with black markers until it's enlarged -- and when it's enlarged it's simply too big, and for anyone not intending to print it out it is useless. --JPM 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  Above user has 10 edits.

  • This is Wikipedia FPC, not Commons FPC. The point of the Featured Pictures here is to illustrate an article well, which a map of the Lewis and Clark Expedition would do for said article, besides its historical value. See for example the first photograph, which isn't very pleasing to the eye, but has great historical value. That's why it became Featured. You say that the map is large, and thus useless. I would say that if it was shrunk to where none of the text is readable, that would render the map useless. Isn't that the purpose of maps, to be read? In any case, we have similarly large (or larger) images already, so I don't think this is pushing it. It is necessary for the image to be this large, so "too large" seems a bit subjective/unfounded. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-7 01:08
    • I see you to your point on the Wikipedia FPC/Commons FPC idea. I should clarify: yes, there are larger images that have been featured, but they don't all have text and small details to look at. When you look at a map you want to see the whole picture and be able to quickly reference to any point on it. It seems too difficult to do that with this image, unless it is printed. --JPM 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Isn't it only difficult for you because you are not familiar with the area? This map is one of the most famous historical maps, and illustrates the content of its article perfectly, so it fulfills the requirements of WP:FPC. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-7 15:27
        • I am familiar with the area -- I've taken my share of American history courses, as have a lot of people here have, so don't assume I'm not. You obviously want this photo up badly, so I'll just change to neutral like Dschwen did down there. I still don't agree with you but you'll just cite that sentence to death to counter me, so I won't bother. --JPM 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't want the map up badly. I just want the guidelines of FPC to be followed to some degree. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-7 17:19
            • And we disagree on that degree. --JPM 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - while it's not stunning, it highlights the article well and adds considerably to it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. enochlau (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose FPs should not only illustrate their article well, they should also be striking. I agree with JPM. Denni ☯ 12:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The first sentence on FPC says: "Featured pictures is a list of images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." This definitely illustrates the article well, so it has fulfilled the requirements of FP. We have other featured pictures that are not striking, such as the first photograph. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-7 15:20
    • And I voted in favor of the Niepce picture, becuse, for me, it was a striking image. Frankly, I'm disappointed that someone decided that the text that ran so long with FP Candidates, namely, "Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant" was no longer relevant. I choose to continue to adhere to the belief that Featured Pictures should not just illustrate their article well, but should also be striking. No change in my vote. Denni ☯ 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Oppose. High resolution and clarity. An impressive piece of media which would make a great FP... ...on commons. --Dschwen 15:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, Commons is for striking images, so it probably wouldn't go over well there. Wikipedia is for informative images. See the first sentence of WP:FPC. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-7 15:20
    • Wow, you are fighting for your baby ;-). But you do have a point. I'll still go with neutral here, since it is not eye catching as a thumbnail (thinking how it would look as POTD in the Mainpage). --Dschwen 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the bigger concern is that it illustrates an article well, not how it will look on the main page. It never has to be on the main page. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-7 16:43

• Oppose. Good for the article, but not for a FP. --Janke | Talk 16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I find the detail and information on the map informative and striking enough for FP status. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: For more evidence of this map's popularity, note that it is the most purchased map in the David Rumsey Collection of famous maps. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 19:18
•  ! Strong Support this is an excellent addition to the wikipedia. Very informative, very historical, very telling. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 13:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Illustrative, but not visually interesting. It's a featured picture after all. Eyesclosed 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  User's 12th edit. Other edits are FPC also.

• Support - I think the informativeness is key here. — Catherine\^talk 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Map of Lewis and Clark's Track, Across the Western Portion of North America, published 1814.jpg Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaf Morphology Chart

While Diliff's mega-panoramas are a hard act to follow, I thought I would throw the metaphorical hat into the ring with this illustration. I created it with the desire to make a richly encyclopedic image/poster with lots of information about leaf morphology. There is a lot of jargon in botany (and science generally) and I think images that visually define that jargon are useful. The image illustrates the leaf article, in the terminology section. Now, I know there is an on-going debate about illustrations as FPs, particularly how they scale down as thumbnails. While I am biased, I do think the thumb of this image is attractive in a symbolic/technical way (kind of the way a optometrist's chart or wanted poster could be seen to have aesthetic appeal). In either case, I am interested in your comments. On a technical note, I know you all prefer the SVG format to PNG, but I was unable to successfully save the image out of Illustrator in PNG. The fonts were screwed up (see this version particularly in the margin section). If you have a tip on that please pass it on.

• Nominate and support. - Debivort 09:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Highly informative and aesthetically pleasing. So it's got scaling problems - big deal (not!). Surely, someone can put a link to the high-res version in the image caption for someone who wants to study it in more detail? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support (added: titleless version). This looks better than most diagrams do in thumbnail size - the captions are readable, thus giving the viewer the incentive to explore further. And the graphic design is just excellent - if you ask me (and methinks that's what you're doing ;-) there's just one thing I'd change, and that is the slightly garish green in the "shape" and "venation" sections, the green in "margin" is more pleasing. --Janke | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Your diagrams are great. We need more annotators here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great content and presentation. I'd love to have it in SVG and clickable sometime. --Dschwen 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good remark by Renata3. I second that. titleless looks better. --Dschwen 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support - The informational content, the logical design, the uniform layout... yeah. I am completely wowed. :o) --Deglr6328 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - aesthetically pleasing and fully informative. One minor point: I can hardly read the small print. Therefore, I wouldn't mind a larger clickable image. JoJan 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The full size is ~2200x2300. Are you sure you are looking at that, rather than the image page? It might also be autoscaling in your browser. Debivort 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Scaling issues aside, I am very pleased with the direction that recent Featured Picture candidates have been going in. This image is very informative, and very aesthetically pleasing. The only problem I see with recent images is that as they increase in resolution, it seems that users have to choose between small thumbnails/previews, and the gigantic full size. There really should be some in-between choice... ~MDD4696 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, that is a particularly great diagram. It would be really nice if it were SVG, but this version is certainly high-res enough to work. --jackohare 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - just WOW!! - Adrian Pingstone 19:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice. I can see it up as a poster in a classroom. JQF 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Immediately clear and highly informative. --BillC 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Prefer the one without the title BillC 17:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Understandable, recognizeable, great illustration -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: visually attractive and very informative. Raven4x4x 23:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-7 04:14
• Support alot of great effot. Good job. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious support except for one thing. Could you cut off the title (where it says leaf morphology)? Please, it really disturbs me. That sort of title is excellent for stand-alone posters, but not for images in WP where they are properly captioned and goes along with bunch of text. Renata3 05:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yay! Changing bolding and striking my comments. Thank you! Renata3 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very understandable even for non-biologists and highly informative. enochlau (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support one without title. enochlau (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support without title - typography of the title is ugly. --Wikimol 21:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Without title. Stylish --Fir0002 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm embarrassed to point out a fault with this wonderful work, but the "shape" box is alphabetized in columns, while the "margin" and "venation" boxes are alphabetized in rows. - Bantman 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's very informative, but visually not very interesting, IMHO. Eyesclosed 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  User's 13th edit. Other edits are FPC also.

• References would be nice. Broken S 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? Even though these are definitional rather than statements of fact or interpretation? Almost all can be found in a normal online dictionary. Debivort 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I prefer references for all non-trivial facts. I don't know enough to say if this diagram needs refs. It's good otherwise, though. Can you find another similar diagram in a book and ref it there? The FP criterion does ask for refs (in the article or in the picture description page). Broken S 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't think of an obvious way to do this. I probably used 15 different sources for it, with most heavy reliance on dictionaries. But I would note that it is not typical in a scientific article, for example, to cite definitions, unless they are idiosynchratic. If somone else feels strongly about that I could go track down references, but it would be pretty arbitrary which were chosen. Debivort 04:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very useful. bogdan 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Leaf morphology no title.png Raven4x4x 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica

This is a 5x5 mosaic/panorama of the interior of Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica. Like my previous panorama of Montreal's downtown, this image is extremely high resolution. It is downscaled to around 50% of original size (I worked out that even with some overlap in the stitched images, there is around 200 megapixels of detail) and still comes in at around 12mb, so it unfortunately beats my previous FPC by another 4mb! I tried to reduce the size of the file by compression but I noticed obvious artifacts - there is just too damn much detail and I didn't want to lose any of it. I also tried downsampling it but it has already been done to get it to 7577x5157 and there was obvious loss of detail. So take it or leave it guys, this file is big, but the detail is amazing. For the record, I also created another version with rectilinear projection (this one is cylindrical, hence the slight curve at the bottom of the frame), but I didn't like the way warped the roof, but it is available for reference if you'd like to see it.

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - You know, at first I was going to complain that it was too dark.. but my my what an astounding image! That thing is massive!! When you zoom in, the darkness problem goes away.. there's so much detail. Excellent. Perfect Featured Picture with an astounding amount of detail. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support! Impressive Glaurung 07:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The level of detail is insane. I do worry about those with slow connection though. Raven4x4x 07:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Support original only. Its almost like beeing there... --Dschwen 11:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I trust Diliff when he says he wanted to keep the pic as close to the original interior as possible. Has the editor actually been there? --Dschwen 12:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support wow very nice. Sarah Ewart 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• How can one avoid supporting this? (Rhetorical question... ;-) (Added later: first version) --Janke | Talk 13:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing. Alr 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Would the phrase holy shit be inappropriate here? --Deglr6328 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - highly immersive. -- Debivort 18:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 2 either version. They both look impressive. - TomStar81 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - That's the best thing to being there! JQF 21:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support High quality, high resolution. The lighting it quite good, especially for being inside a basilica. (On my CRT the image looked a bit dark, but on my LCD it looks fine...). Also, where is the rectilinear projection for reference...? I would like to see it. Diliff, did you happen to take any other photos of the basilica? This image is a good view of the interior in its entirety, but photos of the organ, or other smaller subjects would greatly benefit the article. ~MDD4696 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just uploaded the rectilinear projection. I also have an image of the organ pipes at the rear of the basilica that I'm going to upload soon. Its pretty high res too, but not a FPC. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support (speechless) -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I'd say this one's a lock. --JPM 00:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Oh dear, all the other images on this page are starting to look tiny and low res... enochlau (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarify that I support the original for its accuracy. enochlau (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The lightened version is simply stunning. I'm going to go read the article it's featured in right now. - 219.89.247.222 14:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Awesome pic, but can some Photoshop guru do something about it being too dark? Renata3 05:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I like the first, which was also the only one when I stated my support above. The moody feeling was just right for a cathedral. The second one looks a bit artificially lightened on my monitor. This is an important point: people have their monitors set very differently. I use a calibrated Mac display, while run-of-the-mill PC monitors tend to show images both darker and contrastier. Laptops and flat-panel displays are again different... It's hard to find the right balance to suit all. I won't oppose the lighter version, though, if consensus favors it. --Janke | Talk 16:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the lighter version. And abstain on the first one. That is because even though the resolution is GIGANTIC I cannot see too much detail because it is simply too dark and everything becomes formless shadows of grey/black. Now a lighter version makes a lot more details visible. The moody feeling can be expressed by a low res pic. When you have THAT kind of resolution, you want - and expect - to see the details. And the lighter version should allow it. Renata3 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Janke here. My support only goes for the first one, I don't think it needed to be lightened -- now it seems too artificial and doesn't have the same feeling to it. --JPM 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps the original image could be too dark for some people's monitors, but I think if you have a correctly calibrated monitor, you wouldn't find it too dark. I made sure I kept the image looking as close to the actual interior. I don't support the edit as it does look artificial and not as correct - the interior of this particular basilica was quite dark, and the front of it was lit up. If you enhance the shadows you lose this mood. It might look 'prettier' to some viewers but it is definitely not as correct. This is an encyclopaedia, remember. I know that we've discussed this and subjective things like brightness are open to interpretation but I do feel in this case, being the photographer, that the original is more correct and the edit is not. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. But I reserve my right to like the lighter version better :) (in any way, form, or case, dark or bright, the pic is absolutely awsome!) Renata3 02:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• DUH! Support be careful, if you go to Wikimania this year I might just have to beat you up and steal your camera! Seriously this is fabulous, especially the lightened version. I swear you took this from like 50ft from the back wall and I can practically see the brushstrokes on it.  ALKIVAR™ 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Support - This is the epitome of a Featured Picture. Amazing detail, no pixelation or blurriness at all, enormous full size, breathtaking shot of a breathtaking scene. This is the poster child for featured pictures. - Cuivienen 20:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great job.Dunemaire 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Absolute support - original version - agree with Janke, the darker version is better. For the record, I have plain GNU/Linux PC with reasonably set EIZO F56 monitor. Lightened version can be linked from image description - although I believe better place for gamma correction is in the browser software or window system.--Wikimol 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • sidenote: it seems info about author got lost in the edit. --Wikimol 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not in the full res --Fir0002 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the darker version Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Camerafiend 01:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• I too prefer the original version. I feel a more subdued lighting is appropriate for the subject. Raven4x4x 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: To test whether your monitor is properly adjusted and can display shadow detail properly, please check this image that I made - in the large square, you should see the left half of the circle very faintly (or not at all), but the right half should be clearly visible. If not, you need to adjust your monitor. Hope this helps! --Janke | Talk 08:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I just ran my laptop through the Adobe Gamma tool on Windows, and pictures look warmer now, but I still can't see the two halves of the circle. Any other suggestions? enochlau (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's quite OK if you can see only the right half clearly, but not the left half. RGB 6,6,6 is a very dark grey, virtually indistinguishable from black. If you see the left side clearly, then your monitor is set too bright. I've just now experimented with a PC laptop, and on this model (Compaq Presario 2100) the settings are pretty coarse - but by tweaking the brightness, I could get a proper adjustment. This changed the mood of the second version to "very brightly lit"... --Janke | Talk 11:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I still can't see either side! :( enochlau (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Should we include this, or a similar, simple monitor "check test" on the top of the FPC page, in order to alert people to the problems of different monitor settings - which can influence voting rather significantly? --Janke | Talk 11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful, but it may discourage casual voting. enochlau (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Setting a calibration standard would save us from pointless discussions and image edits. It would be a good addition. I don't think it'll dicourage casual voting. If you don't want to recalibrate your monitor you'll at least know not to comment on exposure. --Dschwen 12:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's making FP's a bit exclusive. I mean we want the FPs to look good for casual users of wikipedia more than anything else. IMO they're there to showcase the best wiki has to offer to users in terms of photography. --Fir0002 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this straight, you want to sacrifice authenticity and image detail, create a dumbed down McDonalds version of each picture so it looks acceptable for each and every miscalibrated monitor out there, instead of encouraging the user to once and for all calibrate their monitors. Because calibrating a monitor is exclusive, I dare say "elitist"? --Dschwen 13:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very beautiful DaGizza ^Chat 11:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support #1 - The second one is too bright it makes it look faux. --Kilo-Lima 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Stunning! SoLando (Talk) 09:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support both, but prefer number 2 - The brightning of the image in number 2 really brings out the colors in the picture, and makes it much more striking on all the system I viewed it on, including my calibrated photo editing system. PPGMD 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I take issue with the edit mainly because it isn't accurate, not because it isn't striking. Bringing out the colours and shadows in the picture shouldn't really be the aim. It WAS dark there. The edit, to me, just seems to represent the photo as more of a carnival than a church! ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 03:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you are going for, I look for more striking photos. As a photographer I firmly believe we play with light, and in dark places is the best place to work, light does just some wonderful things when you bring the shutter speed down. PPGMD 15:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you when the purpose of the photography is artistic expression or something along those lines. I mean, anyone could mess with that photo and completely change its aesthetics with colour saturation/balance and further brighten the shadows and it would certainly look striking, but if someone is reading the article and wants to know what the interior LOOKS like, surely they want an accurate image, not merely a colourful and striking one. I'm all for working with light (and photographic tools) to bring out the best in a photo, but not at the expense of accuracy. I agree with Janke when he said on the talk page that it should really be up to the photographer to make adjustments to things such as colour and luminosity, as only they were there to see it with their own eyes. That said, we can continue to discuss it and figure things out. Consensus rules. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well speaking as someone on dial up, I really would love to see the detail in your photo even in the preview. As it is, unless I view the image at it's full gigantic size, most of the shadow detail is not visible. The brightened version shows a lot more in the preview size. And as you rightly said, this is an encylopedia, and people do want to see the interiror, so atmosphere should be rejected in preference to detail for the average person. However its just a thought and as most people are happy with a dark version that's fine with me. Just another point a bright interior of a church doesn't make it a carnival. For instance this photo has almost daylight brightness. And I'm not saying your lying when you say it was really dark (I can well image), but in this photo and this one, this one and this one {which I think are of the same basilica}, the interior is very bright; so a brightened version isn't really so unrealistic. I'm not trying to detract from your obviously brilliant images, but maybe you should be a little more open to help from others in post processing --Fir0002 06:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I can't speak for everyone as I don't see through their monitor, but I think that the shadow detail CAN be seen for the most part - it is probably just darker than some people would prefer. I don't think that sacrificing accuracy for ease of viewing is right - I think atmosphere is just as important for an encyclopaedia as the detail. It all contributes to the illustration of the article. As for the images you cite, the first is taken with a flash which would illuminate the shadows, the second is of mainly the already lit area of the church and doesn't display any of the darkest parts, the third is just as dark in the shadow areas, if not MORE dark than mine, and I get "Server configuration does not allow access to this page" when I try to view the fourth. Obviously it is POSSIBLE to take a photo that is brigher, but there is nothing to say that it is more accurate. It just keeps coming back to accuracy. I AM open to help in post processing, but I'm still entitled to an opinion on edit policy and on whether the edit reflects the scene accurately. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Must have some kind of javascript checking to see if you've seen the page first. Go to the source page here

• Hear, hear! I fully support Diliff's opinion here. He is the photographer, he was there, he knows what it looks like. There are indeed subjects that are mainly very dark, and this certainly is one of them. Remember the Hubble image - there, the consensus favored a darkened sky. --Janke | Talk 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I have yet to see a bad quality picture from you. Excellent!--Ali K 14:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Great picture, fully illustrates article --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the second image. Eyesclosed 20:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the first one. impressive detail --Treffer 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't think you really need it to win, but I'm going to follow the majority and be a version 2 supporter. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I did a quick count and of those that specify support for one version over the other, 8 people support the original and 3 support the edit (not including you), so it isn't the majority. But thanks for your opinion anyway. It would be handy if, in light of what has been discussed about 'accuracy vs striking brightness', people could justify why they support the edit because a lot of the support for it seems to skirt the issue of accuracy. :) Anyway, I probably should just let consensus decide. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's interesting to see the almost inversed reaction on the commons --Fir0002 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Commons shows 5 pro edit/ 1 oppose edit, 4 original, and 4 both. With my support original / oppose edit vote yet to cast :-). --Dschwen 22:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you'll find it's actually 9 pro edit, 4 original, 3 both --Fir0002 23:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Only 5 voters explicitly vote for the edit (without our votes). But discussing this is pointless, since you obviously count differently. --Dschwen 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
            • As you said this is getting ridiculous. If someone votes support without specifying, they are supporting the nomination (in the commons the edit) --Fir0002 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Its possible that the reason for the inverse reaction could be due to the lack of discussion regarding the accuracy of the image. I'm not sure how much weight my opinion regarding the realism of the edit carried on this page, but the lack of comment by myself could be contributing. I wasn't even aware that it was up for FPC on commons, actually. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit, although with the huge support for the original this vote is almost pointless --Fir0002 23:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Support absolutely amazing. chowells 00:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Stunned Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 12:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• OMFG Support This is the most amazing picture I have ever seen...
  • Clarify Support the Second Image.
• Strong Support! cannot... speak! Thelb⁴ 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

--Magmafox 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg Raven4x4x 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky

Great shot of an interesting part of the world (I've always been curious about what's on that peninsula on the far right of Russia). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky is the region's main city.

• Nominate and support. - Diceman 14:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The focus of the image seems to be on the cranes and boats in the foreground, not the actual mountain in the background. --JPM 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Low quality at full size, and the cranes are distracting. Alr 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not bad, but not exceptional either. Agree about full-size quality. Camerafiend 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Weak coloration, dirty, lots of noise. Also the cranes are a bit distracting.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded two edits. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose All. None a particularly exceptional --Fir0002 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - brightly colored cranes distract way too much. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quality at full res. enochlau (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. And I'm the one who took the picture! My own comment is that it's a great travel snapshot of a little known part of the world, but as a picture and on artistic merits there are many better pictures that take precedent. But hey, thanks for considering it. Vincent (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted . Diceman 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rooster

Another photo with a strong rural theme. Taken at sunset when the Australian bush turns orange tinted and with a warming filter the iamge has a nice look. Maybe a little too yellowish for some so I've uploaded an edit. Thanks to Didactohedron for removing the grass from the roosters eye.

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, I prefer the original. The edit seems too dull, and removes the sunset feel. --JPM 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support edited version. Clearer details, more accurate coloring. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 01:40
• Support either one, but I prefer the edit. It's a very nice shot. Raven4x4x 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the first, although I wouldn't mind an edit that was halfway between the two presented. I like the sunset feel as well. enochlau (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: "for removing the grass from the roosters eye" - oooh, this is digitally altered? You shouldn't have said that, if you see the talk page you may be aware that you've re-opened Pandora's box... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm very active in that discussion, and I would scoff at anyone who says that the removal of the out-of-focus grass head that was in the roosters eye has altered the meaning of the photo --Fir0002 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Geez, save it for the talk page. In any case stating that he altered it is rather a plus. --Dschwen 11:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Both pics have their own pros and cons. Either one good DaGizza ^Chat 11:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original, Oppose Edit as it looses its warmth in the edit. JQF 21:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose edit. You got it right first time Fir :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support both. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the first one. - Darwinek 23:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support original --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The first one for the warmer color.--Dakota ~ ε 09:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I prefer the original, only the white feathers are better in the edited version, so I would propose a slightly different edit.--Treffer 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support git r done.--Urthogie 10:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Rooster04 adjusted.jpg Raven4x4x 04:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White-breasted Nuthatch

Another very good bird picture by Mdf, this one of a White-breasted Nuthatch. Nuthatches are the only North American birds that can go down a tree head first, a feat that Mdf has caught this one doing. Illustrates White-breasted Nuthatch

• Nominate and support. - Dsmdgold 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Beautiful image. Great job! - Cuivienen 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Love it. Dunemaire 21:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Almost frighteningly close! Does a good job at visualizing the concept that they can "go down a tree head first" (obviously), and is pretty stunning as well. --JPM 22:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either version. Top class photo. Little birds like that are really hard to get from my experience, and others taken by you are just as great. You should nominate more! --Fir0002 23:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Too clarify, this picture was taken by Mdf, not by me, I merely nominated it. Mdf seems to be too modest to nominate his own great work. Dsmdgold 23:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Illustrates the article nicely, and the fact that the bird is upside down makes it strikingly different from other bird pictures. Camerafiend 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Camerafiend... but I can't possibly look at this picture without laughing out loud. Great photo! ~MDD4696 00:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, but like contrasty version more. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 01:42
• Support. As with the rooster above, both versions look fine to me. I love the snow on the branch. Raven4x4x 03:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It captures the bird exceedingly well. A pity the snow and the branch aren't more in focus. enochlau (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support either. --Janke | Talk 11:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - 100%. It's very eye-catching becuase it's unusual -- but striking. --Kilo-Lima 12:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support.Good quality image, quite clear and it is humorous.Nature at it's best.--Dakota ~ ε 17:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose edit, Support original. The edit kills off details. Check the eye, the dark section at the back of the head, the brown pennaceous feathers at the back and lower rim of the wings and the contast between the tail and the shadow in the back. The original is fine. --Dschwen 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, the orginal is more natural, but the edit is sharper, so I don't know which to go with, but definite support either way. JQF 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - oo, I like the "more contrasty" edit. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Clear, crisp, well focused picture, well done --Ali K 09:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Prefer the contrasting DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support second. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support 2nd version--Treffer 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very striking picture, and I love the current caption :)

Hermajesty 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Beautiful picture, unsual and exotic (emo) pose.
• Support original version. Oppose contrasty version: highlight detail lost. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sitta-carolinensis-001.jpg Raven4x4x 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elphant and castle

This striking and somewhat unusual image illustrates the Elephant and Castle article particularly well.

• Nominate and support. - Thryduulf 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose That building in the background just kills it for me. --Janke | Talk 16:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Then why don't you just edit it out? No no, I'm just kidding. Please no one do that. ~MDD4696 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately agree, the background kills any chance it may've had Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't seem very illustrative or exceptional, and the cropping is awkward. Camerafiend 01:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with the above. enochlau (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, the building does wreck it, sorry.--Ali K 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Kessa Ligerro 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Castle Neuschwanstein

Amazing photograph that is currently a Featured Picture on Commons. Illustrates Neuschwanstein.

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 04:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The photo has great lighting, focus, and resolution. Also, there's not a part of it that has a problem. Great photo. --JPM 05:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - good pic, not somewhat exceptional, but fits FP requirements. Renata3 05:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I couldn't say it better than JPM. Wonderful shot. Raven4x4x 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As simple as that. --Janke | Talk 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It may be technically a great shot, but visually, it does nothing for me. Uninteresting and bland. Zafiroblue05 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I love it! I don't see why Zafiroblue05 calls this bland. - Cuivienen 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh, I don't get a lot of things that happen on this page. ;) This picture is just a building on a hill - a nice building, but certainly not spectacular, certainly not out of the ordinary in any way, and it gets supported nearly unanimously. (And there is a more interesting and stunning image on the same page.) At the same time, an image like the Clyde Dam picture - sparse yet beautiful with an impressive and surprising use of color, which this image lacks - is nearly unanimously opposed. I guess everyone has their differing personal opinions, lol. :) Zafiroblue05 04:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. Alr 21:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely framed and appealingly crisp. Camerafiend 01:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think it's as clear as the others make out above when viewed at full res. It's ordinary. enochlau (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your right, it isn't perfectly clear at full resolution, but I only really care about what it looks like when it's resized to fit my screen. Raven4x4x 11:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Either Version. I love that castle, and this is a pretty good photo. An ideal version IMO would be a bit more atmospheric like this one or this one, but this will do --Fir0002 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose doesn't do anything for me. --Dschwen 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Natürlich. --Darwinek 23:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. Eyesclosed 19:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really exciting, and a petty that part of the skyline of the castle is not against the air.--Treffer 21:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  User's 5th edit.

• Support Beautyful pic! Andrew₁₈ ^@ 23:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sparks the imagination. Good image quality and composition. Zarniwoot 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Castle Neuschwanstein.jpg Raven4x4x 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooklyn Bridge at Night

I like this image becuase it shows the beautiful surroundings arround the Brooklyn Bridge.

• Nominate and support. -- Sam916 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Not currently used in any article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 19:19
• Support Someone has since added it to the Brooklyn Bridge article. It is a stunning photo that I think illustrates the bridge and its surroundings quite well. However, the original suffers from severe JPEG artifacts, and it's really too bad about the flag. I uploaded an edit, and while they are still visible, I don't think they are noticeable enough to prevent it from gaining FP status. ~MDD4696 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know... the image doesn't seem all that clear. It almost looks like a painting, not a photo. Personally, living 3 miles from the bridge, I've seen it look much better, and if someone dug harder a better picture could be found. I don't agree with the "surroundings" comment above, its true surroundings would show parts of Brooklyn and more of Manhattan, like the 1890 map in the article did. Not that it makes this photo bad, just that a surroundings argument doesn't really hold up. --JPM 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Seeing as I've never been there, you're probably right. I guess I need to be a bit more careful with my comments. ~MDD4696 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. I hope the very slight blurriness (or lack of clarity, or whatever) doesn't keep this stunning image from being featured. It just might look more like a painting than a photo - but there's no harm in that! Zafiroblue05 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support either. It is a very nice shot, and I really like the way the lights reflect off the water. Gives it a kind of Cyberpunk look. JQF 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support very good picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a very blurry picture. It only shows one of the spans, and the surroundings aren't exactly all that great.. especially since its in NYC and there are certainly more appealling angles. Though, this is an interesting angle, and I'll admit I've never seen the bridge in this light. Also, the image doesn't exactly provide much in the way of contrasts, and I'm afraid, because of the darkness and few colors in the image, that this is not salvagable. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, sorry. The first image isn't blurry. The edited version is.. and it isn't exactly an improvement, whoever put it up.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So ya know, drop what I said about the contrasts and lighting too. The first image is a lot better than the edited, which I viewed. I still oppose due to the poor surroundings and lack of focus on the actual bridge.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it just the blurriness that you don't like about the edit I made? I rotated it slightly and tried to smooth out the JPEG artifacts, which unfortunately does smudge it up a bit. I was hoping that the edit would appeal to people who would've oppose based on the severe artifacting. ~MDD4696 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the edit since the original seems to be favored. ~MDD4696 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support either. I sometimes wonder if pictures like this inspire the Need for Speed programers who do the maps. TomStar81 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent. --^KILO-_LIMA 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose second. The second is not as good as the first. (I only don't support the first because I only support images created by wikipedians, but I do not oppose the first). --Gmaxwell 06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks cool, but the bridge is awkwardly cut off and the foreground is distracting. It's also not as sharp as it could be. Camerafiend 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support I really like the atmosphere. Being a country kid it is always wierd going into the city and seeing how the night sky looks - too bright and red --Fir0002 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I wish I would take pictures like this. - Darwinek 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the foreground of wooden poles is too distracting. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Shows towers in detail, as well as the support wires.--Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not a bad picture, but all in all there are just a few too many things I don't like about it: the poles in the foreground, the fact that you don't see all the way to the other end of the bridge and the lighting makes the wires in the bridge hard to see. enochlau (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like it. Eyesclosed 19:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Truly striking. Awesome. Tosta Dojen 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose shows everything but the bridge. --Dschwen 10:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the picture, but the foreground dominates this picture which is unfortunate. — Pixel8 06:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice shot, but somehow this doesn't really impress me. Maybe it's the dull color, the brown clouds - just a general murkiness, and the angle of the shot doesn't show the bridge at its best. --Janke | Talk 08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like it. Too dark & unobjective... Spawn Man 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted . 12 supports and 9 opposes just isn't consensus enough for me to promote. Raven4x4x 09:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFO at night

I nominate this picture because it has already been awarded featured picture status on the commons. I also believe that this is a beautiful picture. This photo was taken by Andrew Choy

• Nominate and support. - Sam916 05:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: This picture is beautiful with sharp contrast that reveal details in the dark - Falconsgladiator 09:43, 7 January 2006 (PST)
• Comment: The colors are nice, but nothing appears to be in focus. Maybe I'm asking too much of a night-time photo :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 06:36
• Support - TomStar81 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Nice when viewed as a thumbnail, but as noted above, it seems a little too unclear and undetailed for me to support. enochlau (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Early on the standards for FP were somewhat lower than they are now (not in 'theory' but in practice yes)[4], [5] and this image would've probably been adequate, but lately the quality of images here has risen so high that for beter or worse, I think the standard for acceptance has changed as well. This is a nice idea for a photo but the focus is unfortunately really rather poor, at 1/50th second exposure there is no reason it should be if focus was properly manually set to . I can't support it for FP. --Deglr6328 09:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Below standard FPs can be unfeatured. And the Yarra pic definately should. It's not eligible anymore anyhow sice it is not used in any article.--Dschwen 11:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sadly, and very reluctantly Oppose. Lovely image, very nice at thumbnail, but at full size it just can't be an FP. Sorry. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like it, but it appears that the other Wikipedians don't. Tell me, if that a motorway [highway] going into the airport? --Kilo-Lima 12:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's the main road connecting the terminals and parking garages with US Highway 101. It goes under the international terminal (that's the silver box with the slatted roof) and into the toroidal parking structure (all the area between the terminals) and the pick-up/drop-off points for each terminal. Here is a google map. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, maybe it's just me but even at full size, it appears focused and clear. Excellent idea for an image. Full size.
• Support. I think it's good. Reason for unsharpness IMO can be also in movement of plane with photographer. If you think it's unsharp, I've tried simple sharpening filter + downscaling
  Image:SFO at night downres.jpg

  Filter + scaled to 1300x866
  , so you would have to oppose on base of low resoltuion :) ...IMO with more advanced processing sharper image can be optained even at full resolution: a quest for Gimp/Photoshop/... wizards :) --Wikimol 20:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I know how difficult a night shot like this must be. As for the downscaling/sharpening. Forget it. You'll get no increase in information content only loss by fumbling with the picture. --Dschwen 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I don't see anything wrong with the original image. The downscaled image was only smaller and I saw no increase in sharpness. If we're going to have it, leave it at full size. -- Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately not very sharp at full res (either version). Camerafiend 22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• 

  

   Weak Support
    of the edit. the first picture is very blurry. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, still it's whats in the image that counts. --Thorpe | talk 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's attractive, and it's representative of the subject. Moreover it passes a very important test for any featured-picture - if you'd never seen an airport (or this airport, indeed) does the article&picture tell you a lot more useful information than the article without the picture. This passes that test very well, I think. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, good picture of an airport shown from an interesting angle. Etnoy 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great photo --Fir0002 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Striking, educational figure. --Jweed 21:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice shot. --Darwinek 23:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support second. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. An excellent job of showing (or rather, being) the big picture. Tosta Dojen 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose noisy and horrible JPEG artifacts. chowells 00:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well-taken, and I didn't notice any noise or artifacts. Also, doesn't this look just like Midgar from FFVII?PiccoloNamek 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Oh, wie schön! (BEAUTIFUL!!!) Palm_Dogg 08:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Amazing Eteru 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:SFO at night.jpg Raven4x4x 09:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resin wound

Image of a wounded tree, with the resin flowing out to close the wound. The pic is taken at sunset by me, and it illustrates the Resin article.

• Nominate and support. - Dunemaire 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unexceptional, and the building in the background really bothers me. Camerafiend 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree that this photo is unexceptional. --BG 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A macro photo could probably illustrate the subject just as well (if not better) and be more interesting. ~MDD4696 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unexceptional material. enochlau (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - no.--Deglr6328 10:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry. Badly lit, not exceptional, badly framed, background detracts. A macro photo slightly side on would be better, to show the 3D structure of the resin drips. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sorry, but I just don't find this image stunning, or exceptional enough for an FP. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with the above. --Fir0002 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Illustrative, but not very visually pleasing. Eyesclosed 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  User's 10th edit.

• Oppose - Not striking at all Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Kessa Ligerro 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Sam poster

The most famous military recruitment poster, at least in the United States (and surely that's all that matters ;-)). The "I Want You" image of Uncle Sam has become iconic, and the subject of countless parodies. This is a high quality scan of an original poster from 1917, not a modern remake.

Currently used in Uncle Sam, Recruiting poster, and James Montgomery Flagg.

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Historical significance, very famous image. --BG 03:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It’s a classic, alright. Very nice, and very historical. TomStar81 06:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: informative and very historical. Raven4x4x 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As above. enochlau (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• {{User:Vanderdecken/StrongSupport}}. Very good, high dpi, quite famous, of great historical value. Well worth it. One problem - the image on the description page is fine and great, but when clicked on it takes me to a very small and slightly different version of the picture. I'll see if uploading it to Wikipedia again works. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Works now. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not necessary to upload the image twice. You simply have to clear your cache by going to the image and pressing CTRL and F5 at the same time. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 17:02
      • Didn't work for me...—Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Go into your browsers options and delete the temporary internet files (aka cache). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-10 13:28
• Support - Very good. Even although he is only supposed to "have one arm", it looks pretty weird! --Kilo-Lima 12:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support.Excellent image.--Dakota ~ ε 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support A classic poster --Fir0002 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Classic American propaganda poster. --Darwinek 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - An encyclopedic image if I've ever seen one. --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. We have enough pretty landscapes and animals. (My POV opinion) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Unclesamwantyou.jpg Raven4x4x 09:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passionfruit Flower

Other versions: Image:Passionfruit flower06.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower05.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower02.jpg
I think this is a nice photo of the beautiful flower of the passionfruit.

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment DOF is a little narrow IMO. Camerafiend 22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Heck I think it looks really cool. Nice stuff. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Very nice flower but I agree with Camerafiend and also the bokeh is very distracting (but hey, that's not your fault). --antilived ^{T | C} 08:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - too many parts of the flower are not in focus - Adrian Pingstone 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent. --^KILO-_LIMA 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice photo, but for an encyclopedia I think the whole flower should be in focus. Camerafiend 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I can understand that, but if I decreased the aperture the background would have become even more prominent and the flower may have become lost. Also shutter speed would have been a problem with a moving object (wind) in the shade --Fir0002 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

But fir002, you can't use your own (and physical) limitations as a justification for a photo that has others believe has flaws. It either is or it isn't FP quality in their mind and the reasons why you couldn't do it differently shouldn't really matter to them, unless it is an exceptional photo that didn't allow for better planning. I do agree that it is difficult to get a macro shot with pleasing bokeh and good depth of field though. Perhaps you could have taken the photo looking down at the flower rather than from the side. I don't know if it would have improved the composition but its just an idea. I also know you can't please everyone. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have made myself more clear. Disregard what I said about shutter speed that was merely as an after thought. My main point is that the low DOF makes the picture look good IMO because it focuses on a central subject - the center of the flower --Fir0002 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I am fine with the front and back petals being out of focus, but the stigmas and anthers are out of focus. Since they are the important organs of a flower, and they look quite different to most flowers, it would be best for them to be in focus. --liquidGhoul 02:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Pehaps there is a different photo from the ones listed above which you would prefer? --Fir0002 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

They are all very good, and very close to FP, but there is something small annoying me in all of them. I tihnk number 2 is the best, but it is out of focus in the front instead of the back. Number 6 is good with focus, but the lighting is distracting. I think you chose an incredibly difficult subject, and needed some luck to get both good lighting and focus, especially if it was windy. --liquidGhoul 06:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Number 3 is the best (although you haven't listed it). I support it. The lighting and focus are good, the only problem I can see, is that a leaf is partially obstructing the flower. I have no problem, as it adds more encyclopaedic value, and it doesn't really distract. But I don't know if others will see it that way. I really like the flower bud as well. --liquidGhoul 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - for those that oppose, Image:Passionfruit flower02.jpg has its merits. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Regretful Oppose Sorry just not enough of the key structures of this flower are in focus for an encyclopaedic FP. I agree with liquidGhoul that Image:Passionfruit_flower03.jpg has the best encyclopaedic value, showing the context of the flowers and a well-shot bud, and I might just support that one but it isn't the most pleasing aesthetically which is why you didn't list it above, I guess. Image:Passionfruit_flower06.jpg has the important bits in focus but unfortunately the highlights are burned out. These photos are a very worthy contribution to the encyclopaedia but I can't support them for FP. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - If you have a flower photo that you think deserves FP its going to need to be utterly mindblowing to make it. There are already too many flowers imho.--Deglr6328 07:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Veledan. enochlau (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, a good pic, but not interesting enough to be FP IMHO. Eyesclosed 19:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  User's 7th edit.

• Oppose, somehow the flower doesn't stand out very well, background too messy. Also, there's that depth-of-focus problem... --Janke | Talk 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schloss Vaduz, Liechtenstein

This striking picture of the Vaduz castle illustrates the article on Liechtenstein and gives a sense of the natural beauty of the alpine region.

Photographed by Michael Gredenberg, August 8, 2004.

• Nominate and support. - Willy Logan 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I wish more of the castle was showing in the picture... I'm undecided here. The emphasis of the picture seems to be more so on the landscape than the castle --JPM 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it is a bit smalish and there seems to be scaffolding on the castle. Does it add significantly to the Liechtenstein article? In my opinion it rather misleads you into thinking it is some Heidi fairytale country. --Dschwen 12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - to JPM: the article the pic illustrates is Liechtenstein so the landscape is the focus, not the castle. To Dschwen: the scaffolding is a tiny part of the pic and doesn't stand out. When I went through Liechtenstein a few years ago the landscape was indeed fairy tale so no problem there- Adrian Pingstone 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is it just me, or does the castle appear tilted? Camerafiend 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not exactly much detail. Tilted. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• {{sofixit}}. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can't see the only thing I actually care about seeing in the image. frustrating. --Deglr6328 05:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Agree with Adrian Pingstone --Fir0002 02:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great composition. Adds to country article and the one on the schloss. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject is too small and undetailed. enochlau (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think the surrounding landscape is neccessary to show the castle in prespective.Eyesclosed 19:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I'm very impressed. Dylan 04:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice shot. --Janke | Talk 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very good viev and interesting frame i think. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 01:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support great surrounding, good composition Eteru 15:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Schlossvaduz.jpg Raven4x4x 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-immolation of Thích Quảng Ðức

This is the famous photo of self-immolation of Buddhist monk Thích Quảng Ðức on a busy Saigon street in 1963 in protest of the Vietnamese government's repressive policies on Buddhism. This is an important photograph, both historically and for the illustration of Self-immolation and Thích Quảng Ðức. It is of reasonable resolution for a photograph of its era.

• Nominate and support. - Dylan 04:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a cropped version of the original, which is a lot better. Theres no copyright or source information on here either. The talk page suggests it's just a cropped version of the RATM album cover. - Hahnchen 06:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a cropped version, the full version of the original photo would look like this. Also, it has no licensing tag. If someone could find a big-enough copy of the original, and were to tag it, I would support it. - JPM | 06:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This site says that a different picture is from a 1963 issue of Time Magazine. I'm not sure of the copyright regarding that, though. If no one can find out the copyright information, then maybe it can be uploaded with the {{Fairuseunsure}} template? - JPM | 17:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for FP unless a legit licence can be established, preferably for the original full photograph. I agree the pic and subject are incredibly striking and worthy of FP, and we should keep this (much reproduced and widespread) pic under fair use even if we can't find a free licensed version, but we can't have copyrighted fair use pics as FPs. The terms of Fair Use prevent us showing the images in other contexts (e.g. FP galleries). ~ Veledan • Talk 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I changed the photograph so that it's not the one from the Rage cover. I've also posted the relevant info about the picture on its page.
• Conditional Support If the copyright is allowed for FP. The image is spectacular.--liquidGhoul 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment due to the incompatible license the nomination might as well be removed right now. Memorable photographs will have to do for this one. --Dschwen 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed due to non-free licence. Raven4x4x 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draget Canal

Peaceful and calm image of the Draget Canal in Sweden. Note the strange, greenish color that the algae give the water. I created and uploaded the image.

• Nominate and support. - Etnoy 11:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMO the photo needs something in it to show scale and purpose. PPGMD 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. It is a nice photo though. ~MDD4696 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not quite in focus above the water and a canal pic would need traffic on it to have any meaning IMO. ~ Veledan • Talk 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - needs some brightening up. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Agree with Veledan, traffic would be a huge improvement. Also is the water that kind of blue? Just wondering --Fir0002 02:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice picture but not a great one. That milky blue colour is also seen in New Zealand rivers. --Surgeonsmate 02:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Really? Do you have a picture of a river like that? That blue is stunning. :) Zafiroblue05 07:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Here's a picture of one. --Surgeonsmate 07:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not striking. Alr 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Could be any river or canal - isn't at all striking or memorable.--Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mundane. enochlau (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gecko

A high-res, clear shot of a green gecko for the gecko article.

NOTE: Not sure if this is policy or not, but I'd like to withdraw this image and replace with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gecko Revision, which is farther up the page. This image can either be left to run its cycle and be dismissed or the votes can be crossed out.

• Support Self Nom drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slight oppose. The gecko looks all right, but I find the shadow over its back distracting. - 131.211.210.11 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahem.. That was me... -Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Gecko is cut off, shadows and out-of-focus twigs detract. Camerafiend 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - shadow, dark, blurry background distract. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose I think photo of a lizard has got to either be a close up of the head or the entire lizard. The gecko however is cut off, and the image isn't sharp enought/high enough res to get a good crop of the face IMO --Fir0002 02:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I really like the head, but I would like to see the entire gecko. Also, for a gecko shot, the feet are incredibly important, and they are concealed by a stick. --liquidGhoul 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Distinct color difference between background and gecko - high quality, shows the small bumps on gecko's skin, as well as other important details (color around eyes, white bottom, small white dots on back).
• Oppose per liquidGhoul. enochlau (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like it. Eyesclosed 19:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Uploaded another picture. This one shows more of the body + feet. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 09:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since it's a completely different picture, you might want to start another FPC section for it, otherwise it's not going to receive the same amount (and time) of exposure as it would otherwise. enochlau (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Will do.. Gecko Revision. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Blue Marble

"The Blue Marble" is a famous photograph of the Earth taken on 7 December 1972 by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft at a distance of about 45,000 kilometers or about 28,000 miles. It is one of the most widely distributed photographic images in existence. Earth is said to have the appearance of a child's marble in the photo; that is the Earth has the same aspect at this distance as a child's marble at about arm's length.

This photo is of Africa, Antarctica, and the Arabian Peninsula as taken en route to the Moon by Apollo 17's Harrison Schmitt on December 7, 1972.

• Nominate and support. - Dbalderzak 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's already featured. Dunno why it never got {{FeaturedPicture}} stuck on it, though. —Cryptic (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed - already featured. Raven4x4x 09:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Space Station

A picture of the International Space Station in Orbit over the earth in August 2005; it was photographed from the Space Shuttle Discovery during the STS-114 Return to Flight mission. This picture is from the commons, and is already a featured picture there.

• Nominate and support. TomStar81 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know - the colors (underneath) look kind of drab. Neutral for now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the water that kind of blue? --Surgeonsmate 03:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A great photo of the ISS - not much more to say. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the background looks great, and as for the ISS, well... it's brilliant. Thelb⁴ 07:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support-Good picture of a hard object to actually gain a picture of.--Ali K 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nice! I wonder were over the Earth it taken. Does it say anywhere? JQF 04:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried on the source page and didn't find the location, and it isn’t reported in the commons either. Sorry :/ TomStar81 04:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice! --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent image.--Dakota ~ ε 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Nice, but it doesn't have the same "wow" effect as a lot of other space photos. enochlau (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support An interesting view. Eyesclosed 19:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support One of the most beautiful pictures I have ever seen. --Magmafox 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Looks good --Fir0002 05:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support- mankind will benefit from this image!--Urthogie 10:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support a clear and detailed view Eteru 15:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice view of the ISS --Bricktop 12:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No picture of this quality should go through FPC unanimously. ;) lol Or, if you prefer, it's unbalanced, poor composition, and interesting only from an intellectual standpoint, not a visual one. Zafiroblue05 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (the date's wrong; forgot to sign it *sheepish look*)
• Support Wow! This is such a cool picture. I have seen many pictures of the ISS but this is one of the best. It has so many detail. Cool! --Davpronk 10:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great picture! --Lewk_of_Serthic 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Promoted Image:ISS Aug2005.jpg Broken S 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Tree Python

Picture of the green tree python, self photografer

• Nominate and support. - cele4 10:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This photo is not used in any articles. --liquidGhoul 11:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It is now on Green Tree Python. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment A lot of the python is out of focus. Especially the head...it's big enough that I can overlook that. --vaeiou 21:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. --vaeiou 04:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - I feel really bad opposing this, because it is a nice picture from far away. The major problem would be its pretty out of focus.. the biggest problem I have with it though is that it appears to be in a zoo or some kind of artificial habitat? The natural habitat would be more fitting for an encyclopedia article. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately the focus isn't great - the python's head is well out of focus and it appears to have been shot through glass in a zoo as there seems to be diffraction. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If it were sitting in a clearly visible box or curled around an iron bar or something I could see why that would be a problem, but it's on a relatively natural looking branch in an otherwise all-black environment. The python's surrounds aren't conspicuously artificial, and don't really detract from the image, IMO. —DO'Neil 04:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with vaeiou. enochlau (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose A nice picture, but unfortunately the out of focus head is too big a problem to ignore. --Fir0002 00:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks OK from a distance, but definitely not as sharp as it could be. Camerafiend 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great shot but not featured picture-quality. Neutrality^talk 00:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Neutrality. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swainson-Tukan (Ramphastos swainsonii)

• Nominate and support cele4 10:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, the background detracts from the bright colors of the bird. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mgm. Thelb⁴ 17:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think the background detracks from the bright color of the bird - if anything, it adds to it. It's an odd color, but it somehow complements the bird itself well - compare to a similar picture with nondescript leaves or branches or something. I like this picture. That being said, there's an odd blurry thing at the bottom to the right of the bird, and it's merely a good picture, not a great one. Weak oppose. Zafiroblue05 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well, I like it. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Support the edit. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose What article is this picture in? According to the File links, it is not listed in any article. Also, "Ramphastos swainsoni" does not link to an article. Either make the article a redirect page to "Toucan" and put the picture on the Toucan page or create an article for the specific species, with the picture in it. This is a good photo, and when you have it in an article, I will again support. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 ! Strong Support I really like this picture.. and its good that its in an article now. Disagree with comments that it is over saturated. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 20:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the green had some texture it would be a nice aspect of the photo, but it's just a solid color more or less, so I don't think it's FP worthy. --JPM 06:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Actually I think the solid green background is one of the main features. Unfortunately due to the low res I can't support, but still a good photo. Uploaded an edit without the distracting thing at the bottom center of image --Fir0002 11:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Low res? Looks big enough to me... Perhaps as noted on the talk page, we should go about quantifying "small". enochlau (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I actually think the green complements the bird quite well. However, in the full sized image, there are compression artifacts on the black feathers, and the yellow feathers are washed out. enochlau (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: neutral for original, oppose edit in its current state. enochlau (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent colors and detail. I have absolutly no problem with the background. Eyesclosed 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (strongly executive veto nay nay nay if anyone cares), not used in any article. Just as a comment, the edit oversaturates a bit and check the birds belly. I think the edit removed detail which might been part of the bird! (still oppose pixel pushing in general) --Dschwen 10:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the edit is used in Chestnut-mandibled Toucan. The original, however, is not in any article. If the original is featured it will of course replace the edit in the article, so this should not be a concern. Raven4x4x 10:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • My bad, I didn't think that edit would be replaced so quickly. Still have to oppose edit according to my comment concerning the quality of the edit. --Dschwen 11:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the original would be fine, if it could be cropped a little more at the top. --Dschwen 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the edit. The color of the background is not a problem for me. --Janke | Talk 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• The flaw in the edit has not been adressed yet. Am I the only one who is bothered by it? First of all, why remove the branch the bird is sitting on? Then why remove part of the bird? --Dschwen 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Well spotted, part of the bird's gone missing. Although as for the branch, I don't think that's a major problem since the bird isn't sitting on that part of the branch - the bit removed just happens to be in the foreground, no real loss of encyclopedic value. However, if I would prefer it if the bottom part were cropped off instead of photoshopped out. enochlau (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree - do a crop, and we can get out of the nitpicking about whether to retouch or not. In this case, the touch-up did nothing to destroy the encyclopedic value. Crop slightly at the top, too, to balance the composition. The colors in the edit are more to my liking, though. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted No concensus ~ Veledan • Talk 20:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Colony

Striking and high-resolution image of a space vessel rather more interesting than the one right below it on the page. ;) In article O'Neill cylinder.

• Nominate and support. - Zafiroblue05 04:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This one needs some creative brightness/contrast adjustment - it's murky! If no-one else grabs it, I'll do it in a couple of days... --Janke | Talk 06:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - the picture needs some tweaking, but I do like it alot. TomStar81 08:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the second image. TomStar81 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - Uploaded an edit attempting to correct the colors. Alr 20:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice illustrative image. enochlau (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support the edit. Rendezvous with Rama! --Janke | Talk 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support for the colour changed image. Looks good, interesting and illustrates article well. Hermajesty 22:09, 15 January 2006
• Support - this image was a favorite of mine even before it appeared in the Wiki! Debivort 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice picture --Magmafox 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose I fail to see the attraction. To me it's just a wierd painting --Fir0002 05:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Its just a bad ~70's era style watercolor. concept is fascinating, execution is dull.--Deglr6328 04:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. ACK Fir0002 and Deglr6328. --Dschwen 00:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - just some painting, nothing special. --Bricktop 12:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Deglr6328. Palm_Dogg 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted No consensus. Alr 02:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mourne Mountains

Self-nom. Added it because the other pictures of this iconic mountain range do not give any sort of perspective.

• Self-nom and support. - Mark83 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support.Clear at high resolution, good panoramic view.--Dakota ~ ε 21:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Actually, I think this is a bit blurry at its full size. If someone could sharpen it then I'd support it. -JPM 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Why do we continually get pics here that are clearly sloping? - Adrian Pingstone 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Straightened version uploaded. Mark83 22:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If it is only a simple correction, you can just upload the edit over the original. We only really need to see edits if they differ significantly. ~MDD4696 04:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks like any other mountain to me. enochlau (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The mountain doesn't look that good to me. Maybe if the picture was closer it could give some height to the mountain. --Ali K 13:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not striking. Alr 17:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The mountain is the subject of interest but represents only about 5% of the image surface. Glaurung 07:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The title makes it clear it is the mountain range which is the subject of the image. However even then probably still too small. Mark83 12:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant the mountain range, but I agree its closer to 10% than 5%, but still too small. Glaurung 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Ferry and the IFCs

The photograph features the facinating night view of the Victoria Harbour of Hong Kong in two layers, with Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon Peninsula in the foreground, the Central, Hong Kong Island (the opposite side of the harbour) in the background. In the foreground is a Star Ferry, one of the oldest cross-habour transportation in Hong Kong, parking at the pier. In the backround are the International Finance Centres (the taller "2 ifc" on the left and the shorter "1 ifc" on the right), which was constructed in recent years. The foreground and the background create a strong contrast between the old and the new in Hong Kong. This photograph was taken by Alan Mak, the nominator, in December 2005, and appears in the articles Star Ferry, International Finance Centre and Tsim Sha Tsui.

• Nominate and support. - Alanmak 16:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the ferry is too head on and the boxy structures on the left ugly so not FP material in my opinion - Adrian Pingstone 16:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with Adrian Pingstone. Alr 20:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unbalanced, not great composition. Zafiroblue05 21:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was just in HK not long ago, and I absolutely love the harbour (beats Sydney anyday). But this photo just doesn't do it justice. enochlau (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The boat, as said previously, is too head on, and the shed on the left really bugs me. --Ali K 13:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Small, at this size it should be perfectly clear, but it isn't. Also the fileformat. PNG? On the plus side, I think it captures the mood ok (has been a few years since I went). --Dschwen 14:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Nothing eye-catching about this. -- Rohit 04:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grimsvoetn

Used in the article Vatnajökull, picture taken by myself.

• Nominate and support. - Roger McLassus 10:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurry, and poorly coloured. Alr 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support It may be a little blurry (or vignetted) on the left, but it's not too bad. I like the colors, and the image itself - it looks like a giant wave rolling in. Zafiroblue05 21:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Being lazy, and not wanting to study the article, can the photographer tell us what this is, please? Is it a mountain scene, a glacier or a frozen lake (I'm just interested) - Adrian Pingstone 22:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is the "largest glacier in Iceland," according to Vatnajökull. Zafiroblue05 23:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. It would be extremely difficult to get an image of higher quality. (Remember that it is much easier to get a high quality image of a cathedral or skyscraper than of a remote and dangerous geological formation!) - Blake's Star 02:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the image quality is fine. I'm just having trouble understanding what the subject is or what part of Vatnajökull it supports? ~MDD4696 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment above. I can't tell what I'm looking at, even in context. ~MDD4696 20:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice use of colors, and interesting perspective Tobb 04:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is the horizon sloping down from the right to the left? enochlau (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree on the slope, I noticed it imediately - Adrian Pingstone 16:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Grímsvötn are volcanic lakes in the Vatnajökull glacier but I still can't quite figure out this image :) - Haukur 11:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The caption obviously needs to be improved, I don't quite get whats special here either. --Dschwen 13:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Explanation Grimsvötn is a volcano which in 1972 was nearly completley covered by the ice of Vatnajökull glacier. Only the hightest part of the crater was uncovered - and this part is what the picture shows. --Roger McLassus 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you turn this into the image's caption? ~MDD4696 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Done --Roger McLassus 10:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Since later eruptions have changed the landscape there this is a historic photograph - so technical imperfections are more acceptable. And it is an impressive picture. --Calderwood 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support ACK Calderwood Hein 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Doesn't do anything for me, sorry. --Deglr6328 05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, with regret. The subject is fascinating, but the photo isn't what I'd expect of a FP. --Janke | Talk 08:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT The sloping of the horizon is now corrected --Roger McLassus 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support impressive --Kessa Ligerro 18:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support yes it is --Briseis 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Mayamaxima 16:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Iceland Grimsvoetn 1972-B.jpg Raven4x4x 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fire02.jpg

I think this is a good replacement for the existing FP photo I took with my old Kodak. Higher res and quality IMO. Of course if you feel there is space for two fire FP's I'd be happy with that too :-)

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 10:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. From the thumbnails, the second picture (existing FP) looks more dramatic because of the more saturated colors, but the detail at high res in the first one is great. Phils 12:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - "fire" is not a sufficient caption. Nice looking though. Broken S 22:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I didn't realise we were voting on the caption as well. Put a bit more detail in it --Fir0002 23:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:WIAFP says that pictures should be, "Be displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption." I think the picture looks nice and would suggest you take it to commons, but I see you have already done that. Broken S 14:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Ok, but something I like in the current one is that I can see where the ground is. In the proposed one, the fire doesn't have context. enochlau (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, the existing FP better illustrates fire because it shows the need it has for a fuel, which I can't see in the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, simply not striking, like original FP better. Phoenix2 01:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quality is great, much better than the original FP. But the flames look too much out of context to significantly contribute to any article the other FP is contributing to. --Dschwen 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps it would be more suitable for the "flame" article --Fir0002 22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great in the flame article. I just added it. --Dschwen 19:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider supporting? --Fir0002 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it is now used in an article where it fits? That should be the case for every picture on wikipedia. Don't get me wrong the image quality is realy outstanding, but if you check the flame article you'll see that the other picture adds more to it in an encyclopedic way, explaining the different flame colors.--Dschwen 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support I enjoy it. It is good way to show fire. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, the existing FP is visually better. The new nomination feels "frozen", doesn't convey the dynamics of the flames as well. --Janke | Talk 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like it. Very pyro... Spawn Man 03:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Both - They look great--ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trickey Pond Sunrise

My own image. Trickey Pond is a beautiful pond, sought out for its beauty by photographers around the state. I believe it clearly illustrates the pond, as well as being quite eye-catching.

• Nominate and support. - Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Is that white stuff on the lake fog or artifacts? enochlau (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The white stuff is fog --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 14:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The trees are too dark (it needs to be encyclopaedic), and I don't like the fog. Compare with the sunset featured pictures, and this isn't as high quality. --liquidGhoul 10:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, sorry, but this could be (almost) any lake. --Dschwen 12:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I like the fog and the trees, but the sky and the water contain artefacts. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - As a thumbnail it's an OK picture, but full size quality is a letdown. Alr 17:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - A very typical sunset pic, just like zillions of other sunset pics. Not original enough to be featured IMHO. Eyesclosed 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  User's 5th edit.

  And yet to the point User:Brian0918. --Dschwen 10:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, as above. enochlau (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support I like it. ^KILO-_LIMA 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose it looks good. But in full resolution I see bad quality. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sadly... it's a lovely shot, but the noise and artifacts at full mag make it problematic. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 02:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DTW Edward H. McNamara Terminal

I took this image on my way to South Korea. It shows the architecture from a different point of view than the main floor as well as showing the trains that allow passengers to effortlessly move from one end of the linear terminal to the other end. The image is shown in the article about DTW in the Edward H. McNamara Terminal section.

• Self-nominate and support. - Danleo 06:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like how the train is blurred. If it's going to be blurred, it should be very blurred. Otherwise, it should freeze the train in motion. --vaeiou 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not striking. Alr 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like the perspective. Dylan 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bland, and full-res is grainy and has pronounced purple-fringing. --Dschwen 10:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just like another train terminal we had a while back, it's an ok picture, but it doesn't really make me go "wow". enochlau (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- I also like the perspective. TomStar81 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A bit dull. --Janke | Talk 08:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cymbidium orchids

Maybe this flower photo has a little more "wow" factor. It also contributes well to it's article. Personally I like the colors in the non cut out version. I have other versions: Image:Cymbidium04.jpg, Image:Cymbidium06.jpg, Image:Cymbidium07.jpg

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 11:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Which version? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support any of those versions --Fir0002 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose For now. Maybe you could get rid of the misty shading of the flower on the second image. It looks distractive to the eyes.--Ali K 13:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Neither is (are?) OK in my view. Each of the spread-out petals of version 1 is blurred. On version 2 the curious white glow around the petal edges is annoying - Adrian Pingstone 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd support the second ver if the blurred edjes could be fixed. Eyesclosed 19:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)</a>

Comment Removed the outer glow effect --Fir0002 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support The second image. Eyesclosed 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose second, Neutral first - I feel like the masking in the second image doesn't look right. Debivort 05:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. First lacks DOF, cutout provides no additional value (actually lessens it, since we loose context). --Dschwen 10:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. The first has focus issues, while in the second I don't quite like the background. enochlau (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support second - I like the look of the second image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernova

As stated on the picture of the day site, the purpose of the POTD should be to pique the reader's interest and add significantly to content. An image like this accomplishes both, not to mention its quite beautiful. The image appears in Supernova, and was created by User: Janderk and originally seen via NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

• Support Matthew 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative oppose. There was one very similar to this a little while ago, wasn't there? It looked a little better than this... I'll try to find it. Zafiroblue05 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of . But never mind... This article is already featured. (I think it's inferior to the other one, and similar enough to it to even warrant delisting, but whatever.) Zafiroblue05 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It was promoted a long time ago. - JPM | 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• • No need to oppose it if it's already promoted, I'll just remove it from this page. Raven4x4x 06:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hay Bale with bird

I got up at dawn to get this photo and I think it came out quite well. The bird was a bonus.

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose bland, not stunning. --Dschwen 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose quite a nice photo, but not really stunning. A polarizer might have given a nice effect. 84.9.223.82 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. FPC's on Wikipedia don't necessarily need to be captivating. But nonetheless, I think this is a great photo -- it's in a high resolution, and has good lighting and nice scenery. -JPM 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think the fact that all the colors are rather muted enhanced the photo. Dylan 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't really think the bird should be named in the picture caption, it is rather small and not obvious. I like the hay bale though, its a good image and looks interesting, especially to a person who has never seen one before! --Ali K 10:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I like how the bale is in focus and it's surroundings aren't. And it's quite informative for people who are used to square hay bales or who haven't seen any at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An amazingly crisp image. enochlau (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Haystack looks worse in reality than in the photo. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bland and boring. The bird's distracting. Zafiroblue05 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Boring this ain't! I think it's quite a lovely shot. Also, it's a perfect depiction of the subject matter. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It lacks that something special. Background color is similar. --84.134.24.181 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to have a fake "aged" appearance. Might just be the dawn light's effect. - Bevo 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted . Close, but with seven supporters (eight including nominator) and four opposers (five including the anon) I can't say there was consensus to promote. Raven4x4x 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 UB313 artist's impression

Just a beautiful image which portrays the considerable distance between this newly discovered satellite and the sun perfectly. Article appears in 2003 UB313 and is in the public domain being created and released by NASA

• Nominate and support. - čĥàñľōŕď 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. It's good but sort of run-of-the-mill space image. Dylan 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The real photos look better. --vaeiou 04:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose doesn't have any of the attributes for an FP - Adrian Pingstone 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, little to no encyclopedic value. --Dschwen 10:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree, the real photos do look better and it just doesn't carry the wow factor that they do. --Ali K 10:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks meaningless. enochlau (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Huh? There are no real photos (2003UB313 is further out than Pluto) save little starlike patches of light, and are probably not going to be in the lifetime of most of us present. No vote. Denni ☯ 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose just a rendering of little encyclopedic value. --Bricktop 12:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this picture is an artist's impression, therefore, it is not really that encyclopedia-related.Sidious1701 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal Gardens at Lake Forest Academy

The Formal Gardens at Lake Forest Academy in Illinois. This was formerly the estate of Chicago meat baron J. Ogden Armour; it was later bought by the school. Beautiful place. I took this photo myself.

• Nominate and support. - Dylan 03:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The sky is completely white. ~MDD4696 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Mdd4696. Alr 04:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Also, the splotches of rainbow are distracting, and the picture isn't that centered. -JPM 04:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with all of the above. --Dschwen 10:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that it would have been a totally different picture if it had been taken from a higher point. Nice hedges though. --Ali K 11:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sky did it for me. enochlau (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not in focus - Adrian Pingstone 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blown-out sky, generally not striking enough. Eyesclosed 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above --Calderwood 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This photo is very bright. Too bright for me Andrew₁₈ ^@ 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sky is over-exposed --Mikeo 20:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intentionally blank page

High resolution, catches the eye in its own unique way, and illustrates its article perfectly. Specifically, it illustrates the counter-refuting method used in the SAT. Rather than leave the page entirely blank (and leave the nervous student worrying that he got a defective test), and rather than add a self-refuting message like "This page is intentionally left blank", they chose an appropriate alternative.

• Self-nom. - BRIAN0918 21:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not catch my eye, in fact, it blends in with the background. Alr 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very crisp and high contrast, could use a little cropping though. No seriously, you've gotta be kidding! Here is another self-refuting message: I won't even dignify this one with an oppose ;-) --Dschwen 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Way too striking for me to support. It made me quiver with excitement the moment I saw it, such that I wanted to oppose. enochlau (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
•  ! Strong Support
  • Whoops,  ! Strong Oppose
    • I mean, Neutral. Very brave, though. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this one is taking the "...illustrating article content particularly well..." concept a bit too far. Might as well have a a blank box, and link it to the article White. Sorry if that sounds too harsh. -JPM 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose What I want to know is if the College Board could copyright that page! ~MDD4696 05:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Due to mis-representation: that page is not blank, there's some text on it... --Janke | Talk 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a joke entry, I assume - Adrian Pingstone 13:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Crisp, clean and attractive image. Nice use of colours, there's just something that is bugging me about it...--Ali K 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - no, it's not interesting. Surely this was done as a joke? --Thorpe | talk 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: He might have been satirizing how people (myself inclusive) felt about this one, or other similar scenarios. - JPM | 23:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong, Strong Oppose You have got to be kidding me. Anchorage 12:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per ugly font gren グレン ^? 09:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't find serif fonts sexy? enochlau (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, although it is something new on WP:FPC --Chris 73 | Talk 15:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Dock Panorama

In a rare bit of January sun, I took 27 pictures of the Albert Dock and created created this Panorama using PTGui. Quite pleased with the result.

• Nominate and support (self-nom). - chowells 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There are a couple of flaws I'd like corrected before supporting: 1: The buildings lean to the left in an odd way - maybe the stitching should be re-done, or the whole image rotated slightly clockwise, and 2: A little sharpening (maybe "unsharp mask" filtering), and after that some downsampling, to reduce the unnecessarily large size, which would also improve the apparent sharpness. --Janke | Talk 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Rotated by 0.7 deg and buildings seem perfect now. Applied some USM and downsampled in resolution slightly. Please see version 2. chowells 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral, nice work, I can only see one oddity, the duplicated car on the right bridge. I'm reluctant to support since the subject is not really stunning. --Dschwen 20:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's very clear, but a little on the boring side. enochlau (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Dull subject, noisy at full res. --Fir0002 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to shoot the person who decided the ISO setting on the 20D should be hidden away. Still, not terrible for accidentally leaving it in ISO 1600 mode ;) chowells 15:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Fir002. For the record Chowells, you could probably tell by looking at the the shutter speed and aperture that something was strange if it was at ISO 1600. A panorama like that should be shot at ISO100 so the shutter/aperture would have been 16 times faster/more stopped down. ;). I'm not saying I've never made that mistake before, but I usually pay more attention when I'm creating a panorama. You have all the time in the world to get things right! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I only got the camera at christmas, that was the first time I've used it properly. I will definitely be checking the ISO more carefully in future. 84.9.223.82 18:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Nice attempt to capture a picture, but it really isn't all that stunning.--Ali K 11:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - but it does show the busy dock to advantage, I do like the mixture of tugs and sailing vessels. However, the leftmost brick building is still leaning in an awkward way... Reducing the size somewhat further (it doesn't have to be 18,000 pixels wide!) would remove some of the noise. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum Great Court

The tessellated glass roof of the British Museum's Great Court.

Image:British Museum Great Court roof edit.jpg Edit 1

Edit 2

Solipsist took this picture of the Great Court at the British Museum. It is used in that article and I think it is an excellent picture of a striking piece of architecture and engineering.

• Nominate and support. - the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's very clear and it illustrates the geometry of the structure well. The roof part is almost like as if it came out of a maths program! enochlau (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Been there, picture does a great job conveying the subject. --Dschwen 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

original or first edit. Edit2 has a distinct purple tint. Edit1 might be a tad too warm though.--Dschwen 12:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support, any version. Nice, sharp shot. My only gripe: The mirror-image lettering at lower left. Yes, I know it's a transparent sign seen from the back, but it still detracts... --Janke | Talk 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. If there was an article on geometric vibrance, this could probably go there. :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-17 22:24
• Neutral Dull coloration. Maybe raise contrast and saturation / darken it a bit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drumguy8800 (talk • contribs).
  • Support Edit #2. Nice coloration, ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN •. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• I too made a quick edited version (the 3rd version). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-18 03:24
• Support any version. Good framing and interesting subject/angle. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 03:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Edit2 only. — Pixel8 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a particularly interesting picture. Image 2, although image one isn't that bad either. --Ali K 09:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Original and edit 2. Fantastic photo, I love the geometric properties. --Fir0002 04:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support any version, although I feel that edit number 2 is a little too blue. Raven4x4x 07:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sure that a panoramic view of the interior would be more visually appealing and representative of the space. - Hahnchen 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Mikeo 20:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:British Museum Great Court roof.jpg. In the absence of any real consensus on which version to promote, I promote the original. Raven4x4x 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoverfly

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 04:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Oppose. Nice pic. But currently not in any article, and the hoverfly is a bit edge on. --Dschwen 07:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather go with oppose, see my comments further down. The other pic is just better. --Dschwen 18:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• {{User:Vanderdecken/StrongSupport}} Another slice of amazingness from Fir0002. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 09:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is in the article Flower-fly. Sharp image and looks like it was difficult to capture.--Dakota ~ ε 09:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this picture adds a lot more to the flower-fly article as the actual fly occupies a lot more of the frame and is shown from a better angle. --Dschwen 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is striking but is it nominated? Would support if nominated.--Dakota ~ ε 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone just nominated it on commons. But in any case, having a superior picture is a pretty good reason to oppose this nomination. --Dschwen 12:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice clear pic, and an interesting one at that! --Ali K 10:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Refreshing. enochlau (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. When viewed full size, looks like it has been processed and sharpened into oblivion. There are strong haloes around some of the edges and it appears overly washed out and unnatural. The flower itself appears posterized and lacking in texture, but it could be due to being out of focus. I'm not considering nominating it right now, but I feel I have a better image here --> [6]. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Washed Out? I don't quite follow you there - it seems to me as perfectly saturated. I also fail to see any haloes, let alone "strong" haloes. There is a little compression where there is fine hairs, but that is what you get with jpeg. Also with all due respect I think your photo is a little washed out and unsharp. --Fir0002 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, can you see that the yellow part of the flower lacks definition and seems posterized? The sides of it have strange highlights. They don't look like genuine highlights as they're sort of pale, so I don't know what they are. I can only guess that it is posterization anyway. We're obviously not on the same page here as I think my image looks more balanced and yours looks washed out (when I said that, I was refering to the flower - the fly is overly contrasty actually, so I guess I should have been specific). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I honestly don't see any posterized elements. Maybe you could uploaded a picture with a circle around it? --Fir0002 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Doesn't show the fly from a good angle - wings are totally edge-on. --Janke | Talk 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well personally I think that is one of the strong points. So many photos of hoverfly's are top down because that is pretty easy (couple examples from me {not including the rest on the article) 1, 2, 3, 4). And getting a shot that is side on is quite unusual and I find more interesting --Fir0002 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I prefer Image:Hoverfly.jpg, Image:Flower fly Victoria, Australia Oct 2003.jpg or this staring hoverfly --Wikimol 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I would much rather a better view of the fly, either from the top or slightly angled. This version misses vital markings on the back of the fly. The background is disturbing. The fly doesn't take up enough of the frame, if it were cropped to just include the fly, it would be far too small for FP. --liquidGhoul 12:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice perspective. Randyoo 09:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)