Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

	Older Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Contents 1 Battle of Hong Kong map 2 African Penguin Swimming in New England Aquarium. 3 Pyramid Peak Drainage Waterfall 4 Crystal Mountains of California 5 2006 US Silver Proof 6 Whistling Duck Flight 7 Chicago River 8 Plate tectonics 9 Sturts Desert Pea 10 63 Building 11 Hubble Ultra Deep Field 12 AjaxF 13 Lechuguilla Cave Pearlsian Gulf 14 Radar 15 Abandon M3 Tank 16 Castel Sant'Angelo 17 Gas Mask 18 Red Sand Garden 19 Sufjan Stevens playing banjo 20 Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 21 Damaged Yorktown 22 Seal 23 Sandstorm 24 Wolf Spider 25 Whaling in the Faroe Islands 26 Potato and Cross Section 27 Boulevard du Temple 28 Walnut 29 FA-22 Raptor 30 Joseph Kittinger's Skydive 31 Sierra Escarpment 32 Wild Shortbeak Echidna 33 2005-issue penny obverse 34 Barrington river 35 Robocup Team Osaka's VisiON 36 Methane Lakes on Titan 37 Banded cleaner shrimp 38 Metallic Ringtail 39 Obverse of a penny 16 years in circulation 40 Royal Australian Exhibition Building 41 Titanic Wreckage (2nd nomination) 42 Indian bride portrait 43 Polar Map of Jupiter 44 Hawker Hurricane 45 Approach to Kata Tjuta 46 Canadian Geese 47 Meat Eater Ant Queen 48 Valley of the Temples. 49 A New York City firefighter looks up at what remains of the South Tower. 50 Sunset over steeple. 51 Brolga Cranes 52 Edison and Phonograph 53 Pardalotus with nesting material 54 Hemispheric 55 Angel Falls 56 LT-SEM snow crystals.jpg 57 City of Manila, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, PHILIPPINES 58 Constructive solid geometry tree 59 Morteratsch Glacier 60 Hoverfly 61 Naghshe Jahan Square 62 Winter Sea 63 Tesseract 64 USS Wisconsin 65 Winter Sea at dusk 66 The Solar System 67 Margarita 68 Milk Thistle Flowerhead 69 Telomere quadruplex 70 Portland Street neon chaos 71 Shenzhen Construction 72 Washington Monument daytime shot 73 Mute Swan 74 Lesueur's Frog 75 High Resolution Solar Spectrum 76 Möbius strip 77 Green Tent Spider 78 Hospital Ship USNS Mercy 79 Montserrat Panorama 80 Sea Gulls 81 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun firing 82 Nymphal grasshopper 83 Peacock 84 Trenches of the Great War 85 Translational Motion 86 Toledo Skyline Panorama 87 Shiva Statue 88 Zebras in Botswana 89 The Transneptunians 90 Hamburg warehouse district at night 91 Trumpet 1 92 Glass.sculpture.kewgardens.london.arp.jpg 93 Above Telluride Colorado 94 Green planthopper 95 English Budgie 96 Cactus Flower 97 Man Speaks with Woman. 98 Satin Bowerbird 99 Ulysses Butterfly 100 College football tackle 101 P-38 Lightning head-on 102 Morning Fog at the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco 103 Golden Gate Bridge capturing the last sunlight of 2006 104 Limburger cheese 105 Light dispersion 106 Indian peacock displaying 107 Sabaa Nissan Militiaman 108 Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina

[edit] Battle of Hong Kong map

Reason

Informative map of historic event. Well-drawn and clearly formatted.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Hong Kong

Creator

Jerry Crimson Mann

Nominator

UCLARodent

• Nominate and Support — UCLARodent 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ambiguous geographic representation, hard to decide where is land and sea. Bad choice of lettering specially in the legends. No indication of scale, location (geographic coordinates) and orientation (direction of North, at least). Not pleasing the eye due to lack of colour. In short, very far from FP standards. Alvesgaspar 14:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's boring and not featured picture material. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons given by Alvesgaspar above. However, thanks for making the map, it's an excellent addition to the encyclopedia but not FP standard - Adrian Pingstone 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Add some color into the pic, and I'll Support it. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia|wanna Talk? 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Also add north/south direction, altitude reference(colored), and I'll tell some users to support ur image. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia|wanna Talk? 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please check the etiquette section of WP:VOTE. Merry Christmas to all by the way. --89.51.46.32 10:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Ooops, that was me. --Dschwen 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the users above have adequately identified what needs to be done to the image to make it FP material. enochlau (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It just fails to catch my attention like a featured picture should. It's just not as good as it could be. Maybe adding some colors would make it a bit less boring better. Merry happy ChristmaChanuKwanzaDan :-). Ilikefood 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moderate oppose as per all comments above; only in full view can a viewer truly determine which is land and which is sea. In addition, I think that the fonts do nothing but hinder the image quality. As per Ilikefood's comments, perhaps a minimum of two colours, to help identify land and water, would help considerably. -- Altiris Exeunt 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The semi-official colors at the semi-official colors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps would do wonders for the map. I also agree with the comments that the location names add little to the understanding of the map, but do distract from the story -- perhaps they should be in a lighter gray, or partially transparent. And I think that the movement arrows could be larger or snazzier such as used on this map. MapMaster 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] African Penguin Swimming in New England Aquarium.

Reason

I believe this is a high quality picture of a penguin swimming. It meets the size requirement and is appealing to the eye. My only complaint about it would be the red tag on its wing, but that can be photoshoped out.

Articles this image appears in

African Penguin, New England Aquarium

Creator

Max Lieberman

Nominator

ZeWrestler ^Talk

• Support — ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Great shot but the bright, saturated water distracts from the subject. Noclip 16:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Needs clipping to bring the subject larger (I think you mean "tag" not "rag", and it doesn't need removing, zoo penguins often have a tag) - Adrian Pingstone 16:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Opps, thanks for pointing that out. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to the water color and the light reflecting off of it, it's more difficult to focus on the subject. Also, there seems to be blurriness around the beak and the angle isn't the greatest. Nice shot, but probably not FP quality. Nilington 18:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The water distracts me from seeing the beauty of the core of the picture which is the penguin. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose in agreement to Why1991; it's a great picture, but the water is a bit too...err, dazzling, if you know what I mean. -- Altiris Exeunt 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per A. Exeunt. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 ^π 14:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't have a problem with the water, it's that the bird itself is a little unclear. enochlau (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The problems this image faces are twofold. Firstly, it doesn't illustrate its subject very well. This could conceivably be solved by finding a topic it actually does describe well enough for featuring, though it may require some brain-wracking to come up with one. But while this'd help, I'm still not sure I'd support it. The red-eye of the penguin and the reflections of an overhead light at the top center really hurt the image. All in all, a good photograph, but not a feature-quality one. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose is it just me or does the penguin have a red eye? Kind of looks scary, I don't mind the water color though. — Arjun 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyramid Peak Drainage Waterfall

Reason

This image represents many hidden areas of a wilderness area many people believe to be devoid of such an oasis

Articles this image appears in

Desolation Wilderness

Creator

Phreakdigital, Mike Grindstaff

Nominator

Phreakdigital

• Support — Phreakdigital 23:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• oppose — even if the image is above the 1k limit, I feel that the image is to little for this kind of object. _→AzaToth 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful. Just Beautiful. Ilikefood 00:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support That looks like it would make a great one of those animated pictures. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Image is fuzzy, like it's dithered a little. Looks like at some point it had been saved with little color depth --froth^{T C} 03:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The landscape looks.. artificial to me. It looks like it's a man made decoration or something (why would the rock on the sides look like that?). --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The colour in the image appears rather flat and dull for some reason, and I don't think the scenery depicted is particularly beautiful or anything, sorry. enochlau (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moderate Support; while looking at the picture while it was loading, it has come to my attention that there seems to be less focus on scenery objects further away from the camera (such as the waterfall). However, the level of detail on scenery objects closer to the camera (such as the flowers) is virtually unmatched. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as said before beautiful, and per above. — Arjun 14:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Resolution isn't high enough. --Zantastik talk 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Mountains of California

Reason

Shows the short chain of mountains from the best possible vantage point with the famous Lake Aloha.

Articles this image appears in

Crystal Mountains (California)

Creator

Mike Grindstaff, phreakdigital

Nominator

Phreakdigital 23:24, 25 December 2006 (UT

• oppose — what are the holes/dots in the sky for a thing? why is it regularry blurry? _→AzaToth 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Now it looks better. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I support Edit 1; details are crystal-clear to me; decent lighting, well done. -- Altiris Exeunt 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Are those dark bands in the water stitch artifacts? They look very unnatural to me... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're just shadows from the peaks. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 per all above. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 ^π 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1' Edit 1 fixes the dots problem. The picture seems to be hi res, detailed, encyclopedic, and somewhat interesting. Not the best picture I've seen around, but it does meet the minimum requirements of WP:FP. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1: Nice color. Very crisp. Only thing I didn't like was the patterns in the water ripples made by the stitching program. But it's still a very nice shot. Mactographer 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Crystal Mountains CA02 edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 US Silver Proof

Reason

I saw this picture (I cannot remember which article I came from, unfortunately) and I just love the detail of the photo, not to mention the lack of compression artifacts and virtually no noise. All it needs is a little rotation correction and it should be good to go.

Articles this image appears in

American Silver Eagle, Silver as an investment, US coin sizes

Creator

United States Mint

Nominator

Ataricom

• Support — Ataricom 01:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I believe that this would make a great featured picture. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. False lighting, laughable contrast... looks more like concept art than an actual coin --froth^{T C} 03:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Contrast cranked to the hilt ≠ featured picture quality. And does the coin really say "Ingod Wetrust"? ~ trialsanderrors 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Fake lighting, doesn't look natural. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the reason it looks unnatural is because the blank background areas of the coin have been cut out and replaced with that wavy gradient. Just to make it look neater, I suppose... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd like to see a version without the fake-looking transition between the light and dark areas of the coin. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the same reasons Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/United_States_Quarter and Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/South_Dakota_State_Quarter failed. Chicago god 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Minor support; is it me, or do I think that the extremely high detail makes it look a little...unnatural? -- Altiris Exeunt 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. The coin looks a bit too thick. Ilikefood 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Severe Oppose - I rather have naturally toned coins than Computer enhanced coinage. Posting an example (The Half Dollar pic) to prove my point. Theres no substitute to natural tonage done by mother nature and father time. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Proof coins do look different. How about Jan. 2nd's POTD? ilikeFood, the coin is actually is thick. Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This Trade Dollar is a Proof coin (see pic) and is completely natural and somewhat enhances the beatuy of the coin. While better examples exist, it illustrates the point that such beauty can be had if your willing to be patient. The US Mint's "doctored" proofs are too unnatural looking and aren't really an accurate representation of their real life counterparts. I mean, can you say, with 100% certainty, that the US Mint will give you a coin just like in the picture? Not really. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments at Lincoln cent. ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me. I like the contrast too. Makes me want to have one in my hand.Mactographer 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whistling Duck Flight

You've gotta admire a shot like this - from the excellent sharpness and focus to the superb bokeh; a great shot of a Black-Bellied Whistling Duck in flight.

• Nominate and Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice quality picture!! --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. Don't suppose they have it available in higher resolution? --Dgies 06:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor preference for Edit 1. —Dgies^t c 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. Ilikefood 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, with preference for the original per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. Another great find. Pstuart84 Talk 19:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Difficult shot. --Tewy 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. I don't think that adding sky is an "illegal" edit in this case. It helps the composition. --Tewy 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 ^π 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as above. enochlau (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support; every user above has said it! -- Altiris Exeunt 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either the masses had spoken. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit1. Olegivvit 11:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support either one. I have no problems with the addition of 'blank' space that does not mess with the reality of the subject. -- Noraad 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 -- Noraad 14:29, 02 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support a quality picture... well worth it! --SunStar Net^talk 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. froth^{T C} 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 froth^{T C} 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 What can I say? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Love it, very nice. — Arjun 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support The quality is great, and I love the second one!! Daniel10 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Edit1, though I'd also accept the original. A superb photo! Ackatsis 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either Version, leaning towards Edit 1 I support both verions of this picture (it's quite beautiful!) but I am leaning more towards edit 1. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support with a preference for the second one. Bobanny 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. Per above.--HereToHelp 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support original nice one, even without the fake extension. But why is the duck surrounded by that light aura? --Dschwen 11:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably something in the background that's horribly out of focus --froth^{T C} 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great quality. --William Pembroke^(talk) 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit one. Both are good, clear pictures, but edit one's extra space makes it a little bit better. --RandomOrca2 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago River

I was able to locate the full size version of this picture which I previously submitted. The picture is in articles: Chicago and Chicago river among others, and was taken by myself User:Kkmd.

• Could you instead add the full sized version to the first nomination, rather than creating a new nomination? Thanks. --Tewy 05:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support A great shot, illustrative and appealing. Jellocube27 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support; sorry, but I could only load half the image due to some problems with my connection. However, in the top half that I managed to see, I noticed a small amount of fragmentation in some areas of the image, so that lowered my opinion of the picture a little. However, I have no qualms over the image resolution or anything else, for that matter. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Here is the original nomination for the smaller version. --Tewy 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I just don't like the way the lights reflect off the water. I know it's inevitable.... but I just don't agree with it. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The picture is slightly leaning to the left (on top of the perspective distortion). I believe either a HDR shot or a picture taken during the day would reveal more detail and do the scene more justice than this (albeit pretty) picture. --Dschwen 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plate tectonics

Reason

I feel this image represents the plates of the earth perfectly. Although a little small, I have come to understand that is not an issue with svg images. Slowly superceeding Image:Tectonic plates.png

Articles this image appears in

• Plate tectonics
• Continent
• Mid-ocean ridge
• Rift
• Seafloor spreading
• Continental drift
• Crust (geology)
• Portal:Science/Featured article

Creator

User:Scott Nash / User:Zimbres

Nominator

- Jack (talk)

• Support — - Jack (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment resized it to A0 format. _→AzaToth 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are gaps in the outline of the land where there are labels. Perhaps the labels could be moved to allow unbroken lines? Also, is the Equator relevant in this diagram? Surely it has nothing to do with plate tectonics... Mahahahaneapneap 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree, I thought all that when I found it, but kinda hoped someone with more of an understanding of svg manipulation than me could help with that one. I gather its easily done? - Jack (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose current version, although I think it could be fixed to make this a featured picture. My objection is mostly about the color scheme which makes it hard to detect the relation of the plates to the continents. One way to fix this would be to switch the scheme to dark, saturated colors for continents and light, desaturated colors for oceans. I also recommend changing the colors for the Arabian and Caribbean plates because the difference between continent and water is hard to detect and in general sticking with "maritime" colors for non-continental plates (Pacific and Filipino in particular). And lastly, switching the color of the plate borders to white might make it easier to differentiate between them and the shorelines. ~ trialsanderrors 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose My main reason for opposing is the map projection. In my opinion it should be an equal area projection so that the relative size of the plaques are conserved, like in this picture, in the same article. Also, the ocean ridges should be represented, as well as the Equator and some meridians and parallels. Alvesgaspar 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all above. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per all comments above. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 ^π 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've seen better. The one we have in school shows which plate is overriding at the subduction zone, not just where the subduction zone is. Ilikefood 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I believe that this is an attractive and informative map. It is easily understood but nonetheless contains a lot of data. I believe that the method used to show present day continents is not only very effective but also subtle enough not to compete with the plate outlines. I do think color-coding the plates for land and sea is a good idea. While not perfect, I would support this map for Featured Picture. MapMaster 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I like this image just fine, but what's with the red arrows? What do they represent? They're a little jarring as is. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They're the direction of plate movement, I thought that to be obvious - Jack (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sturts Desert Pea

An unusual image to come out of a day at the zoo (it's so dangerous it needs to be kept behind 400,000 volt electric fence and requires human sacrifices to feed it ;-)) but a good image IMO nevertheless. It was quite challenging to capture the vibrant red of the flower without blowing the red channel, but I think this pic does a good job at it.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately, this image looks "messy" (even in full size), because of the mottled background and the foreground leaves. The composition also feels lop-sided. You can do better! --Janke | Talk 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. That's what HDR is for isn't it? Anyway I agree with janke, too confusing and messy --froth^{T C} 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, HDR wouldn't be useful for this scene --Fir0002 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you lowered the red channel in other areas then the red on the flowers would be "redder" relative to the rest of the image and you can get more red in the image without blowing it out. HDR doesn't necessarily have to be for brightness, the same principle applies to colors too --froth^{T C} 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with the people who say its messy, although i think the colours are nice, if theres another picture with the same subject that wouldn't be bad. User:Voshvoshka
• Weak oppose both. Per above. I prefer the alternate, but it suffers from the same problems as the nominee, and I don't like the harsh lighting caused by what seems to be a flash. --Tewy 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose As stated above the leaves in the background are distracting and also the picture just doesn't have to much of an attractiveness. A good picture just not featured picture material. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moderate Oppose as per Why1991's comment. -- Altiris Exeunt 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice colours, but the capital sin of this picture is the composition (or the lack of it). Alvesgaspar 14:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Composition aside, I also don't quite like the harsh lighting on the plant, why did you use flash? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 63 Building

Reason

A great picture of the 63 Building in Seoul, South Korea. Its coppery geometry stands out beneath an overcast sky, instilling a sense of awe.

Articles this image appears in

Seoul, 63 Building

Creator

IGEL

Nominator

Húsönd

• Support — Húsönd 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neato, but I must Oppose. Overcast lighting it not the best way to show it off, composition cuts off the base and provides very little sense of scale. The only way I can tell how big it is is by counting floors. Also seems uniformly a little out of focus. --Dgies 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - In general, overcast lighting is going to make the photo subject less attractive. Also, the clutter at the bottom and the dim building in the back takes attention away from the subject. This would be a great picture had it been taken in better light conditions. Nilington 04:09 28 December 2006 UTC
• Oppose Maybe if you would step back a little bit and wait untill a day that has better weather. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the above user about the weather, and personally i think the street lamps at the bottom are eye sores. If there were trees or blurred cars or something that would be better.User:Voshvoshka - Dec 27, 22:26
• Oppose In addition to all that, aliasing all over the place. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moderate Oppose; the weather in the picture will turn people off. A good shot, nonetheless. Do it in fine weather and you may get my support. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per rampant aliasing. Needs to be at least 130% that resolution. --froth^{T C} 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated above. —sd31415 (sign here) 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above, defiantly not featured material. — Arjun 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Not exactly FP material. It is couldy, the resolution isn't that great, and the picture isn't that inspiring. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Reason

High resolution, very detailed, makes a reader wonder just how impossibly large the universe is with all of its galaxies. PLEASE VIEW FULL SIZE.

Articles this image appears in

Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Creator

NASA

Nominator

- Rogsheng

• Nominate and Support — - Rogsheng 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I love that picture can I have it!!!!!! --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support — This image appears to meet all nine criteria for a featured image, and is one of the most striking scientific images of the last several years. Wittyname 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Since there's an article on this image, the captain for featured image should include the article's text, right? This is my first attempt to feature an image. After seeing it on the site for months, I decided to take the initiative. --- Rogsheng 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Image:Hubble Ultra Deep Field Black point edit.jpg is already featured and of a higher quality. I recommend pulling up both in tabs and switch back and forth. the edit is superior. That's not to say that the image isn't good, only we have a better one.--HereToHelp 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Oh. I thought I went through all the featured images. I guessed I missed that one.--- Rogsheng 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Not promoted --HereToHelp 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AjaxF

Nomination I found this picture and it is amazing!! The two guinea pigs are so cute!! Is there anything that the picture needs to make it better? Here is the picture:

Daniel10 15:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I doubt it will pass FPC. The red-eye in the left guinea pig would have to be corrected, and the white balance is off (the picture is too red). The image has noticeable jpg compression, ans thus is not particularly sharp. There is also some colour noise on the background. Unfortunately, "cuteness" is not part of the FP criteria, and isn't valued in FP (though if a picture is good quality and cute, that's quite all right). It's a nice photo, but it's not high enough quality for FPC, sorry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the left guinea pig's eyes are red.Joshua dude 11:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Its true, guinea pig's can be white with red eyes. Daniel10 11:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. I think that this picture has a very good quality. I think it can make Featured Picture. Sigeway 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, no chance at all, the left hand animal is too blurred - Adrian Pingstone 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I don't think that the left had guine pig is blurred. Its a very good quality picture. KodiakB3 11:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is a very good quality picture. TriceraGuy 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support A very good quality picture such as this deserves to be featured. Since lots of people have supported it, I'll change it to featured picture. KangarooFan1 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You can't change it to Featured picture if voting just started, I changed the template back to {{fpc}}. Also, the vote right above doesn't count, since there isn't a signature. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• You just hate guinea pigs. I'm changing it!! 85.210.43.199 12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support I love the quality of the picture. Also, how do we make a signiture? Zooyak 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support The quality is amazing!! Monster1000 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Vehement Oppose because of apparent ballot stuffing (puppeting?) by users Zooyak, KangarooFan1, TriceraGuy, KodiakB3, Monster1000 - all are new accounts. (Also because it is not FP quality - DOF problem, and the butt ends of both animals are cut off!)--Janke | Talk 12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose and Comment: anon users are still placing the Featured Picture template on the image's page. —sd31415 (sign here) 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Attention! I suspect that all support votes here are made by the same person having different usernames: Daniel10, Sigeway, KodiakB3,TriceraGuy,Zooyak,Monster1000. Olegivvit 12:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not me. And this is breaking rules. It says make comments on the picture, no the person or people. I should tell the administrators. Daniel10 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Even if not you, you should not edit comments of others. Olegivvit 12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Can you just put a strike throough it? Daniel10 12:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not to others' comments. —sd31415 (sign here) 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• You can only strike out comments that are yours. You MAY NOT, SHOULD NOT, CANNOT (and WILL NOT) strike out other people's comments. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think he already been told that Altiris. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose (after 5 edit conflicts) This isn't a great picture, and featured status shouldn't be imposed; whoever is doing it should stop. Also, shouldn't this page be deleted? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Damn. That's my birthday! -- Altiris Exeunt 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This image was also added to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals twice and two new WP:POTD subpages have been created for this image (at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 1, 2007 and Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Febuary 1, 2007). Additionally, 85.210.43.199 struck out all "oppose" votes on this page. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted the POTD pages and I'm keeping my eye on Daniel10. It seems to me he's just a kid who likes the picture. Raven4x4x 12:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, and I'm not doing anything wrong. It just nominatedit, that's all. Daniel10 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Can a kid use so much vocabulary? -- Altiris Exeunt 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well of course there are other explanations for his behaviour, but I'm trying not to read too much bad intent into this. Raven4x4x 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral; this opinion will stay until all the flak has exploded. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Forget the flak! Oppose; on closer inspection, this picture has a small amount of blur picture-wide. Also, I highly doubt that many people will appreciate this picture. The shot is above average as compared to normal shots in my estimation, but it just doesn't seem to be very eye-catching. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the image is okay but it is pretty blurry on the left side, while the image is nice it is not FP nice. — Arjun 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and kicks away sockpuppets. Animals cut off edge of photo, focus problems, unattractive composition, and honestly not all that cute. --Bridgecross 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per my comment above. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Pharaoh Hound. --Tewy 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.--Andrew c 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, not even close to FPC quality. Could we get some checkuser action and blocks on the disruption going here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong 'Oppose. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here - there's a very bad picture that somene took and that they will create multiple socks to try to get it featured. When that failed they just went straight ahead and featured it themselves. But, back to the picute, it's uninteresting, bad composition, bad lighting, unencyclopaedic and has retina reflection. Witty lama 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose <sarcasm>Finally some drama in FPC!!!</sarcasm> --antilived ^{T | C | G} 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't even see the whole entire body of both of the guinea pigs, and there is white splotches on the picture. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. --DonES 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Exactly what is encyclopedic about this photo? Becuase it's cute? This is an encyclopedia, not Sesame Street --UCLARodent 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• <facetious>Superstrong AWESOME Support!!!111!! So so so cute, and I had one just like the one on the right. You peoples is all me@n.</facetious> ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Mean? No! We are voting here for the very best pictures on Wikipedia. To say this is pic is one of WP's very best is simply ridiculous. The left animal is is well blurred which puts it out of contention immediately. You clearly do not know the standard that FP pics are required to reach - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I made it clearer for you. ~ trialsanderrors 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's nothing particularly special about this picture. The pigs aren't even particularly cute. —Psychonaut 11:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - awful picture by FPC standards, compromised nomination by Daniel10 (talk • contribs • count)'s various sockpuppets: Sigeway (talk • contribs • count), KodiakB3 (talk • contribs • count), TriceraGuy (talk • contribs • count), KangarooFan1 (talk • contribs • count), Zooyak (talk • contribs • count), Monster1000 (talk • contribs • count), and possibly 85.210.43.199 (talk • contribs • count) (although that's just an IP so not a sockpuppet). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. I just nominated the picture. You guys are so me@n. Daniel10 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and MumDude (talk • contribs • count) can also be added to the list of sockpuppets of Daniel10, and warned for a personal attack against Adrian Pingstone. Bollocks to AGF, this guy's verging on WP:POINT. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support my 12 year old son took this picture and posted it. pretty good for a 12 year old. so all of you out there who opposed it are either blind or just plain stupid. open up your eyes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MumDude (talk • contribs).
• Oppose. Featured Pictures are not supposed to be "pretty good for a 12-year-old", nor is "cute" one of the criteria for featuring. No credible reason has been advanced for featuring this picture - it does not provide the "thousand words" for any article. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As Guy says, the age of the photographer has no bearing whatever on the acceptability or otherwise of the photo, and we are not blind or stupid. We rarely meet bad manners like yours on Wikipedia, thank goodness. I've been voting for or against FP candidates for about 3 years now and I've got 1500 pics on Wikipedia. What's your record? - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • From your picture Pingy you look about 103 I am suprised you started so late!!!!!!! Get a life!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MumDude (talk • contribs).
• Comment Hmm... would that account be counted as a meatpuppet, or a possible sockpuppet? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• CommentWill everyone please stop argueing over this picture? I took it to show off my guinea pigs, and now it's just leading to war! It's either a nominated picture, or not. If anyone starts to argue again I may call the administrators. Joshua dude 14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support aesthetically pleasing. Should be a featured picture MumDude
  • Comment I struck out your vote, because you may only vote once. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest oppose. Focus problems, excludes parts of the guinea pigs, and overall the animals in the picture are in a very bad position. Some dirt on the camera can also be seen. I suggest MumDude to mind WP:NPA and reconsider his messeges. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I will request a checkuser once this nomination is closed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • They'll probably decline it as blatantly obvious. ~ trialsanderrors 20:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Probably not seeing as Daniel10 denied any relation to them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Cuteness is not a way of determining what a FP is, and it is plainly obvious that the uploader has created multiple accounts to try to feature their picture- no user who votes dishonestly deserves FP status. SuperFly2005 18:42 December 30th 2006 (UTC)
  • The only punishment for said behavior is a block. If the community (besides the socks) decides the picture is still FP-worthy, then it will be made featured, regardless of any inappropriate behavior in the voting (not saying that's the case here). Whether a user voted dishonestly or not is not reason to prevent featured status. --Tewy 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Calm down, Tewy. Daniel10 is not worth getting worked up over. Blocks are not punitive, by the way, although if Daniel is seriously using sockpuppets I suggest he admits so. Yuser31415 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, was the tone of that comment a little strong? Sorry, I can assure you I'm not getting worked up over this. I was just saying that a nomination shouldn't be prevented featured status because of how the nominator acted, and I hoped that SuperFly2005 wasn't voting "oppose" primarily because Daniel10's behavior. --Tewy 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - lighting not too good, not a brilliant angle, red eyes on the white guinea pig; and then there's the possible sockpuppet issue. Sorry Daniel, but I don't give points for sockpuppets (or extremely likely sockpuppets). Yuser31415 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Mediocre on technical grounds, nominator is using sockpuppets to rig the vote, and the original photographer's contribs show a strrong correlation with the nominator so one may be a puppet of the other as well. Don't upload a so-so photo of your pets and then try to scam people into putting it up on the main page. —Dgies^t c 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not exactly FP quality. The red eye puts a damper on the whole affair. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just wondering, Sharkface (as well as anyone else who is turned off due to red eyes), what exactly is wrong with red eyes? -- Altiris Exeunt 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Usually, red eyes are caused by reflection of the flash light from the subject's retina. This is considered a no-no in photography. However, some animals do have naturally red eyes (white rabbits come to mind), and apparently guinea pigs, too. --Janke | Talk 09:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Whoops.... I was not aware that Guinea Pigs had naturally red eyes. I still vote oppose due to the fact that meatpuppets are voting errr.... contributing here. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: and I think that the poster above me (Dgies) has just summed it up perfectly. Not only is the original photographer using sockpuppets to try and rig the vote, but he/she has also just copied and pasted his/her own sockpuppet comments from the Peer Picture Review. I don't think there's a single SUPPORT vote from a genuine user at all (apologies if I'm wrong). The photo itself is hardly FP quality... Ackatsis 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment; to put it very bluntly to everyone here, we only care about the quality of the images here. There is a reason why this page is called Featured Picture Candidates and not Featured Photographers. On this page, all we care about are extremely well-taken, free-use images. We don't care if the photographer is 10 years old or 1000 years old; as long as the picture meets our standards, and it's free, we'll vote for it. Simple as that. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Basically, yes. But in this case many editors are upset by the "unethical practises" of sockpuppeting and unauthorized inclusion of the photo in PotD and FP lists (which has been reverted) - so, this cannot be handled by discussing only the photo, the offenders need to be discussed, too. --Janke | Talk 09:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then what should we do? Take off every 'ArbCom'? -- Altiris Exeunt 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • LOL, but if you introduce fraud into your own nomination, it should go down in flames regardless of the merits. —Dgies^t c 07:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's important to establish consensus on featured pictures and meatpuppets mess it all up. --froth^{T C} 07:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's an unremarkable photo, cropped too tight, and the image quality isn't that great. Good for a portrait of the family pet by a 12 year old maybe, but this aint about that. Dubious practices to sway the vote don't help much either. Bobanny 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is a joke. --William Pembroke^(talk) 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:SNOW? Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW is for an early close, and this has gone on long enough to be due for closing in the usual way. —Dgies^t c 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This nomination's week is up now anyway. --Tewy 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You guys responded quickly; do you have this page watchced? (I do). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I watch all the pages I vote on, in case something comes up (and it usually does). --Tewy 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Well that explains it. Maybe I'll do that too... | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor focus and sockpuppet issue 205.250.109.113 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, forgot to login. The above comment was made by me. Dan M 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lechuguilla Cave Pearlsian Gulf

Reason

I'm not a troglodyte, but I understand that Lechuguilla Cave is considered to be the finest cave in the world for its collection of crystaline limestone cave formations (most particularly the 'Chandelier Ballroom', although I think this photo is the better illustration). It was only discovered 20 years ago, but access is severly resticted and essentially impossible for the general public, so I suspect we are quite lucky to have this illustration by Dave Bunnell.

Articles this image appears in

Lechuguilla Cave

Creator

Dave Bunnell

Nominator

Solipsist

• Support — Solipsist 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad JPEG artifacts, marginal resolution, and some film/scanning grain visible. Original photo likely does not have these problems. Would support a higher-quality scan. —Dgies^t c 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It looks nice but it just kind of looks flushed out.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Support A bit on the low side and oversharpened, but the lighting appeals to me --Fir0002 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• oppose - artifacts, low contrast blacks. Debivort 04:04, 1 January 2007

(UTC)

• Weak Oppose Although I like the picture, the technical problems with it (lighting, artifacts, possible aliasing) leads me to oppose. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Artifacts, small size.--HereToHelp 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good topic, good lighting, good quality. Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great composition and lighting, but very poor technical aspects per above. --Tewy 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, although certainly an interesting picture, the size and quality is below featured picture standards. --RandomOrca2 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radar

Reason

I like this image because it easily demonstraights the principle of radar, and it looks apealling to the eye. I found this by accident last night while checking out pages for the heck of it.

Articles this image appears in

Radar

Creator

commons:User:Pierre_cb

Nominator

TomStar81 (Talk)

• Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Lots of faults. Radio wave should not change color. Doesn't demonstrate that much more energy is radiated than is reflected. Does not show how radar is used to build an image. The tight beam confinement shown is not demonstrative of pulse radar. Should show reflection off a more typical subject such as an airplane. The timing of the animation makes it look like the signal is being send by the object and bouncing off the dish. —Dgies^t c 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Dgies' last point alone does it for me. It really does appear that the wave is originating at the 'dot' and bouncing off the dish. There should be a delay in between each 'ping'. And his other points are all valid as well. But this is an interesting subject for an animation. --Bridgecross 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I don't think it would be right to have an animation as a featured picture. ¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:56, 31 December 2006}}
  • Comment That happens quite often, actually. Jellocube27 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is why this was proposed. --Tewy 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It doesn't even fit the size requirement.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • From WP:WIAFP: While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. --Tewy 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, far too abstract to be really featured-level, it only gives the most basic operating principle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. For featured status, I think it should be a little more descriptive. Dgies pretty much summed it up. --Tewy 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per well enumerated reasons above. Debivort 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Bridgecross' comment. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. —sd31415 (sign here) 15:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's a bit basic for FP -mw^e 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abandon M3 Tank

Reason

Can't resist an old military photo like this.

Articles this image appears in

Tank

Creator

U.S. Army

Nominator

¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here}

• Support and nominate — ¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Although it can be cleaned up, it is an encyclopedic picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support; image quality doesn't apply significantly in this image as it is black and white...and that's a good thing,

mind you. Details are sharp even though it is a two-colour image. In short, there's nothing I can find fault with in this picture. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• oppose - image quality regs certainly do apply to b&w images, but I think you mean exceptions can be made if the image is historical, as this one may very well be. That said, it is strongly posterized, which has reduced its effective bit depth. The region around the tree seems to me a flagrant example of distracting blown highlights - a complaint I seldomly lodge about FPCs. Debivort 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm not sure what this picture is supposed to be telling me. Guys jump off of tanks? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The text in the thumbnail pretty much explains it.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, people abandon tanks by jumping out of them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • FOR TRAINING. How much clearer could I get? If you have a better suggestion please tell.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Not bad, but seems to me a poor scan of a not overly historic/enc image --Fir0002 01:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. poor quality not outweighted by much (any?) historical significance. There are literally thousands of pictures like this available via LOC, this one isn't really outstanding. --Dschwen 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all the picture just looks weird. Something just seems wrong with the upper right person. But the main problem is: who does this expand your knowledge of tanks? I have to say it doesn't. The image is of quite high quality for its age, but I believe it should be removed from the article (as redundant and having nothing to do with its location) before being featured. Though it could fit well, unfeatured, in M3 Lee. say1988 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castel Sant'Angelo

Reason

A good use of contrast with the lighting helping to dislay the beauty of the castle.

Article this image appears in

Castel Sant'Angelo

Creator

Andreas Tille

Nominator

¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here}

• Support and nominate.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the motion blur of the people, it really detracts from an otherwise fine image. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. — Arjun 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Per above, also seems to be on a tilt --Fir0002 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• oppose - graininess or jpeg artifacts, especially in the sky. Much detail lost in the super-dark shadows on the right side of "the bridge." Debivort 09:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gas Mask

Ok, shoot this down if you wish... ;-) This is not a "beautiful" image, but it is high enc and certainly eye-catching, even in thumb size. It shows a gas mask of the type that was distributed to civilians in Finland during WWII. Not quite Darth Vader, eh? Appears in the Gas mask article, of course.

Self-nom, so no vote. User:Janke

• Blah Now that's some fine colour noise you've got there... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It has good composition and lighting. However, as mentioned by Antilived, there's noticeable colour noise. Also it's not as sharp as I would like. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the color noise doesn't bother me. However, the image just isn't striking to me. The contrast is fairly low (background, jacket, and helmet colors have similar qualities) and overall isn't that dynamic of an image.--Andrew c 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose As stated by Andrew C it just isn't that appealing to me.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the noise is a little too much and per Andrew C. — Arjun
• OpposeThe picture is of high resolution and of somewhat okay quality. But it is not (as quoted by the featured picture criteria ) "Wikipedia's best work." It isn't very attractive nor is it pleasing to the eye. Wwicki 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The picture really isn't inspiring to me. It's just some dude in a grey gasmask. Now, if it was a dude in a really cool gasmask (say, with multiple stamps or even bumper stickers on it) and the guy had some really cool hair or tattoos or something, then I would support. Although the picture is technically good, it's not exactly worthy of the front page. Remember, featured pictures are the best of Wikipedia in order to show the quality of the site. If this is the best we have.... then Wikipedia is in trouble. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Um, Sharkface, I don't think stamps and bumper stickers go well with a gas mask...but I would agree with you on the last point; it's Oppose for me. The picture has little notability, if any at all. If you could get an ancient picture filled with people in gas masks, that may be more appealing. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• some really cool hair or tattoos? You know that gas masks have a use besides weird fetish parties... ...do you? ;-) --Dschwen 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. —sd31415 (sign here) 11:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Featured pictures should be for the best pictures. This one is rather dull. --RandomOrca2 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The image fulfils all criteria, and seems to be fairly striking to me, comments above notwithstanding. Prospects for featuring here don't look good, but do consider {{NowCommons}}ing the image and trying again over on the corresponsing Wikimedia Commons feature process, where it may get a more favourable response. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Sand Garden

An attractive high quality panoramic image of the Red Sand Garden in the newly opened Australian Garden at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne, Victoria, Australia. This image was taken back in June 2006, just a month after the Australian Garden opened and before the spring growth and changes.

It was taken in the late winter afternoon to avoid the crowds and to capture the best lighting and shadows on the dunes and across the gardens. While this has adversely affected the sky on the left where the sun was setting, in my opinion that does not diminish the encyclopaedic information or quality of the image as the garden itself is beautifully lit. Incidentally, in case anyone's wondering, the curve of the path and wall are real, not an artifact of the creation of the panorama.

• Self-nominate and support. --jjron 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - In general, the composition is sort of lacking. A closer crop might be better. Beyond composition, the left-hand side of the image has blown highlights and the very top-left corner has a strip of black pixels—I would assume its a remnant of cropping a stitched image. drumguy8800 C T 09:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well spotted on that black line - in all the times I've looked at this I'd honestly never noticed that before, but easily enough fixed. Closer cropping overall however would reduce the encyclopaedic value of the image - I guess 'composition' can be a personal preference. --jjron 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have updated the image to remove the strip of black pixels at the top lefthand corner - if you still see them please purge your cache or refresh the page (since this was a genuine flaw in the picture I simply overwrote it rather than posting an new 'edit'). --jjron 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose nice but per above, the black strip of black pixels is very unattractive. Consider cropping it. — Arjun 14:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't know why they're complaining about a line that's just a couple of centimeters long. It's a beatiful picture to me. Just to make them happy I would just crop that line out.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support; if that line at the top-left hand corner is removed, I'll change my vote. -- Altiris Exeunt 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To what? Super duper insanely strong mega support? --Dschwen 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, nicely put. Don't take this too harshly Altiris, but maybe kill the over the top voting except for truly exceptional cases. "Extreme support" and the like aren't commonly used on FPC --Fir0002 01:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try my best to take that into effect, Fir. Bear in mind that I'm new to voting in FPC, so my opinions are pretty high initially. However, you can be rest assured that my votes will be...ahh, what's that phrase...harder to earn as time goes on. This does not mean that I give Extreme Support for no reason, though. As long as the image is exceptional in my opinion, it gets my vote. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, quite understandable for someone new, and I'm glad you took the comment in the right spirit --Fir0002 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The clouds seem to change hue from pinkish white to mustardy white about 1/3 into the picture (from the left). Is that the "adverse effect"? Fixable? ~ trialsanderrors 10:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sky is very inhomogeneneously exposed. The blown out part on the left is rather unattractive. I don't like the composition either, too much of the path in the foreground. And shame on you for stepping into the bushes ;-). --Dschwen 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't; it was taken from underneath the visitor's centre building - see here for a shot looking back the other way. --jjron 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The colours are really striking, but the blown out white on the left makes it less than featured for me. (is 'inhomogeneneously' a real word?) Bobanny 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I believe it is inhomogenenenoeouslysome. Anyways I was referring to the brightness changes across the sky :-) --Dschwen 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support The colors (red sand and blue sky) work well together - shame about the blown highlights losing this on the LHS --Fir0002 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support okay now that the strip of black is gone I am willing to support but also per Fir. — Arjun 14:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufjan Stevens playing banjo

Reason

I posted this recently on WP:PPR. Traffic there isn't that great, but I got some good feedback, and decided just to go ahead and nominate it.

Here's why I think this should be FP:

• The composition is fantastic - the colors incredible, the placement is artistic, the focus is great
• The subject is very well depicted. I've never really listened to Sufjan Stevens before, so I listened to a few tracks on iTunes. His music is very solemn, quiet, and thoughtful. The look on his face is very illustrative of his music.

I understand that in an ideal world, there are a few things that could be fixed in this photo, but for the most part these are known limitations that are particular to concert photography. These issues include:

• Lighting does not highlight the face well enough (Maybe this can be fixed with some photoshop?)

  (Because of this, thumbnail image does not show subject well if it's not big enough.)

• It is a little out-of-focus around the hands, or possibly blurry due to the motion of playing the banjo
• It is also somewhat grainy, due to the [necessarily] high ISO setting (800)

Articles this image appears in

Sufjan Stevens

Creator

Jlencion

Nominator

tiZom_(2¢)

• Support — tiZom_(2¢) 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  PS - The biggest fault with this image is that it is so dark. It was suggested on WP:PPR that we tweak the Gamma a little. Unfortunately, I do not have the skills to fiddle with a picture like this. If anyone knows how to brighten it a bit, that would be greatly appreciated. tiZom_(2¢) 21:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment How bout now? And next time please upload it to the commons so other language wikis can use it is well. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  Will do. Whichever consensus deems is the better picture, I'll upload to the Commons (regardless of whether or not it makes FP). tiZom_(2¢) 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• oppose — too much grain. _→AzaToth 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support original I like the first one but the second one is too washed out. The first one has more fullness in the color. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment; the original image is too dark but has more fullness like Why1991 said. On the other hand, even though the edited image is brighter and more details are visible, it is washed out like what Why1991 said. -- Altiris Exeunt</foht> 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose The main problem is that Sufjan's face is in the shadow. ~ trialsanderrors 07:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful and representational - high quality and resolution, pleasing to the eye, and adds great value to the article. Perhaps not the perfection of resolution and lighting that we've got used to with landscape and wildlife shots, but that's a feature of the type of photo - for a musician, a concert shot like this, capturing a moment, adds far more value to the article than a posed and perfectly-lit studio shot would. Definitely among Wikipedia's best work. A gamma adjustment might benefit it, but I think the edit does perhaps go a little far, though I'd support either. TSP 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I feel it is a great photo, in addition, topically relevant. Sufjan Stevens has been featured in the press lately for his Christmas album that has been receiving excellent reviews. In addition, his unique goal of writing fifty albums for the fifty US states (2 down, 48 to go) makes for an interesting article.–Alex LaPointetalk 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Both Versions, but mainly EDIT 1 Both versions are good pictures. I especially like the first Edit, EDIT 1, because it largely fixes the shadow problems raised earlier. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for all of the support so far, everybody. I hear what you are saying about the darkess. I am out of town right now, but when I get back toward the end of this week, I will work on lightening the shadow on Sufjan's face.--Jlencion 15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not encyclopedic, colors get annoying, too dark on him. Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Awful shot and not nearly encyclopedic enough --froth^{T C} 05:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Grain, lighting, poor encylopedic merit. —Dgies^t c 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the poor lighting and high grain levels are too much to support. — Arjun 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry it took so long everybody, but I just uploaded my next edit. Hopefully that fixes some of the issues even though it was not promoted. --Jlencion 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Reason

A very encyclopedic, good quality and beautiful photo.

Articles this image appears in

Willet

Creator

Mdf

Nominator

Pharaoh Hound (talk)

• Support original — Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either any, with preference for original or edit 2. Clear shot, simple background, and good lighting despite the apparently overcast weather. --Tewy 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You might want to crop the picture so that the bird is centered.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't think that's necessary. To me, the picture doesn't feel unbalanced. However, I have provided a cropped version for those interested. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I strongly oppose a cropped version as the first one is very unique and the bird is still the focal point. — Arjun 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support isn't this image up for Quality image at commons? I was the one that voted to promote :D. And I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured. Amazing. — Arjun 22:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, now it is up for FPC on the Commons (thanks for the suggestion, not to mention the promotion on QIC). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support edit 1 Now the picture looks excellent!!!--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 brighter and I like the cropping better Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either version, with a slight leaning towards the original. Flawless image. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Cropped version is much better. --William Pembroke^(talk) 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original I like the composition, and prefer the lighting on the original. Lovely picture. Mak (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Part of the reason I prefer the photo un-cropped is that it's more clear what the background is; a line of surf. When it's cropped like that, the fuzziness of the background actually distracts me a little bit from the subject, and it's not clear what the context is. I think it's lovely to see this bird on a cast-over beach, not only is it very encyclopedic, the original picture is very evocative for me. Mak (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support for Edit 1; the focus is there, the size is there, the quality is there, the lighting is there. Excellent work! -- Altiris Exeunt 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, with preference for edit 1. —Dgies^t c 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Both Both are incredible photos. FP worthy, indeed. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support both. I like the cropping, but I prefer the lighting of the original. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either. —sd31415 (sign here) 15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either. Maybe a cropped version without a change in the lighting? Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My new edit 3 should be what you're looking for. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either edit Wow, great picture! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original per nomination Mahahahaneapneap 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support both. —dima/s-ko/ 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit ` Quite nice, and I may be going blind ,and please tell me if I am, but I can't tell the difference really between edit 1 and edit 2. Cat-five - talk 10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's an extremely subtle difference (it even takes me a second to figure out which is which, and I made them!). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you can, try opening them in different tabs or windows, and switch back and forth. Any change is a lot more obvious that way. --Tewy 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit.jpg Raven4x4x 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damaged Yorktown

Reason

This is one of the iconic images that came out of the Battle of Midway, the pivotal battle of the Pacific Theatre of World War II. This image was taken shortly after the air raid against the U.S. carriers protecting Midway, and has been used in several notable publications (among them Robert Ballard’s book about the Battle of Midway and his search for Yorktown). For these reasons I am nominating this image for Featured Status.

Articles this image appears in

USS Yorktown (CV-5)

Creator

Photographer 2nd Class William G. Roy, USN

Nominator

TomStar81 (Talk)

• Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support A bad image, but historical and encyclopedic. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very enc. --froth^{T C} 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support As above. --Midnight Rider 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support due to notability and image quality given its age (thank goodness size doesn't apply to it!). -- Altiris Exeunt 06:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• question - great subject, but is there no way to get a higher quality scan? Debivort 07:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have searched everywhere I can think of to get a higher quality photo, and came up empty handed on each account. If you want, you can try to find a higher quality photo, but from where I stand this is as good as it gets.

TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• what I am wondering is if the low res comes from the poor quality of the original, or just a low res scan. If the latter, I'd like to see a new version, but if it's the former, I'll gladly support. Debivort 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support A good image. It's encyclopedic, powerful, and HiDEF. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Being (moderately) historically significant isn't reason enough to throw size and quality standards out. --ragesoss 10:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

*Support Weak Support. Very high quality. Clearly gives a feeling of how the Yorktown was destroyed.Has no copyright infringement. Wwicki 11:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Uninteresting, vapid. Olegivvit 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. bw does not equal historic value. The image quality and the resolution are low. As for enc, the picture doesn't tell me anyting. All I see is a smoking aircraft carrier. Big deal. --Dschwen 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I also oppose this image, for size requirements and quality. But your point "All I see is..." seems odd to me. I could say the same of a photo of Lincoln "all I see is a guy sitting there" or the Hindenburg "All I see is a zeppelin burning." I think a burning aircraft carrier is a big deal! --Bridgecross 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ha ha, I see you point. And I'm even inclined to agree to the Lincoln comment :-). I suppose it is hard to define what makes up historical significance (we should abbreviate that just like enc. I'll call it hist now). We can start arguing now if the explosion of the Hindenburg was a more significant event than the burning of (yet another?) aircraft carrier. What was the media impact back then? We can also argue about the historical importance of a figure like Lincoln, but in that case the significance of the depicted moment is more important to me (example: Lincoln eating a steak - low hist, Lincoln being shot attending a theatre performance - high hist). We can argue about all that... ...or just let it be since we wont resolve that issue here anyways :-). --Dschwen 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Midway was the first battle won by the Allies in the Pacific and marked the switch from Japanese to American naval dominance. Pretty important I'd say! Debivort 00:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Featured Picture guidelines reads: "The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer the content of the scene, the lower the quality that can be allowed", as well as "The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer or more significant its content, the less aesthetically-pleasing it may be".[1] I think this more than justifies this image as a featured picture-- it is very illustrative, as well as very rare. Jellocube27 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is certainly not very rare. WW2 is a well documented epoch, although it might seem like forever ago for younger people. Check this page and its subpages for tons of pics from the attack on the Yorktown. --Dschwen 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This most certainly is very rare. WWII was a well documented epoch, as you have stated, but the war ended over 60 years ago. These images are all we have left of the conflict, we can not build a time machine and travel back to these historical events with digital cameras just for the sake of correcting one or two imperfections. Moreover, pictures are not suppose to tell you anything, they are suppose to show you something that would be otherwise difficult to explain with words. If you are objecting to this on the basis of context, then read through our Battle of Midway article (a featured article, no less) and gain some deeper apreciation for the event(s) depicted here in. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that this shot is not reproducible with a digital camera says nothing about rarity. And you've got it backwards, a FP should make a reader want to know more not the other way around. --Dschwen 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Even if it isn't rare, the picture is still historically significant and (in my opinion) does a fine job of illustrating the Battle of Midway, or at least the bombing of the USS Yorktown. Jellocube27 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Changed vote per Dschwen. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose While the image itself is featureworthy, this version doesn't meet our requirements and there is no reason why a better version cannot be produced. ~ trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As I have noted above, I have searched everywhere I can think of to get a higher quality photo, and came up empty handed on each account. If you want, you can try to find a higher quality photo, but from where I stand this is as good as it is going to get. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I noticed that. But "as good as it's going to get" isn't a criterion except in the rarest of cases. This is a comparatively recent (in photographic history) picture from a well-documented event and a number of pictures have covered similar subject matter, so size and quality requirements shouldn't be cast aside because of the rarity argument. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, "I couldn't find a better one" isn't an excuse when the problems are endemic to this version of the image and not with the original. The image is in the archives, you can ask them for access to make a better scan, this one has problems. I'd support the image, but this version of the image has flaws. Quality forgiveness for historical images doesn't apply when the quality issues aren't part of the original image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seal

Reason

High detail image of a seal. Originally uploaded under a CC license, which is irrevocable.

Articles this image appears in

Pinniped

Creator

Flickr.com user "Chylandra"

Nominator

Noclip

• Support — Noclip 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mostly because of the noise, but also because the species isn't identified. --Tewy 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nasty artifacts/noise. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It looks cool but I must agree with the above statements.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose cute seal but the image has too much noise and other problems. — Arjun 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Have a look at the largest version, the grain/noise/colouration are not FP quality - Adrian Pingstone 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The chest looks like someone scanned a piece of cheap carpet and edited it in. Artifacts are over-the-top. Very cute seal though, and I like the frothy water --froth^{T C} 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; that's an excellent position to shoot a seal (I mean, even the seal looks like it's smiling). Unfortunately, in full view, picture fragmentation is in the thousands. Also, it appears that this image has minor problems with copyright. -- Altiris Exeunt 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• oppose per above. Let's try to keep the snarky and potentially offensive comments to a minimum. Debivort 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I really just don't like the picture of the seal. A better one can be found easily. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. —sd31415 (sign here) 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Awwwww, cute seal! However, the pic is way to grainy, with the lots of artifacts. Very nice pic otherwise. Is there a cleaner version perchance? Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. grain. info not really detailed. -mw 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Is it me or does this pic look like its godzilla seal or something??? Damn those man eating seals!! Oh and oppose. --Tobyw87 12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's the angle. --Tewy 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

NB. This image was deleted from Commons due to an OTRS ticket (2007011610014593). I left the image here as part of the historical record. --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandstorm

Reason

Illustrates the subject well, appears to be of good resolution/compression, I find it rather breathtaking

Articles this image appears in

Dust storm

Creator

Alicia M. Garcia

Nominator

Eyrian

• Support — Eyrian 10:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Very impressive, however the composition is rather poor. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Pharaoh Hound took the words out of my mouth. — Arjun 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral They're right about the composition. Though it may not be so supported here, taking the image into Photoshop, upping the contrast and color saturation, and perhaps using some of the stagelight filter things on the storm would make it a much more dramatic photo—if the composition is shot, a lot of times reworking the lighting can fix it. However I don't think such an image would pass if the original is here. drumguy8800 C T 16:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support very interesting image Sotakeit 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Impressive subject, but poor composition and lighting. --Tewy 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support I know that the composition could make it look nicer but if you did change it that would take away from how it would really look in real life. I think it is a very interesting subject to pick.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very impressive, has a few faults but it's such a clear example of a duststorm that I support - Adrian Pingstone 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Very cool, but come on look at all the compression artifacts, especially on the trucks and in the sand --froth^{T C} 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Cool subject...terrible composition. The trucks and tree and post make it a very low quality picture. --Midnight Rider 00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Pretty cool picture, but i agree with the above statement of a low quality picture this shot was probably taken by a amateur photographer, but i think its cool enough to be a fetured picture. User:Voshvoshka
• Support Very impressive and imposing picture. There are a few minor flaws, but none of them detracts from the picture. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why the composition is so bad. It's a familiar sight- a military parking lot or vehicle depot, but with a massive, imposing sandstorm approaching. The foreground is a nice touch. --froth^{T C} 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a lamp post and a tree right in front of the subject. --Tewy 08:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah well I can see where you're coming from but they don't bother me much --froth^{T C} 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, complaining about the lamp and the tree is a little bit ridiculous. C'mon, there's a sandstorm rushing towards the photographer!!!! He can't just walk around and find the best angle! (If another impressing picture of a sandstorm is nominated, which has a better angle, than I'm glad if I can support it. In the meantime, this is definitely a FP. -Wutschwlllm 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support The questionable resolution is more than enough to compensate for the coolness and awe-inspiring nature of this picture. Lol, whoops. The picture is so cool, the resolution problems can be overlooked. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, cluttered and underexposed foreground. Should be possible to find better pics (compositionwise) ([2] [3]). --Dschwen 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Interesting, eye catching, and encyclopedic. The composition doesn´t doesn´t really bother me. It shows the environment of our troops in Iraq as well as the physics of a sandstorm. And its more than big enough. --Tobyw87 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support*, I took this photo in a rush. I have to agree that it's not a great photo and the composition is poor. However, my foremost concern when I took this photo was to take it and then put my camera away so that it would not be destroyed. For those of you who have never had to sit through one of these things, they are very destructive for electronic equipment. There may be better photos out there but most military photographers don’t shoot when sandstorms are coming because of the threat to gear. It would be cool to see this photo used by Wikapedia however, I am biased. I may have a higher resolution copy somewhere if neede. Statdard procedure is to drop the resolution of photos that are going to be posted on the web. AliciaGarcia81 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Alicia Garcia
  • Comment (reworded). Your comments about the difficulty of the shot are valid, but since you are a new user, I have a suspicion that you created this account to pass off as the photographer. If that is the case, please stop. If not, then I apologize. And I apologize to those who commented on this. (--Tewy 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)) --Tewy 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Some awful bold statements for a sockpuppet.. what he/she said makes sense, and he/she offered a higher resolution version. Confirm with carlos on commons before biting the newb --froth^{T C} 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also check google, the corporal seems to be a legit marines photographer --froth^{T C} 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Apologies. I didn't check the tag on the image page, and figured that Carlosar had taken the image. --Tewy 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sure, the composition could have been better, but considering the circumstances.... -Wutschwlllm 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, great pic, low quality Lycaon 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• support good pic Preetikapoor0 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sandstorm.jpg Raven4x4x 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Image:Sandstorm.jpg

[edit] Wolf Spider

A good image of a Wolf Spider on a white background. All body parts are visible and thus the image has a high enc value.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose nice spider/shot but the some of the legs are clearly blurry which takes away from an otherwise fine image. — Arjun 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is all but unavoidable in a macro image (see Macro photography) --Fir0002 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the article you reference contains an image proving the contrary, by... ..oh, right you :-). Well I guess this speciment didn't hold still as nicely as the other one... --Dschwen 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I'll have to agree with arjun on this one.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I don't mind the legs being out of focus. --Tewy 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Itsy Bitsy Spider Oppose Seadog Arjun brought up a valid point. Featured pictures of Wikipedia should not be blurry at all (unless their encyclopedic value significantly outweighs the blurriness or it is a picture that cannot be taken again.... or both). Sadly, another picture of this type of spide could be taken again without the blurriness. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, that's unlikely due to technical limitations in DOF for macro photography --Fir0002 07:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Selective focus often increases the encyclopedic value of a photo by drawing attention to the subject while blurring out irrelevant aspects of the image like background detail. 2) As Fir and others keep saying, getting all of the subject of a macro shot in focus is generally impossible. Debivort 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As has already been pointed out by Fir0002 it is virtually impossible for all parts of the image to be in focus in this type of macro photography, especially on a relatively large beastie like this. The key parts are in strong focus, and at least two of the legs are also fully focussed showing all necessary details. --jjron 07:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose In addition to the DOF problem (could you shoot at f:64?), what bothers me are the double, or "cross" shadows. Fir, maybe we need to start a collection to buy you that white umbrella! ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 :-) I wouldn't complain! Maybe you can convince Wikimedia to part with some of their $800,000! But no I can't shoot at f/64 because the min aperture of my lens is f/22 - and at f/22 the sharpness is unacceptable due to diffraction (I can only imagine what it'd be like at f/64! --Fir0002 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom Tewy and jjron. Definitely one of the best spider images on WP. Debivort 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe a good spider image, but not the best Wolf spider image. Repeating subjects tend to get a little boring. --Dschwen 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, which wolf spider image do you think is the best? And bear in mind that this isn't a repeat subject because the last image was an illustration of a focus bracket. --Fir0002 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that only the composed 3-image focus series was promoted, which leaves just one real Wolf spider FP, crawling from its hole. So it was just a percieved repetition. In that case I happily support. Thanks for clearing that up. --Dschwen 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support okay now I know about Macro photography! Okay so the blurriness to the legs is unavoidable. But I am going to weak support due to others. — Arjun 14:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Not a bad picture overall, only the shadows are somewhat distracting. How come you've been shooting spiders lately? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support per above. Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 02:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Large regions are out of focus and we already know the photographer can produce a better composite through focus bracketing. —Dgies^t c 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's easy to talk airily of focus bracketing but it's tremendously difficult to do, let alone on a live subject. I did try a full body shot, but he kept moving - the focus brackets I uploaded where the only ones I managed to produce --Fir0002 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Although this is an excellent picture there is something unnatural about the background and the shadows. I have nothing against editing (provided it doesn't fake the subject), I just would like to know what kind of manipulation was used. Alvesgaspar 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to say that no manipulation of the background was used --Fir0002 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But I suppose the spider was moved to a favourable shooting place. Brrr, how did you manage that? Alvesgaspar 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I captured him and put him in a wide plastic tray (with about 15cm lip on it) lined with white paper --Fir0002 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, disturbing shadow, insufficient DOF. -- Lycaon 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disturbing? I think the spider itself is disturbing enough...--Iriseyes 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I seem to remember there being another shot of a similar spider without the shadows a while back. This one is much better. A shame about the blurring, but sadly that's unavoidable when taking such a shot. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted , although again this was quite close Raven4x4x 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whaling in the Faroe Islands

Reason

A large, high res and compelling photo of whaling in the Faroe Islands that I feel is very encyclopaedic. A bit POV, yet displays similar content to the holocaust-era images of mass graves. This is simply what happens. The number of whales I think shows that the practice is of economic significance, essentially summing up the two main arguments behind whaling. (part of a series - here)

Articles this image appears in

Dolphin / Faroe Islands / Whaling / Whaling in the Faroe Islands / Atlantic White-sided Dolphin / Hvalba

Creator

User:Erik Christensen

Nominator

- Jack (talk)

• Support edit 1 — - Jack (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good, encyclopedic picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment it would be nice if the picture page itself had a more descriptive caption. And just idle speculation - from all the faeces and intestines, I would expect some birds to be hanging around - I wonder why there aren't any in the picture? Mak (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The dolphins are on a concrete floored dock at a small port called Hvalba, which is in the Faroe Islands, north of the UK. They've been caught for food, as has been done for at least a thousand years. As for the birds; they're there, just not in the picture. It is best to view the photo in context, as part of the series of images that where taken of the same catch, which can be found at commons here - Jack (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • According to WIAFP "The picture should be displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. The image description page should have an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page." Last time I looked there was practically no caption on the image description page, in fact the image description page just has "Whaling in the Faroe Islands", which is somewhat misleading, as the creatures pictured are dolphins. Basically, could you please add a more descriptive caption to the image description page please? Thanks, Mak (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, thanks for putting the caption on the image page. Very interesting, encyclopedic, and well done picture. Mak (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment We seem to have a thing for the graphics images lately (eye surgery, decapitated prey, guinea pigs...). Very visually compelling, but what floor is this on? There are horizontal stripes which could be ripples in the concrete or image artifacts. ~ trialsanderrors 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Guinea Pigs are graphic? {I would admit to them not being especially attractive, I've never liked rodents very much). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. While it's a very impressive image (at least as subject matter goes) it is somewhat blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, blurry and dully lit (although I can't really fault the photographer, overcast skies will do that to you, and blurriness seems to be the result of the camera). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per both of the above. This image is very encyclopedic. — Arjun 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Per above - image quality isn't that great. (Not to mention the yuck factor!! :) --Fir0002 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• weak Support edit 1 - efficiently conveys what text cannot and illustrates many articles. slight blur seems to be on the 1.5-2px scale, reducing the effective resolution to at least 1200x500, which is barely within the acceptable range. Debivort 09:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• SupportHigh-quality. Clearly gives an image of whaling in the Faroe Islands. Wwicki 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per wwicki. --froth^{T C} 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very encycolopedic in both quality and subject matter --UCLARodent 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Not good enough to be a featured picture. It describes the subject matter, but it should be clearer to be featured. --RandomOrca2 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose a bit dark and blurry. Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unpleasing to the eye. Olegivvit 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please elaborate? I suspect you don't like it because of the "yuck" factor, and I don't feel that is fair. If your objection is on the grounds of photographic quality, that's fine, as long as you explain yourself - Jack (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't like it because it is disgusting to me. In the same way I would oppose a high quality and encyclopaedic image of shit. I think, this is fair. Olegivvit 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support to cancel out Olegivvit's vote, since it would be a pity to lose this picture's FPC status simply because of the yuck factor. It's an important and genuine issue - if anything, the disgustingness should add to the importance. --Kizor 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, fascinating picture -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The crop is not optimal, I think. There's a little too much empty space (i.e. the concrete) on the left. It might work better with a narrower crop, showing principally the two complete rows of whales on the right. — BillC ^talk 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Add: crop shown on right:-

• Oppose crop - way too small! - Jack (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Are you referring to the size of the overall image? Because that's not I was proposing. I shrunk the size of the cropped image to be kinder on the servers; the image to the right is only for discussion as a proposal for where to crop the image, not a proposal to shrink it. — BillC ^talk 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, OK. Though it's usually best to create a ready-for-promotion picture as your edit. Although I partially agree with your idea, I think you definitely cropped too much. Perhaps a 100px shave off the left? Still, I do like the image as it is, I feel it gives the impression that more dolphins are yet to be added. I'm not sure - Jack (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg Raven4x4x 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potato and Cross Section

In a similar style to the capsicum picture, here is a photo of a potato and it's (rather plain) cross section. Again nice lighting and high enc value IMO

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Very good "product shot". Enc could be higher by specifying species, and the cut potato is somewhat bland in appearance because it's directly facing the camera. Would like to see some of the skin on that too. Somehow, the right potato looks "dirty" - could you perhaps find better samples? --Janke | Talk 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal taste of course, but I chose that "dirty" one because it looks more natural then one which has been washed and polished (contrary to what some people may think potatos come from underground not the shops ;-). It also has a much more interesting texture. --Fir0002 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether the cross-section would be more interesting with a potato which has gone somewhat more green? How encyclopedic that would be is debatable, since usually people don't eat them green, but it might make a better shot. Mak (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think that it is very encyclopedic and everything is great except that like stated above probably should make it so you can see some skin in the cut into potato.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Provisory support I think the full potato is quite spectacular. How much Photoshopping went into the shades? It seems a bit like the right one is floating.~ trialsanderrors 08:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that there was no shadow photoshopping in this image. That's how it turned out (similar setup to the capsicum image with white paper, ambient and shoe flash). What is the provision of your support? --Fir0002 09:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Only your response to this. I'm not an opponent of nuanced photoshopping, but I would always like to see the original for comparison. ~ trialsanderrors 10:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think the cross-section is fine, since we get enough skin on the other one. If it were a low-rez image, more contrast would be needed for the cross-section, but in this case it shows up fine, IMO. Caption should specify the type of potato - looks like the cheap ones I buy, (Russet?) Very encyclopedic.Bobanny 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice image, and encyclopedic, cross-section shows up fine. Hello32020 00:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Fir, your product shots are always great (although the capsicum looked a little evil). I would much prefer an unwashed potato to a washed one, as washed ones remove much of the skin. As stated before, species and cultivar are needed for the caption, I will have a look around. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rather staid and boring shot of (to be honest) a boring subject. Is this photo really the best of the best?? Madman 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak oppose - better angle on the cut potatoe would much improve it. And with the common-ness of the subject, a redo is feasible. Debivort 09:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Ok, nice product shot. Just like the bell pepper, but will this lead to your whole kitchen inventory ending up on this page sliced in half over the next few weeks? --Dschwen 11:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - that's all I've done if that's what you are asking. Do you think it would benefit Wikipedia if I took more? --Fir0002 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Fir, it would benefit Wikipedia. And I'm glad that we found a standard setup for shots like this. But thats exactly the point. I'm not sure it would benefit FPC to have your kitchen inventory posted. These shots are the necessary standard to depict a fruit. Anything less is unacceptable. So, while being encyclopedically great pictures I don't see them lacking in the stunningness department. Of course, if you nominating each pic here is the condition for taking those pictures, well knock yourself out. I'll just ignore them then. --Dschwen 07:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you discouraging Fir to take more shots? It is great to have these photos on Wiki, and have a standard for how vegetable/fruit shots should be taken. --liquidGhoul 23:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhrrrgghhhhhh, for the love of god! We've been through this. I'm not discouraging anyone to take more shots. What's so difficult in keeping the two things apart from each other, taking and contributing shots and posting them on FPC. With your logic we should nominate every picture and delete each one that doesn't pass FPC. Now that doesn't make any sense, right? Why? Because pictures can be wanted, valid, and usefull contributions without being featured. --Dschwen 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I read your sentence wrong (missed "on this page"). I completely agree with what you have said above. I have contributed heaps of photos, and am trawling the net for people who can contribute Aussie frog photos, just to improve the encyclopaedia. Featured pictures are a bonus, and only worth it if you can put up with all the crap, and I have not found it worthwhile of late. --liquidGhoul 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore away, these are excellent enc pics that definately deserve FP. I'd like to see a half-opened banana next, or a closeup of a stick of cinnamon! --froth^{T C} 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Very nice image, I like how you didn't clean the potato so that it would be more natural. (not to mention the yum factor :D) — Arjun 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, add little encyclopedic value mostly because the subject has so few interesting features; however other problems include that they variety is unknown and the dirt is covering the features of the skin. If you're looking for something that would be a useful illustration for the potato article, maybe try recreating this basic science experiment since it illustrates something interesting and encyclopedic about the make-up of the potato.--Peta 01:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good but not special. Also I don't like different sizes of the two parts. Olegivvit 13:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, could be better but this image is still really good. Yuser31415 05:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional. The sliced potato is about the same for me as the water drops on the capsicum picture. I would really like to see a sliver of skin on the sliced potato, just to give it some more form, but it's still good as-is. So for now, I oppose to promote a reshoot, but will support if some of the above comments are addressed. --Tewy 05:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but Mum/Dad(?) bought those potatoes in a big sack, and the only remaining ones are in not optimum form (unsuitable for photography due to blemishes/wrinkling). I live in a small town, and the only potatoes availble at the general store are polished and washed (which I consider a bad feature for this scene). Next time I'll get some more of these potatoes would be in two or three weeks. So I could try with the washed potatoes, or you'd have to wait two/three weeks. But overall - is it worth the sweat? I mean personally as far as visible skin is concerned I can take it or leave it. --Fir0002 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'll support this image. And if you come across more in the future, it would be nice to see another nomination. :-) --Tewy 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. For what it's worth, which may be something given a few people have commented on this, I'm pretty sure this is a Sebago Potato (can find no article on this on Wikipedia). --jjron 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted . Close, but I'm not totally sure I can call this consensus. Raven4x4x 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boulevard du Temple

Reason

historical: first photograph of a person

Articles this image appears in

Photography, Louis Daguerre

Creator

Louis Daguerre

Nominator

AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here}

• Support — AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support wow, nice picture considering its age. Very historical and clean. — Arjun 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per all above.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support meets the historic and encyclopedic criteria, in addition to size. Support per nom.--Andrew c 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support – I had originally uploaded this image with the intention of nominating it; the picture is of historical significance and is in remarkable condition considering its age. However, the reason that I did not ever nominate it was that all of the information about it, including the caption, has been assembled from various personal web pages. Before we feature this, we should cite a reliable academic source who agrees that this picture is what we say it is. --Arctic Gnome 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this your website? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That looks like one of the pages I used. Do you know if the organization that hosts it is a credible source? --Arctic Gnome 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Here's the Wikipedia article on ".co.uk". Here's another site too, which looks more credible, as it is by the University of New York. It looks to be an online class or lecture however, and a password is needed to get in. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The .co.uk site should be good enough, although it would be nice to find a peer-reviewed academic reference. --Arctic Gnome 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I find the explanation on the image page ... the city traffic was moving too much to appear. The exception is a man in the bottom left corner, who stood still getting his boots polished long enough to show a bit unbelievable, since the exposure time is claimed to be ten minutes. You would not stand totally still for 10 minutes with one leg lifted for boot polishing! Rather, it may be a person placed there by the photographer. Withholding my vote until any "hearsay" is cleared up. --Janke | Talk 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • I doubt he was a plant; the artist would have just taken a picture of a person up close if that were what he wanted. The man need not have stood perfectly still that whole time; I'm sure he spent the ten minutes shifting around within a few inches and changing feet, but that wouldn't have made a difference for the image. The caption should read that he stood still enough while getting his boots polished. --Arctic Gnome 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The explanation on this page must be at least an exaggeration, too - 'Although, as a contemporary noted at the time, the boulevard in question was "constantly filled with a moving throng of pedestrians and carriages", the street in Daguerre's early photograph appeared to be completely deserted "except for an individual who was having his boots brushed."' A street constantly filled with a throng of moving people would surely not photograph as a clean white pavement, utterly disregarding anyone who was not motionless for the entire exposure - it would photograph with dark blurs in any areas where people were present for a significant portion of the exposure. I suppose this could simply indicate differing expectations of what a 'constantly filled' street looks like.... TSP 22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's an exaggeration, just a different use of terms. When I think of a "busy street", I'm thinking of downtown Toronto at rush hour. I'd bet that by 1830s standards, "busy street" just meant several carriages, not a whole line of them. --Arctic Gnome 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know (and I've read about this in a scientific journal) it is indeed true that there was a lot of traffic, but it cannot be seen because of the long exposure time. It seems weird but it is true. Whether this is the first picture of a person is something I don't know, but since this is one of the first Daguerretypes this is very likely. Anyhow this is one of the most important pictures ever made and therefore I am going to support this one.-Wutschwlllm 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support: a great historical photograph. Will do well as an FP! Ackatsis 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support A historical photograph with great encyclopedic value. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I just came across this and was wondering why it wasn't already an FP; turns out it was just uploaded recently. howcheng {chat} 07:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Support due to the notability of this picture, as well as its image quality and size even though it's over 150 years old. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. —sd31415 (sign here) 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per all reasons above. Jellocube27 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support encyclopedic importance. --Midnight Rider 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per everyone else. Kind of spooky, i like it. Bobanny 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Nice --Fir0002 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support for all the reasons listed above and any to follow. Excellent Find. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support for obvious historical reasons. (Thank goodness for digital colour photography!) Yuser31415 05:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very cool and of course uber enc --froth^'T C 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Although it was shot in a really bad camera and isn't colorful enough. Just kidding. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support although it would be nice if the caption included more info about the subject: is it in Paris? I suppose it is the same street which is today called the Boulevard du Temple? If so, is the vantage point situated near Place de la Republique, looking south? Spebudmak 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Boulevard du Temple.jpg Raven4x4x 06:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walnut

Reason

A hi-res image, shows the details of a walnut clearly, and seems to meet the criteria. Alternate option: Image:English Walnut (version2).jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Juglans regia, Walnut

Creator

AndonicO: It's my first self-nom.

Nominator

AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here}

• Self-Nominate and Support | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment By the way, should it be cropped a bit more? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah. --froth^{T C} 22:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it better now? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support sweet and very nice I like it much better cropped. — Arjun 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. —sd31415 (sign here) 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support, illustrive and a high-resolution picture, but a rather uninteresting composition. Perhaps an adjustment of levels and cropping in photoshop would make it more visually appealing? Jellocube27 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The lighting is a little strong, and it's a little blurry in places. I don't know if I like the unnatural surface the walnut is resting on. It's a nice picture, but not featured material in my opinion. --Tewy 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking for flaws...looking for flaws...ah! It's just a little bit blurry at full resolution! ;-). Support (edit 2), very nice. --Tewy 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The lighting is a little strong. Good crop. What's that black surface. --froth^{T C} 02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Everything is great except that the background should probably be different. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the second edit better now.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. OK shot, but no "wow", and a slightly distracting background. I'd also like to see a cracked nut (or the innards), that would improve the enc. --Janke | Talk 05:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moderate Support; it's quite a good shot, and there is nothing I can find fault with as far as the focus on the walnut, picture resolution and image quality are concerned. My only problem lies with the surface on which the walnut is placed on. At times, it can be a bit distracting. However, I think it is a good shot on the overall. -- Altiris Exeunt 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • After seeing the new pictures, my vote has been changed to Support Edit 1. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The background is a black rubber mat. I can take it again on a different surface with a cracked nut next to it if you'd prefer it that way. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I thought you placed one on a road and took it lying down. I was wondering why the surface was so rough. No offence there, though. Just thought I should mention it for your information. -- Altiris Exeunt 11:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I'm opposing not because the picture is bad (it is a great picture), but because it could and should be better. I don't like the colour of that rubber surface. Also, it would be better if an open walnut were put close to this one so we can see the inside. Alvesgaspar 13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I'll take a better one following your suggestions and upload it later today. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I've uploaded this new version with a cracked nut next to the whole one. Is the background better? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The composition is much better in the second version. However, there are a few things that I think could still be improved. First, a large portion of the full walnut is out of focus (more so than the original). Try for a more narrow aperture if you can, to increase the depth of field. Next, the lighting is still a little harsh for my taste (light subject, dark shadows). Finally, it's minor, but I would like to see them spaced a little more apart. I think if you can address those issues, you'll have my support. --Tewy 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Totally echoing Tewy above. One more try, and you've got my vote. Not for any "wow", but for the enc. --Janke | Talk 19:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you tell me what you used for lighting? My guess is a direct flash as the lights are quite hard on the walnuts. If you can (limited by flash strength), can you try maybe a bounced flash? Of course, this is not as important than the limitd DOF and I would still support this nevertheless. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I just got back; I'll start taking pictures right away, sorry for the delay. And yes, I did just use flash. I'll be back in a while. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The bad lighting is causing grain right now (I think it's the lighting); I'll try again in the morning. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I like the new one much more, the background is great. However, the subjects are a bit too close together for my liking, and they are a bit out of focus as well. Otherwise, a great shot! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jellocube27 (talk • contribs).
• Comment Please retake the second one, it's excellent enc and composition, it's just out of focus. --froth^{T C} 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, here's the second picture with improved focus; sorry it took a while. I have two other almost identical ones too (they are slightly brighter), in case you find fault with this one. Can I please eat the nuts now? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support, attractive composition and of good encyclopedic value. Don't eat them just yet, though, someone else may have a gripe :) Jellocube27 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support for ALL PICTURES They are all good pictures of technical brilliance (my compliments to Andonic!) and encyclopedic excellence. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hear! Hear! -- Altiris Exeunt 08:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 - Bluedog423^Talk 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support Edit 1 or 3. Not much of a fan of the lighting, but good enc value --Fir0002 02:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose all. DOF is unnecessarily low. --Dschwen 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha, edit2 is actually in focus pretty much everywhere. All those versions and edits make it fairly confusing. So I'll go neutral on that one. I'd prefer to see the whole nut from an angle where the seam between the two halves of the shell is visible. Also, whats the red paint on the cracked nut? --Dschwen 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The red paint is where the brand name was painted (Diamond). I couldn't avoid getting it (the nut was broken on the other side, so I had to take the picture from that angle), and cracking even more nuts would have led to an economic disaster. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support all except original version I like all the versions with brown background. Good job AndranicO. --Arad 04:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. I can't see what Fir did to edit this image. I like how the nuts touch in that composition. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Fir seems to have brightened it. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit by Fir. But only if the red paint at the bottom of the cracked nut will be removed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Suppert edit 2. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:English Walnuts.jpg Raven4x4x 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA-22 Raptor

Reason

Great angle, clear, and an excellent subect.

Articles this image appears in

F-22A Raptor, and Airplane, and many many more.

Creator

United States Air Force

Nominator

Why1991

• Support — Why1991 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This image has been nominated twice before (the previous nominations are at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USAF F/A-22 and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/F-22 Raptor). --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. And has faced nothing but opposition back then. The picture hasn't changed and the reasons from last October and November still hold. On a completely different matter: Your signature clutters the edit form considerably Why. --Dschwen 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ¿Why1991's signature per Dschwen. ♠ SG →Talk 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, Is this going to be the GNAA of FPC? Thirding the sig objection. Why1991's sig is one of the key motivators behind my post to WP:VPR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh I didn't notice that post, and VP is definately the right place for that. I realized I might have started a little witchhunt here for Why1991, that was not my intention, I just wanted to calmly indidate that issue to him. --Dschwen 08:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose see my comments in previous nomination attempts. --Bridgecross 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose wasn't ready then and isn't now. Just technically not a great image. — Arjun 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have fixed how long my signature is. I'm sorry that I nominated this picture seeing that it has been nominated twice before. I had no clue. Can I take it off. I don't want to get in trouble for it being missing so what shall I do. Why1991 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm that works? According to here it shouldn't. Maybe that page needs an update. As for the nomination, you can always retract it at your own discretion, just remove the template inclusion from here and leave this subpage intact so the third nomination stays on record. --Dschwen 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Kittinger's Skydive

Reason

high-quality, breath-taking photo, and just plain awesome

Articles this image appears in

Joseph Kittinger; Project Excelsior

Creator

camera attached to the helium balloon he jumped from (technically counted as a US Air Force employee)

Nominator

Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)}

• Support — Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why is it in such high resolution? Looks like it was oversampled by a scanner. But it's a very cool picture, especially knowing its significance (which is what featured pics should be). --froth^{T C} 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Minor Support due to notability. -- Altiris Exeunt 06:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would someone who attempts the highest skydive have notability issues? Anyway, the nomination is about the quality and encyclopedic value, not the depicted person. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support (as uploader), would prefer better quality, but this is really one of those incredibly unique historical images. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Caption suggestion, Joseph Kittinger steps out of the gondola for Excelsior III, the highest skydive of all time, 102,800 feet (33,100 meters) above the Earth. The jump took place on 16 August 1960 as part of Project Excelsior, a series of tests of high-altitude parachute systems by the U.S. Air Force. His ascent took an hour and a half and set new records for manned ballooning altitude, and his descent reached a terminal velocity over 600 mph. The seal on his right glove failed, exposing him to the thin atmosphere and ambient temperatures below -90°F (-68°C).
• Support A hiDEF photo that is encyclopedic and "awesome". S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's unique and significant, and a good picture, but it's not a great picture. The composition is extremely unbalanced, there is a lot of grain, and the colors are the extreme lighting makes the foreground (including the subject) tough to look at.--ragesoss 10:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think a better quality image could've been created in those circumstances.

• Support based on encyclopedic value. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above. —sd31415 (sign here) 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Not the clearest but hey it's not like he's going to do it again.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support That made me laugh. Obviously, it wasn't taken with aesthetic value in mind-- nontheless, I am in full support of the picture: it's very unique and perfectly illustrative (not to mention satisfies size/technical requirements). Jellocube27 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, high encyclopedic value. Noclip 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support For enc and hist. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Historic picture, despite any (minor, in my opinion) technical shortcomings. — BillC ^talk 00:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Pretty cool picture plus it has historical significance. I think this picture would be great as a featured picture. User:Voshvoshka
• Support As above. --Midnight Rider 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support Not the prettiest pic out there, but the high encyclopedic value clearly makes up for it. Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 12:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support -Very encyclopedic, that guy had some guts.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, quality isn't the best, but it's encyclopedic and is a shot that can't be taken again. --RandomOrca2 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• oppose, not of best quality Preetikapoor0 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm...it was taken during the early 60's in extreme condition :p — Arjun 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support considering the historical significance of this picture and really pretty good technically. — Arjun 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Certainly not high def., more like blurry disposable camera crap. But the picture tells a story, it immediately converys whats going on. It gives context with the balloon gondola, and the far-away cloud sea, and a guy who obviously just jumped. It fulfills a key criteria FPs should have, it makes you curious, makes you want to know more. --Dschwen 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support per Dschwen. I hate making ditto votes, but he nailed it. This is indubitably among our best pictures. --Kizor 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wow. What a photo! Interesting, encylopedic and historically significant! Ackatsis 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Aside from the "photocrapped" stuff and high rez stuff, I find the subject matter really moving in this pic.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Far from great quality but enough encyclopedic value to support it. Actually, someone else jumped higher and survived (I forget who) but he was unconscious when he arrived on the ground, so it didn't count. There's also this French guy (of who I forget the name), who pans to beat the record this year. NauticaShades 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Kittinger-jump.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Escarpment

Reason

aesthetically pleasing, amazing and encyclopedic image.

Articles this image appears in

* Sierra Nevada (US),Inyo County, CaliforniaEscarpment,Owens Valley

Creator

G. Thomas

Nominator

JorcogaYell!

• Support — JorcogaYell! 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Gorgeous, but the clouds are distracting and it's a little blurry --froth^{T C} 08:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Where is that picture blurry? It is as tack sharp as you can expect it to be after being downsized to only 600px height. --Dschwen 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What I mean is that a person standing there could see much more detail, where's the detail? It's only 600px high, and it shouldn't be hard to get a great shot in that clear mountain air. Sorry, bad choice of word --froth^{T C} 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Aha! That we certainly can agree on. Although the min. size is 1000px in one direction (yadayadayada). This picture is too small for my taste. Not nearly enough detail. The mountains are a measly 200px high. With panoramic images much higher resolutions can be achieved. --Dschwen 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Stunning scenery but farily low detail/resolution. --Dschwen 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I kind of agree with Froth. But you might want to make the one you have here as a thumbnail a little bigger.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose The clouds I actually like; it gives a sense of how tall the range is. But I agree with Froth the image should have more resolution vertically. --Bridgecross 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Size. It's just 1.4 mega pixels, very very low for a panorama. Maybe we should change the criteria from side dimension to number of megapixels to be more precise? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea, but it's not that strict of a requirement anyway --froth^{T C} 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Made me go wow! ... and it's big enough for me. Mactographer 10:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Vertical resolution, brightness/contrast/saturation. —Dgies^t c 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Nobody is bothered by the uneven polarization of the sky? Great, then maybe it is time for a renomination... --Dschwen 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well the uneven polarisation of the sky in this image isn't quite as bad as some others... But the colour cast looks quite purple to me and the scene just isn't as detailed as it should be. Good for the article, but not good enough for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Shortbeak Echidna

OK, I've tried a zoo shot of a shortbeak echidna (which was unpopular to say the least ;-) so here's a geniune authentic wild version. As you can see because it is in "the wild" there is no great photo op locations, and I had to make do with a few in the way stalks of grass. The echidna was making it's way towards a dense cluster of bushes and so I had only about 10 metres of open grass to play with. And to add to all of this he was camera shy and would very quickly duck down into a ball at the sound of the shutter - blurring several photos. However I'm quite happy with this shot and thought it worth nominating.

• Support Version 1 Self Nom. --Fir0002 09:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2 they are both very nice but I prefer the second. — Arjun 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support version 2 - Much better than the unpopular zoo version... Version 1 has an annoying unfocused branch in the foreground. Alvesgaspar 18:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my reasoning also, the firs on has too many twigs, branches, etc. — Arjun 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Version 2 Great detail. —dima/s-ko/ 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2, I agree with the others, since the second is less distracting. --RandomOrca2 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2 You might change the file name later... -- Lycaon 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks ;-) --Fir0002 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The many pieces of grass in front of the animal spoil it for me, on either version - Adrian Pingstone 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Version 2. Excellent pic. Clear detail and no artefacts. Though the piece of grass or whatever that is is a bit distracting. -mw 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2 per Alvesgaspar. SD31415 · SIGN HERE 00:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support 1st one The big branch in the second one is just as distracting as all the little one in the first version. It's a good photo though and I really like the angle.--Why1991 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2 It's better than the first one (due to the position of the face) and it highly encyclopedic.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• If that beast lives in thre grasslands the few grass blades don't bother me. I actually prefer version 1, as I think the beak comes out better in the half-profile. --Dschwen 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The echidna lives in grassland, forest and sand dunes, so it doesn't exclusively inhabit grassland. --liquidGhoul 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support version 2 I think the grass is less distracting in this one. They do have very odd fur though. Terri G 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Both I like them both and I don't find the grass overly distracting. I agree with Dschwen; the beak comes out better. --Iriseyes 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support both per above. Sweet. - Darwinek 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Both Per above. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2. The quality is great and it also illustrates it's habitat. As for which version, much more is visible and in focus on version 2. NauticaShades 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Wild shortbeak echidna.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005-issue penny obverse

Reason

The original FP penny is facing a delist for its unauthentic cameo effect. This version is crisp and clear and though it's a little bright on Lincoln's head (maybe someone can touch up the color balance?) I think it's probably the best shot available. It seems to be lit from very close to vertical so there are minimal shadows. It's extremely detailed and high-resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Cent (United States coin) Lincoln cent

Creator

US Mint

Nominator

froth^{T C}

• Support — froth^{T C} 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, blurry, clearly artificial crop, doesn't meet size requirements. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support with caveat - comply with the rules first, and i'll support 100%.--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I know that we already have a penny that is featured picture but I believe that this one is better. I doesn't have the shadow on the right hand side, and it is a real spendable coin in the money circulation unlike the other one that is a collectable printed in San Francisco--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, too small, bad image quality, appears in no article. The is a reason for the last rule, the picture has to be peer reviewed by the people working on the article. Otherwise the photo-nerds keep promoting only pretty pictures ;-) --Dschwen 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's extremely detailed and high-resolution. this is a slight misrepresentation of the facts, isn't it? Its just 726x744 px. --Dschwen 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Dschwen -- Lycaon 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. How much more resolution do you need on a coin, there's not much to show.. it's a picture of a 1-centimeter object --froth^{T C} 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. As Froth alluded to, I measured a real penny at 0.75" and the picture at 7.5", meaning it's ten times as large as the real thing. That's good enough for me. Also, provided the consensus is that this photo is better, it will be placed in articles. You all are way too bureaucratic. Perhaps someone should just add it to an article to address that concern...--HereToHelp 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Fails criteria, 2,3, and 7.Meniscus 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Any details on 3 and 7? Those are highly subjective --froth^{T C} 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't meet size requirements. --Tewy 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Resolution too low. It may seem big but detail per pixel is low (ie. blurry), and also 1:1 macro shots can provide even more details. --antilived^{T | C | G} 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Dschwen -- Madman 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. For something incredibly common, it shouldn't be too hard to get a higher resolution. NauticaShades 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrington river

Reason

From my viewpoint this is a very high quality image. I found it whilst random articling. — Arjun 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Barrington Tops National Park

Creator

DanF

Nominator

— Arjun

• Support — — Arjun 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - beautiful image. Yuser31415 04:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Edit conflict! There are some pretty serious blown highlights in the water, as well as some purple fringing at the edges. --Tewy 04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support I would hang that picture in a library.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice catch with the purple fringing Tewy but it's still a great image --froth^{T C} 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ack Tewy, plus there is blurryness in the top-left corner, and while being pretty the subject lacks notability/enc. --Dschwen 09:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very serene and encyclopedic pic! However, as noted above, there are a few blemishes, none of which really detracts from the pic. Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tewy, and overall dark lighting, bland composition, low encyclopedic value. --Bridgecross 14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Adds minimal encyclopedic value to article, visually uninteresting, blown highlights. —Dgies^t c 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Although some of you may find this to be unencyclopedic, you must note that not every place in the world has streams and this does capture the very essance of what a stream is. The shot is high quality, so I see no reason why this shouldn't be an FP. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This image isn't in the stream article so it doesn't really help people to understand that concept. It is only in the National Park article. It does illustrate that article reasonably well but it just isn't that high quality image. It has a few faults and isn't particularly noteworthy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per my comments above, not an outstanding image and not particularly noteworthy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The lighting is bad, and it doesn't illustrate it's subject ver well, as Diliff mentioned. NauticaShades 11:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have squillions like this. It's, as very carefully noted, "a mountain stream" - we don't even know which one. The lighting is poor, it's not that sharp, and the choice of shutter speed isn't great - the water is blurry but not smoothly so. Even some of the bushes are blurry. Lastly, what's with the file name - is this actually a river called Barrington River? If so, perhaps there should be an article on it - Barrington River appears to be about a river in the US. Stevage 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robocup Team Osaka's VisiON

Reason

I feel that the picture is of good quality, freely licensed, and describes the subject well.

Articles this image appears in

Robot, RoboCup

Creator

BradBeattie

Nominator

Brad Beattie (talk)

• Support — Brad Beattie (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor composition. What exactly is the picture of anyway? The robot? The game? The team? --Midnight Rider 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - the image is not so bad, but there are lots of feet sticking out from the top of the picture! Template:Emot Yuser31415 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I believe that this picture has great quality and that it is very much encyclopedic!!--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 05:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose too many distracting objects in the background and foreground. -Glaurung 06:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -The composition kills it for me.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. — Arjun 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Must Oppose. Picture cluttered. Objects distracting. Too many balls in play. Don't touch ball with hands. 0010011100110101. ~ trialsanderrors 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• UGH! Strong, Strong Oppose I can't even tell what the focus of the picture is/what's going on. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad composition. NauticaShades 17:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methane Lakes on Titan

Reason

Scientists have uncovered evidence of the existence of lakes filled with liquid methane on Saturn's moon Titan. Although the existence of such lakes or oceans has been predicted for 20 years, this is the first time that convincing evidence has been gathered due to a dense haze preventing a closer look. Radar images taken by the spacecraft Cassini during a fly-by of the moon on July 22nd last year show more than 75 large bodies of liquid ranging in diameter from three to 70km in the moon's northern hemisphere. It was taken by the Cassini spacecraft, and is a NASA public domain license. It currently appears in the Titan article

Articles this image appears in

Titan (moon)

Creator

NASA

Nominator

Preetikapoor0

• Support — Preetikapoor0 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The news section would be a better place. I realize the scientific finding is moderately spectacular, but the picture isn't. --Dschwen 23:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support perhaps not the most striking of images, but it is very encyclopedic, very informative, and very rare (due to contemporary technological limitations). The image is also technically flawless, being very large and without artifacts or noise. There are few pictures like this on Wikipedia; I think it's reasonable to call this one of our best pictures. Jellocube27 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not interesting like a featured picture needs to be. Like Dschwen said try to get it nominated in another category and it should do well. Why1991 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• support - lakes on a moon of Saturn = spectacular in my book. Debivort 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Higly encyclopedic, but not exactly what I would call a Wow image. — Arjun 05:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Although it has an encyclopedic level that is off the pages, it's a pretty lousy picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Amazing photograph. How is this image NOT interesting? Certainly spectacular, as Debivort stated. ♠ SG →Talk 06:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Folks are ooh-ing and aah-ing over a Photoshopped picture of a coin, but complain about a close-up image of an object a light hour away? Is this reverse week? ~ trialsanderrors 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But this is just a radar image, it could be anything anywhwere. There is no indication in the picture itself that this is a lighthour away or that we are seeing methane lakes. Don't get me wrong here, as a physicist I'm all for the excitement of the find, the pic on its own is what I find unremarkable/unspectacular. --Dschwen 09:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How exactly would a picture convey that it was taken a light hour away? We could of course create an animated gif that turns from black to image after an hour, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. ~ trialsanderrors 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Only if it was over exactly 1000 pixels ;) --froth^{T C} 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I like it. Better than the coin too. --Iriseyes 13:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Which coin? And what does it have to do with this picture??? --Dschwen 13:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, see the comment above mine. --Iriseyes 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support I think the picure is attractive, it's encyclopedic, difficult to reproduce and of high quality, the only thing that isn't so great is the blank space, which could perhaps be cropped out to give a smaller overall picture or be filled in as the research continues? Personally I think there is more than enough explanation on the image page of what it is and with a bit of a tweak the thumbnail caption could convey exactly what the picture is of. Terri G 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dschwen said it. --Bridgecross 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very encyclopedic photo, but do something about the black space that comes with images like these. MER-C 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I tried to crop them out, but we'd lose too much of the picture. Plus they signal just how hard it is to take an image under these conditions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- is this not one of the better pictures in Wikipedia? It is certainly more interesting than potatoes and coins, no matter how technical perfect those shots are. Madman 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• strong support. I believe that like the photo of Edison and Phonograph , we should see the macroimportance of this image rather than just the quality. It revealed the liquid methane lakes on the Titan, which nobody had seen before. It was important enough to on the COVER of Nature, [4] which is the most prestigious journal in whole scientific world. I think that alone is sufficient to meet the criteria of a featured picture. Preetikapoor0 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - False color suggests dirt and water, which would give the average viewer an inaccurate impression. Choice of angle is a bad idea: if you're not soing to show a true landscape, use an isomorphic (map) projection. Also needs distance key. I think the raw data could be turned into a FP, but whoever's running the post-processing for NASA went for "pretty" over "encyclopedic". —Dgies^t c 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that Cassini is orbiting Saturn and not Titan. so you do not have any control over the angle of view or the distance and due to this you rarely get the opportunity to take a picture of titan. We do not have many options as this is the ONLY image that NASA has. Intensity in this colorized image is proportional to how much radar brightness is returned, or more specifically, the logarithm of the radar backscatter cross-section. The colors are not a representation of what the human eye would see. The lakes, darker than the surrounding terrain, are emphasized here by tinting regions of low backscatter in blue. Radar-brighter regions are shown in tan. The image is centered near 80 degrees north, 35 degrees west and is about 140 kilometers (84 miles) across. Smallest details in this image are about 500 meters (1,640 feet) across. 68.61.233.160 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:PIA09102PIA09102 Liquid Lakes on Titan.jpg Raven4x4x 07:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banded cleaner shrimp

Reason

I have received some nice comments about this picture, and it shows the shrimp in its natural habitat.

Articles this image appears in

Stenopus hispidus

Creator

Laban712

Nominator

Laban712

• Support — Laban712 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like it's shot in somebodies intestines :-). Nice quality apart from the low DOF. But the main problem I see is that a full frontal shot of that critter makes it hard to guess its structure. What's the head, where are the legs and antennae attached. It's just a bit confusing. --Dschwen 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Dschwen makes good points, but I fault more towards aesthetics in my judgments. I let others haggle over encyclopedic value and whatnot. I love the background lighting and the vignette effect. Focus on most of the critter is good. He even seems to glow a bit. I personally prefer a shallow depth of field in many cases for the sake of setting the subject apart from the foreground and/or background … which this photo does very nicely, yet still gives us a sense of placement in the environment. In fact, the DOF as it stands makes this photo all the better since, as Dschwen mentions, it is difficult to define the body parts of the shrimp from this angle. Since he is IN focus (most of him) and the rest of the image is OUT of focus, his body stands out and thus makes for a good portrait photo.-- Mactographer 11:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Subject is interesting and I'm willing to give a little leeway for poor DOF, but so much of the subject is out of focus it distracts my attention and makes me think the real subject is the intestine-like tube. Also hard to make out the animal's body plan. —Dgies^t c 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, mactographer brings up good points --froth^{T C} 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support An incredible picture with great encyclopedic value. In this case, I think the minor defects can be overlooked. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support well I can't say what has already been said. — Arjun 05:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The focus is not up to FP standards - Adrian Pingstone 11:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sort of looks like the background was out of some text book that was pasted in behind the shrimp. I think the angle is all wrong for the shrimp itself as well. Terri G 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, I can agree that the picture has a somewhat surreal effect, but it's not altered (except for color correction which is always necessary for UW shots). I shot it hovering over the opening of the cylindrical sponge, so the shrimp was actually looking up at me. It's shot at 15 meters depth and in a pretty strong current, so I was pretty amazed when I saw how well the focus turned out. Then again, it is macro DOF, but I sort of like the effect.--Laban712 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My Two Cents: I checked out the listing at:Stenopus hispidus and found that Stemonitis (a Wiki admin and biologist) decided to move this photo to the taxobox as the signature photo for this listing. Seems like a ringing endorsement of the encyclopedic value of this photo to me. -- Mactographer 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My Two Cents: Hm, I cannot quite understand that move to the taxobox. This pic seems better suited to me for that particular purpose. As it shows the body plan (yeah, that's the word I was looking for). Anyway, the nominated pic still is aesthetically way more pleasing. --Dschwen 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • My Two Cents: more... I'll agree,...seems more definitive for IDing the body parts. But I guess even biologists have aesthetic appreciation. -- Mactographer 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • My Two Scents: Agree with above, although it would be nice if more of the nominated image was in focus. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-05 21:24Z
          • Musing: Brian -- So are we to associate the quality of your opinion with the "scents" you've provided???? --Mactographer 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose...back to the picture (although I was considering envelope pictures for my two "sents"), I don't like it. The focus isn't up to par as per Adrian, but aside from that I think it's a truly ugly image. It looks like the cancer-infected inside of an ear...the background is simply too distracting. --Iriseyes 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It has no yuck factor for me. If the area is less disgusting than it looks, the image caption could mention it. --Kizor 09:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose It's just not that appealing and the bottom left corner seems a little blurier than the rest of the picture. It's okay but I don't think it is the best. Why1991 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I certainly acknowledge everyone's right to think that the background is weird-looking, ugly, intestine-looking or whatever. I just want to state that 1. Cleaner shrimps live on or in corals/sponges. 2. This shrimp, at the time pictured, lived inside a sponge and thus is representative of cleaner shrimps. 3. What you're seeing in the image is what a fish coming in to have its body cleansed would see. This makes it encyclopedic in my book. I agree that it does not show the shrimp's behind very well, and that probably the other pic is better suited in the taxobox (bodyplan etc.). The nominated pic shows the shrimp in its natural habitat, preparing to do what it does for a living.--Laban712 12:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Yep, that convinced me. We already have a picture showing the body plan and this picture has its own merits. Though for a strong support I'd have preferred a slightly different angle on the shimp. --Dschwen 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Mactographer's comments. Also, I don't find anything wrong with the background. --Aqua 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metallic Ringtail

An excellent photo of the Metallic Ringtail damsefly. Took a bit of hunting to get a good clear shot of it (I spotted the blue colored male a few times but he was too elusive), but this one has good colors and focus.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original Very sharp, great shot. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support the original. Very nice shot, clear and free of any technical problems. Highly encyclopedic. — Arjun 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Original. Good, encyclopedic picture that is almost technically flawless. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either, preference for 2 Support alternative. The background on Nr.1 is great, but some parts have small focus issues. Nr.2 has perfect focus and a better angle/wing-posture. Is it eating? The Fly on the wing is a nice detail too. --Dschwen 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's eating some kind of bug/fly which does add interest, but personally I think it was a little unfortunate that the fly was on it's wings at the time. --Fir0002 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Now as it might matter again I restrict my support to the alternative version. Focus is more important to me too. --Dschwen 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support alternative. It's hard to tell that it's actually eating something if you haven't seen the original shot, but the alternative's focus is much better --froth^{T C} 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I like both images a lot. I prefer the “original” due to its pleasing bokeh which contrasts the head , upper body and legs better than in the alternative version. Will support if place and date of photograph are given on the image page for encylopaedic factor.--Melburnian 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done --Fir0002 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Support with preference for original as above. Nice work.--Melburnian 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice image. Pretty colours and high resolution. Good composition. --Midnight Rider 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Cool picture. Good resolution and detail. User:Voshvoshka
• Support original - Impressive picture, good enc value. Alvesgaspar 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either Great detail. Terri G 15:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative - I think the alt has better detail, is a little more interesting. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either They both have excellent clarity but I think that the clarity in the first one is a tad bit better. I like how there are plants in the picture with the dragonfly in the second also. Good photo. Why1991 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternate - I like that one much better...how odd with the bug in the wings. --Iriseyes 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative. Better focus. Not quite as good subject isolation though but the focus is more important. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alternative. I think that the alternative is much more interesting, with it eating and the fly on it's wing. It's also better in focus. NauticaShades 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alternative I don't like the fly, but the focus is much better. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg Raven4x4x 07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obverse of a penny 16 years in circulation

Articles this image appears in

Cent (United States coin)

Creator

User:Dschwen, Nominator: Dschwen

Well, since nominating pennies seems to be en vogue I thought I throw this one in for the fun of it (as my one cents :-) ). I just had the idea for a linear-macro-panoramic-image technique and had to try it out. This one is assembled from 16 macro shots. The camera was static and I moved the coin after each shot. The BG (white paper) and the shadow looked quite crappy, so I gimped them (sue me!). Oh yeah, it is downsized from 9 to 4 megapixels. One pixel corresponds pretty much exactly to 10µm x 10µm.

• Support — Dschwen 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose there is no need to duplicate the Featured pictures. The image is not very attractive either, especially on the edges. — Arjun 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's nothing in the criteria that says an image has to be attractive. This image illustrates a weathered penny, so of course it isn't going to be pretty. --Tewy 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • and not to get technical Arjun, but there are not two penny FPs. The other one is still a candidate as well. Not that there's anything in the rules about having multiple FPs of the same subject! --Bridgecross 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. What the hey, it's a nice shot. I love the resolution and sharpness. There will probably be some arguments for the encyclopedic value of this, but I think this does a great job at showing what a penny goes through. --Tewy 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support agree with Tewy. Impressive detail, and shows an important encyclopedic aspect of coins - that they are for every day, they get thrown around, thrown in the wash, mixed in with pocket lint (you can see fibers on this coin), etc. I like this image a lot for that aspect, plus it is very well done. Mak (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, we shouldn't have 2 versions of the same thing concurrently as candidates. Also it's ugly, the other penny is much clearer and cleaner. Also I don't like the ridiculously high resolution. And the shadow on the left is clearly fake since none of the features of the coin have shadows --froth^{T C} 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually I agree that the shadow is a little strong. Edit 1? --Tewy 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You might even remove it altogether. --Tewy 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The shadow looks perfectly real to me. Did you view the image at full size? It's quite easy to see the shadows on the coin itself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • They're nowhere near at that angle. The kicker is that almost the entire shadow is the exact same color- try using the fill tool with 0% tolerance. I don't believe this occurs naturally.. also the border between the left side of the coin and the big shadow looks magic-wanded. --froth^{T C} 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As you pointed out below, Dschwen stated it was fake. --Tewy 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I didn't explore the left-side large shadow in detail, but I accept that it's problematic if people have done analysis on it. I would add, however, that "they're nowhere near at that angle" is a far cry from "none of the features of the coin have shadows"... which I what I was originally disputing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The fake shadow coincides exactly with the real shadow the coin casted. Lighting came from the right at an angle of about 60° off the normal. Do the math, measure a pennies thickness and you will see the shadow matches. --Dschwen 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now this is my favourite: I don't like the ridiculously high resolution. *pause* welcome to the 21st century. I mean... cooooome oooon, 1000px is the absolute minimum on this page (well yeah, you nominated a 700 px pic below, sorry, but maybe you have to adjust your standards a little) so 2000px doesn't seem like that much of leap to me. --Dschwen 07:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also, lincoln's head is so damaged that it's barely distinguishable --froth^{T C} 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with that, the head is damaged too much. — Arjun 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly the point? This image serves to show what happens to a penny after the usual wear and tear, not how it looks coming out of the mint. If you want a shiny penny, scroll down to the other nomination. --Tewy 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the point was to show what a penny looks like. --froth^{T C} 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if Dschwen just wanted to show what a penny looked like, he would have picked a newer penny. --Tewy 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that goes without saying.. I mean that FPs should demonstrate their subjects. You can't do much with a penny other than show what it looks like. "Showing how it wears down while in circulation" is kind of a lame rationale, you have to admit --froth^{T C} 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, please tone it down a little. Sure I could have used a newer penny, or cleaned this one. That was a deliberate choice to set the pic off from the other pennies, and avoid doubling nominations. --Dschwen 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Intriguing technique (and good results) - but would a simple scanner at 600 dpi do the trick? At any rate nice pic but I would strongly prefer a much lighter shadow (say 50% of it's current darkness) and maybe make it softer as well. --Fir0002 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the scanner, the current version has 2540 dpi, and that is scaled down from 4300 dpi. But yeah, if you have a nice scanner sure. For the shadow I oriented myself after the original, but sure, I guess I could make it lighter. --Dschwen 07:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are two things that bother me about this image. While I like the overall concept, and would like to see a "distressed" penny shot to compare to the proof penny, this shouldn't be the one. First of all, there's no evidence that this coin has been in circulation for 16 years. Just because it was minted 16 years ago does not mean that it's been in circulation that long. Secondly, I think we should use an even "worse" penny for the shot, to highlight the amount of wear that occurs over the years. I would suggest something from the 70s or 80s. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • At a certain point the penny goes completely black from dirt and wear and it's not at all fit for FP. --froth^{T C} 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • But depending on the amount and type of use, a penny can last several decades longer than intended. I guess that goes along with what Dante Alighieri said about there being no proof that this coin has been in circulation. It may well have sat in a box for 15 of those years. --Tewy 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Also doesn't anybody notice the shadow? It is very distracting. — Arjun 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Edit 1 seems to fix that. --Tewy 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't even notice but it looks like Dschwen admits to creating the shadow artificially --froth^{T C} 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone else see the crap all over the coin? (2nd image) --froth^{T C} 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I personally dislike the shadow (hence I opposed) makes it look thick. Also is it just me or does it look like that the penny is turned slightly to the right. — Arjun 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Certain parts may be off but look at liberty, it's perfect. Maybe stitching problems? --froth^{T C} 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh epithelials and fibres, lets do a DNA test :-). Seriously I didn't bother cleaning the coin and shot it just out of my change purse. About the shadow geometry see above. --Dschwen 07:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Like most other US coins, this nomination should be put on hold until copyright status can be cleared up. The template is certainly false. See US Mint terms of use: "You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This picture is not from the US Mint website. But you are right, there is a special tag {{money-US}} — for images of the official currency of the U.S. These are ineligible for copyright, and therefore in the public domain. as it says on Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All. --Dschwen 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no evidence that this is based on fact, and quite a bit of counterevidence. In my understanding, copyrights are held on the likenesses of the images used for the coins by third parties which are then assigned to the US Mint under 17 USC §105 as "work for hire", so who took the photograph doesn't matter. The tag looks more like someone assumed "US Government → public domain" and extended it to the US Mint, which is patently wrong. You're a long-time Wikipedian, you should know that statements made on Wikipedia are unreliable unless they're supported by a reliable outside source. There is no such thing on the {{money-US}} tag. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, the design is by Victor David Brenner who died in 1924, which is over 80 years ago, and the work was published before 1923 ([5]). Even if he was the copyright holder to my (flaky) knowledge it wouldn't matter anymore. Plus on their website the us mint only mentions the photographers copyright on penny pics [6]. --Dschwen 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. According to Fir's suggestion I lightened the shadow, and I actually prefer it. It makes the coin stick out more. Sorry about the shadow blurring, that takes a little more time (to get the match right at the top and bottom edges I'd have to apply a blur-radius gradient making the shadow sharper to the right, if you know what I mean). --Dschwen 08:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Edit 1. Thanks for the edit, the lighter one is much better - fair enough if the shadow softening is too difficult for little gain. --Fir0002 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 1 - I wish you had brushed it off a bit, but I really like the resolution and the wear and tear. --Iriseyes 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't like that part of this image is fake, and to me the edge of the coin does not look right.. I don't think it should be difficult to take another picture of a penny, unlike some subjects. Use just any older penny and the same setup, except perhaps a different light source.say1988 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to comment on the not difficult, it took me over two hours to produce that image. Half an hour to take the pictures (used a timer to avoid shake) and the assembling. Then 1.5 hours to get the optimum DOF by manual editing of the stitching masks. --Dschwen 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am sorry I didn't phrase that well, in fact very poorly. I did not mean to refer to the actual process, but the subject and that are not that difficult to set up. I am more critical of a photo of a common subject in normal circumstances than a shot that cannot be repeated a will (time allowing). I did not mean it as an insult, and would like to apoligise. say1988 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per say1988. Madman 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Quite an original take at the common penny, and I love it. This is the real 1 cent peice we know, not the flawless mint ones. And the stuff on it isn't crap, it's authentic material from the inside of a pocket. NauticaShades 11:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The pocket material is prominent and unenc --froth^{T C} 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Semi-sarcastic? --Tewy 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Love the surface of the coin, it's certainly a change from the stripper tits fake cameo crap. But I see three problems that keep this from being FP; 1. Fake shadow doesn't go with the "realism" of the coin face. 2. There seems to be some crosshatching which I assume comes from the panoramic technique. And 3. and most critically, the rim of the coin is seen from all sides. There's also some artifact sticking into the fake shadow that's just jarring. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand what zou mean bz crosshatching. The artifact is an epithelial from handling the money :-). And a tiny bit of rim is indeed seen, but it can easily be confused with the bevelled edge of the coin (so you are probably overestimating it). The overall appearance is darn close to the real thing I have lying in front of me now. --Dschwen 09:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I see diagonal hatches at 45 degrees going both from bottom left to top right (they're pretty obvious) and from top left to bottom right (they're not quite as obvious, but check the area to the right of his forehead). I doubt that such a pattern can occur from natural wear and tear, so I assume it's a result of the technique. As is the perspective distortion that shows the rim from all sides. The artifact could've been photoshopped out, especially the with way you added the shadow. ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - While it might be good to have a circulated coin as an example, it shouldn't be one with spots. Patina can be nice (and typical for an old coin), but a spot is a defect. —Dgies^t c 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Spots and defects aren't a problem; they can make for an interesting figure. Shadows are relistic on difference in height of coin, and in height of the relief. But what the spots and defects do show is that it really hasn't been in circulation that much; rather, it has been hoarded somewhere, in a place that got some moisture, and it stuck to te coin(s) above it. You can see the transferred ridges from contact with another coin, most clearly around Lincoln's neck but elsewhere as well. Gene Nygaard 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Australian Exhibition Building

Reason

It is an excellent picture of a beautiful building with much clarity and a flower border at the bottom.

Articles this image appears in

Royal Exhibition Building, and Australia

Creator

Diliff

Nominator

¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here}

• Support — ¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Quite pretty but would have been nicer if there weren't partial cloud shadows on the building. Also, moire on the right parapet kills it. —Dgies^t c 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, agree with Dgies, plus the perspective, while pretty lowers enc, as the bottom of the building is obscured. And that was one of the reasons a recent skyscraper nom was shot down. --Dschwen 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose comparing the distorted version and the 'corrected' version, there is something quite odd about the corrected version that I can't exactly place my finger on. The correction leaves a new type of distortion that is visable.--Andrew c 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic Wreckage (2nd nomination)

I am renominating this image per the request of Ahadland as the original nomination (at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Titanic Wreckage) did not receive very much attention. In terms of technical quality, the picture is not as good as many other candidates. However, as the subject is unique and lies at a depth of 3.8 kilometers below the ocean surface, getting a better photograph may be difficult. The image appears in the article RMS Titanic.

• Nominate and neutral support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose- Historically significant, and the resolution isn't really a problem... It's just a really ugly picture. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Oppose Not a very good image. — Arjun 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Yes it is historically significant but a more interesting and better picture can be found.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - In both this nomination and the previous, people are saying "there must be better pictures out there". I'm not sure how much I believe that - there have only been a handful of expeditions and how many produced public domain images? "Ugliness" is a non-criteria for denying FP status in this case: shipwrecks are ugly. Previous complaints about darkness are silly too: The subject is reasonably visible and this is at the bottom of the ocean, greater lighting would make it look like a museum piece. This is a non-grainy, well focused, stylishly lit, medium resolution photograph of a very historic subject, and has nice visual interest. —Dgies^t c 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support – Striking image, and satisfactory in terms of technical quality. While it'd be nice if they raised the Titanic to allow for other freely-licensed images to be taken, this seems somewhat unlikely – so the photograph gets additional kudos for being rare and historically significant. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose despite the documental value and because I don't hear any bells ringing. Ugliness is a perfectly legitimate evaluation criterium, together with all the other subjective ones (including beauty and enc value). If the evaluation process were objective, we could all go home. Alvesgaspar 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great enc very rare shot --froth^{T C} 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Barely meets the resolution requirements. Even if it passes, it will probably be delisted in a year or so as the requirements are growing stricter.--HereToHelp 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not promoting an image because it might be delisted in the future is a poor rationale. Debivort 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• support nicely shows what happens to iron ships as they decay underwater. As for "ugliness" ... ugly can be aesthetic - think The Scream. Debivort 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

erm...I think the Scream is beautiful. But that is just my "two-cents" :D — Arjun 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support very iconic image, plus big historical value. It's not like anyone can just go and and take another shot.-Andrew c 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you are missing the point, just because it would be hard to take the shot...that alone does not qualify to be a FP. I quote from WP:WIAFP,"Be Wikipedia's best work". To me this is not wikipedia's best work. — Arjun 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you're missing the meaning of "best work". It's not just the best photography.. WP is an encyclopedia and enc is the most important element of "best work". --froth^{T C} 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Obviously "best" is subjective. Oftentimes the "best" photography found in magazines is blurry, cropped dynamically, shallow depth of field, over saturated and many other things that voters here would vote 'no' on pricipal alone. To me, personally, this image is very iconic, and very historical. I've seen it many times before and is almost the quintessential image of the Titanic. While it may not be the 'best' possible photo, it meets my reading of the FPC criteria. And my reading says that you weight uniquiness against other criteria. If 'best' was the only criteria, I would never vote for the Washington Monument because I personally find that structure drab, and therefore any photo of it would be boring in my opinion.--Andrew c 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per froth. SD31415 · SIGN HERE 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Historically significant, not really imbued with any major technical flaws, and i think it is encyclopedic; and given that we're maintaining an encyclopedia, i think its worth being listed as a Featured Picture —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs).
• Restating my comment from last time I don't know how notable this photo would be if people didn't regognize the shape and style of the railing from the 1997 movie (e.g. featuring the scene "I'm the king of the world!"). This part of the ship would (in my estimation) not have any particular significance to us today if it had not been featured so prominently in the film, and in the marketing for the film, including the movie poster and the Celine Dion music video. Spebudmak 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Are you arguing therefore that the image is historically insignificant and not worth featured picture status? Well, given that the American 1 cent coin is well known to pretty much every person in America, does that stop it from being featured. Just because something is recognized across the world, doesnt mean it shouldnt be featured. And given that your issue is about the bow being immortalised in the film; lets say the film was never made, im sure many would agree that the image is still significant from a historical point of view

• I'm not saying it's insignificant, just that its significance is affected by the inclusion in the film. It would still have some significance even if the film had not been made, but perhaps not as much. I'm just raising the issue, not voting pro or con.Spebudmak 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• And if the Titanic had been a tugboat, this image wouldn't be notable enough either. But it wasn't a tugboat, and it was featured in the film. Hypotheticals don't help one bit in determining whether an image is feature-worthy. It is what it is. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support: good picture with historical relevance82.6.84.37 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No anonymous votes, please - Alvesgaspar 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The above has one edit...this edit. — Arjun 03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's not a great picture, and it's not hist either. Enc is what this picture has that others don't, as well as rarity. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Dgies. JorcogaYell! 13:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. If anybody ever finds a better image, then we can delist this one. NauticaShades 11:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Titanic-bow seen from MIR I submersible.jpeg Raven4x4x 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian bride portrait

Reason

I think it’s well posed, colorful and somewhat exotic.

Articles this image appears in

Wedding dress
Indian wedding

Creator

en:User:Mactographer

Nominator

Mactographer

• Nominate — Mactographer 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Pictures of people have a hard time here for some reason. This one is not bad, and I like how it shows several features of the bride, like gown, henna tattoos, and jewlery. I holding back the support due to size reasons for now. 0.6 MP seems a little measly to me. --Dschwen 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support now. I sort of agree with Alves on the occidental bride thing, but this picture has informational value for me, and I really like the composition (plus the quality is great). As Alves also said, if the evaluation process were completely objective we could all go home :-) --Dschwen 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I must agree with the above statement.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 a very encyclopedic image, also very clear in my eyes. — Arjun 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think the expression of the bride is particularly interesting, which should be a most important element in any human portrait. Because I also don't believe exoticism is enough for enc value, the question I put to myself is: how would this picture be evaluated if this same woman were dressed as an occidental bride? - Alvesgaspar 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Version #2 "Here's the original size and resolution file.—Mactographer 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! And the quality is great even at that size. --Dschwen 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support version 2 (which is really version one if you think about it...but whatever). The expression is fine. The exoticness compensates for it.--HereToHelp 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Technically speaking this is a poor picture for illustrative purposes. The subject is not well framed; both her fingers and her shoulder are cropped off, which is quite unacceptable. For documentary purposes, the colors and expression are what they are, and the image does appear to be appropriately focused and all that. This is undoubtedly a very decent memento of someone's wedding, but as a documentary image it is definitely lacking. As to exoticness: I cannot see how an image of an Indian bribe is "exotic", given the rather large number of women who every day must either look like this or are trying to look like this. I'm all for combating cultural bias, but we don't do that by parading everyday images of non-Western culture as "exotic". Kelly Martin (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The exoticness specifically referred to western bias. I laude you political correctness, but simply ignoring that a westerner has a western-bias is counterproductive. Reflecting upon it like Alves is more helpful. Fact is Alves(?) and me are from the western hemisphere and while statistically (I guess) one in six weddings is an indian wedding virtually no indian weddings take place on our doorsteps. --Dschwen 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- It's an okay portrait, but generally an unremarkable image and not of the best Wikipedia has to offer, IMO. By exotic, I assume is meant "foreign," in which case essentializing western perspectives is inappropriate for an encyclopedia used and edited by people from all over and from lots of different cultures, regardless of where they live. (Any weddings on my doorstep are as likely to be "non-western" as "western," and I'm in the western hemisphere too). And if the "exotic" factor isn't heavily weighted, then there's really no "wow" factor here at all. Bobanny 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Uhum, it is as likely? Well my friend the reality here is different. And how spectacular or surprising an image seems is in the eye of the boholder after all. Ah well and forgive me for not tip-toeing around backwards and colonialistic terms like exotic. --Dschwen 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That comment annoyed me especially since I tried to point out my personal awareness of that bias just in the paragraph above, but no I still get the same lecture again. --Dschwen 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't doubt it's different where you are; I was just trying to point out that your reality isn't the universal reality of the western hemisphere. It's not about political correctness for me, just ordinary correctness, and I don't see how acknowledging a bias justifies incorporating that bias in an encyclopedia. I agree that what strikes us as exotic can be subjective, but I don't think subjectively held impressions should be weighted heavily in selecting a featured picture is all. Sheeesh. Bobanny 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, if everybody votes to his subjective liking and the audience here is as universal as you say, then any bias should even out. If on the other hand the votership and readership has western bias so be it, then the picture has a novelty value for the majority making it featureworthy. I cannot see anything wrong with that. With the same logic a picture of a rural african village would be unremarkable to you, because millons of people live in such villages and only cultural bias makes them seem special. --Dschwen 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
          • My concern is simply that I don't believe that seeing the subject as exotic should tilt the scales in the way that, say, historical significance or extreme rarity does for evaluating photos. For me personally, the subject is exotic, as I'm not Indian, have never been to an Indian wedding, and was raised in a culture where colourful Indian traditions are exotic because they are different. But the Indian bride, as with the rural African village, are common enough subjects that other criteria need to be exceptional to be feature-worthy, regardless of how novel or exotic the subject seems to me or you. I also believe that Wikipedia is dominated by male editors, Americans, etc., and that awareness of that should be used to try and overcome biases, with the ultimate goal of making Wikipedia more inviting to people who aren't as well represented, which in the end would make it a more authoritative source. Maybe that's a little pc, but it's also an ideal for Wikipedia with practical implications that I don't believe many editors would take issue with.Bobanny 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Systemic bias, dshwen. Since most wikipedians are western, these pics are bound to be considered "exotic" by the community. We have featured pictures of western stuff too that other cultures might think exotic.. it's not that bad --froth^{T C} 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• oppose per bobanny --froth^{T C} 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment & Question That comment from Fruitbasket was rude, but it WAS a support. Doesn't it count in the vote? Why was it removed? -- Mactographer 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly I didn't think of that aspect. But I'm not sure whether we shoud walue such votes. I for one would happily do without. But I guess it's up to the closer, so let me note plus one removed vandal support. --Dschwen 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. While I'm not overly fond of staged portraits, this one certainly does summarise (to the best of my knowledge anyway) a typical indian bride's costume/appearance. Quality is excellent. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2. The quality is reasonable and "exotic" or not, it depicts its subject well. NauticaShades 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question - Sorry to raise the question, but is there an authorization of the bride to have her picture reproduced here? That shouldn't be difficult, I presume the photo was shot in the US, right? - Alvesgaspar 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Yes. She signed a wedding contract that allows uses like this. However, this is the first time I've heard the issue raised on Wiki. Tho I've wondered about it regarding other photos. --Mactographer 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Map of Jupiter

Reason

I am re-nominating this picture because it is the most detailed map of Jupiter ever produced, it was "Image of the Day" at the NASA website, and it has an exellent caption.

Articles this image appears in

Jupiter

Creator

NASA

Nominator

AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here}

• Nominate and Support | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So why did you remove the FPC tag? Terri G 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. You already nominated this pic two and a half months ago. Whats the reason for renominating it so quickly? --Dschwen 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Oops! I had forgotten to remove the fpc tag the last time, and I hadn't decided to re-nominate it again when I removed it. As for why renominate it 2 1/2 months later, is it too early? I thought I had waited enough, but remove you can the nomination if it's too early. It should say somewhere how long we should wait though. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question - There is something unnatural right on the pole. I remember someone asking the same question the last time but I forgot the answer... Are you sure it is the polar stereographic projection (because last time it was the orthographic and I don't see any good reason for that choice, an equal area projection might be better)? Alvesgaspar 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict) The probe came in at an angle, and didn't pass directly under the pole, meaning it didn't have a picture of the very bottom. Instead of leaving a hole, they covered it up with a similar color. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting way of looking at the different bands on Jupiter. If they had an animated version, showing the alternating rotation of each band, I would move for Speedy Promote :) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-05 21:17Z
  • That would actually be awesome, but as this is map composed from many satellite pictures I guess the chances are low such an animation will be possible. --Dschwen 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - I can get over the grey spot, but the edges of the planet seem overly sharpened, as if someone circularly cropped it. I would expect with a gas giant that the edges would be fuzzy, a bit like this one, but I have reservations even on that - Jack (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't a direct snapshot, it's a composite generated from many different pictures. That would explain the sharp edges and the grey area at the pole (that they didn't have any pictures of). Redquark 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support A kind of long descrition but an excellent map of an interesting planet. Why1991 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. High quality, and I like the fact that it's an unconventional view of Jupiter -- it startles me into looking at it in a new way. I think the image should be renamed "Map of Jupiter's south.jpg" though, since it doesn't show the northern hemisphere. Redquark 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a very interesing picture that shows a fascinating view of Jupiter but I don´t think ist up to FPs standards. The circular grey spot in the middle ruins it for me. And it doesn´t have that crisp FP feeling to me. It is an awesome picture that benefits wikipedia greatly but it just doesnt fit FP standards. --Tobyw87 13:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ironic isn't it? --froth^T
    • ^{Indeed, many pictures benefit wikipedia greatly but are not up to the standards of Featured Pictures [7].--Tobyw87 14:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}

C 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Someone might be a little confused; the Cassini flyby produced the most detailed views of jupiter, but this specific shot is not the most detailed. See this one for example, much more detailed --froth^{T C} 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the caption says it's the most detailed map. I agree the 3-d image is more aesthetically appealing though. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Map of Jupiter.jpg Raven4x4x 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hawker Hurricane

A fine picture I found on the French Wikipedia´s Featured Pictures. --Tobyw87 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Doesn't seem particularly striking to me, although I suspect the resolution and overall quality is good (apart from the blown highlights that someones bound to bring up). Terri G 14:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry but really it's out of focus, and is pretty grainy. — Arjun 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Compare to this FP warbird. --Bridgecross 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sharp enough (and I took it!!) - Adrian Pingstone 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I really like it and was going to support it until I click on the link that Brisgecross made above. It just isn't as clear as it needs to be a Featured Picture. Why1991 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've looked through the French Wikipedia's FPs, and about have wouldn't make it here. This is just an example. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Grainy, uninteresting. Other pictures of planes are striking and very visually appealling. This picture lacks that. --Midnight Rider 03:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeIt is boring and grainy. Good for the article though Baseracer 02:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too grainy. Due to there being many stunning plane pictures out there, it has to be very good to get past FPC. NauticaShades 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Approach to Kata Tjuta

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arlen66 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

This picture was nominated by Arlen66 (talk • contribs • count), who also appears to be the photographer. The account was created 00:53, 5 January 2007, precisely 4 minutes before nominating the picture. It has three edits: to the image page, to create this page, and to the main FPC page adding the nom. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment not sure who nominated or what the story is, but I liked the picture so I photoshopped it and put my version up. Jellocube27 04:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*Support edit 1. This is a great shot. But next time submit your FPC correctly.. --froth^{T C} 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice shot with no distractions. Like Froth said be sure to read the directions from above when submitting a picture. Why1991 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose not encyclopedic, beautiful image but is missing one of the key elements. It is not used in "any" article. — Arjun 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Seadog Arjun hit it right on the head. The picture, although nice, isn't really encyclopedic at all and it has no article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Arjun Glaurung 06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Not a bad photo, but I think I'd have preferred a much closer picture of KataJuta, so that it was the subject and there were less things in the way. A blue sky would also have made it more striking. Terri G 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Terri G and Arjun. Plus it has visible stitching seams. Looks like an inferior stitching software was used basically just blending the pictures along a vertical strip. --Dschwen 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to Oppose, lack of enc --froth^{T C} 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not in any article - Adrian Pingstone 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Reluctantly since it's a nice shot but it isn't very encyclopedic and fails to be in a single article. Cat-five - talk 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the best quality and in no article. I'll change to neutral if it is placed in one. NauticaShades 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Geese

Reason

I really like this image of some geese in a parade.

Articles this image appears in

Canada Goose

Creator

User:Wsiegmund

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose pity too. While the image is very symbolic, technically it is pretty bad. The Color noise is pretty high and is out of focus. — Arjun 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's compositionally pretty good, but it needs a crop, and the technical flaws are too serious (image noise, focus issues). --Tewy 04:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per tech problems --froth^{T C} 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - very cute, but technically bad - subject out of focus, a lot of colour noise. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - cute...but the noise and lack of focus can't be ignored. --Iriseyes 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The lack of focus is a problem. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all above. Why1991 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meat Eater Ant Queen

Not only is this a good shot of a fertilized meat eater ant queen, it shows a hugely significant event - the beginning of a new colony. I was originally just shooting the ant colony that was swarming, but as I was walking back home I was luckily enough to see this young queen. I followed her around and eventually she selected this spot and started digging.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support I like the macro shot and appreciate how tough it is to get a good one however I can't support any more strongly with the left ant being mostly out of focus like that. Cat-five - talk 11:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, can that be confirmed? I mean, kudos, that would be national-geographic-style coolness. Nice quality too. What's the approximate scale of the pic? --Dschwen 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry should have added that to the description page - it's about 20mm. Do you mean can I go back and confirm if she was successful? I know after standing around for about 10mins she was out of sight! --Fir0002 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. It is established that the queen dug, but does digging automaticall imply colony foundation? It shoud just be cleared with certainty, that this was not, let's say, digging for food etc. --Dschwen 09:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. Ok, I did some reading. Looks like the colony formation is more common than I thought, but the picture is still great, especially with the extra pics showing the progress. --Dschwen 08:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Strong Support I like the detail on the front of the ant but the abdomen is a bit too fuzzy. Fantastic shot though! Queen ants are very fascinating. --Tobyw87 12:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • • With the addition of the other shots I can only strongly support. --Tobyw87 14:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support The subject (the queen's abdomen to the head) is in focus, and the event is rare. What good timing! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support yeah it is going to be a little out of focus in some areas since it is a macro shot. But what a nice find, highly encyclopedic. — Arjun 14:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, especially considering the circumstances. Which version am I voting on though? --Tewy 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Top most (largest) image - the others I just added to show a bit more of the event. --Fir0002 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Okay, still support. --Tewy 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support All pictures Very good catch! Will make an exellent FP. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first It's clear, it's encyclopedic, it's interesting ,and it's appealing. . It's awesome. Why1991 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons articulated above. Preference for first for greater view of subject. —Dgies^t c 07:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment File name has a typo "qeen", which really should be fixed before we make this a FP. —Dgies^t c 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed that too; does it really matter, besides showing how carefully the uploader named the image? --Tewy 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about that --Fir0002 07:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support mostly the last image. _→AzaToth 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support, either version A terrific set of photos, especially considering the size of the photo subject. Ackatsis 03:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I strongly suggest linking to the other images on each image page. --Tewy 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be a good idea, and would make it more enc. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • ..and has long been done by Fir :-) --Dschwen 07:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support All. All of them are good quality and quite encyclopedic. NauticaShades 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Meat eater ant qeen excavating hole.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valley of the Temples.

Reason

Picture rivals commercial images for quiality and adds considerably to articles on which it is used.

Articles this image appears in

Valley of the Temples, Hawaii & Oahu

Creator

Brendel

Nominator

Signature^brendel

• Oppose Entire frame is out of focus and there is a fair bit of image grain. It's possible some image editing could fix the grain and downscaling could possibly improve focus enough to still meet resolution requirements. —Dgies^t c 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So, if I down-scale the image, would that solve the problem? Regards, Signature^brendel 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Downscaling hides focus problems but you may need to downscale so far that you end up failing resolution guidelines. You'd still need to perform a very careful noise reduction. It may be fixable but I'm not sure. —Dgies^t c 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. I'm going to introduce a revised version later today. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support I really like it and do think that it represents some of Wikipedia's best quality pictures. Excellent find. Why1991 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support A great picture, but per above, quite a bit of grain. 72.82.244.76 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose focus. --Bridgecross 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Contrast. Mazin07^C₪_T 00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Not bad, few featured pictures of Hawaii. Leon math 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A New York City firefighter looks up at what remains of the South Tower.

Reason

This is a very cool image

Articles this image appears in

Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks September 11, 2001 attacks User:Acebrock/9/11

Creator

Work of the United States Government

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - While not every part of an image must be perfectly sharp, the subject should be sharp. The subject is the firefighter and the ruin, yet the ruin is quite blurry. While you could claim "historical exemption", this event was widely covered by the press so there must be pictures with far superior technical aspects. —Dgies^t c 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This image was nominated last September at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:WTC-remnant.jpg. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, tower out of focus --froth^{T C} 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's really grainy, and as stated above there are many pictures that could have this same topic that are of much better quality. Why1991 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose yeah to me the subject should be the ruin, a very interesting image but could be much better. — Arjun 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Very good composition, poor image quality . Alvesgaspar 09:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunset over steeple.

Reason

Self-nom, I just really liked the photograph, its composition and contrast. The way the sunlight bathed the steeple, almost as if it were holy. Just a really good image, I thought, and I don't often think things I create are worth much. Take it as you will

Articles this image appears in

DeKalb, Illinois

Creator

Andy McMurray

Nominator

A mcmurray

• Support — A mcmurray 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose well to me there is nothing particularly special about this image that makes you go wow. I dislike how the trees cover up pretty much the whole front of the church, also this might just be me but it looks like it is at a bit of a tilt. — Arjun 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's not a particularly attractive image. Basically, this looks like a photo anyone could take with their new digital camera, and it doesn't show any special composition skills. I'll leave technical comments to the regulars.--Iriseyes 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't feel strongly enough either way about this picture. I would like to note, however, that sunsets of any sort are ususally struck down for FP status. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not uber high res, technical problems, bad composition, boring shot, blown highlights, glare problems, grainy, unnatural photoshopping, better as SVG, blah blah blah the usual list :) There's nothing specific in my mind about this image, but sorry it's just not FP material. Don't let all of these opposes intimidate you, your shot is competing for the highest honor a wikipedia upload can achieve --froth^{T C} 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • better as SVG... :-) --Tewy 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • One of my favorite default oppose reasons :) --froth^{T C} 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Not intimidated. It's good to get such feedback so if I nominate other images or take others that I nominate I will know what to look for/what to take. A mcmurray 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a pretty shot, but for featured pictures you need encyclopedic value. Since most of the church is in shadow, the left side is covered by a tree, and the right side is cut off, you can't really see what it looks like. And what little lighting there is (on the steeple) prevents one from seeing the actual color. So while it may look nice, it doesn't have the encyclopedic value that is required of featured pictures. --Tewy 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose on composition. Lower building in shadow, tree obscures nice columned front, parking lot and chain link fence visible. --Bridgecross 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The picture itself is not very good, and at a glance looks quite blurry. Plus there are street signs everywhere like the one way sign which are major eye sores. Another eye sore is the obstructing tree, its not taken at a nice angle for the tree to look nice. Another thing that i personally dislike is the shading, the main building is in slight shadows and the tower is quite illuminated. Mabye another picture of the same subject could become a featured picuture. Voshvoshka 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You should never judge a picture "at a glance". I don't know if you did on this one or not, but just saying... --Tewy 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't judge it at a glance, but i think that a picture should look apealing to the eye when you first look at it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voshvoshka (talk • contribs).
• Oppose The main thing that does it for me is the tree. A couple other things are the lighting and the angle. Why1991 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Poor encyclopedic value: is this really an iconic image of DeKalb? It looks like any old church. Also oppose on technical ground listed above. —Dgies^t c 07:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brolga Cranes

Reason

I really like this image and I hope you do to.

Articles this image appears in

Brolga

Creator

Paul Thomsen

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I had some minor problems with finding the subject of the image. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Yeah which birds are the cranes? --froth^{T C} 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This image is technically good, but it doesn't do much to inform me about the Brolga. The subjects are very small in a small image. And as Sharkface217 said, they aren't very prominent, either, because they're surrounded by the other birds. --Tewy 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Awesome picture but the only thing that makes it not Featured Picture material for me is the other birds. Why1991 03:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the other birds. JorcogaYell! 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the subject isn't clear. The cranes don't stand out much among the other birds. --RandomOrca2 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The other make the subject unclear. NauticaShades 08:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Seriously, the other birds are a terrible reason to oppose; birds should be shown in their natural enviroment, and this often means other species. Neutrality^talk 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edison and Phonograph

Reason

A high-resolution image of Thomas Edison with one of his most famous inventions. I think it is very encyclopedic and informative, as well as good photograph.

Articles this image appears in

Thomas Edison

Creator

Levin C. Handy

Nominator

Jellocube27

• Support edit 1 — Jellocube27 09:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Either Historic importance + Quality = Featured Picture --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Antilived, in the focus this pic has an extraordinary clarity. Plus it's the portrait of a geek ;-). --Dschwen 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Historical significance, great quality. Question: Should we do dust & spot removal, or leave as-is? --Janke | Talk 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • At least dust removal would be justified, as the dust isn't part of the original picture and constitutes a technical deficiency of the digitization process. --Dschwen 13:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original Great pic! We need more geeks/nerds, this is an encyclopedia. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Suppot This is a wow image, historical significance and per the fact that it is of high quality...even for back then! — Arjun 14:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support historical photograph. Noclip 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, this picture is historically significant, and it has good quality, which is amazing, considering its time. --RandomOrca2 16:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Would suggest not doing dust removal except for that which is particularly distracting, such as the two large black spots and the smudge right of his head. —Dgies^t c 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) I did a "tactful" dust removal, see edit 1. However, I left the specks that are obviously defects in the original, but removed the "painted in" black spots. --Janke | Talk 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 only. Good job on the dust removal. This is probably way too picky, but the dust removal seems to have removed some things that were on the original photograph, such as the reflection on his lowest shirt button, the white gap just to the left of it, the reflection on a (rivet?) closest to the handle where his hand is, and the shadow on top that hand. Normally I'm not this picky, but I've got two tabs open where I can see all this, and this is featured pictures. --Tewy 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Janke that edit 2 removed too much. --Tewy 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Everyone really already covered what I was going to say. It's really a good historical photo. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Dust specks on a 128 year old photo really don't bother me. Very nice photo of a subject of maximum enc value. --207.38.206.107 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) --Bridgecross 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Edit 1 There isn't one thing wrong with it even as an older picture. Why1991 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support both. Beautiful image, historical significance. thuglas^talk|edits 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support either. High detail and very historic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-07 18:01Z
• Support Edit 1 Very encyclopedic and culturally significant. Ackatsis 03:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a very good picture, with high enc. (also I never knew he was so attractive). Terri G 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 strong, historic photo, with adequate dust removal/clean up.--Andrew c 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 OK, i did another edit. Hope it helps. Plus this one is in commons which is more accessible --Arad 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry to say so, but I think you went too far. You removed some defects which clearly are in the original negative (i.e. some splotches and marks), so you in fact did more than a dust removal - you altered the original. This is a matter of taste of course. (The fact that you uploaded to Commons is of no importance - any version can be moved there in a jiffy... --Janke | Talk 08:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course it easy to put it on commons, but for now, the second version is up for FP on commons. --Arad 04:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Any. I'm fine with the original, and the edits do a pretty good job. Janke has a good arguement against edit 2, so I won't decide between them. NauticaShades 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Edit 3 added with some lightfixing. No reason.

Promoted Image:Edison and phonograph edit1.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pardalotus with nesting material

A little break from the world of insects with this lovely image of a Pardalotus - although it's small size meant that I was still using a macro lens to shoot it! The bird was between 10 and 15cm. Taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. We've certainly raised the bar for bird shots recently, but aside from the usual depth of field issues (which are minor in this case), this is quite a good one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice, encyclopaedic image--Melburnian 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support It has good clarity, is encyclopedic, and is interesting. :-) Why1991 13:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Looks slightly posterized to me, on my screen (around the head and neck), but I know that's no quarantee that there's a problem, so I'll support it anyway for good composition and enc. Terri G 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent picture. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. I wouldn't call the DOF issues minor. All tail and wing feathers are out of focus. Otherwise a excellent picture, quality- and compositionwise. The posterization might come from a saturation increase, or is that bird really that colorful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dschwen (talk • contribs).

Nah that's what they look like - very colorful little things --Fir0002 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. DOF could be a little better. --Tewy 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Global contrast look weird to me... And the DOF can be better --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support The DOF isn't perfect, but it was macro, and the head is very focused. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Out of focus in some areas, but key parts are very clear. Joe 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. An Mdf-worthy shot, (and that's a compliment). NauticaShades 20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support DOF aside, this picture is better than most bird pictures I have seen here on Wikipedia. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support while nice it is a little out of focus in some areas, but that doesn't hurt it much, 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Another great Peter's shot. "It's like a gift." - Darwinek 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very cool image Bewareofdog 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Pardalotus with nesting material.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hemispheric

Reason

A previous image was nominated here recently but failed due to a lack of image quality and it was suggested that I attempt to take a better shot. As I was in Valencia for the New Year, the site was actually not as easy to photograph as it would normally be as there was fireworks scaffolding and decking on top of the water for ice skating on the other side (which is the view the previous nominee had) so I was not able to duplicate the shot. However, I think this view is still aesthetically pleasing and worth a nomination. I took two other images (here, taken the day after the New Year and here taken one hour before midnight on NYE) but I think the nominated image is the best of the set. It is a 2 x 6 segment panorama with very high resolution and sharpness.

Articles this image appears in

Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències and Valencia, Spain

Creator

User:Diliff

Nominator

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

• Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support any and all Incredible clarity, and perfect quality. An instant wallpaper; I'll do that now. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original - there are some amazing textures in there. You certainly have the magic touch Diliff. Debivort 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Wow. Tiny nitpick, but is it possible to fix the moire on the horizontal bars to the bottom right? —Dgies^t c 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not particularly easy, no. ;-) I could attempt a new stitch with higher native resolution (takes a really long time at full res - 12 * 13 megapixel 16-bit uncompressed TIFFs don't like being manipulated much) and then downsample to see if that fixes it... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhhh may I ask why are you using 16bit? --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The main reason is that it minimises posterization when the segments are blended together. I find that, particularly when I use JPGs but also 8 bit TIFFs, there is a bit more posterization, particularly in the sky. When you have a detailed scene, posterization is less visible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Weak oppose on the new years version because while it is visually stunning, it has lower encyclopedic value for its subject. —Dgies^t c 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Srong Support great clarity and exposure. One nitpick though, there is a bananna-shaped dust speckle repeated throughout the picture (noticed it 3 times and it has a little sister dust). Best seen in the sky to the very right above the fourth arc from the right (at full size). --Dschwen 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Grr. Yeah, I see them. The dust specs in the sky are easy to get rid of but the ones embedded in the roof is a bit trickier. I'll have a go now. OK, done. Normally I do upload a new file but this correction is so minor I'll just overwrite the original. You may have to refresh to see the dust removal. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm hitting that refresh button to the wazoo... ...I'll try again tomorrow. Night! --Dschwen 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Great, but for some reason now the resolution is cut in half, despite the image page still stating the original size. !? --Dschwen 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Looks ok to me... I just removed the dust from the original TIFF file in Photoshop. Hadn't even closed it yet so it shouldn't have lost any quality from reprocessing the JPG. Sounds like a browser/wiki quirk? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support one word Wow. — Arjun 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support (original). Stunning as usual. --Tewy 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Alternate 1,2 the two night shots, specially NYE Support Original for the current nomination - It's Diliff, of course it's going to be great. But I prefer the two night shots, specially the NYE one. And thank you for taking the time to take these pictures. --Arad 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support version 1. Fantastic! --[[User:207.38.206.107|207.38.206.107]] 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC) --Bridgecross 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You've got to remember to sign in! :-) --Tewy 02:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent pictures, all of them. I especially like the one with the lights i think its more beutiful, but the others are still excellent and are featured picture quality. Voshvoshka 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only. Two night shots are also pretty, but detail gets lost in the shadows.--Andrew c 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support another Diliff masterpiece. Noclip 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original now that's high resolution... --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question Was the sky cropped on the first two? ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not significantly, no. The first two are panoramas so there were some segments that were a little lower in the sky than others. Since that meant there was a blank spot in parts of the sky, I had to crop some of the sky from the other segments to hide those blanks. Nothing too substantial though, standard practise for panoramic stitching. The only reason I included so much sky in the third one was to capture all of the spotlight beams. That shot was not so much a photo of the building than a photo of the scene. It is also much lower resolution because it was a single frame as the lights were continuously moving and stitching would be impossible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, ok. Pylon support in any case. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original this one is timed nicely to highlight the evening lighting effects but at the same time shows excellent architectural detail which can be fully appreciated at maximum resolution--Melburnian 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. The alternate images have disturbing water reflections, and the NYE one has lights which damage this picture's encyclopedic value. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question In the original picture, what are those blue "worms" inside the dome (in the horizontal median, a little to the right from the middle)? They look like neon lights but might be artifacts. Alvesgaspar 14:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They're definitely neon lights. Remember that the structure is mostly glass. You can see them (to a lesser degree and with more distortion) in the alternate 1 image, but shifted further to the right as they weren't taken from exactly the same point. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original and alternate 1 enough said -Wutschwlllm 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support all absolutely jaw-dropping -Noraad 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Fantastic pictures! I really like the reflection of the night image... wow! --Tobyw87 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hachy machy! Those are incredible images. I'm just piling on the support, here. All of the pictures (original and alternates) satisfy all criteria of WP:WIAFP. -- Kicking222 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support originial - amazing resolution and clarity. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original I think that this is one of the very best picture ever to be on Wikipedia and has no doubt of becoming a featured picture. Why1991 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Original only The others are clearly inferior (although that certainly is a relative concept when judging a high quality set such as this!) --Fir0002 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Original Only The original is the best of the 3. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great quality and encyclopedic view. All in all a perfect shot. NauticaShades 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support all — Wow, usually we have a single poor photo nominated, and then even worse alternate versions. But THREE great photos in one nom? Well done! ♠ SG →Talk 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Alternate 2: The completely flat, black water and sky destroy the sense of scale. It ends up looking tiny in that version. Support the other two.--SeizureDog 10:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Query: If Image:Ciudad de las ciencias noche.JPG failed, why is it a Featured Image? And a previous featured picture of the day ay that.--SeizureDog 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's only featured on Commons, which has different standards. --Tewy 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Beautiful structure, great photograph. TimVickers 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Well-taken pro pic. - Darwinek 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support original. Encyclopedic, clear, high quality, this has it all. And beautiful too. The others have some detail lacking, but the original is fantastic. - Goyston (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. beautiful as per above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fcb981 (talk • contribs).

Promoted Image:Hemispheric - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg Raven4x4x 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Falls

Reason

The worlds tallest waterfall should at least be a featured picture.

Articles this image appears in

Angel Falls List of national parks of Venezuela

Creator

Yosemite

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Then why isn't the world's smallest picture featured? ;-) This image has blown highlights on the main subject (the water), and I would prefer the falls not be framed/obscured by the vegetation. It's a pretty shot, but I don't think it's the best way to depict this subject. --Tewy 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dang it Tewy, I am always the first one to Vote :(. Yeah in my eyes the vegetation takes away from teh pic. If it was trimmed just a little it would be much nicer. Also the Blown highlights are bad but it also looks somewhat out of focus. — Arjun 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Trim the jungle?... --Iriseyes 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • always the first one to Vote? What, since the last nomination? ;-) --Dschwen 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Usually :p. — Arjun 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider it punishment for the edit conflict you caused me. --Tewy 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak oppose. At full size it looks a bit mushy. Overcompressed? Crop from a bigger frame? Digital zoom? Plus I agree with Tewy. --Dschwen 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for pointing out isn't it "Angel Falls" rather than Angle Falls. — Arjun

• Weak Support agree with others, just crop some of the vegetation out. Leon math 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think that is an excellent picture and I would definetly read the accompanying article. Why1991 02:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• weak support - A little too much foliage around there, but it seems to make a heart shape around the waterfall. I dunno, it just looks cute :P --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 23:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Beautiful, but the trees are kinda blurry around the edges. Ilikefood 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LT-SEM snow crystals.jpg

Reason

I ran across this picture while adding some content to the article on Snow. I was very impressed with the wuality and detail of this image.

Articles this image appears in

Snow

Creator

Nominator

-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)

• Support — -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose interesting but appears to be out of focus, and also has many JPEG artifacts throughout. — Arjun 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Arjun. Perhaps there is an uncompressed version available somewhere? --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• opppose compression artifacts. Also, shouldn't the crystals be hexagonally symmetrical, rather than cubically? Debivort 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment why nominate this pic of all in snow. The artificially colored pics and are aesthetically much more pleasing. --Dschwen 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You gotta forgive me. This is my first feature picture nomination. I thought it was interesting because of how different it was than traditional plate or dendrite formation. It also had fairly high resolution. Well, guess I was the only person that impressed with the strange structure of the snowflake! Thanks for the feedback I will heed before nominating another picture for featured picture. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh no, please don't feel intimidated! I can understand your reason for nominating this picture, and for a first nomination it isn't so far out :-) --Dschwen 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Seriously don't freak :D. It happens too all of us, for future reference consider watching other nominations so that you get a clue of how certain things will be judged. — Arjun 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict!) Arjun...you just said what I was going to say... :-) ("It really isn't so far out; this is featured pictures, representing the very best of Wikipedia—the standards are high. This image is impressive in the thumbnail, but it has technical problems that prevent it from gaining support. A good way to learn what the standards are here is to participate in the voting, and to take a look at some of the already featured pictures.") --Tewy 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the encouragement! I will try to get into this area a little more, participate a little more in voting and understand a little more about it! Thanks again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think it is focus issue but rather the original resolution (useful resolution) is low and had been upsampled. Sidenote: How can SEM images have such a huge DOF compared to optical microscope or even macro images? --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a scanning microscope. The resolution is determined by the beam size which scans the object, and the beam size is independent from the object distance. If you will, the SEM has a reversed lightpath compared to an optical microscope. While the object distance is extremely short in an optical microscope (you almost push the lens on the object) the beam collumn in an SEM is a few feet long. --Dschwen 07:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Joe 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support . For the encyclopedic value of the image. Some times the images have to be evaluated in the context of subject it belongs to. In other words all the images can’t be rated on the same scale of ‘beauty’ the way conventional photos are measured for its visual pleasure. For example a surgical image would be treated precocious for the info content and it’s rarity than say for its gleaming image quality or colorfulness. I’m no crystal physics expert to rate how great this shot is, but this appears to me us an image with high technical value than the sheer aesthetical quality. That despite, the ‘image aberrations’. Pratheepps 12:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. But issues were raised on the technical quality too. I have created a fair number of (albeit not low temp) SEM images, and think I can judge the technical quality aspects. And while SEM images tend to have a certain novelty factor just being an SEM image doesn't guarantee enc. We can argue about the aesthetical quality, and I agree my comment sounded a bit superficial :-), but the question that should be asked is whether the depicted crystal lump is representative of snow. --Dschwen 12:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I must agree with Dschwen that those picture he had were much better of an angle. Why1991 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support This image really catches my eye. Fascinating, thought-provoking. Not something you can see everyday. However, it should be explained why the crystal structure looks cubical: are you sure this is snow? --Coppertwig 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City of Manila, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, PHILIPPINES

Reason

an older rasterized version is FP, and now the creator have posted an updated vector version of the map, I propose that this version shall take the status from the raster version (Image:Ph map manila large.png)

Articles this image appears in

Manila etc...

Creator

commons:User:Seav

Nominator

_→AzaToth

• Support — _→AzaToth 10:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Easy to read and has good color coordination. Why1991 13:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Replace per nom. —Dgies^t c 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Replace per nom. I can see no drawbacks in the SVG version. It has no apprent rendering problems and looks clear and professional. --Dschwen 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support of course. Good job --froth^{T C} 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• questions - is north up? What is the double arrow that appears to the southeast(?) of Mandaluyong city? Debivort 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a symbol used on maps to indicate exclaves. Presumably, Manila South Cemtery is a part of Manila despite being surrounded by Makati. —Cuiviénen 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. I will add a compass rose/arrow to indicate north. But yes, north is straight up. =) --seav 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Replace. SVG beats PNG again, but I would like to see a compass rose or at least some indication of North. --Tewy 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The resolution should be upped considerably; most viewers will not have an easy way/knowledge of how to make it large enough to read.--ragesoss 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the SVG version. The PNG version is large enough to read on most users' browsers. --Tewy 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Right. It's SVG, so native size is just a parameter; it's trivial to make it larger, so what reason is there not to?--ragesoss 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think you can make it large enough on the image page alone to read the small text. There's a link to the PNG version on the image page, so you can click that if you don't have the software for viewing SVG. --Tewy 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support/Replace pending addition of a compass bearing somewhere on the image. No real reason not to have one (plenty of whitespace out in the bay). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Agree with others, a compass rose is needed as well as some geographic coordinate reference (one position would be enough). Other issues: why are the Manila International Airport and the Manila Harbor Center cut? And what is the weird looking arrow joining the Manila South Cemetery and Sta. Ana Church: the north-south direction? - Alvesgaspar 09:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• For the "weird looking arrow", I'll quote Cuivienen's answer from farther up the page: That's a symbol used on maps to indicate exclaves. Presumably, Manila South Cemtery is a part of Manila despite being surrounded by Makati. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• The Manila International Port Terminal and the Manila Harbour Center are cut off because I don't think I need to indicate how far they go out into the bay. The point of this map is to show where the places are. Is it really important that these two are not cut off? The weird arrow does indicate that the cemetery in an exclave. I'll probably add some coordinate references. Any other issues? --seav 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Info I've updated the image and added an north arrow and a coordinate grid. --seav 16:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support/Replace Nice map, good to have in SVG. Thanks for your improvements. TSP 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Help The svg image is not being shown in WP and the png version does not correspond to the actual map. For those who cannot see svg images directly the only way to view the map is to download the file and open it with some svg application. - Alvesgaspar 10:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support or Replace per AzaToth. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ph_map_manila.svg to replace the old version. Raven4x4x 07:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support — Scorpion prinz 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive solid geometry tree

Reason

An excellent demonstration of CSG

Articles this image appears in

Constructive solid geometry

Creator

commons:User:Zottie

Nominator

Richard W.M. Jones

• Support — Richard W.M. Jones 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Fails resolution guidelines. Should probably be SVG. Needs explanation of the logical symbols for most viewers. Not too likely to draw people in. Otherwise quite a good example of CSG. —Dgies^t c 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it should be SVG. The conversion would be difficult and inaccurate: how could we draw accurate shadows in SVG for example? POV-ray traced images, if they come with source code, have almost all the advantages of SVG. The question is: how to make the source file available? For small source files (such as this one?), it is possible to include them in the image page. For larger source files it is more difficult. --Bernard 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Resolution is sufficient since the image is simple. I would prefer to have all three cylinders at the same level, being the children of the same node, unless there is a reason for the current choice. Otherwise it seems just a bit too simple. Make the source code available if you can. --Bernard 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The cylinders are primitives, and the operations are (arguably) binary, so I don't think the cylinders should all be at the same level. On the subject of source code, which other people have mentioned, I have tried to take this up with the original author of the image. I agree that it would be a much improved nomination if we had source code. Richard W.M. Jones 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the union operator in POV-ray can have an arbitrary number of children objects, that's why I made the remark.--Bernard 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I think this needs much more explanation, at least on the image page if not in the image itself. I also think the various objects should all be the same size, to make it clearer what is happening, I imagine this change would make the picture reach the resolution requirements. Terri G 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Like stated above I really don't know what I'm looking at. It needs way better of an explanation in the caption. Also as stated previously it doesn't meet the resolution requirements. Why1991 13:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose very confusing, images should help readers know what the article is trying to explain. This in my mind doesn't also why is it in PNG format? — Arjun 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't meet size requirements (800x709px). --Tewy 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Besides size, there are other problems. The union/intersect/neutral (?) symbols aren't explained anywhere, the image isn't in SVG (and should be very large if in PNG), and the diagram is too simple for featured pictures. --Tewy 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have no clue what it is or what it's trying to teach. --Iriseyes 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I looked at it, went "Huh?", looked a bit closer and understood. That's enc in action. The only problem is with the circles in the back of the top object. They're a bit crummy due to low resolution. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Only because it doesn't meet the size requirements for a user made image that could easily be re-uploaded in a higher resolution. It would also be nice if it were SVG. It illustrates the article really well. I was able to get a good idea of what Constructive solid geometry is without even looking at the article. The symbols are good in keeping it language neutral. I've added a key in the caption for the article and the article has pictures explaining the operations. FYI, the symbols left to right are intersection, difference, and union. Will support if the size issue is resolved. --Aqua 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It might also help if the symbols were put into a circle. Especially the intersection is not very obvious. ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A light blue or yellow circle around the symbols would help it stand out. Care needs to be taken that people don't confuse it as part of the symbol. --Aqua 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Would support if the size issue is resolved (note that I would consider the POV-ray source being posted satisfactory on this count, regardless of the size of the PNG), and there are circles around the symbols as Trialsanderrors suggested. I don't think there is anything confusing about this image, and I am not sure how people are failing to see the sequence of construction being illustrated here. Even if one isn't familiar with the (widely used) symbols, the construction is clear to the point that it should be possible to deduce what they mean. Redquark 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Could be a vector. Lack of general interest. Mazin07^C₪_T 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morteratsch Glacier

Articles this image appears in

Bernina Range

Self-Nominator

Dschwen

Ok, a little more unusual. I took this pic last year on the Morteratsch glacier in the Bernina Range (swiss alps). The ski run down the glacier was just opened (depends on the snow conditions), and the trip constituted the most scary 1.5 hours in my life. The picture is of high resolution and shows the glacier from a less common perspective with a wave-like crevasse structure. Some trails by animals and skiers hint the scale and provide a tiny foreground (intentional! in case someone wanted to crop or photoshop...). The exposure turned out quite well (with room for sparkling highlights in the snow, check full size). It's a >10 frame panoramic.

• Support — Dschwen 17:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak support - lovely of course and technically better than fine, but the inconspicuous sky left me wondering for a while if the perspective was looking down off a ridge, or up from the base of the glacier. I assume it's the latter? Debivort 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Up. You can see the sky though the clouds. --Dschwen 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The brightness of snow looks weird to me. Maybe a slightly logartihmic curve applied to the picture will bring out the brightness of the snow and shadow detail better? --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support Edit 1. Nice but would have preferred if the mountain tops weren't cut off (or is this not possible?) --Fir0002 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support either. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either It must have been nice and warm from the looks of all that snow. ;-) Nice hi-res picture Dschwen. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support original. Spctacular vista. Two issues: 1. The mountaintop in the background top left looks kind of odd. I can't tell if that's a stitching error or an odd cloud formation. 2. The snow glare looks kind of artificially muted. I'm not a big fan of the blue-ified version in edit 1. ~ trialsanderrors 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1 - I don't see a stiching error in the mountaintop... --Iriseyes 03:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, edit 1 is just higher contrast. It was perfectly fine the way it was. Noclip 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either both are fine from my standards (and the FPC's :) Arjun 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support with minor pref for edit 1. —Dgies^t c 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The edit is a bit too blue. Your eyes adjust better than that, especially at full res I strongly prefert the color balance of the original. --Dschwen 09:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original InvictaHOG 12:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original I really don't prefer longer pictures but this is a rather excellent one. It shall tis most likely beith a feeaytoured pictour. Why1991 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original I like the darker tones of the original to Edit 1. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 — The original looks like light dust. Fir's edit actually looks like snow, though there seems to be a bit too much blue; the saturation needs to be toned down. ♠ SG →Talk 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only. I like both the higher resolution and natural color of the original. --Tewy 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very fine panorama. de:Morteratschgletscher should be translated to EN Wiki. - Darwinek 01:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Working on it :-). At Morteratsch Glacier. --Dschwen 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. Really cool :-). Ilikefood 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Agree that the edit is a little too blue, although I think the original could be lightened ever so slightly but this is just aesthetics, as opposed to a colour balance issue. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Either. I don't personally find the edit too blue, however, I have no real preference. NauticaShades 13:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Morteratsch_glacier_1.jpg (8 original / 5 edit / 5 either / 2 unspecified). --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoverfly

As mentioned in the nomination of this image, it wasn't perhaps the best image to lead the Hoverfly article, so accordingly I took this picture which I feel illustrates a Hoverfly better.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice shots. Nice colours and composition. The first one is nicer because that spikey thing doesnt distract. --Midnight Rider 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• The spiky thing is the remnant of a flower, and makes it more encyclopedic as hoverflies are major pollinators. However ... blown highlights actualy eliminate detail in this version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debivort (talk • contribs).

• Support first version The first one is great, but the second has blown highlights on the wings. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first per Andonico. Debivort 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first per above. Joe 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first per AndonicO. froth^{T C} 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first per Andonico. I also think the stick puts more focus on the hoverfly (good in my opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support First Yeah I would actually oppose if the only choice was the second. The first one is very clear, and highly enc. Arjun 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first. Compositionally speaking, the first brings more attention to the subject (diagonals in the background go opposite the diagonal of the stick, vs. the second, which is just floating). Plus, there are blown highlights on the second. --Tewy 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first. The twig color gives more contrast with the fly. The flower in the alternative is too dark. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either, slight preference for 'alternative'. The blown highlights on the wings don't worry me here and I find the angle slightly better and more encyclopaedic on the second. --jjron 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first. — Remark: As this picture features on an article on Syrphidae (biology), should not more information be given about the species depicted? I'm almost sure it is a male Melangyna viridiceps (Macquart, 1847). It is often referred to in Australia as the Common Hoverfly and belongs to the subfamily Syrphinae. I've never been to Australia though and I'm more of a carcinologist than an entomologist, so somebody should confirm. Lycaon 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original It is awesome how clear it is. What is a Hoverlfy, and how come I've never heard of them!!! Oh well once agian nice shot. Why1991 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support First The first image allows the viewer to distinguish between Hoverfly and its surronding more easily than the second image. I feel that the blown highlights on the second image reduce its quality. Krowe 08:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Original Quite good. It's encyclopedic and technically flawless. And I now know what Hoverflies are. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first one I'm not familiar to contrast and quality and what not, so I'll just say the first one is a spectacular shot. So is the second one, but I prefer the first. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign me!} 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either, preference for first due to lack of distractions. Excellent photography, excellent subject. Opabinia regalis 06:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first. I wanna make such great photos, too. :) - Darwinek 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 1. Although the second picture is at a better angle, the quality of the first is significantly better. NauticaShades 13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Hoverfly07.jpg Raven4x4x 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naghshe Jahan Square

Reason

It's one of the best images of this square with free licence. The composition is good and it has high resolution. It's not easy to get a shot from this position.

Articles this image appears in

Persian Empire, Safavid dynasty, Isfahan, Naghsh-i Jahan Square

Creator

Arad

Nominator

Arad

• Support — Arad 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice image. Good display of Persian architecture. I find that the people and cars dont distract from the image because of its power and the subjects presence. --Midnight Rider
• Oppose Compression artifacts, visible especially on the dome on the left, around the minarets of the iwan, and the sky is splotchy too. ~ trialsanderrors 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice picture but not special enough for FP. Composition is just fine, photographic quality is poor. The geometric manipulation of the original image should be explained here - Alvesgaspar 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Midnight Rider. DragonRouge 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. OOh. Nice picture. I think this one is better than the one I put on Iranian architecture.--Zereshk 13:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per trialsanderrors, doesn't have the FP feel to me --Tobyw87 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • • Strong Oppose Edit 2 Even without the black part of the picture its still not up to FP standards. At full resolution the picture is fuzzy and just not good enough to be placed on the front page exemplifyling wikipedia. I am also very weary about the number of people from iranian origin voting on this picture. It is irrelevant where or what the picture is, if its not up to FP standards its not a FP. --Tobyw87 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The jet-black arch, with no detail on it whatsoever, spoils the pic for me - Adrian Pingstone 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, would have been a good candidate for HDR. Noclip 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what is HDR? and Thanks all for your votes --66.36.136.46 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't mind the black arch, it gives a nice frame, nice composition to the photo. And it is a very attractive scene. For me it's the blown highlights/lack of detail, especially in the columns/wall to the left and the reflections on the dome. Still a very nice photo well done. --Bridgecross 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Does it help if i take out the reflections on domes? --Arad 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Beautiful picture, very stunning and artistic. 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Vote & comment by Khodavand - Alvesgaspar 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's very pretty!. Nice job! :-) Ilikefood 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose nice but has JPEG artifacts, and is a little blurry. Arjun 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you tell me where do you exactly see those artifacts? Thank you. --66.36.156.106 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support nice setting and view. --Mardavich 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice shot with good enough resolution. - Marmoulak 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Has anyone else noticed the disproportional number of Iranian users are voting to support this image? Users which do not typically vote on FPC... --Fir0002 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well i think that's the point of having FPC template on the image page. This image appears on Iran related articles and those who see the image page, also see the FPC template. --66.36.145.255 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly, but it's highly unusual for an image to get the vast majority of it's support from new users (to FPC) who read the articles it appears in. Also in future please make sure to sign in when posting comments (I assume those IP's are you Arad) --Fir0002 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for anonymous comments. My Internet had some problems. Also, even if some of voters are new, i don't see a problem in that either. --Arad 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support I have this on my userpage, its a great pic! Support!Azerbaijani 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Mabye if you make an edit where you cut off the top so that the black is no longer there, it might look alot better. If it is I will support that version. Why1991 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Seems to be a pretty low quality scan of a not overly spectacular/rare/historic scene. With today's cheap but decent quality digicams (and DSLR's!) a high quality image should be possible. On a side note this nomination seems a bit reminiscent of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan --Fir0002 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is pretty old Fir. Digicams didnt exist at the time this photo was taken. --Arad 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per all comments above. Quality and graininess leave a lot to be desired in this image Krowe 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support per norm. --Rayis 11:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I like to see a picture from Iran, Specialy Isfahan, on the main page but honestly the quality and resolution is very low. Next time try with a better camera. Good luck. Hessam 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — My reasons:
  1. Is this a photograph or a scan? It looks more like the latter, so if it is a scan, then please post the source. Either way, it is of poor technical quality (though the actual composition is wonderful).
  2. There are the blown highlights on the building and various objects to the left.
  3. The dome on the left seems to be blurred or smudged.
  4. There are many artifacts, particularly visible around the domes and minarets. ♠ SG →Talk 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Answer to your questions I'm going to make this clear for everyone. As it's the case for my images, It's been a very long time since I last been to Iran. In fact, I've never returned since i left. These images are scanned and I hope one day, when i have the opportunity to pa ya visit, get better quality images. Probably this summer. --Arad 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just another question. Have you been on top of this place when you were taking this picture? Hessam 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the reason i said it's not easy to tak ea shot from this position. --Arad 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A scan of what? A book? A family album? If you did not personally take this photo, the licensing is incorrect, since you cannot claim GFDL for someone else's work (even if you scan it in). ♠ SG →Talk 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes family album. --Arad 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, well that's fine then. Could you get more information on the photo? Particularly, what date was it taken on? Also, is the photo itself of good quality? If so, try to rescan it and save it as PNG-24 or uncompressed JPEG. The artifacts are caused by saving it with too much compression in JPEG. This is a really nice photo; I would like to support it, it's just the quality of the scan itself that is bothersome. ♠ SG →Talk 09:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah sure. I'm about to buy a good scanner, and as soon as i got a good quality scanner, I'll rescan this. --Arad 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Actually I think the arched version of the photo is better. The Square is surrounded by Arcades and vaults from all sides. And the square is studied in all classes of history of architecture in all universities because of its design (geometry, arcades, domes, historical context). So it is important to note that the photo is being taken from under the arch.--Zereshk 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Sorry, but I don't see anything special about it. Looks like any snap shot of a public square to me. --Mactographer 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. A rather bad scan of a rather normal shot. NauticaShades 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. If for no other reason than very noticeable JPEG artifacts. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• SupportI like this picture .Bewareofdog 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Sea

Reason

Clearly depicts the spilling type of wave surf in a rocky coastline. Interesting contrast between a typical winter sea and a bright sun lighting.

Articles this image appears in

Sea, Ocean surface wave

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

Nominator

Alvesgaspar

• Support — Alvesgaspar 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, entire image is a bit blurry. Noclip 15:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That is true, a much larger DOF would be necessary for this picture to be perfectly sharp (there is also a little haze in the air). Maybe one of our editing experts can help... Alvesgaspar 15:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose pixellation in the sky, ocean behind waves is out of focus, horizon is extremely out of focus, and can't really see the 'bright sun lighting' you refer to. Waves/ocean is a common image, so minimal encyclopedic value, no wow factor. --Bridgecross 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • plus a slight tilt to the right. Am I being too harsh? I haven't had my coffee yet. --Bridgecross 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm impressed you can function without the caffeine. --Iriseyes 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bridgecross nailed them all. For such a common subject, the image should be outstanding. —Dgies^t c 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Ocean shots are hard. This one has some nice wave action in the foreground, it follows the Rule of thirds nicely, I like the color and contrast ... but that's about it. For me a shot like this needs an addtional element to be special. I.e. an awsome sunset, a lighthouse, an interesting ship or coastline or island or rock formation or mountain range or something. Here's an example of what I mean. --Mactographer 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Beautiful scene yet not Featured material technically. Arjun 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per bridgecross. Joe 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Kind of grainy and it doesn't exactly show Wikipedia's best quality. Why1991 02:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - It is grainy and somewhat pixellated. Colour and image composition are good, however I don't think this picture deserves featured status. Krowe 06:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Just to be hyper-picky, the horizon has a tiny slope (as BridgeCross says) - Adrian Pingstone 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The angle is exactly atn(0,25/63,0)=0,23 degrees. May I have your vote again, please?... Alvesgaspar 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quite grainy, and a rather uninteresting shot. NauticaShades 14:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tesseract

Reason

I nominated this animation because in really helped me visualize a tesseract. Compare with still tesseract image. The colors are are clear and make it stand out nicely.

Articles this image appears in

Tesseract

Creator

Jason Hise

Nominator

Leon math

• Support — Leon math 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support I love this animation. It is so cool. --Midnight Rider 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful. TimVickers 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Though strictly speaking it is an animation of a 2D projection of a 3D projection of a rotating tesseract. —Dgies^t c 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Should I then change the caption? Leon math 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Nah, I'm just being pedantic. —Dgies^t c 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support This makes me think. --Arad 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very interesting and unique, higly enc. Arjun 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support soooo enc and this picture is worth a book worth of words. I wish I could find the question on the reference desk that I asked about 4 dimensional space; somebody linked to a fascinating picture like that one.. IIRC a 4 dimensional pyramid moving through 3 dimensional space --froth^{T C} 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I found that this image illustrated the concept better to me, but this is nevertheless also an excellent illustration. Noclip 02:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Another thing that helped me visualize 4 dimensions is taking cross sections. For example, the cross sections of a hypershere would be spheres getting larger and larger but then shrinking, just like the cross section of a sphere. The cross sections of a tesseract are just a sequence of cubes, but that wouldn't make for a very good image. Leon math 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it just be a cube that appears and disappears? --froth^{T C} 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The cross-section would only be a cube in special cases. Otherwise it can be a variety of shapes, as this 3D projection shows. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 21:35Z
    • This image does not show cross sections, but instead shows a projection. And true, if you cut it at an angle the cross section wouldn't be a cube.Leon math 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If you had a 4 dimensional cube moving straight through 3 dimensional space (straight on, not at any funky angles or anything) then I'm quite sure it would be a single cube that poofs into existance and then disappears --froth^T 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • That doesn't sound right. If you have a cube, and you move it through a 2D plane, it could show up as a square and then disappear immediately, but that's only if one of the cube's surfaces is parallel to the plane. Otherwise (ie, the more likely case), you're going to see an object with sides that change in length. For a hypercube it'll produce even more complicated results. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-18 23:15Z

• Support Oh boy that confuses me. That would definetly make a great screensaver. It tis be a winner. Why1991 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support That's cool --Fir0002 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support I've been trying to picture this since I was a kid. Noraad 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support It suddenly makes sense! --Iriseyes 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - a lovely illustration of a projected rotation - does anyone know a well-established mathematician who has claimed to be able to visualize 4 spatial dimensions without tricks such as projection or cross-sectioning? I seem to recall hearing that no mathematician has ever claimed that. Debivort 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We have 2D computer displays. An animation can be seen as having 3 dimensions, the two of the screen, plus time. The domain of animations on computer screens could therefore be considered to be . Since an domain is not a subspace of , the only way it can be converted to is through a map, such as . Projections and cross-sections are just types of maps. You could come up with other maps but you still couldn't "see" the whole shape at once since your animation only has a domain of . For a static image, you have only an domain available. Therefore you would need a map, such as the projection you see in a single frame of this animation. What you're asking for is sort of like the vector space version of saying "Has any mathematician found a way to make 4=3?" Hope that helps. —Dgies^t c 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • While a nice explanation and use of notation, it doesn't really help because I was just curious if anyone with mathematical clout had ever historically claimed to be able to visualize it. I've had some pothead buddies say they could visualize 4 spatial dimensions, that doesn't carry much weight. Debivort 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This is nothing any mathmatician could do for us. To visualize four spatial dimensions you'd have to overcome the limitations of your own mind, which is from birth on conditioned to three spatial dimensions. Interesting question whether this limitation is intrinsic, or environmental. Fact is, we have two 2D organs, which deliver just enough information to generate a pseudo 3D image in your mind. Even if reality would have more than three spatial dimensions there is no way we could see 4D. --Dschwen 12:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • You guys are sure answering a historical question with a lot of certainty. One could imagine a flatlander claiming to be able to visualize something in 3D, and I could similarly imagine a person claiming to be able to see 4. I just wonder whether it has happeened or not. Debivort 13:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah yeah, and if a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?. I'm not answering the historical question with certainty. However I'm answering your question with the certainty that the math of sub-spaces and projections gives me. And furthermore it should be obvious that I'm in no way certain about the role the brain plays in the apparent (?) limitation to 3 dimensions. --Dschwen 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, so perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I thought you were asking if there was a way of visualizing in terms of images and videos without using a projection or slicing technique, and showed why that's not possible. You were really asking if someone can see higher-dimensional objects in their mind's eye. I don't think it's a topic of serious mathematical discussion as it is not verifiable by anyone else. —Dgies^t c 16:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes I could definately visualize 4 dimensions after first reading Flatland. I couldn't see anything in the fourth dimension of course since there's nothing to see but I could clearly visualize 4D "spheres" and "pyramids" moving through 3 dimensional space. --froth^T 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Wow, I definately couldn't after reading either that or Sphereland. It was required to do a project on it in geometry in 6th grade, so I drew a little town on posterboard. Clearly such art has evolved... --Iriseyes 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Support per all above. Krowe 06:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support per above — Lycaon 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support just for the beauty of it and before trying to analize its logic. To understand the kind of difficulty we are dealing with try to imagine what a rotating 3D cube looks like by observing its projection into a one-dimensional space (a straight segment, for example). As far as I know no one ever claimed to have visualized a 4D hypercube. The best we can do is to construct an intelectual model of it - Alvesgaspar 08:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Mmmmm a 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D cube... Now what does a 5D cube look like... --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like moving pictures. Having a moving picture as Picture of the Day would make it annoying to try to read anything else on the Main Page. Otherwise, very interesting picture. (Could buttons be added to make it start and stop moving?) --Coppertwig 13:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I understand a still picture would be shown on the main page with a link like "view the animation". Objection withdrawn. Nifty picture, anyway. --Coppertwig 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of animated FPs, and they are often Picture of the Day. There is usually a link that says "view animation"--Bridgecross 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oh and Support per Mrs Whatsit. --Bridgecross 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Somehow, "WOW!" just doesn't quite say it. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very cool. FP quality all the way. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. If you can add some information to the caption indicating how the tesseract is rotating, I'd support. Right now, it makes people think that tesseracts rotating in 4 dimensions will always give that appearance, which is not true. Any sort of addition to the caption would be an improvement. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-12 21:33Z
• Support. Definitely makes me want to learn more. --Tewy 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support not much to say besides 'awesome'. I used to have a screensaver of a hypercube, until I caught myself deliberately not working so it'd come on. Opabinia regalis 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great FP stuff. To quote Chris Rock: "It's spinnin', nigga, it's spinnin'!" :)). - Darwinek 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great!-Randalllin 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support! Wikipedia rarely gets images as good as this one! Wow! This is great! Ilikefood 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This image gives information that would really be impossible to absorb simply by reading text. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Awesome geek porn. ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support That's very interesting and adds what can't be explained in text. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, Wow, I've been staring at this for 10 minutes. It's really pretty! --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support ??? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great picture. Well done! --vineeth 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Helps me visualize a tesseract, where can I find a still to compare? Photonikonman 13:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Check the article; it has several examples. --Tewy 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tesseract.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Wisconsin

Reason

This is one of the more widely recongnized photographs of an Iowa class battleship, and one of the most popular images of the class with regards to use (as is evidenced by the number of pages on Wikipedia using this image in conjuction with Iowa class battleship and USS Wisconsin, both of which are featured articles). In light of this I decided to nominate the images for featured status.

Articles this image appears in

USS Wisconsin (BB-64), Iowa class battleship, Battleship battle group

Creator

USN

Nominator

TomStar81 (Talk)

• Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose size --Bridgecross 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Way too small. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose too small --froth^T 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you had a spelling error, sir. I corrected it. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks --froth^T 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; is not historical and therefore does not meet size requirements. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose to small and not exactly a historic pic to make up for it. Arjun 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Sea at dusk

Reason

I think this is a good illustration of a stormy sea in a rocky coast, with an extensive surf zone and the surface all covered with white foam. But more important than the encyclopaedic value is, for me, the beauty of these gorgeous colours. The photo was taken at dusk and the rosy grades in the water are caused by the bottom mud brought to surface by the surf and also, I presume, by the reflection of the sky. This picture was nominated at Commons:Featured picture candidates and failed… Maybe it will also fail here but I’m curious of knowing why. There are so few good pictures of the sea in Wikipedia!

Articles this image appears in

Storm, Sea

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

Nominator

Alvesgaspar

• Support — Alvesgaspar 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The picture is grainy at full zoom. Also has splotches in several areas. A good pic but not up to FP standards. I agree we need awesome fantastic pictures of the sea. Unfortunetly, this one just isn't up to par. --Tobyw87 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe in you, but I was not able to see those splotches. Can you please help, maybe they can be removed? - Alvesgaspar 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this is one of my favorite pics recently. I used to live next to the sea, a long time ago. I unfortunately had to move away and I never get to see it, and when viewing this pic it captures you and puts you in a state of awe, making you realize how little are the problems of today. Okay but seriously a nice pic, highly encyclopedic, greatly adds to the articles, and is very nice technically and more unique than most ocean images that come through here. Arjun 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support A nice picture, but I question its film resolution and encyclopedic value. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the meaning of "film resolution", the ISO setting? Here are the technical details - Camera: Konica Minolta A200; Speed: 1/20; Aperture: F11; Sensitivity: ISO 100; Exposure program: aperture priority. - Alvesgaspar 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Little enc value and the reflections off the water are distracting and disorienting --froth^T 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reflections off the water are distracting from what? For me the rosy colouring of the water is a fundamental part of the picture, it wouldn't have been nominated without it. Alvesgaspar 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, that is what makes the pic so good. Arjun 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • I would have no problem if it was a glassy surface reflecting the sun, but the water is broken and frothy. The froth and the reflections all blend together into an ugly texture --froth^T 07:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Absolutely zero encyclopedic value. Looks like it was taken with a disposable camera and the photo scanned with a low quality scan. How does this photo scream "WOW? --UCLARodent 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sky is grainy and not much details can be seen on the rocks. There isn't much encyclopedic value either. NauticaShades 14:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Solar System

Reason

Simple, encyclopedic, and interesting. I like how it's to scale.

Articles this image appears in

Planet, Definition of planet

Creator

NASA and edited by Poggymoose

Nominator

Pyro19

• Support — Pyro19 10:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Stop!! this seems to be just an edit of Image:NewSolarSystem.jpg. But it cuts filesize in half and thereby introduces severe JPG artifacts (check out the small planets). Befor this gets voted upon I suggest to save a version with a higher quality. --Dschwen 11:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - quite bad JPEG artifacting, and this should be PNG for a diagram, strictly speaking. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If the diagram includes photographs, as this does, it can be better as jpeg --Astrokey44 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yikes, Heavens No! Why is this a JPEG? Very bad cast of artifacting. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support version 2 — I used the original JPEG as a base, then manually added in Eris' name using Photoshop and removed the most obvious artifacts. I saved it in PNG-24 to reduce any chance of further artifacting. ♠ SG →Talk 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support version 3. ♠ SG →Talk 04:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2 looks much better, the artifacts are gone. Also once again highly encyclopedic. Arjun 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I just changed the thumbnail size to 300px and still can't recognize what this is about, much less read the text. We need to take into account that probably the majority of readers never click on the image, so enc has to work at thumbnail size too. ~ trialsanderrors 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It makes very little sense that the main light source on the planets in the picture is in the opposite direction of the sun--the main light source that shines on the planets in real life. The shadows therefore only confuse the viewer, there may as well not be any shadows on the planets at all if it's just going to be a hypothetical science diagram. Slimjimsimpson 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose rather bad in thumbnail, when readers read they most likely don't click the image. Arjun 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know about you, but I always click the image. With a diagram like this I certainly wouldn't just look at the thumbnail. Raven4x4x 07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Good point by Slimjimsimpson, otherwise a very good illustration. - Alvesgaspar 18:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above, and also it takes forever to load even as a thumbnail. The image has both photos (JPG) and text/solid black (PNG) and neither format handles both adequately.--HereToHelp 14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Version 2. As Borat once said, "Is nice, I like!". Great diagram. It should definitely be a featured pic. "Very nice, how much?". :-) Ilikefood 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Slimjim. I expect FPs to use proper punctuation; there should be no quotation marks. Reywas92^Talk_Sigs 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd support it if the quotes were taken off the two words (they are not necessary and look very odd) - Adrian Pingstone 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margarita

Reason

A beautifully framed and vivid image. The foreground is sharply in focus with the background obscured in a very professional fashion. Andman8 03:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Margarita

Creator

Jon Sullivan

Nominator

Andman8

• Support — Andman8 03:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• question I'm not much of a drinker, but would the canonical stem-and-saucer style margarita glass not be a more "encyclopedic" illustration of the drink? Debivort 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support Image certainly meets criteria, however the caption leaves a little to be desired. Krowe 06:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• weak oppose The thumbnail looks like some steaming algal culture... - Lycaon 07:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The pic has a lack of contrast, look at the top of the drink where it's too dark and "lifeless" - Adrian Pingstone 08:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose The salt at the top doesn't look too great. Also, as said above, the "stereotype" margarita glass might be more encyclopedic. Overall, as per above, the image lacks contrast. Joe 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak oppose Even though I took this photo, I'm hoping this isn't an example of the best we have. Firstly, it was just a silly snap shot while I was bored waiting for our appetizers. About the last thing I was thinking of at the time was technical merits. Secondly, a real margarita isn't lime green like that. As to the stem-and-saucer glasses, they are about the opposite of "canonical". Maybe they do it that way in Des Moines or something, but not down here where real margaritas come from. Bottomline, I clearly need to take a better margarita photo for the article. I've known this for a while, but now I'm finally shamed into it. Thank you. I suppose.--y6y6y6 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacks novelty or "wow" value. Topic is too ordinary, everyday. Also the salt makes it look like something dirty or infested especially when viewed in thumbnail. Sorry. --Coppertwig 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Pingstone said 'lifeless' and I think that sums it up. When I have a mixed drink in front of me, on a sunny Bermuda beach, it sparkles and shimmers and makes my mouth water. My mouth ain't waterin'. --Bridgecross 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Although a nice picture of a margarita, it isn't that inspiring. It's quite plain. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Yuck, no way. It's not an encyclopedic image of a margarita; they rarely look like that even in cheap American Mexican restaurants where the table comes with crayons to draw on... --Iriseyes 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's really not that bad of a shot, but for FP it just needs something more. I think the above comments have pretty much summed it up for me. --Tewy 01:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose yeah basically it is kind of uninteresting. Arjun 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Maybe the "stereotypical" margarita glass with cleaner salting and some warm, bold lighting in front of a backdrop, but not just sitting on a counter somewhere. It's hard to be encyclopedic with drinks since it's impossible to tell what's actually in the drink --froth^T 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks a bit dull in color to me. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per froth. NauticaShades 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose- that's seriously not a sample from a river with some ice cubes and a lime? Looks even worse at full size. NO. JorcogaYell! 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please remember to keep your comments civil. Wikipedians went to the effort of taking an nominating the image so let's respect that. Debivort 05:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't trying to be uncivil. If that was uncivil, I apologize. JorcogaYell! 12:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it seems you were either assuming they called river water a drink - which is assuming bad faith, or you were being really sarcastic. In either case ... no worries though. Debivort 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • That was sarcasm.:) JorcogaYell! 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milk Thistle Flowerhead

Very clear image with excellent sharpness and good subject isolation without serious DOF issues.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support this is a very nice image, as you said clear, great subject isolation and no DOF issues. Highly encyclopedic also. Arjun 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Minor support. Small focus issues with the green petals in the back and the purple fuzz toward the back. Also it's kind of "just another flower picture" --froth^{T C} 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support good detail. Noclip 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support per above Krowe 06:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support per Froth. Joe 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me. Technically good and very encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support It is not the most interesting flower but it is definitely a great photo non the less. Why1991 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I love your photos, Fir, but I'm just not crazy about this one. I can't really comment on the technical aspects, but I do think they're fine. However, like froth said, it's just another picture of a flower (albeit a very pretty one.) At this point, it'd take a FPC of a jungle flower to impress me with flora. --Iriseyes 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. The lighting's a little harsh, but overall it does a good job of displaying the flower. --Tewy 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is a nice picture. Nice detail on the thorns. --Midnight Rider 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Another FP material from Pete's FP producing factory. - Darwinek 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Almost perfect quality (I only wish for a bit more DOF). NauticaShades 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Exactly what I look for in a photo of a flower like this... but it doesn't "wow" me. While it's probably technically perfect, I don't find it that compelling. Perhaps a different composition or something? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. As per above. Focus is good and proves my point that every square inch of a FP need NOT be in perfect focus, but it's just not special enough for me. Sorry. --Mactographer 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above, composition is not appealing. Alvesgaspar 08:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. However, my preference is for cropping the empty space on the right and squaring it a bit (which will also improve the thumbnail detail assuming the same image width on the page). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg Raven4x4x 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telomere quadruplex

Reason

A particularly beautiful molecule in its own right, but also a form of DNA that is little-known.

Articles this image appears in

DNA and Telomere

Creator

User:TimVickers

Nominator

TimVickers

• Support — TimVickers 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose kind of cool, but technically bad and as I'm sure others will tell you it's way under the size recommendation --froth^{T C} 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, high-res version uploaded. TimVickers 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose for a CG image like this, could you animate it a bit to show the complexities? It's a bit hard to see without scrutiny right now. If it moved I'd change my vote. --Iriseyes 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, one of the pages it's used in already has an animated image and another would push the page well over the size limit. TimVickers 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• neutral weak oppose - I could be convinced to support, but it would need a bit of modification, particularly a key as to what colors are what elements. Debivort 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I'm fine with respect to the "plasticiness" but would really like to see the elements annotated in the image itself. Debivort 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Added. TimVickers 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think yellow is phosphorous. Debivort 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course it is! Somehow my fingers thought otherwise, corrected. TimVickers 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The Guide to uploading images recommends not putting text in images. TimVickers 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that the key should be made as part of the image, rather than within the caption. If you are going to leave it in the caption however, the names of the elements should at least be capitalised. Additionally, can this be 'accurate' if Hydrogen atoms are omitted? Krowe 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Agreed it should be included in the image. FWIW, not showing the hydrogens is a standard viewing format for these kinds of diagrams. Debivort 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Removing the hydrogens is standard, as they usually cannot be seen in X-ray crystallography anyway. I'm sorry, I don't understand why the types of atoms should be capitalised, these are just nouns. Could you explain this comment a bit more? I'm puzzled. TimVickers 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree that text should be on the image itself, as that makes it more difficult to use the image in new contexts or in other languages. On that note, since you've released it PD, maybe upload it to commons? Opabinia regalis 06:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Version 2 copy uploaded to commons. TimVickers 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Neutral Better with the fog. Looks over-exposed. I would prefer a less "plastic" material, lower contrast and maybe some softer shadow? (GI anyone?) Also in the centre it doesn't show the structure/layers of the elements clearly. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tried generating the picture from several angles, but unfortunately from other viewpoints you cannot see the symmetry of the bases around the center. This makes for a much less striking image. TimVickers 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great picture. Fascinating, educational, visually appealing. Topic of telomeres in interesting in itself. Of course it can be accurate if hydrogens are ommitted! It's a model. The novelty, visual appeal and educational value outweigh any technical problems. --Coppertwig 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support (especially version 2) I really like this image; it's an eye-catching view of a beautiful molecule. To address the 'depth' issue - have you thought about rendering it with depth cuing fog? Opabinia regalis 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this version an improvement? I some added fog to help make it less "contrasty" and add depth. TimVickers 04:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO this one's better; the base stacking in the center is much clearer. Opabinia regalis 06:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support version 2. I suppose it fits requirements but I won't pretend that the subject is signficant to me --froth^T 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Would this be better as a PNG?

Mahahahaneapneap 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You lose much of the shadowing and sense of depth in PNG, that is better for simple diagrams that don't try to be photo-realistic. TimVickers 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't lose things simply by saving it as png. PNG supports 24bit colour is well you know. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I fiddled with PNG a bit, does this version look OK to you? TimVickers 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I still stand by my comment about a less plastic material, like maybe a lower hardness and less frontal illumination? Also visible aliasing, maybe more oversampling will help? Otherwise it's as good as it gets (NOT equivalent to Mr. Cat Poop in Chinese). --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - looks very badly "computer generated" and not natural, really takes away from the composition for me -137.222.10.67 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but could you be more specific? What features are missing to make this a "natural" image of a DNA molecule? TimVickers 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portland Street neon chaos

Reason

Photo showing an evening on Portland Street, Hong Kong's famed red-light district.

Articles this image appears in

Portland Street

Creator

UCLARodent

Nominator

UCLARodent

• Support — UCLARodent 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. You haven't really listed a reason why it should be a FP. The composition isn't particularly good, it is tilted, it doesn't really scream 'red light district'.. it looks like a fairly anonymous looking HK street. The control of exposure isn't too bad though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose pretty good but you haven't listed a reason. Not exactly featured material anyway. Arjun 18:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - The "randomness" of the composition goes well with the subject. I don't like the cars in the foreground and think the tilt should be corrected. Technically this looks like an hard shot to make, with all those people walking around (no big exposure allowed) - Alvesgaspar 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Terrible composition. If the subject is the lights, the roofs of cars and the people on the side distract way too much. Looks like a cheap holiday picture not a professional quality shot which is what featured pictures are. --Midnight Rider 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the tilt and lack of anything particularly "special". Trebor 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting subject, but not really FP material. At the bare minimum it needs to be rotated and cropped. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Composition isn't good enough for FP. My edit doesn't help much. Fcb981 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shenzhen Construction

Reason

Excellent resolution, and very pleasing to the eye. Quite representative of its main article, Shenzhen, too.

Articles this image appears in

Shenzhen and History of the People's Republic of China (1989-2002)

Creator

Rüdiger Meier

Nominator

WoodenTaco

• Support — WoodenTaco 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Focus and lighting could be better, but nice composition. Redquark 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Impressive picture. Nicely composed. The only negative point I found was slight graininess when viewing buildings on the left, but overall certainly makes me want to know more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krowe (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

• Comment do I detect a slight tilt to the left? --Bridgecross 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, the central towers need one degree of clockwise rotation - Adrian Pingstone 10:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very good picture that is encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment I think the tilt is just an optical illusion caused by the length of the building on the left. But I could be wrong. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • When I put it in photoshop and drop a plumb line down, all the buildings are tilted --207.38.206.107 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC) --Bridgecross 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I just don't see how's this is particularly special. I myself is from China and I know there's lots of contruction going on so why is this particularly special? Where's the enc? FWIW you just have some building material lying around and that's probably it. Also at full resolution it looks very soft and could benefit a bit from perspective correction. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I go to Shenzhen twice a year. This photo is not a good photo, does not represent Shenzhen and does not shed any insights on the city. Shenzhen is a glimmering financial center just north of Hong Kong. Any encyclopedic photos of the city should reveal it's tall skyscrapers, throngs of people on the street or neon-filled night life. This photos is taken from the boring Lo Wu train station and shows nothing important or impressive! Click here to see a "real" photo of Shenzhen --UCLARodent 09:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Never been there but I agree with UCLARodent. This sort of picture doesn't really represent a city particularly well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, okay but doesn't represent the city well enough to be highly encyclopedic. Arjun 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice picture. For me (I study political science) it is quite symbolic. - Darwinek 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from the issue with the tilt, this does not illustrate the topic of its article particularly well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak support - it feels like there is tilt to me - I think it is fisheyeing though. Seems to perfectly illustrate the History of China article section, and is quite attractive as a thumbnail. Debivort 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's at least representative of the article, which discusses Shenzhen as one of the "fastest growing" cities in the world. This image really captures the enormous growth to me, with the towering skyscrapers in the background and a construction site which makes me visualize another skyscraper. In addition, I think it's significantly better than the picture of Shenzhen at night provided by UCLARodent, if only because the nighttime-skyline picture is so stale and generic. This image seems fairly unique. WoodenTaco 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. I went to Shenzen in 1995 and it was a lot less built-up than it appears in this photo (9 yrs later), so I certainly agree that it shows the speed of progress in the city. I think the photo needs a little perspective correction, though. howcheng {chat} 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The buildings are falling! --Arad 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Monument daytime shot

Reason

While mediocre compared to Diliff's incredible FP of the subject, perhaps a higher-resolution daytime shot would also be an appropriate FP. The image is stitched together from 18 different photos, so if you see any stitching problems please point them out and give me a chance to fix them before opposing.

Articles this image appears in

Washington Monument

Creator

User:Noclip

Nominator

Noclip

• Support — Noclip 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support very nice pic. The half mass flags make the pic very interesting and unique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arjun01 (talk • contribs).
• Oppose - There is already a FP of the monument here, which I prefer. Alvesgaspar 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - You have duplicate people. There are some minor focus problems. Existing FP is better and it is not especially different or rare to have flags at half staff. —Dgies^t c 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Duplicate people everywhere --froth^{T C} 03:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry. Per all above. Sorry I should have said that I agree with Alvesgasper that there is already a featured picture of this monument that seems better than each picture edited and unedited on the side.--Why1991 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Changed from support due to the above. — Arjun 04:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)change to support e1
• Weak oppose. I'm not going to completely degrade this picture; it's really not a bad shot. But, the duplicate people hurt it pretty bad for me. --Tewy 04:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit 1. I can't find any other duplicate people (obvious ones, at least), so it's much better now. --Tewy 04:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Edit 1 As far as I can tell you only removed one double. There are certainly more remaining.. one glaring example is the guy walking in front of the monument with his hand on it --froth^{T C} 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you tell those are doubles?! They are only tiny black silouettes and look the same anyways. Certainly not apparent to the casual observer. FPC is really getting me confused nowadays...--Dschwen 09:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 It took me about a minute of careful scanning before I picked out the duplicate people (the couple) in the original. With that removed, I can't find any duplicates (even after a few minutes of scanning). There are obviously duplicates still remaining, but they're not identifiable. It's rare for flags to be lowered to flag staff and in this case, they were lowered for the death of a significant historical figure. The other featured pic of the Washington Monument is a night shot and the flags were not at half staff. Also, the fact that there are people in the pic makes it more interesting. I don't see many pics that were stitched together and contained people (undoubtedly due to the doubling issue). Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I can guarantee that there are no duplicates within 25 feet of the Monument. If you're seeing them it's you, not the photo. All the people you see in that portion were taken from a single photo. Noclip 14:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Awesome, so much for the glaring example. *shakes head* --Dschwen 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Can those who oppose please point out what the other problems are now that the duplicate people have been removed? Noclip 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is slightly tilted to the left. Hard to tell from the monument itself, and I'm not sure it the (grass) horizon can be trusted, but despite perspective distortion the flagpole directly in front of the monument should be vertical. It isn't, the one to the left of it is though. Might be just a degree. Sorry for coming up with that so late. Maybe this nom should be restated/suspended. It seems a bit unfair to me that almost everybody opposed due to doubles which do not exist anymore in the edit, but nobody bothers to check back on the nomination. --Dschwen 10:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I definitely agree. This picture has a good chance of becoming featured if it can get some fair votes. --Tewy 19:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 - I'll kick it off. I like the flags at half-mast, which I think is enough to merit two FPs of the same subject. --Iriseyes 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 I'll refrain from making penis jokes to prove my point. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1. The edit fixes the duplicate problem, and although we already have an FP, this one is during the day and the flags are half mast. NauticaShades 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 per others above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original You can't say whether these people are duplicates or not (maybe they have similar clothes?). And I think that this daytime shot is a good addition to the already featured picture of the Washington Monument. -Wutschwlllm 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's actually a couple that is obviously duplicated. They appear beneath the in-shadow side of the Monument on the lawn, and again to the right, beneath the middle of the flags. Chances are, the same clothing and same walking direction indicate duplication. That was all the edit corrected. --Tewy 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, I've seen them. However, until now I did not realize that the man really has the exact same clothing (blue shoulders). But still, even if they are duplicates, it's a very, very minor mistake. -Wutschwlllm 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Per above --Fir0002 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Please elaborate. The issue "above" has been addressed. Noclip 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok to specify a little more I agree with Dgies, and there's something wierd going on in the bottom LHS --Fir0002 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Dgies' comment is adressed by the edit. What do you reckon is weird in the botton LHS? --Dschwen 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 the edit fixing the problem. And the half mast flags make for an interesting pic. Arjun 12:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose both Slightly tilted, not bright enough, half-mast doesn't look as good. Reywas92^Talk_Sigs 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose If we go for a second shot of the WM, we should look for a different angle. ~ trialsanderrors 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Look at the current FP, this is from a different angle. Noclip 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm more thinking this kind of different angle. ~ trialsanderrors 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted (no consensus) --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mute Swan

Reason

I like the swans position.

Articles this image appears in

Swan

Creator

Oliver Nimz

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't meet size requirements (868x577px). --Tewy 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Size requirement not met. Dan M 05:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Also blown highlights and mediocre composition. It's been quiet in FPC haven't it... --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It has indeed been quiet...anyway, this image clearly doesn't meet requirements. Bewareofdog, you really should go over the requirements for FP and reassess the images you've been nominating. Almost to the image they've been undeserving and in large volume, which is fine I guess (especially because it HAS been so quiet) but it will do you and the project a service if you look for the truly excellent images. --Iriseyes 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - far too small, blown highlights, and 'I like the swans position' is not a valid reason for a picture becoming featured. Please read the featured picture criteria before nominating - a lot of your recently nominated images fail at least one point on the criteria and as such are, to be quite honest, a waste of both our time and yours. I'm not being angry, it's just a piece of advice that I think you need. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for size. Trebor 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inadequate resolution and uninteresting composition. Nice pose by the bird though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose must have been a beautiful sight but the image is clearly below the size requirements. Arjun 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, besides being below size requirements, that doesn't seem like a pretty good reason to nominate this for Featured Picture. Sorry. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The highlights are blown, and it is too small. NauticaShades 11:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Minor Oppose; the only problem I have is with the picture size...and not everyone has that much time to come to FPC, you know. As it already is, I should be doing my revision... -- Altiris Exeunt 11:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per size, which is a shame because it's a great picture. JorcogaYell! 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesueur's Frog

I'm nominating this image as it is taken from a good angle with nice lighting and decent DOF giving it a high enc value. The alternative IMO is probably more on the artistic side, with stark contrast between the yellow frog and the drab surroundings.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral for either. I like the angle, contrast, and colors in the first version, but I like the focus more in the second. They both suffer from more DOF problems than seems necessary, so I can't support. --Tewy 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• OMG even the frog turn its back on me... I mean Weak Support 1st, Neutral 2nd. Well not much wow factor and I can't see the stark contrast between the pale yellow frog and the pale brown rocks. DOF could be better and why not a more conventional frontal view? --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support #1, Oppose #2 - I like the first one, and you can see much more of it than in the second one. --Iriseyes 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose both - Sorry, byt enc interest is not everything. Composition is poor in both pictures - Alvesgaspar 16:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad composition. --Midnight Rider 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The first photo is almost perfect in the angle, but the eye is partly obstructing a small section in front of the eye. Although this seems trivial, it is a very important part of the frog to distinguish it from the Broad Palmed Frog. You can still tell from the photo, but I would like the distinguishing characteristics to be as clear as possible. To make it better, the angle should be slightly more head on, like this (there are lots wrong with that photo, but the angle is good). The hands are also cut off in the first. The second photo doesn't illustrate the subject well. Thanks, and keep up the frog photos! --liquidGhoul 02:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't like the color.Bewareofdog 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. The first version isn't at a very good angle, and the second isn't very good quality so I can't support either. NauticaShades 11:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Yeah, I would like the frog to be facing us. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Resolution Solar Spectrum

Reason

This image is just incredible. Very Encyclopedic and eye-pleasing.

Articles this image appears in

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

Creator

National Optical Astronomy Observatory/Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy/National Science Foundation

Nominator

PYMontpetit

• Support — PYMontpetit 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Although there seems to be some jpeg artifacting, and I'd personally like it if it were at all possible to make all of the lines 100% clear, this is pretty encyclopedic and I like it very much. Joe 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Compression artifacts are minor and mitigated by the huge resolution. The vertical lines are supposed to be fuzzy: that is the width of the absorption line. —Dgies^t c 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• questions 1) is it a photo or an illustration? 2) for each row, is one end redder than the other, i.e. is is really just a one dimensional function of frequency, broken into several rows, or does the y-axis correspond to some measurement parameter? Debivort 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak support - what makes the image interesting (the absorption lines) is not what makes the image attractive (the simple spectrum). Plus, I think the breaking of it into rows (while reasonable) will confuse people, as it is not obvious which way the spectrum goes - right to left or left to right. I agree it should be downsampled for a final version. Debivort 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. It is a synthesized image taken from observational data. Sunlight is fed into a glorified prism and that produces a very detailed rainbow, which is then arranged in 40 or sow rows to fit in a nice rectangle.
  2. For each row, left-to right represents increasing frequency (and subtle color change). The Y-axis is used to stack what would otherwise be an absurdly wide and short image into a more reasonable size. Going from top to bottom gives rows of increasing frequency. Ideally, each individual row would show no top-bottom variation, but there are artifacts. —Dgies^t c 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Rad.--ragesoss 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This looks better when shrunk to my screen size than in actual size, where it looks like it's run through a motion blur. ~ trialsanderrors 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Attractive and scientific. Neato. --Bridgecross 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. High enc, and eyecatching color, for some reason... Could be downsampled to 50%, even 30%. --Janke | Talk 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Andrew c 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is generated by a scan or photo of an analog phenomenon, don't expect clarity --froth^T 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support- high quality, amazing, aesthetically pleasing, eye-catching, encyclopedic. JorcogaYell! 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Everything Jorcoga said, really. It's a great picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Möbius strip

Reason

Crisp, clean picture. Simple, yet elegant. Depicts a Möibus strip in good fashion.

Articles this image appears in

Möbius strip

Creator

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dbenbenn

Nominator

—ScouterSig

• Support — —ScouterSig 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "twist" is spread out over half the Möbius strip and this makes it not-so-clear what is going on; I would prefer it to be localized. Also, JPEG artifacts. Redquark 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are minor artifacts, but I think the biggest problem is that this is easy to reproduce. The quality and resolution should be much higher. --Tewy 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Background could be more pleasing. res should be higher. Fcb981 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Image is strangely muddy, either from artifacts or upsampling. —Dgies^t c 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The quality is rather bad, and I think the Möbius strip can better be illustrated with an animation (with an arrow or object moving on the strip). NauticaShades 11:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per nauticashades --froth^T 03:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose blurry up close, low resolution, boring picture. JorcogaYell! 13:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Tent Spider

Very clear image, especially considering the small size of the spider (15mm). Good angle and detail. Alternative hasn't got quite as good angle but it has a chamomile flower head which shows the scale and therefore helps composition.

• Support Either Self Nom. --Fir0002 03:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support 1. Very nice quality. I wish the background was not green but the first is still better than the second. In the second i dont like the angle as per above and the web attached to the spider's leg detracts. Fcb981 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support 1 - So, I tried nominating images with alternatives a few months ago, and was told to withdraw the nomination and nominate individual images, one at a time. Personally, I am in favor of alts because they lead to a consensus of which single image should be featured as an illustration of a topic, and therefore help reduce redundant FPCs of the same topic. What is the deal? Are they OK now? Debivort 05:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What about rotating the second one so the flower is upright? | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support 1 Highly detailed encyclopedic picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support 1. The composition of that one makes it easier to see the entire spider as it is outstretched. In the other image, the spider's body parts are not as easy to keep apart. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Yes, it looks much better in the first anyways. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Another edit conflict! Am I reminded of the Sunlight Heart in the Alternative? Anyway, I'll support the first picture; it is very good and encyclopedic, no doubt about that. The only thing I have against this picture is the fragmentation, which is very low, fortunately. Good job. -- Altiris Exeunt 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first picture. I agree with everyone else. JorcogaYell! 13:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support first Great picture of a small subject. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Green tent spider.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hospital Ship USNS Mercy

 ;Reason:Incredible image of a Hospital ship resting directly under a rainbow. Meets the criteria and just an excellent picture

Articles this image appears in

United States Navy USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) Portal:United States Navy/Selected Picture/6

Creator

Chief Photographer's Mate Edward G. Martens, USN

Nominator

WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)}

• Support — WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Breathtaking, and per This. Arjun 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well the rainbow is cute, it doesn't change the image's faults. Since this photo is supposed to illustrate the boat, not the rainbow, the boat itself is way to small in the frame (it probably takes up less than one tenth of the photo). The severe perspective distortion is very disturbing for me. It's also a bit grainy, not particularly good quality. In short, whimsical but not FP material. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As Pharoah Hound says, ship too small, ship blurred, shoreline weirdly curved. I like the pic, but, for me, it's not FP materiaL. Even regarded as a pic of a rainbow, the curved shoreline wrecks it - Adrian Pingstone 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have to agree with the previous two comments: it's a lovely picture but encyclopaedic value is (I feel) the core value of a featured picture. Unless this illustrates something specific, I don't see it being featured. Trebor 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I find it okay for my tastes. Not everyday I see a rainbow over a boat. :D --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montserrat Panorama

Edit 1 by Fcb981
Edit 2 by Antilived

Reason

This is a interesting, high resolution panoramic image from the Summit of Saint Jerome (1236 metres / 4055 feet) on Montserrat, a mountain one hour north-west of Barcelona. It shows from left to right: the view to the valley floor below, the communications antennae, the topography of the mountain, and the steps on the approach to the summit.

Articles this image appears in

Montserrat (mountain)

Creator

Diliff

Nominator

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

• Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support- Wow. JorcogaYell! 12:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support What else can I say but "another flawless panorama by Diliff"! --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Diliff, do you give any seminars near portland???? ;p -Fcb981 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support (edit 3), even though I think the deepest shadows are a bit too inky... Some curve and /or level adjustment could easily fix that. --Janke | Talk 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. It didn't look that bad on my home monitor but the shadows do look a bit too deep on my work screen (which I place less faith in, but its hard to know for certain how things are going to look on various displays).. The shadows have already been somewhat lifted but it is quite difficult to get the perfect balance with such a contrasty scene (the far right was starting to face into the sun on a hazy day and was difficult to control the blowout of highlights in the sky). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, you could try using an "adjustment level", letting the adjustments affect only the lower part of the image. I did a (too) quick test, which I won't upload, but I used two layers of your image, one in which I drastically lifted the shadows, and then an adjustment layer to selectively affect the end result. In this way, I could get the shadow contrast lowered without affecting the sky or mid-tones at all. (You might try it - you can do a lot with layers, in fact, I've "saved" almost unsalvageable underexposed 35mm slides by making two scans with different settings (one scan for highlights, one for shadows), and combining them with layers...) --Janke | Talk 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Janke makes a good point. What I find works for preventing blown highlighs in the sky is to place a low power negative Omni off the image where you dont want to blow the highlights then adjust levels. I did that here: [8]. I didn't spend much time on it and it became a bit over exposed so if you want you can edit yours yourself and add as an alternate. If you like mine you can do that one too. -Fcb981 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Even with the shadows, this is a stunning image. Trebor 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Support edit 3 as better. Trebor 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support. The shadow issue. --Tewy 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 3, weak support original, as I can now see it won't become drastically better. --Tewy 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Uploaded another edit, improving shadow detail without affecting highlights (much). --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original per above, however, the two edits look very hazy and lack contrast. While the shadows are a bit "inky", I think too much is lost in the edits. --Cody.Pope 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with that statement... If the shadows are too dark (and everyone is probably right on that), I will re-process the RAW files and re-stitch it. Increasing shadow detail from the JPG is not quite as effective. I'll have a go tonight and see what I can come up with. Hold off on the edits guys (both of them look pretty similar to my eyes). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original - the edits lose the impact of the original, which is quite a stunning photo -137.222.10.67 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only cut it out with the edits. Noclip 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: these two edits went way too far - let's see what Diliff can do. Suggest we delete the other edits when his gets on-line... --Janke | Talk 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I struggled to vastly improve the shadow detail over the original as even the original raw files contained very little additional information in the shadows. However, with a lot of tweaking, I was able to come up with something in between the previous edits and the original. Its still not perfect and some may prefer the original (the tones are a bit different between versions as it was a complete re-process and re-stitch from scratch and the settings were not identical). I found it hard to create an edit that improved shadow detail significantly over the original without overcooking it and losing pleasing tones in the image. Edit 3 is my best attempt at a compromise. If I had the chance to reshoot, I would have increased the exposure slightly (I was worried about blowing highlights but instead lost shadow detail at the other end). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Original Only. Very good as usual! --Fir0002 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote is still for the original only --Fir0002 09:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support original only. The edits are too washed out, and the original is good but the inky shadows are a bit much --froth^T 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original or Edit 3 - Diliff images are automatically FP. Also the original looks good, and the shadows are perfect. Although i see no problem with edit 3. edit 1,2 are way too much. --Arad 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are the original photos in RAW format? If they are you could conceivably do HDR tone-mapping and then generate the panorama. Noclip 04:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes they are but as per my comments above, the problem isn't that I can't get all the dynamic range from the RAW file into a JPG, the problem is that the RAW file simply didn't capture the information in the shadows at the time of shooting the scene. Even with RAW there are limits to what a camera can capture. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original Incredible Panorama.... very encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Just let the shadows be dark... --Dschwen 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 Good work! You should take more pictures! :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original or edit 3, with preference for the original. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I honestly do not have a preference, this is another one for the history books :) Arjun 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Another fantastic FP panorama. - Darwinek 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original I don't really like the shadows in the edits -Wutschwlllm 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There is no clear consensus yet on whether to promote the original or edit 3. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To me, it seems like of those that support either, a sizable number of people support only the original, whereas a lot of those supporting edit 3 also supported either. Therefore I would lean towards the original as it had less implied opposition than edit 3 did. Just my thoughts. I'm ok with either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I moved the nom to the "additional input" section because edit 3 was added after Cody.Pope, Noclip, Fir0002 and Froth voted "original only". I like the original more so I'll update my vote. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, just that little bit of contrast pushes me towards the original. Hope that helps to speed things along. --Cody.Pope 07:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Montserrat Mountains, Catalonia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Gulls

Reason

Very encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

Sea gulls

Creator

Jon Sullivan

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because of (minor) artifacts and size, but mostly because the species hasn't been identified. --Tewy 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Subjects are quite small. Obviously the composition is artistic, but for encyclopedic value I have seen better photos of seagulls. —Dgies^t c 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two featured article of seagulls already, don't think a 3rd is necessary unless it's absolutely stunning. Seems quite low res (particularly considering the view of the birds). -137.222.10.67 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Really, bewareofdog, limit your candidates. We keep telling you this and you persist in nominating more than any other person (besides Fir). --Iriseyes 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's no rule that governs how many nominations can be made, as far as I know. If Bewareofdog could find this many photos that passed their nominations, wouldn't that be excellent? Debivort 15:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• True, but I think the issue is that they're finding and nominating numerous images that aren't particularly good.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed that this is the objection, but if we are going to give people advice, it should at least be accurate advice. Debivort 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I mentioned the volume of his nominations this time because the primary complaint we have voiced so far (and that's not the royal we) has been quality of nominations. This time I was trying to express the volume of improper images. --Iriseyes 13:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• All you did was ask them to limit the number of their nominations. If the rate of nomination remained constant, but the quality improved, we would be very happy, no? So I think your complaint remains about the quality, even though that's not what you wrote. Debivort 10:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, my complaint remains about quality AND volume, which in this user's case go hand in hand. --Iriseyes 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, so you both agree that the user should cut back on the nominations. Bewareofdog, could you please only nominate an image if you feel it is clearly featured material? Because while an image may be exceptional, that still may not be enough. Featured pictures represent the very best of Wikipedia. Thanks. --Tewy 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unpleasing image in almost every way. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose especially without species identification. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not focused on birds. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above, this image is inferior to the other featured picture sea gulls. Arjun 02:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Number one, upload using a higher jpeg compression level (there are jpeg artifacts). Number two, although it is nice and is fairly sharp, it isn't really featured picture quality. Althepal 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun firing

Reason

At first I looked at it and thought "cool, a nice clean shot of the gun in action." Then I looked closer, and noticed that the shell the just left the barrel was caught in midflight in the image too. It's an awesome action shot and probably the best eye-catching illustration of this thing possible. It's also already featured on the German wikipedia, apparently. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, Cannon

Creator

United States Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Felix Garza Jr

Nominator

Night Gyr (talk/Oy)

• Support — Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a neat photo but there are a few things that stand out as being not so good. There are artifacts and heavy noise that cant be ignored, the composition is fairly marginal and the size is on the low end. The size would be ok if there wern't the quality issues but I dont think it's up to FP standards. --Fcb981 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support The noise should be given a pass because it is (necessarily) an extremely short exposure time. If you take the composition to be the gun, the propellant gas and the shell, then the composition is pretty good. The image is striking and probably quite hard to reproduce. I've seen pictures of gun muzzle flash, and pictures of bullets in flight, but I don't think I've seen such a nice photo of both at once. —Dgies^t c 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Minor pref for edit 1. —Dgies^t c 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support Back then we don't have digital and their relatively high ISO speed while maintaining good quality, this is film grain and as said above, needed to achieve both DOF and shutter speed. But the noise is really a bit much and doesn't justify as similar shots can be taken now with much less noise. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Olegivvit 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yes, the noise is glaring, but this this sort of shutter speed and awsome subject, I'm inclined to overlook it...--Iriseyes 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Too grainy. Not a unique picture, either. Very interesting, though. --Janke | Talk 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Support edit 1 by Fir0002 - dagnabbit! I was about to nominate this! Ah well, beat me to it. Great image. I might upload a possibly-improved edit if I get the time. EDIT - changed vote to support Fir's edit of the pic - erfect, mate! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support This pic is fantastic!!! Highly unique and it adds very significantly to wikipedia. --Tobyw87 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I'm willing to forgive the bad technical quality for the huge cool factor :) --froth^T 23:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Support With preference for Edit 1. Excellent timing --Fir0002 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great WOW factor. --Midnight Rider 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1, some slight downsampling (1280x1024) looks like it could help. Noclip 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1 Well, I guess the grain has to be overlooked somewhat. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 -Wutschwlllm 12:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• support edit 1 - seems a remarkable shot, and the shape of the explosion cloud is fascinating. Debivort 10:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 I love how the picture captures the gun in action Bjman 01:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 --Arad 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support edit 1. Damn! That's Good!!!!!! I like how it shows the shell exiting the cloud of smoke, and kinda splatters the smoke around a bit!!! That must have been a good high-speed camera to have nabbed that one! Great photo! Ilikefood 16:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support edit 1 oooooo...ahhhhhhhhhh Very unique and encyclopedic pic! Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:5-54-Mark-45-firing edit.jpg Trebor 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nymphal grasshopper

High quality macro shot of a nymphal short horn grasshopper on a grass stalk. And no this isn't a studio shot, but down "in the field"; the excellent isolation was acheived since it is a very small insect (about 17mm) and so focus point drop off is very rapid.

• Support Either Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support 1 very nice shot fir! --froth^T 07:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Great shot, but why is alternative slightly more vivid than original? --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Slightly different angle and hence slightly differnt background. Not sure entirely but the alternative I think is the grass closest to the blade I was shooting the grasshopper on (close to the river I was shooting near and hence green) and the other one is either the more distant (less green) grass or the grass tops --Fir0002 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Either Another great shot from fir0002, well done! --vineeth 07:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative and Neutral for the original. The original has DOF/focus issues dispite being a slightly better composition. The alterative is a little sharper. Diliff | (Talk)
• Support Alternative Better DOF, and the background color is more contrasting with the grasshopper. --DonES 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alternative I agree the alternate is better. Very good picture overall :) --Tobyw87 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative, this is another one for the books :D. Way to go Fir. Arjun 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment/question - if the seagulls need a species ID, then so too, I would suppose, does this image... I'm ready to support it on technical merits though. Debivort 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• oppose - no specied identification (and no response to my comment - Fir is too busy?) Debivort 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support alternative conditional, based on Debivort above. The original's background isn't as good, and the body seems a little too bright, when compared to the alternative (which is practically flawless). A little more information on the specific critter would be more encyclopedic (goes without saying, eh?) Great photography (as always).-Andrew c 23:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative :-O | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• The alternative is not used in any article. Why is a pic that is not used in any article even nominated here? This is like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. FPC is not the place to select the pictures for articles. The pictures should have proven themselves in the articles and then be nominated. Anyway, not really much of a difference here, but this is all part of the FPC failed again thingie. --Dschwen 14:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They are essentially identical. I see no harm in taking the original image from the article and putting in the alternative one if it happens to be promoted. mstroeck 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support whichever, still great pictures. --Dschwen 14:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. He looks dangerous. - Darwinek 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative Very nice picture. The alternative is nicer. Althepal 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Young grasshopper on grass stalk02.jpg Trebor 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock

A great image of an Indian Peacock taken at the Melbourne Zoo. I think it's a least as good as the existing FP, and probably a worthy replacement.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object purely due to depth of field problems. Not the entire feathers are seen and some cut right in the middle. Excellent picture otherwise. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose We have an equally good quality photo with a much better composition here, already a FP in Commons. - Alvesgaspar 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose while pretty decent the pics are no improvement on the existing very similar pis as Alves pointed out. --Dschwen 14:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I agree with Alves too, the Commons FP is a little better and should probably be nominated here. Thats not to say that this picture is bad though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Diliff. S.D. ¿п? § 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. For enc reasons we need to see the whole bird - this is cut off at the edges. Pstuart84 Talk 17:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Trebor 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trenches of the Great War

Reason

Personally I think this image absolutely exemplifies the tragedy that was WWI. I cannot imagine a more iconic representation of the Great War. Also, I think the fact that the soldiers are without faces, without their humanity per se contributes significantly to this picture. World War I was permeated by radical nationalism and rarely were individuals seen as something more than just pawns on a chessboard. Very historical and deserving of being a FP. --Tobyw87 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

World War I, Poison gas in World War I

Creator

Captain Frank Hurley

Nominator

Tobyw87

• Support — Tobyw87 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Historical and a great picture .Bewareofdog 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• support per nom. Ugh what a nightmare it must have been. Debivort 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• weak support original, regular support YFB edit unfortunately, fir's edit has revealed that what I thought was noise in the trench foreground is actually jpeg compression artifacting. I think I must support the original where this is less obvious. Debivort 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• weak oppose not impressed with the quality, barely meets size requirements and is quite small horizontally, but mostly can't hold a candle to this Feature Picture trench warfare shot. --Bridgecross 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1070x800 and 1400x1070 are pretty comparable resolutions, plus the one you link has significant moire. (I think I supported it though). Debivort 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• The current WW1 pic has diagonal lines all the way through it and the proposed one does not, and also the proposed one has the soldiers wearing gas masks which adds to its encyclopedic value. As well as its very iconic in my opinion ----Tobyw87

• Support - Actually, Bridgecross, I think it does hold a candle to it and is perhaps superior...the gas masks are pretty chilling. --Iriseyes 15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I nominated the other one and I like this too. The technical quality is certainly better and its very illustrative of its subject: Poison gas in World War I. howcheng {chat} 00:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support With preference for Edit 1. Glad that isn't me! --Fir0002 23:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good Job Fir0002 I like the edit! I support edit one. --Tobyw87 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great historical significance. --Midnight Rider 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support either They look like bugs with the masks. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Is it possible to obtain a version without the compression artifacts? --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support E1: Highly encylopedic/historic. Arjun 02:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. Historic and encyclopedic importance. - Darwinek 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, with preference for the original YFB's edit. The original is already fairly short of midtones; this seems to be more so in the edit. While the edit is crisp and the black shadows look nice, I think it's less representative in the details. TSP 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 - seems a little less artifacty to me, and I've retained the darker tone of the original which has more midtone detail. --YFB ¿ 07:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support YFB's magical edit. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support YFB's edit Incredible detail. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Australian Infantry with Small Box Respirators Ypres 1917.jpg Trebor 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translational Motion

Reason

First off, this animation really adds value to two articles, not just one. The image itself, along with the caption, helps the reader understand more about temperature. And come on, one can stare at it for hours, following each little dot, watching velocity changes... Anyway, the animation seems to meet all relevant criteria in WP:WIAFP, and since you already know them I don't have to repeat them here. (note: see Thermodynamic temperature for somewhat different caption)

Articles this image appears in

Temperature
Thermodynamic temperature

Creator

Greg L

Nominator

EdGl

• Support —EdGl 02:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Abstain Aliased edges, would prefer the atoms for tracking in 5 different colours instead of all red. Also is this the same thing as Brownian motion? --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No, brownian motion is the movement of a macroscopic particles (such as dust) based on atoms or particles colliding with it. This shows the movement of just the atoms or molecules. Meniscus 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If, by “aliased edges,” you mean the atoms don't have anti-aliased edges and this detracts from the quality, well, that's one of the trade-offs I had to make (and what actually took extra work to avoid). I purposely used only pure red, blue, black, and white in this animation so all the color content could be described using only two bits of data per pixel. Anti-aliasing the edges would have doubled or quadrupled the size of the file. This also explains why the five tracking balls are all red instead of a mix of colors: bigger file size. File size is especially important for the thermodynamic temperature article because it features three animations plus five other graphics. Greg L 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Ok I get it now. But still, such an image would be tiny in vector format (if only there is more support to svg animation....) but I guess currently there's no good solution to it. But IMHO 1 extra bit to accomodate 4 more colours is a good tradeoff between clarity and size. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note from Greg L: antilived: I agree, there ought to be more compact ways to do this. Wikipedia doesn’t allow them, but applets are a neat way to do this in Web browsers. Applets allow the animation to run not as a frame-based "video" of some sort, but algorithmically with faster (smooth) screen refresh rates. And continuously too, with no looping. The only disadvantage is everyone would see something different each time (no “cherry-picking” a segment where a red ball is at a dead stop). Greg L 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The caption makes it very interesting- that's the actual proportional size and spacing of helium molecules at that pressure. Wow. By the way is it slowed down exactly 2-trillion-fold? I find that hard to believe. --froth^T 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note from Greg L: Froth, not “exactly” two trillion fold (but close enough). At the scale of this animation (5.6 pm/pixel), the speed is slowed down between about 1.85 trillion times (for a fast computer displaying at 55 ms/frame) to 2.06 trillion times (for a slower computer displaying at 61 ms/frame). The atomic mean speed of helium at 23 °C is 1359 m/s; that's faster than the SR–71 (and is really fast for something as small as an atom). Another interesting tidbit is that if the helium atoms were at standard atmospheric pressure, there would be less than one atom visible in the frame (typically, only one atom would be scooting through the frame and even then, it would only be visible 26% of the time.)

• Neutral. It is fascinating to watch, and pretty informative, but the 5 red atoms confused me greatly (perhaps a better caption could fix that). It seems fairly arbitrary to have 5 red dots and the rest blue. Also the aliasing could be improved. Not 100% FP quality IMO, but still pretty darn good. I wouldn't oppose it passing, hence the neutral.-Andrew c 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. It would be more informational if there were several velocities (maybe signified by the spectrum with increasing intensities) and several different cells with different average temps.Buphoff 02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I was going to nominate this the other day, but I'm not sure why I didn't. Excellant diagram, all the dots seem to behave as I'd expect. Chaos rules! I assume the red dots are just to allow you to trace the path of a single helium atom through the mixture? - Jack (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that tracking in five different colors would be better. However, this really is a good image. I'm fine with it as it is. --Iriseyes 13:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It's fun to watch them bounce around. I keep thinking they are going to stop, but then a realize that the sum of all of their energy has to stay the same... Leon math 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I'd support but the jump from last to first image is jarring. This needs a few transitional slides. ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But that is not possible, this motion is not cyclic, i.e., the particles never return to their starting positions - Alvesgaspar 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The could fade to white and then fade back in to the original position. Debivort 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Note from Greg L All: When I was making this animation, I noted that the jump from the end of the loop to the beginning was very abrupt and unsettling; the balls all simultaneously and instantaneously snapped to new positions, giving a feeling of a Matrix–style brain reset. So I tried adding a single, 55–ms white frame but found it did little good. The version I eventually posted — and which appears above — has two white frames totaling 110 ms. It’s probably not perfect, but I felt they gave just enough of a visual clue that a loop was repeating. If one didn't know there were two white frames purposely added, one might think that the jump back to the beginning of the loop is just an artifact of forcing the computer to jump to the start of the frame queue. It's not though; it's a purposeful effect and leaves no doubt in the viewer’s mind that there’s a loop going on. I had tried three and four white frames but found the pronounced “wink” of white to be annoying; maybe that’s just me though. I also tried black frames but found the high-contrast flashes to be most annoying. So I quickly settled on two white frames, feeling they gave a barely perceptible, almost subliminal clue. Fading in and out wasn't a practical option because it would necessarily require more than two bits of data per pixel to describe the additional colors. I'd have to go to at least four bits — the next step up — and this would have doubled the file size (which I can't do because the article I made it for already has two other animations plus five static pictures). Rigorous attention to making compact, efficient, animations allows the entire article to load reasonably quickly. I'm paying attention to the reactions from all of you though. If you have suggestions, leave me your thoughts on this article's discussion page. Greg L 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's no great reason to try to make the reset cue subliminal. You could put in 20 white frames or even 20 frames with the text "Resetting animation." This would get the point across clearly and satisfy many peoples' reservations about featuring the animation. Debivort 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I prefer the reset to be as inconspicuous as possible, and in my opinion "twenty frames with the text 'resetting animation'" would be unsightly. I believe Greg L has done a great job with it and what's not broken does not have to be fixed. Needless to say I totally disagree with User:Trialsanderrors, but at least s/he didn't give an oppose vote. —EdGl 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well the problem with an inconspicuous transition is that some people will see the particles as having discontinuous trajectories or moving in periodic patterns - both of which are flat out wrong. Without an obvious indication that the simulation is resetting, the encyclopedicity will be shot for some people. Debivort 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support I still think transition to white could be done without adding more colors via pixel-wise screentoning. I might give it a shot tomorrow, although I'm not sure if my computer will be up for it. In any case, I changed my !vote after looking at the actual image sequence. ~ trialsanderrors 10:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, almost hypnotic. A shame about the slightly jarring reset, but it's an inevitable limitation. Maybe in the future a workaround'll be available - in which case replacement should be considered. But for the moment, I'm confident that this is one of the best animations that could be economically made. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - jerky movement, poor resolution. Why is it that animations get held to a much lower standard around here than regular photos?--DaveOinSF 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Resolution isn't a factor for animations. Since you can't scale animated gifs, a 1000px image would have to appear in the article at 1000px. Which isn't in any way desirable. And with regards to the jerky movement, are you sure you let the animation load up completely? Animated gifs do jerk heavily before they're fully downloaded. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• The resolution of the animation is one pixel, the same as for pictures. It looks stair-stepped because the animation isn't anti-aliased (for reasons stated in the second “comment” from the top). This animation looks better on LCD monitors at 96 pixels per inch. It doesn't look as good on big CRT monitors if they are set to lower resolutions (<80 pixels per inch). As regards jerky motion, animations are constrained by file-size issues (as discussed in that same comment above as well as the expansive note above). This animation runs near the edge of what is considered to be fluid motion: between 16.4 to 18.2 frames per second. This is the frame rate of Super 8 movie film. The interframe delay is set at 50 ms. All computers wait the required 50 ms while displaying a frame. After that wait, most computers devote between about 5 and 11 ms to actually process the next frame. This totals between 55 to 61 ms per frame (18.2 to 16.4 frames/second). Some computers with older graphics chips require more than 11 ms to process a frame. When that happens, the frame rate drops to below 16 frames/second and the motion becomes noticeably jerky. A quick check for how fast your computer processes a frame is to simply time the total loop duration of this animation. It's 371 frames from "blink" to "blink." If it takes longer than 22.63 seconds to loop, you're frame rate is less than 16.4 frames/second and it will look more jerky. Other factors come into play too. CRT monitors (with their fast phosphor decay-time constants) can appear jerkier. Also some people simply have eyes and minds (sort of a "brain processor speed") that are more sensitive to slow frame-rates. I plan on replacing this with a different version one day. A friend is getting a $500 C++ programming package. We might make a new animation with a slightly different blend of compromises. Greg L 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My computer is working fine, the image is loaded correctly. It just seems, in general, people here at WP let the aethetic limitations of animations slide just because it's an animation, and they rationalize it just as you do. I certainly appreciate the work that went into making it, but FP should be for a high quality finished product, not just for good effort. And if you're planning on replacing it later, isn't this, by your own admission, not as good as it could be?--DaveOinSF 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• oppose - this vote may be too late, but as you can see above, I've been in on the conversation on this nomination from the beginning. I was just hoping to see a revised version that addressed the resetting issue before opposing. Debivort 05:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Greg L 15:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Nice instructive animation. I like the fact that a connection to real physical parameters has been made. The aliasing makes it a weak support though. --Dschwen(A) 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Translational motion.gif Trebor 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toledo Skyline Panorama

Reason

This is a great view of the World Heritage Listed Toledo skyline at an atmospheric time of day. It is a four segment panoramic image so the resolution is pretty good (4748x2072). Hopefully you guys won't have a problem with the 'inkiness' of the photo. I could have lifted the brightness a bit but I think it spoils the balance of the scene so I left it as-is.

Articles this image appears in

Toledo, Spain

Creator

Diliff

Nominator

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

• Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support! --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah well I don't even know what you mean by inky... In any case good composition and great lighting. Unfortunately one of your shots has focus issues which is apparent as a contrast change in the roof tiles about 1100px from the left edge. support (maybe weakish). --Dschwen(A) 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Inky was just a term that Janke used to describe the overly dark shadows in the Montserrat pic... I thought it was a cute word and decided to recycle it. ;-) As for the focus issue.. you're right but I just had a look at the original files at 100% and it is extremely minor.. When downsampled, it is almost completely unnoticable but I think the reason you can see it on the Alcazar's roof is that it upsets the delineation a bit.. You're right though, you must have gone over it with a very fine toothed comb. I didn't see it during the processing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • very fine toothed comb, yep, might even have been a louse comb... ...oh... ...I see, thats where the term nitpicking comes from. Another lesson learned :-) --Dschwen(A) 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support What a nice image. If you could move the cranes for me it would really be great! InvictaHOG 23:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Decent quality image, but I disagree with the "atmospheric" time of day - personally I feel it has dulled the colors of the roof tops and hillside. It's a good enough image, but I can't help thinking how much better it'd have been at a better time of day. --Fir0002 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support I'd like to see another edit somewhere between the two we have now. The original seems to dull but the edit a little much. at this point I would probably go with the edit though. -Fcb981 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose edit. Well meant, but it ruins the dusky atmosphere. --Dschwen(A) 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the dusky atmosphere is probably not quite as enc as it hides some of the details --Fir0002 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But the details are not hidden.. They're still there and still visible - just dark. And anyway, artificially increasing the brightness to unrealistic levels is not enc either is it? I know perceived brightness is quite subjective but sometimes a bright scene is not appropriate. If you were trying to illustrate what a dark room looks like, you wouldn't normalise the exposure. You'd leave it dark because that was what it looked like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• question - why are all the roofs on the right so much darker than the left ones? Are they receiving less sunlight? Debivort 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support original, oppose edit.. That ain't inky, it's just dusky... (But do I see a 1/2-px stitching error in the long roof?) --Janke | Talk 09:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, oppose edit Excellent image. WoodenTaco 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful image. Lesgles (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose edit 1 Simply beautiful. --♥Tohru Honda13♥^Talk 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support original; abstain edit 1 Original image is terrific. Hello32020 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Original per beautiful. Arjun 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Great Panorama! - Hpfan9374 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely support. S.D. ¿п? § 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Support original, weak oppose to edit - Great cityscape, love the contrast of the medieval architecture with the modern construction crane in the background. Caknuck 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nigh-invisible stitching errors don't bother me. Noclip 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Original. The fact that its slightly tilted just makes it look nicer. Great Photo!!!!!! :-) Ilikefood 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support edit 1 I knew it was Diliff's pic before I saw it full size. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Both Both are beautiful pictures that are destined for FP status. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Toledo Skyline Panorama, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg Trebor 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shiva Statue

Reason

I Discovered this quite by accident on the meditation page, it caught my eye, so here it is.

Articles this image appears in

Meditation, Shiva, Yoga, List of mystics, Bhakti yoga

Creator

User:Deepak released it on 31st December 2005 under CC-BY-SA-2.0 amd GFDL

Nominator

TomStar81 (Talk)

• Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose, personally I could overlook either the size, the slight compression artifacts or the composition for the encyclopedic value, but not all 3. Noclip 04:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• But the size meets the criterion! Debivort 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Marginal size, muddled composition, artifacts. —Dgies^t c 07:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this has been my favorite pic on wikipedia...even before I was an editor! Seriously meets the size requirements and I am willing to overlook the very minimal artifacts. Arjun 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• support I find it very imposing and dramatic. size and minor artifacts do not diminish this for me. I'm also curious what people don't like about it's composition - which seems rather straight forward to me. Debivort 10:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Subject is off-center, tilted, there is a bunch of distracting stuff in the foreground, and the overcast sky makes the status's backdrop blend in. —Dgies^t c 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Off center in its orientation, rather than positioning right? Ok ... thanks. For me: the objects in the foregrounds give scale, and it's true the backdrop rocks blend in, but they aren't the main subject. Debivort 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Shiva is positioned a little to the left of center, and turned a little to the left. In another subject it wouldn't matter so much but symmetry is important in this statue. —Dgies^t c 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Olegivvit 11:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question for supporters: Aside from the interesting subject, how is this anything more than an average-quality tourist snapshot? —Dgies^t c 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well here's a thought experiment: I think if "average-quality tourist snapshots" were this good, we would be swamped with tons of even better FPCs - since roughly half of all "tourist snapshots" would, by assumption, be even better. Since such a glut of nice tourist images don't exist, this image must therefore be better than average. Debivort 22:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Artifacts.Bewareofdog 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I see no artifacts at screen rez. It’s an oddly compelling photo. To be somewhat oxymoronic, I find the pastel colors, subtle yet bold in a strange way. (I don't quite know how that can happen in the same photo.) The vignetting around the image helps to draw the viewer's eye to the center. The colors play well off of each other. I’m a tiny bit on edge whether it’s up to full FP standards as an outstanding image, but something about it seems to set it apart from the touristy snapshot it could have been in a different light. --Mactographer 08:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'd love to support... but too many image quality issues. gren グレン 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not an exceptionally good photograph in my opinion. The composition and image quality could be much better. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really like the image, but I think we can do better - it's not our best work. Trebor 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This stunning statue deserves better. TotoBaggins 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zebras in Botswana

Reason

Great picture it is a good example of a zebra herd.

Articles this image appears in

Camouflage

Zebra User:Mr Vandal

Creator

User:Paulmaz

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 00:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - inferior focus (even I can see this), it's a JPEG, too small, and not fantastic compositionally. On a side note (man, I'm harsh today...) I've noticed your nominations of a lot of photos that have not been promoted. Maybe you should wait until you see a really good one? Or maybe I'm just protein-deprived right now. --Iriseyes 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Underexposed, focus is off/image is soft, too tight cropping, plus the problem above (except being JPEG, no reason for it to be PNG or TIF or whatever), but could have been a great shot. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Lack of contrast. I put into Photoshop and clicked on Image/Adjust/Autolevels, to produce a major improvement. I haven't time to upload it, perhaps someone else can make the adjustment and upload - Adrian Pingstone 10:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per lack of contrast. Arjun 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pretty dark and blurry. --Tewy 19:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either edit, with preference for edit 1. The brightening helps a bunch. --Tewy 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support. It's a fine photo, perhaps the brightness and contrast can be improved with Photoshop. The only reason I wish this wouldn't be Featured Photo is because there are just too many darn animal pics as FP. But I know this isn't a reason to Oppose. --UCLARodent 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1. I believe this edit solves the two main problems that people had/have with this image. My main problem with the image is that the species and subspecies isn't identified, which greatly limits it's enc value. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: I have identified the species as the Plains Zebra (Equus quagga), but am unsure whether it is of the Burchell's or Grant's subspecies. I have asked this question here at the reference desk. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Update 2: I have identified the subspecies as the Damara Zebra (Equus burchelli antiquorum}. A.K.A Chapman's Zebra (Equus quagga chapman, and yes, they are the same subspecies[9]). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit. The edit fixes most of of the issues. A subspecies would be nice. NauticaShades 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 and comment I'm with Pharaoh Hound- the focus and contrast are much improved. My comment is that I have no idea why this appears in the camouflage article. I understand that zebras use camouflage, but it's not as if this picture is showing off that trait. -- Kicking222 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that you mention it, I also found its use in camoflage rather strange (it's certainly not the best zebra photo to illustrate their camo), and therefor I have replaced it in that article with this image, which I believe illustrates zebra camo better. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Either Edit 1 or 2 with preference for Edit 2. Quite a nice scene really and good enc value --Fir0002 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edit of an edit introduced some severe quality problems. Please check the lower part of the image, especially the bodies of the zebras, and the out of focus grass in front of the left most zebra. --Dschwen 13:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 and oppose edit 2 Edit one is on the money. edit 2 went overbord with the unsharp mask. -Fcb981 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted (6.5 support / 4 oppose) --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Transneptunians

Reason

Encyclopaedic; gives a lot of information in a way that could not be shown in text form; attractive; and I feel adds a sense of clarity and humanness to an enormously vast area what is of essentially nothing.

Articles this image appears in

Trans-Neptunian object / Resonant trans-Neptunian object / Eris (dwarf planet)

Creator

Eurocommuter

Nominator

- Jack (talk)

• Support — Jack (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Very unclear. There are a lot of labels and abbreviations which would be confusing to a general audience. Color coding to me suggests differences in composition. Poor indication of what is the difference between say a Plutino, Kuiper belt object or something in the scattered disk. Very low "wow factor" too. —Dgies^t c 07:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Highly enc illustration with quite an information content. I suggest putting wikilinks into the caption on the imag page, and maybe make the svg clickable. --Dschwen 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but there is nothing clear or attractive about this graphic. Nilington 11:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it just me or does the part where the blue and red sections meet have this weird 3D effect? It's hard to explain, but it feels like I'm focusing beyond my screen, kind of like a autostereogram effect. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I see it too. Do you wear eyeglasses? If you do, then some prismatic refraction can cause the blue and red colors to appear in a slighly different place in your right and left eye, which explains the effect. --Janke | Talk 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That must be it. I tried it with contact lenses and did not get the same effect. howcheng {chat} 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's quite an eyesore (apparently in more ways than one for those who wear eyeglasses).--ragesoss 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose not very clear. Arjun 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak support I don't see this as an eyesore at all, it just doesn't seem super aesthetically appealing. Enc value earns it a partial support though! Debivort 10:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Cluttered, incoherent. I feel dumber now than I was before. ~ trialsanderrors 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose' I'm a nerd and an astronomophile, but I just don't know what I'm looking at. Diagrams should elucidate and inspire, not befuddle and bemuse. TotoBaggins 02:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburg warehouse district at night

Reason

I'm nominating it mainly because I like the composition, the wild colors and the... well, the 'feel' of it. I don't know exactly why I like it that much. Maybe that's normal with pictures that are simply 'right'. It is featured in the article about the German City of Hamburg which I happen to compose a presentation about for school (my father was born and raised there) but maybe that's a little too much information. :-)

Articles this image appears in

Hamburg

Creator

Oliver Nimz

Nominator

T deece

• Support — T deece 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Technically pretty good but not exactly astonishing or highly interesting. Arjun 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Changed to Weak Oppose per Dschwen. Agree with Arjun, this is a very high quality picture but doesn't strike me as the most characteristic image for the Speicherstadt, which is one of the most photographed areas of Hamburg. I'd like to see more images of the photographer though, so far he only posted 2 on Commons (the other one is this). ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The picture is significantly oversharpened. Apparently it depicts the old police station at the Speicherstadt. I could imagine views which are more representative for the Speicherstadt itself and the city (the article it appears in). --Dschwen 16:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Awe, come on, this stinking little version doesn't do the photograph justice. My jaw dropped open after I clicked on it for the full-size picture. It's got awesome lighting and near-3D depth. I think it meets the criteria, for “being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” Greg L 06:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment is that an HDR photo? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose It's a terribly nice photo, but I don't feel that I'm getting a lot of information about Hamburg from it. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- it's not an EN featured picture... maybe Commons, but here it has to really be good for an article--which this isn't. It doesn't show me much about Hamburg. gren グレン 08:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Oversharpened? Well ... it's sharp alright. But OVERsharpened? I think its sharpness is appropriate. Well, it looks a litte like HDR. Put it in the HDR article and nominate it again! :-) No, I strongly support this pic. I've seen worse featured pictures on Wiki, this one I LIKE! TheVoiceOfTheLord 12:11, 23 January 2007
  • Check the detailed magnifications. The contrasty edges have artificial bright halos to increase the accutance and percieved sharpness. A perfect picture should be sharp without such prominent artifacts. --Dschwen(A) 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure those aren't halos produced by the HDR-processing? I'm no expert at that but I know HDR-processing often does this. --TheVoiceOfTheLord(User:TheVoiceOfTheLord) 18:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, pretty sure (HDR halos are larger). And it isn't even established that this is HDR. --Dschwen(A) 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nitpicking. I've seen other "experts" whine about "depth of field" and "noise" issues in pictures that had no such problems — at least in the sizes they're used in articles on Wikipedia. All the whining about trivial flaws (if that's an accurate term when the "flaw" doesn't really exist) misses the point: The test isn't whether a picture is flawless (some self-anointed experts can find flaws in Ansel Adams’ pictures), it's whether or not the picture is striking and engages the reader. Some critics on this page need to stop acting like "Charlie the Tuna" (oh so anxious to demonstrate how they have good taste and advanced knowledge of photography), and simply vote based on whether or not the picture is “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” I'm not saying this picture IS eye-catching; I simply voted for it because my opinion is that it is. If one opposes the picture, they ought to do so based on criteria more important than "I enlarged the picture sixteen trillion percent and detected some noise". OK, my rant is over. I'm feeling much better now, thank you. I’m no longer a danger to myself or to others.*sigh…* Greg L 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Come on, people! If you have to artificially enlarge an image to see its "over sharpening" or "DOF problems" or "minor focus issues" then it doesn't have any as far as I'm concerned. An image like this would entice me to view the accompanying article just as much as one of Diliff's panoramas. FP isn't a photography contest. You can take your time examining every bit of an image under a magnifying glass looking for tiny flaws if you want, but what makes you think anyone else will? I'd be willing to wager that those who look at a POTD FP do so for maybe 2-3 seconds, then either enlarge it or visit its associated article. A small fraction of those will bother viewing the original full image. Flat nobody will download and open the image in Photoshop, zoom in and start looking for "minor focus problems." A lot of you seem to have forgotten that this is a discussion of featured image candidates, not perfect image candidates. This particular image may not be the best place to bring this up, but Greg L did so I figured I'd give my two cents. Bah! Support. Noclip
    • Wrong assertions and accusations. I enlarged to demonstrate, I noticed the oversharpening without zoom. If you disagree fine, but don't write such a load of BS, thanks. --Dschwen(A) 21:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • My only assertion is that the image is worthy of featured picture status. I can see that you disagree. Noclip 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, and I detailed my readons in my first comment all the way up. My main beef is the ridiculing of the vote, and the allegation that I zoom in to nitpick and had to artificially enlarge an image to see its "over sharpening" (note the quotes) and what not. Grrrr! As you can read above the oversharpening is not the only reason for my weak oppose. And yet you and Greg L just comment on those trivial flaws and sarcastically titulate people complaining about them experts-in-double-quotes. WTF?! I've been around FPC for quite a while and it frankly annoys me to read rants like that here and not in a more general form on the talk page. Why? Because an issue like oversharpening has been critically remareked every time it occured in a nomination for years. If you have a problem with the standards, just say it, but don't blame me for it. --Dschwen(A) 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
          • “We've trained fire hoses on civil rights marchers for years down here! That's why I participate in the sport.” ;-) Greg L 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't see how your pastimes tie into this discussion. --Dschwen(A) 08:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Regretful Oppose This would be perfect for FP on Commons, but not here. Not much encyclopedic value. Although I must say, the buildings on both sides would be perfect for some parkour... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trumpet 1

Reason

I think this picture should be a Featured one

Articles this image appears in

Trumpet

Creator

PJ

Nominator

Tomer T

• Support — Tomer T 21:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because of weird photoshopped "shadow". How about letting us see the original image? --Janke | Talk 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, too small, and you don't even have a good reason for your support for this as a featured picture. --RandomOrca2 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because the picture is too small and it has a creepy shadow. --♥Tohru Honda13♥^Talk 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The pic is not too small for FP, it's 1299 by 431 pixels. The "rule" is that one dimension should be above 1000 pixels - Adrian Pingstone 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd support if not for the weird shadow, and an even higher resolution would be nice --froth^T 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The size requirements can be increased if the picture is easily replaceable with a higher-quality one. Trebor 22:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. S.D. ¿п? § 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above. The shadow gave impression of blur until I saw full version. Photonikonman 10:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose things that glow like that are usually evil artifacts from FFXI. --Iriseyes 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to shadow. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{04:10, Saturday, January 27 2007}

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glass.sculpture.kewgardens.london.arp.jpg

Reason

A very beautiful picture of a very beautiful sculpture.

Description: A glass sculpture “The Sun” at the “Gardens of Glass” exhibition in Kew Gardens, London, England. The piece is 13 feet (4 metres) high and made from 1000 separate glass objects. The sculptor is Dale Chihuly Taken by Adrian Pingstone in June 2005 and released to the public domain.

Articles this image appears in

Dale Chihuly, Glass, Portal:Industrial Design

Creator

User:Arpingstone

Nominator

Tomer T

• Support — Tomer T 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurriness, jpeg artificating and the colors don't seem all to nice either. Joe D 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - No opinion on the photo, but didn't this artist do a really extensive show at the NY Botanical Garden this summer? I remember seeing signs for it all over town. --Iriseyes 03:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor quality image and composition a little average. Nothing spectacular about the image. A similar but far more impressive image is this one at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Still not quite FP quality though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — The glass sculpture is great, but the background is distracting--Trounce 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Kew gardens were very unhelpful and refused to demolish the nuisance glass in the background :-) - Adrian Pingstone 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose regardless of a photographer's skill, for FP they need a high quality camera. gren グレン 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as stated above, jpg artifacts, white balance issues.-Andrew c 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Above Telluride Colorado

Reason

I took this picture on a visit to Telluride, Colorado. I like it because it shows the huge mountain in the middle which grabs your attention, but also other details. The waterfall is one the of the highest in Colorado and above it sits a large house. To the left of the waterfall and house is a criscrossing pattern which is a road that leads to the house and a trail. Zoom in on the high resolution and you can see all these things well and even follow the river running from the waterfall. I also like the snowcapped peaks in the backround. Overall the best part of the picture is how the sheer rock wall cascades into green broken up rock.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluride%2C_Colorado

Creator

Jackbauerinvc (Robert)

Nominator

Jackbauerinvc

• Support — Jackbauerinvc 01:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry, must have been a heck of a shot and sight. But to be honest it is very blurry especially on the left side . Arjun 01:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• reluctant oppose - I know this area well, and am even friends with the former owner of the house. But the photo is washed out and a bit posterized, and there are numerous blown highlights. Debivort 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Quality issues - Alvesgaspar 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not show anything important. User:Nelro 17:01 January 22
  • Comment. Vote added by 65.94.137.213. Please sign in. --Tewy 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quality issues. --Tewy 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Out of focus, almost looks like a false color image near the bottom-center. Caknuck 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. On a side note, after finishing my application to the Telluride summer program at 4:30 AM on Sunday, I don't want to see that word ever again... --Iriseyes 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green planthopper

Reason

This image is well composed, captures what a planthopper is, and is pleasing to the eye.

Articles this image appears in

Planthopper, Green planthopper

Creator

Althepal

Nominator

Althepal

• Support — Althepal 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support- Very good picture. Great background. Great size 16:33, 22 January 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.137.213 (talk)

Please log in, if you want your vote to mean anything. --Dschwen(A)

• Weak oppose. Uhm... ...no. The size is not great. It's not even ok, as the subject is occupying only a small part of the picture. --Dschwen(A) 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Too small in the frame, as Dschwen says. However, if the bug is clipped out then the quality will be even lower, and the 1000 pixel rule not obeyed (but what a great bug!) - Adrian Pingstone 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) - Adrian Pingstone 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• reluctant Oppose. Great shot but it's not big enough, the focus is a touch off and there is what seems to be minor artifacts on the log (or is that just the texture?) -Fcb981 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was trying to follow the rule of thirds and show the planthopper in context. It is greater than 1000 pixels on the long side. It was a textured branch, but I'm not sure what you are referring to. Althepal 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per dschwen, but civil. --froth^T 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, are you implying my comment was uncivil? I was merely referring to the anonymous comment directly above.--Dschwen(A) 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but if this exists in larger resolution it might be croppable to focus on the planthopper. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What about the edit? Althepal 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This looks like you just upsampled and cropped the previous version. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But no, I took it from the higher quality original. Althepal 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You could probably just replace the original image with the larger resolution version then. But it looks like it's got quality problems. ~ trialsanderrors 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Althepal 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still oppose, the main object in the image, especially in animal photography, should be pretty much flawless to be considered FP. This one here has artifacts that are visible at 100% and become very apparent at 200%. Also, the tree branch is "flat" and the background, while dramatic, lacks the detail of other featured pictures. It's a good picture but not among the best as the criteria require. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Fcb981 —Dgies^t c 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Budgie

Reason

High quality profile of an English Budgie.

Articles this image appears in

Budgerigar

Creator

Althepal

Nominator

Althepal

• Support — Althepal 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose : cute bird but not great technically, looks rather grainy, also I dislike the backround, it should be more natural. Arjun 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The image is blurred and has some pretty bad artifacting, the subject is cut off, and the background is distracting. Sorry. --Tewy 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Also, the angle of the shot makes it rather un-encyclopedic. --Janke | Talk 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Near–head-on shots of this sort of animal don't look so good; humans are accustomed to looking into eyes, which is difficult here since they're on the side of the bird's head. A profile shot would be more appealing and better depict the bird's beak. —Psychonaut 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Reason:High quality profile of an English Budgie.. Neither is it high quality nor a profile. The size is not spectacular and at 100% it lacks sharpness and clarity. --Dschwen(A) 12:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It looks like an old snapshot of a family pet. And as Dschwen said, it's not a profile. I doubt even editing would really improve this photo, it just lacks composition. --Iriseyes 17:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose- size, cut off, blurry -Jorcoga ^Hi!_{09:29, Saturday, January 27 2007}

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cactus Flower

Excellent detail in this close macro image of the flower of Echinopsis spachiana. Yes it is a focus bracket (8 images each at f/11), and yes it did take about 4 hrs to put together and yes I don't want to hear the term "focus bracket" again! ;-)

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• what article does it illustrate? Debivort 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The two Fir added it to yesterday. --Dschwen(A) 05:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see any listed in "what links here" on the image page - is that the best way to check? Fir: can you please include in the nomination text what article the photo illustrates, per the nomination instructions? Debivort 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Please check the "File Links" section of the image page. This image appears on Cactus, though being such a detailed image it could quite conceivably be put on a flower related article --Fir0002 09:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh right - I guess I did know about that. Thanks Fir. Do please add links to the illustrated article in future noms though.. Debivort 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Why not use this to illustrate echinopsis? Debivort 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak support - I have no objection to the lovely image - it just seems that it doesn't illustrate cactus in a particularly encyclopedic way. This could have been any kind of flower, and I have to take Fir's word for it that it is otherwise a cactus. Debivort 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, beautiful picture Booksworm Talk to me! 08:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. four hours, eh? Appreciate the effort, but no alternative pictures this time? ;-) The pic lasted a few hour in flower until someone moved it to cactus. Anyway, the pollenthingies in front are pretty blown, and the whole pic is a bit confusing. I have trouble seeing the 3D arrangement, in particular of the tentacle structure in the middle(?). I hate to say it, but a slightly shallower DOF would hint a sense of perspective... --Dschwen(A) 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think that being beatiful is enough to reach FP statuts. The picture is confusing and there seems to be no consensus about its enc relevance. Alvesgaspar 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Another great pic by Fir0002 .Bewareofdog 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Good, but it would be better if it showed this in the center of the whole flower, for scale or positioning information. Ilikefood 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support The technical merits are many and I think it would do quite nicely in articles about flower reproduction. -Fcb981 01:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is a really good image and would look excellent! Tellyaddict 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Technically brilliant but not very big on the Wow factor. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cactus flower closeup03.jpg Trebor 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Man Speaks with Woman.

Reason

The photo captures intense emotion and unconventional beauty.

Articles this image appears in

Creator

Graham Wellington

Nominator

Graham Wellington

• Support — Graham Wellington 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy remove absolutely not FP material. --froth^T 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• intense emotion where it gets nominated for feature status maybe. Swing by here for some laughs... --Dschwen(A) 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• That is exactly what I was thinking, but didn't dare for fear that the guy in the photo is the creator/nom! --froth^T 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I believe this is nothing more than an ordinary trolling. - Alvesgaspar 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Alvesgaspar has an irrational vendetta against me or Americans in general. He consistantly attacks every upload/post I make on wikipedia.
  • Could you back that up with evidence. I mean, how dares he scare off a valuable contributor like you, who brought us encyclopedic masterpieces like Image:Young-ukrainian-man-walking-with-his-mother.jpg and gems as Image:Jewish-girl-from-ukraine-with-very-large-breasts.jpg. --Dschwen(A) 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know about European laws, but in the United States this photo would perfectly fine from a legal standpoint. It is another question entirely as to whether or not taking and uploading such an image is ethical, but I won't go into that except to say that this image probably (it is arguable as to whether or not this image constitutes a personal attack) does not violate WP policy. That aside, it illustrates neither pimping nor prostitution in general particularly well and is therefore probably not worth the trouble nor the effort needed to clear up any convtroversy. I advise the nominator to withdraw the nomination and consent to deletion of the image. Noclip 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed all mention of "pimp or prostitute" from this image, which should satisfy the moral police squad of wikipedia. The image is of a man and woman in a beautiful pose and suggests nothing else. Thank you for mentioning the image does not violate wikipedia policy. It indeed has every right to stay. Graham Wellington 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I am working with the moral police to change the filenames and descriptions. As you can see the file featured here was given a generic description and filename. If the photos are still considered "immoral" after making reasonable concessions, then the reason for their deletion is pure administratorial facism. Graham Wellington 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Right foot of woman is cropped. Alvesgaspar 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted This image is not used in any article and has also been nominated for deletion at Commons. (See also Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Prostitute-from-lviv-ukraine-speaks-with-her-pimp-highres.jpg) --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satin Bowerbird

Clear and informative, this is a close up of a female Satin Bowerbird, it's not often that you see a photo of a wild bird that shows it's face so well --Benjamint444 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Self Nom. --Benjamint444 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only the eye is in focus, there is purple fringing near the edges, and I would prefer to see the entire bird. --Tewy 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree, the scope of the picture is too small. However, it is indeed a very nice closeup of the eye.Echo.brian 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I love the eyes of bowerbirds, but it doesn't make it particularly useful. A very good quality photo of the entire bird should still show their eye. You should nominate a cropped version of the blue wrens, that is a really cool photo. --liquidGhoul 08:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Why is there no EXIF info in the file? Any kind of postprocessing? --Dschwen(A) 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - captivating high-res image, but the fringing and the focus ruins it for me - Jack (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support The eye is stunning enough to overcome any other faults. TotoBaggins 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support I aggree with TotoBaggins, and even aside from the eye, it's pretty sharp. Anyhow, unless viewed at its very large resolution, noise and fringing aren't a real problem. Althepal 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, fringing and loss of focus the farther away from the eye. The beak has almost no detail at all. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per liquidGhoul. Possibly would be good if we had an article on bird heads. gren グレン 10:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, blurry - Jorcoga ^Hi!_{09:10, Saturday, January 27 2007}
• Oppose - because birds aren't supposed to wear colored contacts.  :o) Actually, because it doesn't really depict the [entire] subject too well. tiZom_(2¢) 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulysses Butterfly

Was in Melbourne again at the end of November for a presentation ceremony, and after the ceremony we had some time to kill so we headed to the Melbourne Zoo. We got there right on closing time, and after asking really nicely they let me in for nothing! This shot of a Ulysses Butterfly was taken in the 10 mins I had in the Butterfly Enclosure.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Taking it to a new level? This is sort of like speed chess :-). Support. Excellent focus, exposure, resolution, colors and background. --Dschwen(A) 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per Dschwen, but what's with the differently colored antennae? A result of the flash? --Tewy 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. flawless -Fcb981 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice sharpness and copmosition. Althepal 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support WOW in full size! --Janke | Talk 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow is right. --Bridgecross 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all above. Superb. Pstuart84 Talk 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Pure encyclopedic photo. - Darwinek 19:57, 24 January 2007
• Support. Very good picture, nice background - User:nelro, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent shot, high encyclopedic value as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Do I really have to explain why? | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful picture, excellent resolution, and detail. Voshvoshka 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow!! - Adrian Pingstone 09:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support another one for the Fir-historybooks! :) ~ Arjun 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support- Has Fir0002 ever had a failed FPC? Jorcoga ^Hi!_{02:32, Saturday, January 27 2007}
• Support. Yes --froth^T 04:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow! Great picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Gorgeous! I approve! --Marumari 15:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ulysses Butterfly - melbourne zoo.jpg Raven4x4x 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College football tackle

Reason

I think it is a supurb picture. Excellent in all details, and from an unusual vantage point.

Articles this image appears in

Tackle (football move)

Creator

Damon J. Moritz - U.S. Navyy

Nominator

Johntex\^talk

• Support — Johntex\^talk 17:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Although it is a reasonable action shot, it is too soft/blurry, the lighting is poor, and the POV could be better.Althepal 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I strongly dislike the overhead view, it seems to destroy the feeling of movement. It's also too dark. - Adrian Pingstone 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Even making allowances for movement, there is poor focus. There are also blown highlights and I would prefer it if I could see the players' faces. —Dgies^t c 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P-38 Lightning head-on

Reason

Very menacing angle of an aircraft with an interesting personal history.

Articles this image appears in

P-38 Lightning

Creator

Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker

Nominator

Trevor MacInnis (Contribs)

• Support — Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support The composition is awesome and it is fairly sharp. But it displays a bit of vignetting, and the contrast is a little low.Althepal 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent pic, nice angle and lighting - Adrian Pingstone 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The image page says: Credit: Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker - the uploader is not the creator, unless he has changed his name... ;-) --Janke | Talk 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry 'bout that, I was confused as to the meaning of creator, and have changed the Credit line to indicate the proper photographer. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is a wonderful eye catching image, taken from a good angle. It is sharp, and I agree that the contrast is a little low per above comments, but the picture still looks good. Matthuxtable 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support-Very Beautiful picture. Booksworm Talk to me! 09:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Loving the propellers. Nice. :-) Ilikefood 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Support Nice picture. --Midnight Rider 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very imposing pic...it's coming at me! Encyclopedic and unique. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Yes, the texture of the sea looks nice with this lighting. But a "contre-jour" picture is not the best way to show the details on an histoical aircraft. Beatiful but with poor enc value. Alvesgaspar 12:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It's dark and grainy; maybe an edit would take care of that though. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Encyclopedic and the plane has an interesting history. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:P-38 Lightning head-on.jpg Raven4x4x 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morning Fog at the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco

Reason

Uncommon and beautiful view of the GGB. Image is already a FP in Commons.

Articles this image appears in

fog, Golden Gate Bridge

Creator

Grombo

Nominator

Alvesgaspar

• Support — Alvesgaspar 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Maybe a bit over sharpened and noise on the high side but still very stunning and illustrates the subject in both articles very well. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Uncommon, eh? The composition is a bit better than my version of the same subject. weak support --Dschwen(A) 12:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mh, detail shots can be interesting and enc, but on second thought I don't see how the pic augments my knowledge of the GGB. --Dschwen

(A) 14:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• The golden gate bridge spends a good amount of time wrapped in fog. I could also see this image appearing on the article about fog itself. -Fcb981 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It's sort of encyclopedic but i love to see one of the archways of the bridge before fog covers it all. --Arad 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The bridge doesn't go enough towards the right end of the picture. If you would have been more to the left, it might be a weak support.Althepal 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)~
• Support Amazingly Beautiful picture Booksworm Talk to me! 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose not the best representation of fog or the Golden Gate Bridge. It's a fairly good picture, but it's really not great for any article... gren グレン 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Just beautiful... Towsonu2003 06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Good FP for Commons, bad choice for Wikipedia. mstroeck 08:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate on that, please? - Alvesgaspar 08:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure he means what I do above. This doesn't represent the Golden Gate Bridge very well and if we had an article called Part of the Golden Gate Bridge in fog then it would be good there. But, since he seems to like the picture he thinks it could become an FP on the commons because there it doesn't need to correspond to an article. gren グレン 10:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And I agree. It's not perfect for FP in WP. --Arad 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Gate Bridge capturing the last sunlight of 2006

Reason

I was really pleased with the colors as they turned out. The deep blue sky and orange bridge play nicely off each other. I especially like the bridge reflection in the luminous blues and teals in the foamy bay water. I tried to invoke something of a painterly quality to the water which, in my viewing, seems to affect something of the same quality throughout the rest of the image.

Articles this image appears in

49-Mile Scenic Drive
Golden Gate Bridge

Creator & Nominator

David Ball

• Support — Mactographer 07:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• What postprocessing did you use on the picture? --Dschwen(A) 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• You can see a before and after here. However, my particular brand of Photoshop alchemy in this case involved shooting in Camera RAW, then enhancing saturation, light and dark values, with a touch of vignetting and diffuse glow in the right places. --Mactographer 08:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent post processing!! Very nice work! --Fir0002 09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• However Wikipedia doesn't condone watermarked images - please remove the "(c) David Ball" --Fir0002 09:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, the little animation is very instructive. Definitely makes the pic an eyecatcher. I have a couple of similar shots which could profit from a little upsexing like that. Although the vignetting is controversial in terms of enc. Pic have gotten shot down because of vignetting and here it is introduced on purpose. --Dschwen(A) 09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd actually suggest nominating the before-after animation, which is used in digital image editing. --Dschwen(A) 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there are too many problems over the rock... grainy, etc. It's very pretty, though. It would be much better if that white car weren't there since it's a little distracting... but that's not a big deal. gren グレン 08:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Other than the grainy rocks, what would the etc regarding the rocks be? However, I never liked the grain either ... as well as the mentioned white car (and the unmentioned gull). So Edit 1 does some smoothing on the rocks and tones down the car and the gull. --Mactographer 09:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, I've decided to oppose based on the watermark. In reply to your comment, it has too much grain for how low resolution it is. Being that size it needs to have no graininess. If it were much larger it would be alright to be a little grainy... but, I don't think as it is it is high enough quality for an FP. It's a pretty picture, but that's not enough. gren グレン 10:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Wrecked by heavy grain - Adrian Pingstone 09:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Spectacular in thumbnail but lacks contrast and room above for the sky in composition. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Perfect composition --Arad 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - This is really disappointing. UntilAs long as there is a watermark, i will oppose. --Arad 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• You mean as long as? --Dschwen(A) 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • lool. Yes As long as. Thanks --Arad 13:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 - No watermark --Arad 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The composition is nice, but the contrast is poor and the car in the far left detracts from the image. Althepal 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support The subject would be better illustrated by a panorama, but this is nevertheless a great image. The car only detracts from the image if you're looking for problems, and most people won't be. Noclip 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to watermark. Noclip 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I'm not convinced that the changes made to the image actually help it that much. The only thing I see that is improved is the shadow detail on the rocks in the foreground. The sky is a little flat in the original but how is extreme vignetting a good thing? I don't like the way the sky is virtually white in the centre of the frame and dark blue on the edges - looks like more than a touch of vignetting to me ;-). Also, compositionally the rocks on the foreground don't look particularly attractive to me as they unbalance the foreground. I would have shot this from on top of the rocks, leaving just the water underneath the bridge. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's trying for a "Holga look"... --antilived^{T | C | G} 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine if he's trying to create something artistic but it does detract from illustrating the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Diliff. I don't see how more vivid colors or stronger contrast detracts from illustrating the subject. Or do you think Ansel Adams just printed his negatives straight out of the camera without any dodging or burning for contrast and effect? Yet I've never heard anyone complain that his photographs don't REALLY represent Half Dome or other locations in Yosemite. All photogs post process for better results. We just do it on computer now, rather than in the dark room. And by saturating the water and sky colors, I doubt anyone will look at it and exclaim, "What, is that a bridge? I can't tell, it's so darn color saturated!" However, if my colors aren’t to your aesthetic taste, then that’s a fair argument. To each his own.

As for the copyright, the way I look at it, it’s my work, I’m going to take credit for it thank you. If an almost imperceptible watermark giving the photographer his due credit is going to get so many knickers in a twist, then I guess this will just have to be my last FP nomination. --Mactographer 09:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but the thing is, Ansel Adams was creating art, not illustrating an encyclopaedia. I'm not an expert on his works and to be honest I don't see what makes his works stand out among landscape photographers but obviously his technique was excellent. I wasn't arguing that post-processing was wrong by any means. I agree we all do it, but I personally post-process my wikipedia works to be as natural looking as possible and I certainly wouldn't introduce vignetting for artistic effect. I'm not saying such a thing is "against the rules" but I do think depicting a scene as naturally and accurately as possible should be the goal for photos on wikipedia. I agree that you should retain credit for the photo, but that credit is given on the Wikipedia image page and under the terms of the licence, anyone that uses the image must attribute it to you so that is not an issue. Putting the copyright in the image itself is generally considered excessive on Wikipedia and that doesn't just apply to FP, it applies to any image. I have some issues with the licencing terms too, mainly with commercial use of photos (including the right of anyone to sell my photos without needing my permission - just as long as I am attributed, they can do whatever they want - not right in my opinion) but it seems Wiki is not going to budge on that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's an issue I struggle with too (commercial selling) - it just isn't right in my mind. And really, I can't see why wikipedia requires such licensing, as it is an encyclopedia not a stock photography site. I suppose commons borders on that, but I think the primary purpose of commons is so that other language wikis are able to use the photos. But oh well... --Fir0002 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have the copyright and you have put it under a license. You can give yourself credit in EXIF or whatnot. It's not distracting from the start but once you hone your eye and scan the image thoroughly it is. You have already released it into CC-BY-SA so it's not difficult or illegal for one of us to chop off the watermark from the left. No one is saying you don't deserve credit and I hope no one would publicly redistribute this without giving you credit for its creation--but, I do think it is poor practice--despite it being your right--to add watermarks like that. gren グレン 11:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your points, Gren and Diliff. Maybe the vignette is a bit strong, but I still find it pleasing overall. At least better than the RAW camera image. I'm getting a monitor calibration system in a few weeks, we'll see if I change my mind then. As for the copyright issues, the same issues bother me that you've described. I guess keeping a small watermark is my way of saying, “The heck with it, it’s my photo, I’ll take credit.” BTW, I haven’t found a rule in print regarding watermarks. Is there a link to it? Or is it more of a "consensus" kind of thing that's so popular around here? --Mactographer 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[10] --Dschwen(A) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more applicable is this section in our image use policy, specifically the fourth paragraph. Raven4x4x 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose grain, watermark... - mw 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose- watermark, Remove it and I'll support. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{02:38, Saturday, January 27 2007}
• Edit #1 now no longer has a watermark and is slightly larger. --Mactographer 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Image is a fabrication, it misrepresents the colors of a real place for the sake of art. We're an encyclopedia, not a gallery. --Gmaxwell 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limburger cheese

Reason

I am pleased to nominate this beautiful public-domain still life as a featured picture. The arrangement is tasteful and appealing, and is expertly photographed. It adds value to its article by clearly depicting not only the food in question but also a typical serving. Practically the only featured picture criteria this image does not meet is neutrality, since the photograph is so flattering to its subject that my mouth waters just looking at it!

Articles this image appears in

Limburger cheese

Creator

Jon Sullivan

Nominator

Psychonaut

• Support — Psychonaut 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support. The image looks excellent, but a little dark. Most staged shots aren't good for FP, but this one seems more true to life. Increasing brightness/gamma could help with the darkness. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-22 18:15Z
• Comment I would support if someone could adjust the levels to lighten it up without making it look washed out. —Dgies^t c 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 —Dgies^t c 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. I feel that my edit solves to lighting issues. Good photo, if a bit on the small side (though above the requirements). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the framing to be uneven There's a significant portion of black on the bottom and little room on the sides. Also, objects in back are and plate design are distracting. If they're important to the display/consumption of the cheese, they should be completely in the shot and not cut off. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have to agree with Zepheus; the plate pattern and background objects are distracting from the main focus. Trebor 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The stuff in the background is not completely important, but if you leave it out, people will complain that it looks like a studio shot. So having it halfway in the shot is sort of a compromise. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-22 21:24Z
    • What's wrong with studio shots? Are they less desirable? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Around here they are. Don't ask me why. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-22 23:13Z
• Oppose. Too many destracting things besides the cheese. User:Nelro 16:59, January 22, 2007
  • Are you really User:Nelro? You weren't logged in and were editing as User:65.94.137.213, and Nelro has not been active here before... —Dgies^t c 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• support edit 1 - hate cheese but like the shot - don't find the other objects distracting either. Debivort 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Per nom. A great still life that has high enc value. -Fcb981 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. I'm not sure if this is most encyclopedic way to show the cheese... but, if it were in a magazine I would have to buy some. gren グレン 08:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not very good background and not good lighting, I am a big fan for bounced flash... :p --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. The composition looks good to me; the framing seems fine and the other objects don't really ditract that much. The original image is a bit dingy, though, and edit 1 seems washed-out. Edit 2 looks to have solved these problems. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Reminds me of [[:|this picture]], but this is better quality. I'm hungry now, but I like cheddar better. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 The original is too dark, and I agree with GeeJo that Edit 1 is a bit washed out.  H4cksaw  (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cheese limburger edit.jpg Raven4x4x 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Light dispersion

Reason

Wow factor

Articles this image appears in

Optics

Creator

Commons User:Kieff/User:Kieff

Nominator

TomStar81 (Talk)

• Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Booksworm Talk to me! 08:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Very Good Diagram
• weak oppose support - beautifully implemented animation, and quite encyclopedic except for one aspect - there is no monochromatic magenta in the visible spectrum. Remove the last line of dots and it'll have my enthusiastic support. Debivort 08:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This animation gives the false impression that light is made of "particles" - I'd prefer dashed lines instead of dots. This really doesn't explain dispersion very well. The explanation is: "At the boundary between the media, the wave's phase velocity is altered, it changes direction (not explained why), and its wavelength increases or decreases but its frequency remains constant." And, as Debivort says, scratch the magenta, substitute with indigo if you need 7 colors. --Janke | Talk 09:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support I agree the explanation needs to be improved, by relating the concept of light dispersion with the one of light refraction. I'm not sure the dots should be replaced by segments but they should be smaller and more closely spaced. Alvesgaspar 10:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice idea, but I have problems with some details. First of all the wave and particle nature are mixed in the caption and the image. And the wavelength is used in the explanation, which is confusing, as the only length unit, the distance between dots, is the same for all colors. Then the number of incoming and outgoing particles is not equal. This is a serious flaw, as the number of light quanta should be conserved in a simple dispersion. In short, the picture is oversimplifying and not having much information content, and a good portion of it is wrong or confusing too.--Dschwen(A) 10:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now I get it, sorry, the spacing of the dots alludes to the change in speed of light in the medium. Still confusing though. --Dschwen(A) 15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • and the wavelength, potentially, though this falls apart when the streams exit the prism. Debivort 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This makes it look like "one photon in, 7 photons out". It might be better to just use a line/beam going into the prism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-22 18:18Z
  • That wouldn't quite work as an animated model, it'd be just as good as the several (static) dispersion diagrams we have out there. I wanted to show how different frequencies have different speeds in a medium, and this conceptual "light particle" model suits this purpose. Slightly different models would probably do better, and I'll get to that eventually. — Kieff 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh wait, now I get it. You think there shouldn't be "white" photons, but a continuous line. Hmmm... Good idea. Makes more sense that way. — Kieff 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Light as a particle/wave issue is potentially confusing. Agree with above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. My point while making this image was to show how short wavelengths (represented by color alone in this model) slowdown in a medium, and how that's related to refraction and dispersion. I agree that dots can be misleading, but that's what I was able to do at the time (note: this is why I originally posted this at Talk:Dispersion (optics) before anywhere else, I wanted some opinions on how to improve it.) I could make little moving lines, or even little sine waves instead (this could work pretty well, I think), but I'll need to code a new thing, possibly from scratch. I can't do it right now, but I will do it once I have the time. Any suggestions are welcome. — Kieff 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with dots as the unit of light (wave/particle duality seems to imply you could pick either). White dots are deceptive though, as there is no such thing as a white photon. Maybe you could have 7 partially overlapping ROYGBIV colored dots going into the prism in each cycle of the animation, and where they overlapped, the combined color would obey additive light rules (i.e. red dot + blue dot = magenta dot). Where 3 dots containing R, G and B overlapped you would have white, and this would accurately show how the white light was composed. Then the mass of seven could enter the prism and the rest of the animation could stay the same. This would solve the "1 quantum in, 7 quanta out" and "no white quanta" problems. Then all that would remain is eliminating the magenta stream, and I would say it would be just about spot on at that point. Debivort 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think the animation is professionally done and certainly fulfills the criteria of “being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” I think criticizing it for not accurately keeping count of the dots going in and through the prism is off base. The dots going in are white and are therefore brighter because they contain all the colors. The prism properly shows the time-chopped white light (representing multitudes of photons of varying wavelengths) being split into colored dots that are darker (containing fewer photons per dot). All in all, for each dot of white light going in, there is one darker dot representing each binned value of color moving into the prism's queue (at varying speeds), and finally, one dot of each color leaving the prism. It accurately depicts the varying speed effect for each of the colors (it has to in order to keep the dots-in vs. dots-out in check). The entire animation is only eight frames and even its full-size version is only 121 kB. Accordingly, the smaller thumbnail in the optics article loads lightning quick. It captures all the important concepts of refraction and refractive index in one simple animation that no print version of an encyclopedia can match. Wikipedia needs more stuff like this. Greg L 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• One can certainly rationalize the image into accuracy, but it would be very easy for a person to look at it, and come away thinking that white photons exist, or that 7 photons exit a prism for each that goes in - the discrete nature of the dots begs for this interpretation. I agree that technically it is absolutely top of the line, and with some simple technical modifications, it could have encyclopedicity that is top of the line as well. Debivort 06:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. The white photons are misleading. Doing the additive effect would be tricky, but it can be done. But, I'm thinking of something else... What if the white dots are larger than the colored dots? Would that work? — Kieff 09:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Done this. See if it's any better. — Kieff 11:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe it would be better if white dots are replaced by all color dots going along the same line with some delay. Another problem is that it is not clear from the picture why dots of different colors bend at different angles. Olegivvit 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - That is precisely the effect of having different refraction angles for differente colours, caused by the fact that different wavelengths propagate with different phase velocities. The only way to show the phenomenon in the animation is to have a "wavefront" approaching the prism instead of just a stream of light "points". But that would also complicate the animation inside the prism... Alvesgaspar 15:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like an animation of Newton's experiment to me: A time-chopped beam of white light goes in, and a spectrum comes out. The animation no more conveys the notion that white light is comprised of "white photons" than does simply watching a beam of light from a flashlight. Kieff, if some readers really might come away from the optics article (and this animation) with the notion that there are "white photons," perhaps a better caption could overcome some of these objections. I think your animation describes valuable concepts like how the higher refractive index of glass combined with an angle, allows the different colors to diverge. And by watching the different colors bars slew forward into an angle as they travel inside the prism, one can see how a tight pulse of light gets "chirped" across time. Now that's a neat concept I hadn't noticed before. A caption that says only “Conceptual animation of dispersion of light in a prism” doesn't help the animation as much as it could. Greg L 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the Wikimedia Commons FPC page

• Comment Also, see the alternate image posted here. Nothing against it or anything, but I must admit, I think it conveys little information about dispersion except the fact that it happens! There are little clues in the angle of light while it is inside the prism (though it gets wrong on the exit), but you just can't expect someone to look at it and understand what's going on, especially if the person isn't already familiarized with refraction and dispersion. For all educational purposes, it's just as good as a static image. This is what I was trying to avoid. I wanted something to show, conceptually, what goes inside the prism, and for that I needed individual parts moving, so I picked dots (mainly because it was easier to understand and follow - as well as code! - but also because I thought it would work reasonably well.) It works, but it is not entirely accurate. But again, isn't that how it usually goes? We always use simplified and inaccurate scientific models in order to teach people new concepts (Newtonian physics and gravity instead of General Relativity, frictionless systems, point masses and charges, electrons as particles in orbit, etc.)... I believe that as long as we make the inaccuracy clear, we shouldn't have a problem with them. I think this applies to this image. We teach a concept, and we filter out the inaccuracies later on with a more in-depth explanation. Anyway, I'll try making a version with little waves, but I don't think complaining about inaccuracy is a valid point against the model. It's nothing a bit more of insight can't fix, and by then the model will have done its purpose, and it would have done it well enough. — Kieff | Talk 23:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree about the simplification for teaching purposes, but since you already post this image for comparison, how does your animation explian the fact the lightpath is bent? You show the fact that c in a medium is a function of wavelength, but by no means does it explain why the angles must be different. Alves is right when he says the wavefronts must be drawn for a propper explanation. --Dschwen(A) 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. But it doesn't explain why because it really can't. It wasn't even the original intention, which was really just showing the relations between phase velocity in a medium and vacuum, wavelength and index of refraction. The particle model works for this, but not for the rest. I'm gonna try making a wavefront one later on whenever I have the time. I have my doubts it'll be as visual appealing, though, since lines would probably become confusing and difficult to follow inside the prism. We'll see then. — Kieff | Talk 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original. As Borat once said, "Very Nice! I like!". But really, either could do, but I think the original is better. Very good :-) Ilikefood 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Liable to mislead about the composition of light. Pstuart84 Talk 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to wait and see how the peer-review above plays out before making a decision. 82.109.231.174 17:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Pstuart84 Talk 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Caption Suggestion I think the animation might be better served with an expanded definition. How about this proposal:

“

Here, time-chopped packets of white light, each consisting of the entire color spectrum, enter a prism. Shorter wavelengths (blue and violet) travel slower in the glass medium than do longer wavelengths like red. Consequently, shorter wavelengths are refracted (bent) more than longer ones. The prism causes the light to disperse and fan out into a rainbow-like spectrum. For each packet of white light entering the prism, a color-dispersed packet of light exits the prism. Because light travels slower in glass than in air, the packets necessarily bunch up inside the prism and only resume their normal speed (and spacing) after exiting. A very brief flash or modulation to the light entering the prism will be “chirped” (smeared out over time based on frequency) after passing through a prism; the red red modulations arrive to an observer first, and violet last. This chirping effect can be seen here as the columns of colors begin diverging inside the prism and increasingly shear forward.

”

Greg L 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian peacock displaying

Reason

This is a much better depiction of a peacock displaying than the existing FP (sorry, Fir...)

Articles this image appears in

Sexual selection, Peafowl

Creator

User:BS Thurner Hof

Nominator

Alvesgaspar

• Support — Alvesgaspar 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Agree that this is probably the best of the bunch. Just slightly better composition than Fir0002's. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Agree, this is better than Fir's, because the aspect ration is way better (It also fits normal screens) and the composition is better. But i wish we could had a little bit of the legs too (for enc reasons). --Arad 18:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support IV. S.D. ¿п? § 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - yyyeeeaaahhhh...this one is better than Fir0002's. I wish we had an animation of this display; since seeing them in England I learned that they curve the tails over a female and SHAKE it. --Iriseyes 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Booksworm Talk to me! 08:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Very nice picture
• Weak-ish Support Needs more legs. Noclip 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this is a stunning photo, for enc reasons animal photos require the whole animal to be in the shot, not cut off at the edges. As a bird that can be easily reshot, I have to oppose. Pstuart84 Talk 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pstuart. It's cut off on every side, and I can barely see anything of the body. There's a bit of blur on the right side too. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Much too tightly cropped. --dm ^(talk) 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It may be better than Fir's but it is badly cut off. like 40% of the bird isn't there. -Fcb981 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabaa Nissan Militiaman

Reason

A simply stunning portrait of an Iraqi man in Baghdad.

Articles this image appears in

Keffiyeh, Headgear, Man

Creator

Christiaan Briggs

Nominator

♠ SG →Talk

• Support original — ♠ SG →Talk 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know whether or not this man is Kurdish, and there is no way to find out. I merely used the caption from the Keffiyeh article, which says that he is wearing it in a "Kurdish turban style". ♠ SG →Talk 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support wow is all I have to say, so clear, so crisp that you can see the reflections in his eyes. Arjun 04:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support either Yeah, I love the quality of both of these pictures! --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 05:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Taken February 2003? Wow. ~ trialsanderrors 06:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Great picture.Bewareofdog 06:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Original, nuke edit. Sorry, but this is a new extreme, noone pointed oit a flaw or specifically asked for an edit, and SG himself doesn't even support it. Apart from that it is pointless, the highlights are either blown out, or they are not. The edit makes the pic look washed out. Please retract. --Dschwen 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thought I cannot support this picture anymore. In man it just appears in a gallery as one pic among many. In headgear and keffiyeh the main subject is cut and not clearly visible. No structure of the headdress is apparent on the pic, lowering enc considerably. --Dschwen 10:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak support original, oppose edit - nice, but the highlights are fairly blown, and the edit is worse in that respect. Debivort 10:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Technically a good shot, but what about the enc? For Keffiyeh and Headgear, I'd like to see all of it. For Man, well, is this among "the best wiki has to offer"? --Janke | Talk 10:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually this image has far more enc value than technical value. This is the best representation that you can get from a kurdish Iraqi man. It represents very well a Kurdish militiaman. --Arad 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not a Kurdish style Keffieh. The Kurdish style is different which if required can be shown with images. Second, the extreme red color is not used by Kurds. Kurds use Black and white (largely), and sometimes pink (or a light red) and white (like Barzanis). The cute old guy in the image who is a member of Sabaa Nisan is not a Kurd either. Sabaa Nisan is an Arabic word which means 'seventh of month of Nisan'. To sum up, this image has nothing to do with Kurds. Awat 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I just copied the image description from Keffiyeh. As for Sabaa Nissan, that's actually what the image is named; I wasn't saying he was part of a militia called "Sabaa Nissan." ♠ SG →Talk 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support original. You should find him and tell he is featured on WP. :) - Darwinek 14:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps this image could be used at ageing. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportI added it to the ageing article. Now it can officially represent that topic. And I support the picture --Tobyw87 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So you think he is an elderly man and his picture has been put in the "senescence" section of the "ageing" article. And still he is barely 65 (or less), I imagine. What about the rest of us?.... Alvesgaspar 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • • Comment The picture is not in the senescence section per se.. but rather an example of ageing in the human body. The picture clearly shows signs of ageing... grey hair, worn skin, purple spots on the skin. Even the eyes look like they have seen more than a few days. Clearly it adequately is appropriate for the ageing article. And I think it is particularly appropriate considering the worldy tag on the top of the page. Why should we only have a narrowed "western" view of an elderly person? --Tobyw87 07:52, 21 January 2007
      • I dont really agree with your point. An article on Ageing should mainly have images of the process, not just an old person. If this image were to have a very detailed caption explaining what effects of ageing are illistrated then it would have sufficiant enc. Otherwise pictures of elderly people belong in an article about elderly people, not ageing. -Fcb981 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Any extremely detailed picture of someone who is of a particular age is descriptive of the article on ageing, since ageing is a process and as described in the article there are many different stages. I agree that their could be a more descriptive caption to describe the process of ageing in this particular example... However, I think that having the picture in the Kurdish page/Iraq page/Militiaman page is more than sufficient to make this a FP. It is very good deserves that recognition. --Tobyw87 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • But we don't even know how old he is! I don't think it can be a very encyclopedic illustration of aging if we don't even know for sure what decade of life he's in. Mak (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I decided to take a look at the ageing article and all of it's pictures are just of elderly people. Although I think a photo series over several decades would be more appropriate, as it is now, this shot is probably the best on the article. -Fcb981 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support As I stated above, this is a very good picture with high enc value to be placed for any article related to Kurdish people in Iraq. --Arad 18:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the picture to the article on Kurdish People and Iraqi_Kurdistan to further its encyclopedic value. --Tobyw87 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm... ...how does this change the encyclopedic value of the picture? --Dschwen(A) 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, although this is a very attractive picture, I do not think it is very encyclopedic. The only thing that differentiates this man from my uncle in Virginia is his turban, which is too cut off to be of encyclopedic use. Mak (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. are we even sure this guy is really kurdish?
• Weak Support I dislike the missing "pieces" of the turban Booksworm Talk to me! 08:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Despite the fact that, without the turban, he would look like "my uncle in Virginia". I like very much the expression of the face given by the mouth and watered eyes. Besides we really need more and better pics of people in the FP folio. - Alvesgaspar 12:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Post scriptum - This is a portrait of a person, not the illustration of a turban. And we shouldn't be ashamed of promoting people portraits to FP - Alvesgaspar 18:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hm. True. People portraits have a hard time here. But an FP must illustrate an article significantly above all. Maybe if we forget about the turban and think Kurdish People... oh ...its been tossed out of the article rv, unrelated img, neither the style is Kurdish, nor the kuffieh color is Kurdish, nor the guy is a Kurd. Sigh, here we go again: Significant contribution in the right article should lead to FPC nomination. Here we have an FPC nomination leading to contributions for the sake of appearing in articles, ultimately leading to reverts. --Dschwen(A) 21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • P.S.: it has bee tossed out of Iraqi Kurdistan as well. So much for furthering its encyclopedic value. Sorry. It is a nice portrait, but without contributing to the right article I don't see it as FP. Well, if en.wp had Quality Images...--Dschwen(A) 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't really add significantly to any article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-23 16:21Z
• weak support original, oppose edit. The edit doesn't seem to be in any way an improvement. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Not bad, I'd like to see a bit more of the headgear though. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. When I going through the Commons FPs trying to find ones to nominate here, this one always caught my eye, but it's never really been well-used in an article. Until that happens, I'll have to oppose. howcheng {chat} 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice! It is technically incredible but the man himself.... it's really touching. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support Technically flawless, very encyclopedic. It may be better used in Iraq or related articles. Noclip 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sabaa Nissan Militiaman.jpg Raven4x4x 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina

Reason

Very little FP's of cars. The image mainly focuses of the P4/5.

Articles this image appears in

Enzo Ferrari (car), Ferrari P, Pininfarina, Ferrari P4/5

Creator

Lennart

Nominator

293.xx.xxx.xx

• As mentioned by other noters below, light is a problem and it just does not seem to be good enough for a featured image. Tellyaddict 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment put you votes at the end of the list. also there is no need to have it all in headline text. -Fcb981 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support — 293.xx.xxx.xx 06:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can someone put the FPC tags in for me on the image page? Everytime I try to go to the page, it automaticlly logs me out for some reason. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree we need some more car FPs however this is not quite the quality I think is needed. blown highlighs. Very grainy (high res scan of a small film picture?). and not as crisp as one would like. good composition though. -Fcb981 06:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Focus and lighting issues all over. --Bridgecross 14:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Terrible composition and lighting. Its grainy and theres the back of another car which can be seen on the left side of the picture. Looks like a car show picture. --Midnight Rider 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose hate the composition, hate the lighting, grainy, too much glare off of the car.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Car is ugly too. ~ trialsanderrors 10:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Whether or not you think the car is ugly is irrelevant. I think spiders are ugly, should we not have any featured pictures of them? Joe D 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That was a "per everybody above" oppose, in case that isn't clear. ~ trialsanderrors 05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose- Blurry. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{02:29, Saturday, January 27 2007}
• Oppose Lighting issues. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)