Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

	Older Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Contents 1 Pair of swans 2 Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895 3 Point Pelee marsh boardwalk 4 Washington Crossing The Delaware 5 999 Perspective 6 Bowl of olives 7 Crab apple 8 Peter Petrov 9 Water Droplet 10 Waterspout 11 Canadian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier 12 USS Constitution 13 Twin lantana 14 Oakleafspring 15 Dragonfly Compound Eye 16 Diepenbeek 17 Female House Sparrow 18 Andrew Bird 19 Camp Shelby troop formation 20 Mammoth Hot Springs 21 Regensburg twilight panorama 22 Göttingen market place 23 Rotorua Museum 24 Latin Dictionary 25 Montreux, Switzerland 26 Eclipse from space 27 Eye Iris 28 Erg Chebbi 29 Using the sextant 30 Ambrosian Iliad 31 Trench warfare 1916 32 Hopi Chipmunk 33 Ferrofluid Large Spikes 34 Natural History Museum 35 Zabriskie Point Panorama 36 Lemon 37 Caprock Canyons State Park 38 Venera 14-Surface of Venus 39 Movable type 40 Green Lynx Spider 41 Boll Weevil 42 Rugby-Stafford rail routes 43 History of Macedonia 44 Reed bed 45 Grand Staircase of the Titanic 46 Simon Kenton Memorial Bridge 47 Golden Face 48 Dempster Highway 49 Female Eastern Grey with Joey 50 American Landing Party 51 American Icons 52 F-22 Raptor 53 Chicago Skyline 54 Abraham Lincoln 55 Falcipennis canadensis 56 Semipalmated Sandpiper 57 Windsor Castle Quadrangle 58 CH-53E Sea Stallion conducting a helo-cast 59 Eisenhower with Paratroopers 60 Titanic Wreckage 61 Ballpoint of common ballpoint pen 62 Croagh Patrick 63 Go Kart 64 Barrage Balloon 65 St Mary's, Bairnsdale 66 Touched by His Noodly Appendage 67 Old Angoulême 68 Cempa_stilthouses 69 Cassilis Historical Area 70 Young kitten 71 Using the caliper 72 Mandelbrot Set 73 SouthEast Asia fires Oct 2006 74 The Gherkin 75 Peppermix 76 Habanero closeup 77 Canon Powershot S3 IS 78 Dolphin in the Military 79 Bathurst Courthouse 80 Magic carpet 81 Orlando Furioso 82 Kyoto Geisha Nape Makeup 83 View from Sky Tower Akl 84 Saturn's rings from Cassini 85 Nepenthes villosa 86 pi with 4000 digits 87 STS-95 Florida view from space 88 Six-banded Armadillo 89 Black-headed Gull flying 90 Maddux Teams 91 Richat Structure 92 Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg 93 Echidna 94 Lionfish Closeup 95 Central_Park_Reservoir.jpg 96 Pauliyas Hongkong 97 SVG Map of the United States 98 Cat stuck in a tree 99 Richard's Pipit 100 Lighthouse 101 First color photo 102 elephant 103 Hoverflies mating 104 John Wilkes 105 Tuxedo cat 106 P-51 Mustang 107 African Daisy 108 The price of coffee 109 Apis mellifera

[edit] Pair of swans

Beautiful picture of two courting mute swans that really stands out as one begins to read the article. Fantastic the way it catches the light reflecting from the clear blue water, making the swans glow with a magnificent aura about them.

Article: Swan

Originator: User:Bowenpan

• Nominate and support. - Kris 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much glare from the sun on the water. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose just as when it was nomineded the first time (March 2006), didn't pass then, and hasn't got any better... --Janke | Talk 13:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Obviously I didn't realize this had already failed a nomination attempt. A second nomination must count for something but I apologize for this. Kris 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't realise it had been nominated before either, but here's the previous nomination. People were split pretty much 50-50 then. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, too much glare and blur. The image is so bright it hides just how lacking in detail it is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A nice composition though. Maybe those glares can be removed by a smart edit. - Alvesgaspar 17:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too much glare. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. For same reasons as last time. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - same reasons given by others in original nom. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No improvements=No support SOADLuver 00:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Let's put this one to bed then, I like it anyway! Kris 08:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Breathtaking, one of my favorite pics on the encyclopedia, even with the glare it is still beautiful--Seadog^Talk 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- The glare is distracting, and so are the little spots everywhere. It must be hard to find/catch a shot like this, but I can imagine a better depiction... tiZom_(2¢) 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - the swan's heads forming a heart shape is delightful, but the glare and the unnecessarily high angle spoil it for me. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 07:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not so good quality, glare, needs a caption. NauticaShades 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895

A photo of the wreck of the Granville-Paris Express train that happened on October 22, 1895, at Gare Montparnasse station, Paris, France. Photographer unknown Photo by Studio Lévy and Sons, and reasonably good quality for being over 100 years old. Also used in Negligence, Error, and Train wreck.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I nearly nominated this image myself a while ago as it beautifully illustrates Error. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Historical and high res SOADLuver 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support wow what an entertaining photograph .. sweet drumguy8800 C T 03:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I could have sworn that I saw a sharper version of this (less obscuring smoke) somewhere, but this is a great picture. It's just such a perfectly striking image that demonstrates a concept at a glance. In this case, "trainwreck." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, I was thinking of [1], which is one of the old versions but actually a different picture entirely (the angle is different). I'd rather have a high-res version of that one, if someone can find it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Nitpick: If the photographer's unknown, how can you say he's been dead for at least 70 years? --Davepape 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It was published pre-1906, so it's PD in the united states regardless. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support An iconic photo among rail buffs. Has been featured on Portal:Trains. --Janke | Talk 07:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support To the feeling of irreality of this picture contributes the insolit of the situation and also the haze (smoke?) covering the building. - Alvesgaspar 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - wow! Very striking, and would look awesome on the main page. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 12:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Haaaa! I had a class in university called 'Risk Assessment' and this photo was on the cover of the textbook! Per all above support. --Bridgecross 13:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow! - Adrian Pingstone 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Always loved this image, and completely fulfils all FPC Criteria. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It also nicely fits into the article Shit happens (although I'm not sure that would make the best mention on the main page). --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw the picture here and had to add it. I was also thinking of adding it to fubar, SNAFU and merde, since someone there doubtlessly said that. Maybe there are better illustrations for those words though?Niro5 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great, high resolution, historical photo deserves feautured status. Hello32020 20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Niro5 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice find. --Tewy 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Samir धर्म 00:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above.--Andrew c 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- This is fantastic! tiZom_(2¢) 03:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Yes, there's definitely a better version of this out there. Compare [2] with [3], especially the rear number on the train. If someone can dig up one of the other, less blurry exposures, I'd support that over this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Believe me, I've been trying, but I can't seem to find this exact version in this size anywhere (using Google). I asked the uploader for some help, but he hasn't been active in almost two months, so that might be a dead end. howcheng {chat} 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I emailed the guy who was hosting that one, to see if he has a hi-res version. I'll post here if he gets back to me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Got an email back, he says that's the best he has. My support is wavering every time I look at those two images because this image, for all its resolution, has no more detail than a 600x750 pixel image that's much sharper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the original uploader says he scanned it in from a library book (he doesn't remember which), which is why I can't find this exact version anywhere on the web. howcheng {chat} 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Striking image. NauticaShades 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: great picture, high resolution Pcu123456789 21:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Great photo! It would look good on the main page. Ackatsis 09:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. This is a great image! - jlao ⁰⁴ 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point Pelee marsh boardwalk

This is a bold, striking panorama. I can't find any stitching artifacts and the image acts as an excellent representation of marsh lands; appears in wetland, marsh and boardwalk.

By Theyenine (talk · contribs)

• Nominate and support. - Laïka 21:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, lacking in detail. The grass just looks like noise. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much sky here. I want to see more of the marsh. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Pretty but needs more marsh SOADLuver 00:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel bad opposing as its *really* pretty much the fault of your camera. Like no joke. I'm ditching my Olympus C-8080 (which actually gets alright pictures) but I'm interested in something that can capture ridiculous amounts of detail. Also.. why isn't this image in Point Pelle National Park? Well, I added it, so it is now.. drumguy8800 C T 03:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Horizon is bent, and the resolution is too low. Yes, too low, 500px in height makes it hard to see any details. --Dschwen 09:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great panorama, size is fine for me. --- Chris 73 | Talk 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad lighting, lack of detail, and as Dschwen said, the horizon is bent. --Tewy 23:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the composition is a little poor, the subject isn't that clear, and the vertical resolution is a bit low.--Andrew c 00:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Crossing The Delaware

I have uploaded a higher res version.The historical significance is the main reason this should be a FI. Blind14 00:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Blind14 00:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Oppose per said below SOADLuver 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not the image it purports to be. We've had this one before. It's actually Dylan Cole's 1999 re-drawing of Washington Crossing the Delaware. Although it's very much based on the original public-domain work, it's not (even if only by accident) a completely faithful reproduction, so it's my understanding that it's copyright and must therefore be removed from Wikipedia (as well as not being the historic work of art in question so lacking much of the value that makes it featurable). Sorry. TSP 01:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not nearly high enough resolution, in any case. The real one is at the Met, so a Wikipedian with a great camera ought to be able to get a much better picture of it. The rules are that photographs can only be for private, noncommercial use, but since they allow you to actually take the photograph (even with a tripod on weekdays), I don't know how their rules can be valid for PD art in light of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. If I'm wrong about my interpretation here, perhaps someone can enlighten me.--ragesoss 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've reverted the commons version to the old upload (as the copyvio had been uploaded over it), so what you'll now see (if you refresh) IS the public domain painting; but isn't the images originally nominated and is the version that failed to be promoted some time back. TSP 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close, there's no new image now that the incorrent one has been removed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment - I'm going to the met with a tripod on friday...what a lovely coinicadence.--Niro5 16:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not enough brightness and contrast - jlao ⁰⁴ 02:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• I Love it its a great picture, there is a movie called "The Crossing", you should see it!! --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 999 Perspective

I'm sure we all noticed this stunning image on the main page today. It was created by Melchoir for the 0.999... article. It's clear, pleasing to the eye, and illustrates the concept perfectly!

• Nominate and support. - Gobeirne 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose If 42 didn't make it, why should one be any better? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right! If this didn't make it, then nothing else should! ;-) 1ne 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Janke - a great picture that accompanies a great article, but if a string of digits can become an FP then how long is it before does? -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 12:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support First item; the '42' nomination was a poorly executed reference to a humorous (and hilarious) fictional work, and this is a reference to an article in mathematics. Second item; this picture illustrates the concept with a streamlined simplicity (I believe math freaks call it 'elegance') that the more complex formula you show does not, and is therefore accessible to the layman. In short, it is precise, eye-catching, and most important it made me read the article and learn something that I never considered before. It illustrates this article particularly well, and above all, has no blown highlights. --Bridgecross 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The perspective doesn't add anything relevant to the normal representation of the number. If you want to associate geometrical size with the value of the digits then each "9" should have 1/10 of the height (or area...) of the previous one. Cute but not extraordinary. - Alvesgaspar 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is such a pic on the 0.999... talk page, You see two nines and a dot, no more... --Janke | Talk 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I saw this pic eairler and I thought it was very interesting and appears to go on forever.--Seadog^Talk 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Somewhat silly image without much informative value. Not Wikipedia's best work. Redquark 17:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing spectacular here. Besides, the first thing that strikes me when I see it is that it uses a really ugly font. Fredrik Johansson 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the best Wikipedia has to offer, doesn't demonstrate the concept correctly (0.999... approaches and equals 1, not 0), and has moiré patterns towards the right. --Tewy 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How does it imply 0.999... equals 0? Redquark 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It gets smaller and smaller, so to me that doesn't say anything about it equalling 1, and instead implies that it equals 0. --Tewy 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Each nine symbol indeed represents an amount ten times smaller than the symbol preceding it, so it's appropriate that their appearance should get smaller. That individual digits are getting smaller doesn't imply anything about the size of the number as whole -- the first nine symbol alone lifts it far above zero. (Another way of looking at this is by considering the fact that the sequence 0.9, 0.09, 0.009, 0.0009, ... converges to zero, but its sum is equal to 1.) Redquark 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, for the record I do understand that 0.999... = 1, so I don't have a problem with that. My problem is how the picture represents this concept. I don't think someone is going to automatically look at it and think to sum the parts in order to get 1. I initially saw this as an object that gets smaller and smaller as more "9"s are added, and saw that as misleading, because it might imply that the number also gets smaller and smaller. In any case, I still oppose because of the oversimplicity (not the best of Wikipedia), and less importantly because of the moiré patterns. --Tewy 01:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Isn't moire going to be inherent in this image at any size due to the nature of the image? --DonES 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. 1ne 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Picture tells it all, especially when viewed on its side! Julie Martello 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• oppose. My first reaction: bah another joke. I think other people have explained why quite well. say1988 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, conceptually, it's interesting, but just doesn't have the wow factor of a FP. Plus the technical issues noted above, such as moiré.--Andrew c 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. howcheng {chat} 22:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. FPs are supposed to demonstrate important tech skill or important concepts on wikipedia. This does the latter very well. The digits get smaller as per their decreasing value. It demonstrates that .99... = 1 in an elegant and concise manner. This concept, difficult to grasp, can be made simpler by a picture that evokes (for me) the graph of a hyperbola and its subsequent concept of the limit as x-> infinity... Ed-it 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but they do not get 10 times smaller each time, so the concept is shown in an artistic fashion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's a pretty illustration, but not at all informative. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Soon, I'll make a more attractive one. --Arad 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowl of olives

This is a fine image of olives, and well-illustrates olives look like after they have been prepared. This picture contributing to both the Olive article and the Olive (fruit) article.

• Support Self nom. -Gphoto 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Glare on the olives is distracting. Bowl blends into the background. Not very encyclopaedic. say1988 00:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. per say1988. Plus, there some distracting pattern in the inner shadow of the backside of the bowl. The glare on the olives is counter productive to the image's encyclopedic value because I believe it misleads the viewer (they almost looks like glass beads).--Andrew c 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Out of focus, a bit small, and the bright areas so blown that the bowl disappears into the table. --Bridgecross 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. howcheng {chat} 22:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not in focus - Adrian Pingstone 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Out of focus. NauticaShades 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. So shiny...but very bright and not encyclopedic. --Tewy 04:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not enough contrast jlao ⁰⁴ 09:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crab apple

Since plant photos appear to be all the rage at the moment, I figured I'd toss this one in for my second FP attempt. As the caption says it is a picture of crab apple fruits and leaves, appearing on that page. It is, curiously, the only crab apple photo of any significant resolution or quality. To preemptively answer at least one question, the highlights on the fruits are caused by the sun, not a flash.

NOTE: Although by the numbers, this should be promoted, most people didn't have a very strong opinion about it, so I'd like to see some more discussion before applying a result. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Severnjc 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like this pic, excellent colour, good depth of field - Adrian Pingstone 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I like the composition, but I think it's slightly overexposed. It looks too bright to me. howcheng {chat} 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  Just uploaded an edited version with the levels brought down a bit. How does it compare? Severnjc 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support either. Not an incredible amount of detail on the individual fruit, and the picture could have used some softer light, but it's still a good shot. --Tewy 00:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose both. I can't see this appearing on the front page. --Tewy 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• So-so support for the second, not terrific, but pretty good. Hello32020 20:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - the depth of field is superb and it's a technically excellent photograph. However, it doesn't jump out at me and shout "make me a featured picture, CountdownCrispy!" and in that respect I just don't think it exemplifies Wikipedia's best photos. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support; great picture, FA standard.--Andeh 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We're FP over here ;-). --Tewy 02:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support for original, but I also support edit 2. ♠ SG →Talk 22:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose both. - Ack User:CountdownCrispy. Technically perfect, no WoW. - Alvesgaspar 10:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Original, Weak Support Edit. I don't know if I'm still allowed to vote, but I just thought I'd add a little more weight. NauticaShades 20:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Barely large enough, but actual fruit does not have enough pixels. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I like the photo but I believe any featured picture of a plant/flower should include the species or cultivar name. This should be available as it was photographed in a botanic gardens.--Melburnian 08:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 01:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Petrov

Only historical painting of Peter Petrov on Wikipedia.

• Nominate and support. - PivoBaltikaVRot 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very small, not terribly interesting or beautiful, and unknown source. Snurks^TC 06:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Erm, I suppose this one is a candidate for speedy removal since it doesn't actually exist anymore. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image was deleted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water Droplet

This picture was taken by Roger McLassus, and appears in the article Drop (liquid). I think it is a picture of good quality, exeeding the others I have seen of drops and ripples (including Fir's).

• Nominate and Support | AndonicO Talk 00:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a nice photo but it doesn't meet the resolution requirement. Also, it appears you uploaded it over the top of a different, previous picture, but it maintains the Summary description of the previous picture. -- Moondigger 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the original Commons version does in fact meet the resolution requirement. howcheng {chat} 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Since it came from Commons, just include it like any other image using the same syntax (I have done this for you). You don't need to move it to the English Wikipedia. howcheng {chat} 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. The reflections are a bit distracting, and it could benefit from some noise reduction, but overall it's an attractive image. --Tewy 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose. The top portion of the image ruins it for me. say1988 05:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - much as the drop and its splash are very attractive, the top section and the colour are icky and counterbalance this for me. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 07:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing special, see commons:Category:Water droplets -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know, but this was my favorite. | AndonicO Talk 10:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree, nothing special, neither an exceptional technical nor encyclopedic quality. I dislike lighting and the wall. And a shot like this is easily stagable and repeatable. --Dschwen 19:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sadly the least interesting moment of the evolution of the droplet has been caught - Adrian Pingstone 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted NauticaShades 13:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waterspout

• Nominate and support. - I think that this picture in better quality can be a really great picture. Baseracer 01:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't meet size requirements per Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?, is way too grainy, and has blown highlights. I agree with the nominator, a better picture would get more support, but this version just doesn't cut it. --Tewy 02:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Tewy, very impressive scene, very underwhelming quality capture. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tewy. Also, some people are not into doctored photos. There is a link to the original where you can see dust has been removed (good) and clouds painted in the top right corner (possibly bad). I personally don't care that much about that aspect, but I know some voters distain this sort of thing so I am mentioning it.--Andrew c 16:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. --Bridgecross 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 636 pixels across, 1000 minimum is the requirement - Adrian Pingstone 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Horrible quality, and much too small. Please read WP:WIAFP. NauticaShades 21:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. As per above. - jlao ⁰⁴ 02:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

I'm am no longer allowing this picture to be on Wikipedia. Please remove it from the database or server or whatever.

-eday_2010

Appears in Canadian_Tomb_of_the_Unknown_Soldier

• Nominate and support. - Eday 2010 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too close up, I'd like to see more context. Redquark 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, same as above, I'd like to see the whole thing in the frame...at least the whole sword. This picture gives me no sense of what the actual memorial looks like, which seems important for an encyclopedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with previous reviewers. - Alvesgaspar 12:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. At thumbnail size, I had no idea what this was -- it kind looks like some weird stuffed animal or something. howcheng {chat} 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too little of the tomb shown - Adrian Pingstone 20:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't really meet the new criterion 5. NauticaShades 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It looks to grainy at thumbnail size and the viewer has no idea of the true context of the image. jlao ⁰⁴ 09:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Constitution

I'm nominating this picture for its historical implications, and because I like the angle of the ship taken here. This image is a high resolution version uploaded to the commons, and currently appears in the articles USS Constitution and Six original United States frigates.

• Nominate and support. - TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blurry at full res and bad lighting. I don't like the angle very much. Also, the buildings in the lower left portion are somewhat distracting. For a ship that still sails, I think we can find a better photo. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pharaoh Hound. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pharoah Hound, especially the angle and unpleasant background. --Bridgecross 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The drag grey sky spoils it for me - Adrian Pingstone 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too gray with drab colors, noise on the hull, bad quality water, jpeg artifacts in the rigging, and not the best angle. NauticaShades 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Pharaoh Hound and Nauticashades. --Tewy 04:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same as Pharaoh Hound (bad lighting). jlao ⁰⁴ 08:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twin lantana

I nominate this picture for its composition and delicacy of colouring. Aditional encyclopedic interest is given by the presence of an unexpected guest: a crab spider. In full resolution sharpness is on the soft size due to limited depth-of-field and hemispherical shape of flowers. Image created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support SOADLuver 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Somewhat unsharp in full size. Can anyone fix that without excessive artifacts? Will support a good edit. --Janke | Talk 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Info I won't try to do it myself. The background already has some noise and I'm not a specialist in editing - Alvesgaspar 09:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak support edit 1. This time, smaller is better... ;-) Slightly blown highlights prevent full support. --Janke | Talk 08:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sharp enough for FP (either edit) - Adrian Pingstone 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a shame, but I can see some compression artefacts when viewed at full size. Submitting a smaller version could address that problem (this is how twisted FPC can be, I guess - submitting a smaller image just to fix artefacts!) - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Info – Yes, it is a shame... The second version was slightly edited and downsized. - Alvesgaspar 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think general policy is to upload edits on Commons, by the way. NauticaShades
• Oppose. Blurry with blown highlights. --Tewy 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose original, weak support edit 1 - OK, it's not perfect, but it's damned near impossible to reproduce and undoubtedly a pretty photo. Just good enough in my opinion. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment One side of me say: "awww... isn't that pretty." While the other, more influencial, side says: "urgh... what a horrible plant, I hate lantana". --liquidGhoul 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just think that we have to know the face of the enemy, however charming it is, so we can fight it better... - Alvesgaspar 15:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Original, Weak Support Edit 1. Per Countdown Crispy. NauticaShades 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I really thought I was getting better at reading whether or not photos were technically well done--apparently not. Can someone make a version for me that points out all of the technical problems? The (very minimal) blow out isn't as bad as Image:Habanero.jpg is it? I do realized that FP plants are a really good bunch... but, I want to be shown why. On commons FPC I often took the harsher voting side with User:Moondigger and I usually saw the technical problems he talked about. If someone wants to help me see... that'd be nice. gren グレン 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Good enough for me, it's beauty outweighs any minor flaws. --jjron 11:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. As per Countdown Crispy - jlao ⁰⁴ 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support edit 1 SOADLuver 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted 3/5.5 --NauticaShades 17:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Decision overturned. Promoted Image:Twin_lantana_camara_edit.jpg NauticaShades 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oakleafspring

Unless people have had a chance to live close to a white oak tree, they are unlikely to know that its leaves are actually pink in the springtime (but brown in fall or winter). The common belief is that deciduous trees only change leaf color in the fall; the white oak also changes in the spring, making it a special tree for a yard.

Appears in White_oak.

The photo was taken in Princeton, NJ, in May of 2003 by my husband [Mark T. Widmer] using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 digital camera. There are no restrictions on its use.

• • Comment: I did not intend that the photo be considered as winner of a photography contest, which seems to be the only criterion being applied so far. It's background is smooth and pleasing to me and the leaf details are quite clear; I think it meets the other criteria (artistic merit not being the only one, supposedly). I request that people might consider it on merits of contributing to an article as well as in on ideals of photographic perspective (which I do not feel particularly qualified to judge).
    • Featured pictures are supposed to be the best that wikipedia has to offer. Artistic merit isn't the only criteria, but there's absolutely no reason an artisticly better picture couldn't be taken to convey the same information Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, one of your reasons for nominating this is to show how the leaves are pink in spring, right? There's no way from this photo that I can tell it's spring. I could be looking at a leaf in summer or autumn and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The tree is in your yard, right? Have another go at it and see if you can bring us something special. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The metadata tag says it was taken on May 4. --Tewy 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You say that "the leaf details are quite clear", which isn't true. All but a small portion of the leaf is out of focus, making it difficult to see any details. A clear subject is important to voters. Good qualities of this photograph are the limited grain and vibrant colors, but those qualities aren't enough to make up for an image that is almost completely out of focus. --Tewy 21:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Nominate and support. - Harborsparrow 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shallow DOF means that all of the main leaf is not in focus. And that one sideways leaf to the right of the main leaf is very distracting. howcheng {chat} 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• oppose, same as above, the entire subject should be in focus. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too shallow DOF. --Tewy 06:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm puzzled why this one is here because the entire picture is out of focus. Surely the uploader could see this! - Adrian Pingstone 20:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not very informative, and too shallow DOF. NauticaShades 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not intending to be argumentative here, but that gauzy look, which is at least partly what I think makes it seem out of focus, is how the leaves look at that stage. They are not glossy yet; they really look, to me at least, just like this photo shows. Still, the consensus is clearly against this photo so I'm OK with that. Consider this withdrawn from nominations, and thanks for the feedback.Harborsparrow 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you really not see that most of this picture is out of focus? Look at it in full size, and compare the lower right of the leaf with the upper left, and tell me those aren't the same sharpness. You can make out details of little hairs (or whatever those are) on the lower right, but the upper left is blurry, so you can only see fuzzy outlines of the leaf and its veins. --Tewy 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --NauticaShades 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonfly Compound Eye

I had intended to suspend uploading/nominating any images until my exams are over, but I noticed that the existing dragonfly FP was being delisted and thought that this was a worthy replacement, so I decided to have a quick break :-)
The alternative is just a tighther crop of the original image - it shows the eye better, but I prefer the composition on this version.

Note: Although there is general consensus for promotion, it is not clear which version is preferred. Older voters, please clarify your votes. --NauticaShades 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 03:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think a tighter crop might actually be better, but regardless this is a wonderful image. Bonus points -- how many cells are in those eyes? Severnjc 04:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Which article is this image supposed to add to so significantly that it was nominated here? Also if the eye is the subject the DOF is a bit too shallow. --Dschwen 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Compound eye!! - Adrian Pingstone 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, you are right, why didn't it show up in the what links here section when I checked? --Dschwen 08:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It looks like Fir0002 switched the alternative image with the nominee mere minutes after you voted (diff). --Tewy 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Support either. A bit of loss of DOF at this magnification is OK IMHO - Adrian Pingstone 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support either - Love it. Dragonflies apparently have 30kilopixel eyes. Fir - I'm curious was your subject still alive when you snapped this? Debivort 07:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, suprising as it may seem. It was a pretty cold day and he was sheltering from the wind. Managed to get a few snaps before he flew off. --Fir0002 09:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Dragonflies are very hard to catch in a net, much less on film - so congrats. Debivort 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Focus plane could have been just a tad farther away. Also, I see a weak, but strange color moire in the highlighted part of the eye (only in full-size) - I wonder, is this real, or a CCD artifact? And yes, for compound eye, a closer shot would be preferable. --Janke | Talk 08:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't have a clue, but I don't think it'd be a CCD artefact. --Fir0002 09:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support the first one; weak support the second I agree that the focal plane should have been a bit further away, but the other aspects of this image more than make up for it. I prefer the first one because even though the second gives more magnification for the compound eyes, the first has slightly better composition. -- Moondigger 19:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support superb pic.--Húsönd 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Both pics are okay, but I seem to prefer the original one.--Húsönd 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. The picture is quite good, but neither does it focus on the subject (which makes it a bad choice as a lead picture in Compound eye, it would be better off in the Dragonfly article) nor does it have sufficient resolution to provide more insight than the former picture which is now beeing delisted. --Dschwen 08:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, the actual size of the eye is pretty much the same in both pictures, I see little improvement, apart from a little more sharpness and less glare. But the composition of the old image was superior. --Dschwen 08:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Is the alternative any more to your liking? --Fir0002 09:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It is a step in the right direction, but I'd go further. I liked the composition of the old pic a lot more. --Dschwen 21:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose original. It's a great shot, but the focus of the picture isn't on the eyes. I suppose it does show where the eyes are in relation to the head, but it's just not close enough to make out many details on the eyes themselves. --Tewy 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at in full res? Particularly in the alternative version? --Fir0002 06:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Very weak support alternate. The alternate is a hair sharper and larger than the original, and I suppose it shows the detail just enough for me to support. --Tewy 17:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main subject - the eyes - are not crisp clear. Also, the blown highlight is annoying and spoils the image - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? There no blown highlights. If you actually looked at the full res image, you'd see the bright area on the eyes is by no means blown. As for sharp, personally I find it tack sharp. If it's the DOF that's worrying you I'm sorry but it's unavoidable. It was taken at f/13 - any smaller aperture and sharpness degrades significantly due to diffraction. --Fir0002 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it is not a blown highlight but a reflection. But it is annoying and there should be a way to avoid it. As for the technical diffculties, I'm well aware of them. But you are quite talented and will surely find a solution. - Alvesgaspar 07:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I don't see any blown highlights, but the DOF is a little too shallow. I would fully support the alternate. NauticaShades 16:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Too many other elements present in the image in addition to the subject. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK... which elements did you have in mind? --Fir0002 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the back of the dragonfly (the base of the wings) distracting. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support alternate - still not quite there DOF-wise, but it is a very good shot nonetheless. --YFB ¿ 01:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support A superb photo with great detail. I love it! Either version is great for me. Well done to the photographer! Ackatsis 10:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support either Looks great, I can see the little eye cells. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Dragonfly compound eyes02.jpg --NauticaShades 18:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diepenbeek

This picture is in the article Diepenbeek; it does not say who is the author. The picture is visually astounding, with Crepuscular rays shining through the trees. This is a featured picture at the commons as well.

Commons:User:Bios is the author. howcheng {chat} 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support | AndonicO Talk 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty, but it could be anywhere. Pretty pictures are enough for commons, but what is this telling us? As the caption itself says, this isn't Diepenbeek.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's not technically perfect, but I believe beauty has a place in Wikipedia. - Alvesgaspar 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice, but not encyclopedic. Our criteria are different from the ones on Commons. --Janke | Talk 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just looks like a park. howcheng {chat} 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am quite suprised it is a Commons FP. The quality is rather bad and the highlights are clearly blown. Also, the subject is quite undistinctive. NauticaShades 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A lovely picture but just not special enough - Adrian Pingstone 08:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's very nice looking, but it lacks a clear subject. --Tewy 21:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Good picture, not good enough for featured status though. Hello32020 02:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, when it comes to pictures you must reflect your life upon them if you can then it is a good pic, if you can't then not so great. A very good picture.---Seadog 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female House Sparrow

Several people in my previous nomination mentioned that this image was superior, so I thought I'd put it up for discussion. The image is sharp, has nice colors, and the bird is in an interesting pose.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Faced with a dilemma here. In isolation I would support this image, but it isn't isolated and since a very similar subject has already been made FP, I'm not sure that I think there should be two FP of basically the same thing. Sure, the composition and pose is a little different but thats about it. Ideally, I don't think the first candidate should have been made FP, which would make this one easier to support, but what is done is done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true, and I did have some reservation on this nomination. However in it's defence, I notice that there is soon going to be two FP's which have even greater similarity! :-)--Fir0002 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I intend to nominate the old FP for delisting as it is severely undersized. Will you do that to your newly crowned birdy FP? ;-). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we also have two koala FPs: and , so the precedent is already there. howcheng {chat} 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

True. I actually thought that older koala picture was already de-listed. Although there is nothing technically wrong with it, I just don't like the shot and angle itself that much, but I suspect it would scrape in if it were nominated for de-listing now. Still, no harm in finding out. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support and I would also support this as a replacement if Fir wants to nominate the other for delisting (which is up to him, I don't really mind). --liquidGhoul 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I like the other one better, and would oppose here if its necessary to keep the other one "crowned". By the way, aren't you on a Wikibreak? ;-) | AndonicO Talk 15:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Really? This one has a better pose of the subject, so you can see more of it, and it doesn't have the horrible car in the background. --liquidGhoul 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. That's somewhat salami tactics (slice by slice). I'd have preferred to be presented with both pictures at the same time. This one is nice, but the subject doesn't warrant two FP's. --Dschwen 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • I generally try not to nominate more than one version of a pic at once (true the compound eye is an execption) since it makes closing difficult. A few peolpe mentioned in the old nom that this pic should be nominated seperately, so here it is. Fair enough you could think that it doesn't warrant 2 FP's but remember they are two very different images (like the koala shots) and remember there is no limit to the number of FP's - they images just have to conform to the standard. A few more examples Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg and Image:USAF F-15C fires AIM-7 Sparrow 2.jpg are basically the same; Image:Cyclone Gafilo.jpeg and Image:Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG; Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg and Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg - so you see there's quite a precedent. --Fir0002 10:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• What if this were made a replacement nomination? --liquidGhoul 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I actually feel that this image () is probably the best of the images from the article. It is slightly on the low side of resolution but the composition is far better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't really see a difference in quality, except for size. It also doesn't look like the same species, but I guess that is what happens when one introduces a small population onto a continent, and they breed into the millions, if not billions. --liquidGhoul 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, to my amateur eyes, the one I mentioned looks more representative of a sparrow than Fir0002's one, which looks far skinnier than normal, but I really wouldn't know. Maybe it wasn't as cold that day and the sparrow didn't ruffle up its feathers, or something? :-) In any case, it wasn't the quality in question, it was just the composition, which I think looked a bit nicer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe you've gotten used to the English sparrows. Unfortunately, I have many of these birds in my backyard, and they all look like Fir's. However, you are right, in that your photo is more representative of the species, as the Australian bird is an introduced population with narrow genetic diversity. I would say that it is probably a healthy and well fed bird though, as it looks healthy, and lives outside a bakery. --liquidGhoul 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well fed, probably, but I had a look at some old sparrow pics from Melbourne that I had lying around (never fear, they are definitely not FP worthy!) and they looked fluffier and fatter than this nomination as well. In fact to be honest, I've never realy seen a sparrow that thin before. Could it be a juvanile rather than adult? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• As per liquidGhoul, it rings pretty true with me too as a typical 'Australian' sparrow. The one you've shown above looks quite different to what I'm used to. Personally, I think the current nom in its original crop is the best image in the article. --jjron 16:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. And I support a delisting of the current FP (if I ever come across it). --Tewy 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support crop. Better, more uniform background and more focus on the bird. --Tewy 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeSupport clipped version. A lovely pic in great focus, but it needs clipping. For me the bird is too small in the frame - Adrian Pingstone 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I like it but and I will change my vote if more/better clipping is done Better clipping is done therefore it has my support. SOADLuver 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've uploaded a 1:1 crop from the original cameras. Because it is a 1:1 crop the quality is slightly degraded (not even a DSLR can give good 1:1 crops) but perhaps it will suit some better. --Fir0002 10:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the way the bird looks but do not like the shingles on which it stands; surface just too ugly for me, sorry.Harborsparrow 17:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support crop. No idea what a 1:1 crop is (though I'm sure I've looked it up), but the result is nicer, more directed. I have slight reservations about having two very similar FP's, so, "don't do it again" I guess. :) Stevage 06:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I interpreted it as taking the original photo at the original resolution out-of-camera and cropping it to a wiki-friendly resolution, as opposed to taking the original photo and downsampling it to a wiki-friendly resolution. The end result is the roughly the same pixel resolution, but the 1:1 crop means you are effectively 'zoomed in' on the image more, so the quality is reduced a little due to a lack of downsampling. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a normal crop to me. Stevage 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I've had a bit of a think about it but I don't think it quite qualifies as a FP in my opinion. There is a better image on the article that I would support in preference to this one. It is still quite a nice photo though, but sparrows are pretty easy to capture and the standards are a bit higher. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version. I liked this on Fir's FPC page, and I like the crop even more. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, preference for original. As I said above, this is the best picture in the article, and better than the existing sparrow FP. --jjron 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Although it has no real quality issues, a common subject deserves an amzing shot, which this is not. NauticaShades 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:House sparrow04.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Bird

I think it is an excellent photography, it illustrate the Andrew Bird article.

• Nominate and support. - Ericd 02:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, very grainy when viewed at fullsize as well as blown highlights on the microphone and hands. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grainy. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 07:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Grainy, blurry, dark... not the greatest depiction of this subject. tiZom_(2¢) 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above, though I do like the composition. --Tewy 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, from an encyclopedic aspect and taking the FP criteria under consideration, I feel this image fails. But the story being told by the selective lighting is intriguing. Conceptually, it is a nice image.--Andrew c 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, black and white can be pretty... but this guy was born in 1973 and I don't think feel that there is a good reason to have him in B&W without very good reason. gren グレン 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very low light is a very good reason. Ericd 13:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Shelby troop formation

This fits all of the criteria for a FP, and it's a pretty cool formation of a group of troops; This article appears in marching band, Brigade combat team, and Camp Shelby, By Sgt. Jackquline Herring

• Nominate and support. —Captain538[talk] 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Blurry at full resolution, with some blown highlights (minor). Also, the back half is out of focus. But I don't know, the subject is interesting enough to make up for the photograph's lacking; that's a pretty impressive subject. Maybe if it were just a little sharper I would support. --Tewy 01:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. For a subject such as this, it would have been nice to see more detail, especially in the people, but it isn't very sharp or high resolution, so this can't be done. NauticaShades 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I'm the original nominator and uploader from way back when. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, blurry, and doesn't really tell me much looking at it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the archive of the past nomination in April 2006 Glaurung 07:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a pretty cool formation, but I can't see a lot of encyclopaedic value to be honest. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I can't even see where it's explained why they're in this formation (like what is it a logo of, etc?). --jjron 08:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't see much encyclopaedic value here. I don't see any musical instruments. Therefore, I don't see why it's in marching band, but it's tempting me to write an article for "stupid human tricks". T Steinway 11:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mammoth Hot Springs

I nominated this image because it is a beautiful picture that passes the FIC criteria; This image appears in the article Geothermal areas of Yellowstone created by Jon Sullivan -- SOADLuver 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Jon Sullivan is a Wikipedian. howcheng {chat} 22:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - SOADLuver 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- I am in love with this photo! Wish it were a little bigger (It just makes FP criteria), and I wish there were some sort of frame of reference. Viewer has no idea how tall those ledges are... tiZom_(2¢) 05:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold up...Before I vote, are those jpeg artifacts considered too noticeable at the full size (on the ledges, etc.)? tiZom_(2¢) 05:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that noticeable.Sorry about the low resolution.The guy that works at the website I got this image off won't send me a higher res.I mean it's his job to do that stuff but he won't do it. SOADLuver 16:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Abstain -- I think there is definite wow factor for me, but to see detail so small, it needs to have a higher resolution. tiZom_(2¢) 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I also love this image. That's why I fought in order to be considered a Quality Image (with no success). You are right, we have no idea of scale. Now, I'll wait for the consensus and see... Alvesgaspar 09:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, no "wow factor" for me and the technical quality is not very good. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Per above ("wow" factor and artifacts). --Tewy 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nowhere near high enough res (so detail) on subject matter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. A sense of scale would really add to the picture. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 07:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Aesthetics has prevailed. I also think that the lack of scale contributes to the irreality of the picture. - Alvesgaspar 08:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, lots of blurriness and artifacts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regensburg twilight panorama

This panoramic photograph shows a part of the German city of Regensburg, with the 12th century Steinerne Brücke and Regensburg Cathedral on the left and the river Danube in the foreground. The photographer is de-Wikipedian Grizurgbg (Karsten Dörre).

• Nominate and support (I prefer the original, although Samsara's edit is ok, too). - KFP (talk | contribs) 20:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great picture! Nice composition and exposure, the photographer picked a great light/time. The stitching seems to be flawless. Low noise and good sharpness. I just can't find anything wrong with it. --Dschwen 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support any. Per Dschwen, though the distortion is a *bit* distracting. --Tewy 02:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think edit 2 is the best crop, though. It's a nice compromise between too much and too little. --Tewy 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Except for the distortion (tilting biuldings) this is great. --Janke | Talk 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either. Good quality (aside from the distortion) and good encyclopedic value. NauticaShades 07:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent. Per Dschwen --Fir0002 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Before anymore people repeat this distortion argument just let me add this. There is always distortion in any photograph. Any photo is a mapping of the inside of a sphere (onto which the 3d surroundings are point projected) onto a flat 2D surface. This is equivalent to the geographical mapping problem (spheroid globe -> flat map). You have to choose between straight lines, correct distances, correct angles, and correct area ratios, or you have to find compromises. This is what the projections do. The distortions become more apparent the larger the field of view is. This pano and the one above have large FOVs, and the image creators had to make a choice of projection. I can only talk for myself, but as much as I value straight lines the price you pay is too high. The incorrect angles, distances and areas distort the spatial perception, the proportions of the buildings too much. Anyways as you see, distortion is kind of a null-argument, you'd have to be more specific, or trust the image creator that he made the choice for a good reason, compaing the outcome with the memory he had from the time and place he took the pic. Oh, the reason we do not percieve distortion in real life with our eyes ist that our brain creates a 3D image internally, thus no mapping no projection no distortion. --Dschwen 08:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Admittedly I prefer daylight images for the most encyclopaedic value, but this is light enough to provide information on the place and also visually appealing. --jjron 08:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Preference for original. --jjron 09:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support there is something about the composition that bugs me. Seems like a lot of dead space in the water and to the left and right. And the composition and balance of the left most and right most space is also bothersome. I'm not sure, but I may like a tighter crop of just the middle buildings better. Otherwise, great shot and high quality image.--Andrew c 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about the cropped version? Support my edit. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Very nice. Support Edit 1. Addressed my concerns with the original above.--Andrew c 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Towsonu2003 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. I was hoping someone would crop the edges as I don't think they enhance the image at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Much better now. - Alvesgaspar 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support because blown out street lights would not be a good reason to oppose in this case. gren グレン 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose edit 1. City is not on a lake. Depicting it this way is not encyclopaedic. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is depicted as being on a lake. You can still see a bridge across the river, and you can see the cylindrical distortion which makes it pretty obvious that it isn't a lake, although such distortion can sometimes be misleading. Your edit isn't bad either but by no means necessary in my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like this photograph a lot; very good quality. JonCatalan 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support versions 2 and 3. Alvesgaspar 11:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Regensburg Uferpanorama 08 2006 2.jpg NauticaShades 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Göttingen market place

This panoramic picture appears in the Göttingen article and nicely depicts a typical street scene in the pedestrian zone of Göttingen, a small University town in northern germany. I like the picture because it captures a lot things, such as typical buildings, the famous fountain (which freshly baked ph.D's are supposed to kiss), people shopping, a kissing couple, a woman buying flowers, students waiting for their dates. I was lucky with the weather (nice clouds too), but with the bright sunshine comes a broad tonal range: the white buildings straight ahead are a little blown. The picture is composed from over 20 images which also enabled me to compose the scene by selectively blending the frames and influencing where the (moving) people appear. I tried to clear out the immediate area around the camera to obstruct as little of the scenery as possible while still maintaining a lively/busy atmosphere.

• Self nominate and support. - Dschwen 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support any While the image does have some distortion, it is not major. The walls of some buildings are slightly blown out, but in small areas. The dark areas contain good detail. This image is very encyclopedic and depicts it's subject excellently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, distortion gives me my doubts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. The blown highlights are quite distracting, and I almost want to weak oppose, but I can't get around the fact that this picture shows a lot of different things, such as the various activities going on, the different buildings, and other items mentioned by the nominator. --Tewy 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The tilting is distracting, there is no "wow" factor. a good photo but not the best (which is what a FP is). Hbdragon88 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The uneven lighting in addition to the buildings tilting inwards on the right makes this image "lopsided". --Janke | Talk 07:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral Although technically the photo is great I have trouble understanding what your focus is. It's like you are trying to do everything and you ended up doing nothing. --antilived ^{T | C} 07:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is intended to be an overview. There are lots of more focussed pictures in the article, but I think both have their own right. --Dschwen 09:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Also I don't really like the composition with the large amount of sky up top and the couple's feet (and the dude in red on the bottom LHS) are cut off. Also is there supposed to be an upward slant on the area of the building with the red crosses (near center of image)? --Fir0002 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about the composition (too much sky) but I would have to say that yes, there is supposed to be an upward slant on that building. If it were directly in the centre of the frame AND facing parallel to the camera, then it would be straight, but because it is not parallel, the building moves further away from the camera. It is not straight for exactly the same reason that the window ledges on my Radcliffe Camera image were not straight - perspective. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Original, Support Edit 2. Oppose Edit 1, it just makes it worse. As for the orignal, I don't see what everybody is complaining about. Like Dschwen explained below, distortion is inevitable. Aside from this, the quality is relatively good, and this perfectly captures the town life. "Lack of wow factor" and "lack of focus" are in my mind rather weak arguements. NauticaShades 08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's a shame that the more interesting side of the picture is in shadow: otherwise I like this photo very much. I wonder if someone can rectify that with some Photoshop wizardry? Or maybe the photo could be repeated at a different time of day? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, antilived. Support Edit 2 (oppose Original and Edit 1). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I think its probably easier to be on the judging side than the creating side of a good quality ultra-wide panorama. That said, there are a couple of issues that I have with it. The shadow is of course a major one but cannot easily be helped, short of taking the photo on an overcast day and losing the blue sky. I'm not sure that a polarizer was the best idea either (I'm assuming you used one anyway) as the sky is not even. I might have also picked a slightly different place to take the panorama from (simply from a compositional point of view - I'm not sure what obstacles there are that might prevent it) as the others are right, the extreme curvature of some of the buildings is a little distracting, and could be minimised by being further away from them. Again, I'm not sure if this is possible. Cityscape panoramas are just very difficult to pull off. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. But check the location link on google maps, I stepped back as far as I could. There are buildings in the far left which would start to obstruct the city hall if I went further back. --Dschwen 12:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I'll do the necessary editing in Paint Shop Pro, to make it better. Anyone agree?? --SunStar Net 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, go ahead and post your results. NauticaShades 11:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll have to wait a few days before I can upload the new one to Commons, my account there (commons:User:SunStone) is too new to do re-uploads. SunStar Net 11:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Give the alternative version a different filename, such as "Goettingen Marktplatz Oct06 edit1.jpg". Don't overwrite the original. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Here it is. I changed the brightness and also the colour intensity on Paint Shop Pro - hopefully it looks better. --SunStar Net 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original version. I think the sky in Version 2 is too blue - Adrian Pingstone 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support original per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support original Towsonu2003 04:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've uploaded another update which lightened the shadows quite a bit and now is much more visible. I also reduced the contrast a bit as IMHO the original has too high contrast. Would do a higher quality one if a 16 bit original is available. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose original, Weak oppose edit 2 - This is a better picture than the original, although IMO the center part seems to have too much light. But the main problem (here I agree with Dilif) is the extreme distortion of the buildings. I really think this is too much - our eyes are not used to see so wide-angle panoramas, both horizontally and vertically. - Alvesgaspar 10:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the field of view of this panorama corresponds pretty much exactly to the FOV of you eyes. --Dschwen 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is so, you should straighten all lines, like our brain does. Unless this is an artistic view... - Alvesgaspar 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Check out my comment in the Regensburg nomination. Like our brain does simply is not possible, because our brain creates a 3D impression. --Dschwen 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • What if we shut one eye, we start to see straight lines as curves?.... Alvesgaspar 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        • This is because the retina is curved (a sphere cap). The eye doesn't project on a plane like a camera does. And our brain does the magic of creating the image in our brain then. --Dschwen 07:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is true, you cannot lay a 3d scene onto a flat image without distorting some, ask any mapmaker. A panorama(or any photograph for that matter) always have some distortion, all you can do is hide it as best you can. You see it in major motion pictures even. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (as a matter of fact I'm a kind of a mapmaker...) The mathematical concept of distortion you are referring to, used in map projections, is only applicable to the transformation of one surface (the surface of a sphere or of a spheroid) into another (in general, a plane). A photograph is a different geometric process since we are projecting directly from a 3D space into a plane using a conical geometric projection. You are of course right by saying that we cannot reproduce the human 3D sensation in a piece of paper. That’s why I think that large (horizontal and vertical) panoramas should be used with parsimony, so that straight lines can be represented as straight, using or not image manipulations, without causing other worse distortions. An urban environment is, for obvious reasons, more sensitive to that kind of problem since we expect the edges of buildings to be straight - Alvesgaspar 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Just wrong. For any regular camera where the aperture can easily be approximated pointlike, the photo is the projection of the inside of a sphere onto a plane. Haven't you read my comment below? Straight lines are not the only relevant criteria. --Dschwen 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was going to say something just like that but I could not articulate it so well. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• This panorama is just like all the other ones with this size FOV. It's fine. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the heck ar we talking in such small font. Hbdragon88 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So they don't hear us! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This is the smallest you can go!!! Muahahahahahaha --antilived ^{T | C} 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Bored Wikipedians are pathetic... --Tewy 13:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'll take that as a direct insult. :-) | AndonicO Talk 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Goettingen_Marktplatz_Oct06_Antilived.jpg --NauticaShades 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotorua Museum

A panorama of the Rotorua Museum in Rotorua, NZ, a major tourist attraction in Rotorua. A problem with focus or something made one of the image (the one on the far left) blurry but the affected region is quite minor. Otherwise I think this image is sharp and demonstrates the subject quite well (no people, few blown highlights etc.). The thumbnail doesn't display for most of the times, any help on how to fix that (jpeg encoding problem? or a bug with mediawiki?) would also be appreciated.

• Self Nominate and support. - antilived ^{T | C} 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, the blur on the left is the main problem. Yes it's only a small portion of the pic but it's quite noticeable. (I am having some problems with displaying the image too, but that's hardly your fault.). --jjron 09:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Try re-encoding without progressive jpeg. --TheJosh 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done that but it still doesn't show up on the image description page... Thanks though. --antilived ^{T | C} 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a slight tilt? Perhaps it's not important, I just remember the Dinner Plain example.• Leon 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's an illusion: one of the gables on the right is blocked by a tree so it seems tilted to the left when it is not. Also the road is supposed to be tilted downward as it is a ramp. --antilived ^{T | C} 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. It's a nice picture, but the blurry section (I think the camera moved) ruins it for me. The cars are also a little distracting. --Tewy 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose it's nice... and I don't even mind the blur... it's just that it's not so important or spectacular... maybe if there weren't any cars in front. But, unless the place is very notable it doesn't seem like it would deserve FP status. gren グレン 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --NauticaShades 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Dictionary

I stumbled across this by accident earlier this week while looking for material related to my pshychology class (which is apparently a cleverly disguised biology class. Go figure :/). Anyway, this image got my attention right quick, so I decided to put it up and see what everyone else thinks. This image is used on the page dictionary; the photo originates from the commons and, although not explicitly stated, I believe that it is already featured over there since it was selected as a picture of the day.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a nice picture (although the top-right corner is too dark), but the most important difference between our featured pictures and those on commons is that ours must illustrate a subject: "It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image" (WP:WIAFP). This doesn't really illustrate Dictionary or Latin or University Library of Graz, so I'm going to oppose it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have taken advantage of those subtle differnces in the past to get well known historical images up to FP standards. Here, the equation is "photographic requirements+encyclopedic value+ supporting consensus=FP", where as the commons omits the middle requirement. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• CommentSupport Just put it on Book and I'll support, because it illustrates Book very nicely - Adrian Pingstone 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It illustrates Dictionary and Book quite well, and the quality is good. NauticaShades 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Good composition. But the book, which is the main subject of the picture, is out of focus. - Alvesgaspar 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Not all Commons PsOTD are FPs. Until recently, anyone could add an image to be POTD. howcheng {chat} 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is why I said "not explicitly stated". On here the rule is that the POTD must be an FP, so I made an educated guess about the pictures there based on the system here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. per above say1988 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. bad lighting. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Nice setup/composition, but the flash lighting kills it for me. Apperture was very wide so the DOF is a bit low, I guess thats what Alvesgaspar meant with the book beeing out of focus, most parts of it are tack sharp though. Again, the lighting is unfortunate and prevents you from reading the backs of the lined up books. --Dschwen 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What I mean is that we can't read the text in the dictionary due to lack of sharpness. - Alvesgaspar 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I actually don't care for the composition particularly (though it looks better at bigger sizes than in the thumbnail). Other issues mentioned above. --jjron 09:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Flash lighting and I can't even see the text in the book clearly. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mostly because of the bad lighting. --Tewy 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --NauticaShades 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montreux, Switzerland

A photo taken by my brother, Ahmed, in Montreux, Switzerland. Looking at Lake Geneva and at France on the other side of the lake.

• Nominate and support. - mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blown highlights and the blurriness on the left are the major concerns here. Also suffers from halo from over-sharpening, and tilted buildings in the foreground. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It just seems a bit overexposed in general really. Its a relatively pretty snapshot scene but doesn't stand out enough for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blurriness takes alot away from photo. Also, the photo is a better illustration of Lake Geneva than it is of Montreux, as the shot focuses more on the water than the town. Nilington
• Oppose. As much as I love Lake Leman, the quality of this picture doesn't meet FP standards. NauticaShades 12:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overexposed, tilted, and blurry. --Tewy 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted NauticaShades 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eclipse from space

From solar eclipse and solar eclipse of 2006 March 29, a gorgeous example of space photography and a one-of-a-kind shot with a definite "wow factor." And it just barely meets size requirements, too!

• Nominate and support. - Snurks^TC 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose that boom arm in the foreground is distracting. It takes the focus clearly away from the subject. Also, I almost wish for a wider shot so we can really see the difference in the shadow on earth. The contrast could be better (although it is probably hard to expose properly for something like that), and the resolution is borderline. The concept is clearly FP quality, but I feel like we should hold off for a better image.--Andrew c 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting subject but pretty poor composition. A snapshot from space. --jjron 09:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per jjron. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Great subject, poor photograph. HighInBC ^(Need

^{help? Ask me)} 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The boom arm blocks out part of the image and is distracting. Also, I don't think that we can see enough of the eclipse. - jlao ⁰⁴ 08:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Spectacular subject! I just wish we could see more eclipse and less boom. T Steinway 11:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I would prefer something more like this (even though it's too small) that doesn't have any obstructions and shows the entire shadow. --Tewy 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The composition could be better. If I hadn't known what the picture was of, I think it would've taken me a while to figure it out. — Ultor_Solis ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Eventhough this piece of hardware disturbs the photo, subject and image are spectacular. Cyprus is easily recognizable, and this is a unique perspective to solar eclipse. I would love to see this photo without the detail from the ISS... Meelosh 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --NauticaShades 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eye Iris

I stumbled across this by accident earlier this week while looking for material related to my pshychology class (which is apparently a cleverly disguised biology class. Go figure :/ ). Anyway, this image got my attention right quick, so I decided to put it up and see what everyone else thinks. This image is used on the page eye; the photo originates from the commons and is already featured over there.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great photo, and encyclopaedic. It should be put in the article Iris (anatomy) too, since it's better than the photos that are there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, the big spot of glare on the right really wipes out a lot of detail, and the image is blurry at full res. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The image is gorgeous. Sharkface217 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not much more to say than amazing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support What a featured picture should be. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great image but would appreciate it if you could remove that little blood vessel on the bottom right as it is distracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antilived (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Please don't. I would change my vote to oppose if you did that, because I don't think photos should be manipulated in that way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Irregular focus, and lack of sharpness for nature of subject to my eye (perhaps downsampling would help?). Also composition - if it's of the iris then it should be more centred and there's too much sclera; if it's of the whole eye then it's cut off. --jjron 09:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The glare and the off-center composition are the biggest problems.--ragesoss 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Some minor features already explained that aren't good, but looking at the big picture, it is a very good picture that illustrates and focuses on the subject. Hello32020 02:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I recall an old message board thread (outside Wikipedia, of course) in which hundreds of people took photos of their eyes, often with stunning results. I've seen better eye macro photos than this one, although this is not really that bad, although it has some problems as the above editors have mentioned. I think that an enterprising Wikipedia editor with a bit of time and a really good camera can do better. Snurks^TC 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems to me that a picture of an eye should be easily obtainable by anyone. Thus, we shouldn't accept anything less than perfection. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Once my exams are over, I'm sure I'll be able to get a better image with my new Sigma 150 macro. --Fir0002 06:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I keep having to remind myself that you are also in school; that comment about having to take exams really caught me off guard. Pretty quick here I am going to be taking a wikibreak for the exact same reason. I wish you good luck and God speed with your exams. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom and likewise for you; I appreciate your support. --Fir0002 09:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Could benefit from downsampling, but even then a better picture could be obtained. --Tewy 02:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support although i would prefer the iris to be directly in the center of the image rather than having the white parts uneven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs)
• Support I also would prefer it in the center, but it's very good anyways. | —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndonicO (talk • contribs)
• Oppose per Howcheng. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted 9.5/7. --NauticaShades 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erg Chebbi

A Commons Featured Picture of Erg Chebbi, a large sand dune field in Morocco. Photo by Rosa Cabecinhas and Alcino Cunha and licensed under CC-BY-SA. Also used in Erg (landform).

• Nominate and support original Flickr version. howcheng {chat} 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support very iconic image. Quality is high, and technical aspects are almost flawless.--Andrew c 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support A great looking photo! Ackatsis 09:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful!! --Midnight Rider 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although JPEG artifacting is visible in the upper part of the sky and along the edges of the dunes. Gorgeous picture, though, but it would be even better if it weren't as compressed. Snurks^TC 04:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, though the photo itself is excellent. From my point of view, it does not fully meet images that add significantly to article criterion. Moroccan Erg Chebbi area is famous site for birdwatching. At the end of winter, a temporary lake is formed there. I guess FP for Erg Chebbi article or for the main page of Wikipedia should capture this theme. JanSuchy 11:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • However, I believe it adds significantly to the Erg (landform) article, since the only other image in that article is a view of an erg from space. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think it adds to the article in that it gives a feeling of being there in a way words cannot describe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

*Comment I can't support a picture with so many JPEG artifacts. Is there any non compressed version? It'll be great to have a better quality. It is obvious that this is not the best photo we can have on this subject, as the original, non compressed photo of this image has better quality. Support Thank you for removing the artifacts. Good photo --Arad 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Groovy shot. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport Fantastic photograph, deserving of featured status. Hello32020 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - superb photograph! - Alvesgaspar 11:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original or Edit 1. The quality isn't perfect, but the original is a large improvement. Quite encyclopedic, though. NauticaShades 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just noticed the artifact issue in the sky (I had noticed it in the distant lines of the wavy side of the foreground dune before). I wonder if we could still edit the original? The quality is superb compared to the originally uploaded photo, but I'm not sure what rights are reserved (see the logos at the bottom).--Andrew c 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I edited the original, using the same gaussian blur technique. NauticaShades 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I actually like the original flickr version best. The gaussian blur sky makes it look sort of blotchy (in the same manner that jpgs compress using nearest neighbor-type data, except this blotchiness isn't hard and square). Does that make sense? I feel like the level of noise is totally acceptable in the original, and because there is a lot more subtle color variation between each pixel, it seems like the 'noisier' version is more crisp, detailed, and the blurred version blotchy and compressed. But this may just be the way I look at things.--Andrew c 01:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I tend to agree with you. I put the edit up for consideration, though, as some people might prefer it. NauticaShades 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. Good composition and colors. And as Andrew c said, the other two are "blotchy". --Tewy 03:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support unedited Flickr version, oppose others. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Erg Chebbi.jpg --NauticaShades 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using the sextant

This is a didactic animation to illustrate the use of the marine sextant to measure the Altitude (astronomy) of the Sun at sea. A detailed explanation of the frames is in the image file. The animation appears in the article sextant.

Image created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I like this animation a lot, but one thing to note. It isn't altitude that you're measuring (which is the DISTANCE above the surface of the earth) but the angle of the sun from the horizon. You will need to change the caption and the comments on the image page. Also, surely when you tilt the sextant, the horizon in the left pane will also tilt? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Info. The correct technical term, used both in British and American English, is really altitude: the angular distance between the horizon and the body. The word is used in Astronomy, Geodesy and Navigation. In this case, it is called the sextant altitude. To get the apparente altitude, we still have to correct all sistematic errors (due to instrument, observer and depression of the horizon). When the sextant is tilted, the horizon seen through the telescope remains horizontal, only the image of the mirror/glass rotate (I have done it a lot of times, believe me!) ;-) - Alvesgaspar 12:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I apologise. I've never heard the word altitude used in that way! How does the telescope remain horizontal? I'm assuming that it rotates on its axis somehow? I've added a link to the Altitude (astronomy) article in the introduction to the nomination. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, we rotate the instrument around the optical axis of the telescope, maintaining its ocular close to the eye! -
• Weak oppose. There is a bright line appearing and disappearing in the middle of the animation. And I'd like the light path to be visible from the beginning (maybe thinner or transparent) and the sun (or direction of the sun) indicated in the overview. The tilting of the sextant looks like a squeezing not a rotation. Otherwise a nice animation. --Dschwen 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There's a lot going on simultaneously in this animation, it might be easier to follow and understand if it was a bit slower and smoother. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I oppose this particular version but I'm really looking forward to an improved one - this would be a very useful FP.

The sequence is too fast, you can't actually understand what is going on without watching it a large number of times. The picture transitions is very blocky, could it be made into a smooth animation like the "pi unrolled" FP? The numbers in the corner should relate to the steps required to use a a sextant not the frame number of the animation. The animation can't be understood by itself, you have to read the explanation at the image page - all the relevant information should be on the animation without requiring reference to external sources. Witty lama 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is also a bad looking wiggle when the sextant is tilted. This animation can certainly be improved. --Janke | Talk 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I'd support a version that addresses these issues. howcheng {chat} 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I had to watch the animation a dozen times before I figured out what was going on, and I had to read the image page to understand the captions. The first few captions went by too fast for me to read. --Andrew c 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Info. Thank you for all the suggestions which I hope will help to make a much better animation. Please hold your votes until it is done. - Alvesgaspar 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Information. Voilà, the new version of the sextant is ready. The animation is now smoother and a bit simplified. I decided to include the light rays only at the begining and at the end, otherwise the image would be too cluttered. But the sextant is a working replica, i.e., the angles and reflections are all correct. - Alvesgaspar 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Please help, I cannot make the thumbnail here visible. - Alvesgaspar 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 2. The new version is much clearer. NauticaShades 12:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• VERY weak Oppose New version is great, but I still would not mind seeing the blue reference lines throughout the animation. It may show better how the mirror swings up toward the sun. Any chance we could have a 3rd version just to see? --Bridgecross 14:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel like you are puting me to work... - Alvesgaspar 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Edit': part of the animation was lost: You see the sun swinging about the horizon, but DON'T SEE THE SEXTANT SWING INTO AND OUT OF THE PICTURE anymore. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose edit per above. --Janke | Talk 07:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Info. This is the third and last version. The swinging is back, although more discreete, and I have also included the light rays. - Alvesgaspar 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. It's a good image once you watch it a dozen times...but maybe that's just because it's a complicated instrument for those new to it. But there are other problems. You can't tell it's swinging without reading the text, the image would benefit from an indication of where the sun is relative to the sextant, and the text should be capitalized. Finally, for aesthetics, I would like to see the glass view (the circle) on the right and the sextant on the left, with the numbers and text together on the left side. --Tewy 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose An okay animation. But I find that most animations are too fast for me to get the gist of it in one go round. — Ultor_Solis ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrosian Iliad

This image appears in Ambrosian Iliad, and I believe that article clearly explains the importance of this image. It is one of the earliest examples of an illuminated manuscript, one of the earliest manuscripts of the Iliad, and the only pre-medieval illuminated manuscript of the Iliad (one out of 3 illuminated manuscripts from antiquity). This is a work of art from over 100 years ago, so it (and photographs of it) are in the public domain (at least in the US, according to the copyright tag).

• Nominate and support. - Andrew c 00:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Love it. My only comment would be to put it in the Achilles article as well. If a shot of Brad Pitt is useful, this is useful. :p Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support The image is great but the shadow (as visible on the edges) are quite hard and the background should be less distracting. Otherwise great image. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, one of the most important surviving manuscripts. Its unlikely we will find a better copy. Dsmdgold 22:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It seems blurry and I don't like the background, but since a better scan is unlikely, I'm not sure which way to go on this one. --Tewy 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Very good picture, very informative and encyclopedic! Jellocube27 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support — A truly historic image. ♠ SG →Talk 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:AmbrosianIliadPict47Achilles.jpg - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trench warfare 1916

An image that perfectly depicts trench warfare from 1916. There are some quality issues (scanning artifacts?), but I think the historical value outweighs the technical deficiencies.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support though grains are visible on the sky at the top, it has a very high level of detail and high historical value is well. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support and recommend for front page on November 11. –Outriggr § 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • November 11, 2006 is already scheduled, and I don't know if I'll remember (or still be doing this) for 2007. :) howcheng {chat} 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't the comet be moved to later? NauticaShades 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Dang, I almost nominated this one myself. Snooze=lose. I like the various positions of the men in the trench. It illustrates the combination of tedium, exhaustion, and fear of trench warfare. --Bridgecross 14:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support this is a very nice photo with historical relivence. Pigottsm 14:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support New perspective on the words "digging in". TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fairly good image, historically important. Hello32020 02:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good image. I used this pic in one of my pieces of work, but didn't nominate it.:( - jlao ⁰⁴ 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I only regret there not being a better scan. NauticaShades 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A nice picture, but a better scan would certainly help as well. --Tewy 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916.jpg - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopi Chipmunk

This picture, taken by Mdf, is just as good in quality as his exceptional bird photographs. It is of a Hopi Chipmunk and appears in Tamias rufus and Chipmunk. There are no quality drawbacks and it is taken at an interesting angle, but not one that detracts from the Encyclopedic Value. In my mind, it actually increases it by showing the Chipmunk from many sides as opposed to a simple profile.

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Completely agree with you Nautica, his nature photos are top-notch. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Another great shot by Mdf. howcheng {chat} 21:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great shot. It is a rather non-cooperative subject - as far as photography is concerned. Good job! - Mikeo 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom and above. Nice composition and balance. Interesting subject in clear view, in natural setting. Great bokeh, minimal noise, etc.--Andrew c 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Awwwwwwwww. Snurks^TC 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A great picture with high encyclopedic value. Acs4b 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good composition JanSuchy 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. I was going to nominate this image, but Nauticashades beat me to it (guess I'll have to be faster next time). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. a very, very well done photo. Pigottsm 14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Awesome picture, deserving of status. Hello32020 02:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent example of wildlife image. T Steinway 11:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yeah, yeah, here's my vote. --Tewy 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Another sweet animal FP stuff. - Darwinek 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tamias-rufus-001.jpg - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ferrofluid Large Spikes

This picture, by Gmaxwell, already a Commons FP, is not only quite beautiful and surreal, but also very informative. While the previous nom for different picture of ferrofluid gained a lot of support, it ultimately was not promoted due to bad quality, which this one doesnt lack. It appears in Ferrofluid.

• Nominate and support Original or Edit 1. - NauticaShades 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support SOADLuver 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I remember this appearing on the talk page, so clearly either could pass for FP. Why don't you add the other version as another picture to consider in either a new nomination or on this page? --Tewy 04:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. NauticaShades 06:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I really like the alternative version but isn't it overly dark? Lighting could be a lot better - its hard to make out the shape (apart from the spikes contrasting against the background). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, for encyclopedic value I also prefer the alternate version, since it shows the magnet, but I share Diliff's concern about the lighting. --Dschwen 13:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose both Neutral for original, oppose alternate version and edit 1. I find the out-of-focus edge of the glass to be quite distracting. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose both. I'm sure this image has encyclopedic and scientific interest . But it also suffers, as a photograph, from obvious technical and aesthtetical drawbacks which I cannot ignore. - Alvesgaspar 22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand technical drawbacks, but aesthtetical? Do you mind explaining? NauticaShades 07:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, it has been said already: too dark and glass unfocused, in both versions (I think technical drawbacks affect aesthetics). But I've just seen the third version, which seems much better. Please give me some time... - Alvesgaspar 08:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose original, Very weak support alternate. It's a bit of a Catch-22 situation. The original is a close-up on the ferrofluid, and shows more details, but doesn't show the magnet. The alternate is further away, and shows less details, but shows the magnet. The original is overexposed while the alternate is underexposed. But overall, I think the magnet is important, so I'll go with the alternate version for my support. --Tewy 22:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support alternate version edit 1. A nice improvement, but nothing can correct the out-of-focus area between the magnet and the ferrofluid. --Tewy 03:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support alternate version edit 1 - Better now. - Alvesgaspar 08:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 Encyclopedic, showing the magnet, even if not overly aesthetic. --Janke | Talk 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support original - The only thing I can see that is an improvement with the alternate version is the inclusion of what I'm assuming is the magnet. Otherwise, it's an ugly photograph with poor composition. I think the first one is impressive. drumguy8800 C T 05:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• From an aestetic point of view, the first one is clearly superior, but from an encyclopaeidic point opf view the alternate is better. Though I am unsure if the small amount it is better over-rules the advantages of the origional. I would have to weak support either the origional or Alternate-edit 1. say1988 06:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support for alternate version edit 1. The original is visually appealing, but revealing the magnet helps explain the structure, and showing the surroundings instead of a mirror image provides clarifying information. T Steinway 12:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 1 as per Fir0002; the profile of the glass table in the edits is just a blur. • Leon
• Support for alternative version edit 1. I have to say, it illustrates the situation very well. I don't care if it's not 100% problem-free. It's eye-catching and it's encyclopedic. — Ultor_Solis ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great picture...very intriguing. Buphoff 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support any, I'm glad Gmaxwell reconsidered freely licensing these images. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ferrofluid Magnet under glass edit.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tariqabjotu (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Natural History Museum

Alfred Waterhouse's Neo Gothic masterpiece shown of to good effect in an unusual, encyclopedic image. Photo credit:User:Diliff

• Nominate and support. - Mcginnly | Natter 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Significant, unattractive distortion. Otherwise pretty good. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Great picture but the verticals are not straight. Curved horizontals are fine because of the extreme wide angle but the vertical lines should remain vertical in cylindrical projection. Try using Hugin to stitch the originals and correct that. Will change my vote once it's fixed. --antilived ^{T | C} 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I took that photo almost a year ago but from memory there was a reason why I left it curving inwards slightly. I think it was the fact that due to the extreme angle of view, completely straightening the vertical lines distorted the top of the towers too much (as you can see they are already significantly distorted and the detail is not as good up there). I actually use stitching software that is superior to Hugin (at least in my opinion) but unfortunately the laws of physics and geometry limit my ability to take perfect panoramas! In this case, there is a tall metal fence that stops you moving further back from the building so ultra-wide it has to be. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not entirely true. I've put the image through Hugin and I managed to straighten (at least straighter) the verticals, without distorting the towers too much. Your crop is too tight so I can't do a good one but I think you should try it yourself and see the results. Also, ever considered doing a linear panorama for things like this? --antilived ^{T | C} 04:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think linear projection would work for an image such as this. The angle of view would be virtually 180 degrees and it would be incredibly distorted. I'll try to dig up the original images and you can have a go if you like, rather than working with the panorama directly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • By linear panorama I mean actually moving yourself and take pictures parallel to your subject. It will be very hard to stich but it is possible (eg this). I would be happy to have a try on the originals. --antilived ^{T | C} 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Very sharp and high detail but the curve is really too much. Can't support. Even though Diliff made it, we can't have all of his pictures FP. --Arad 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  •  ;-) The ultra wide angle is really the only way to get the whole building into the frame (you can take a photo from a very side-on angle but you lose a lot of the facade and architecture). Not that I'm saying that is a good reason to support it either though. Just letting you know the limitations of the scene. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the detail at 100% is amazing, however there are stitching errors. Look at the left entrance and the stairs. Parts don't line up. Plus the curves are a bit extreme. For encyclopedic purposes, images of archetecture should probably be a bit more representative.--Andrew c 03:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. As per above. - jlao ⁰⁴ 08:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we had "wide-angle panoramic eyes" maybe we could better appreciate the picture. I also think this is too much distortion. - Alvesgaspar 09:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Distortion and stitching errors. --Tewy 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tariqabjotu (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Zabriskie Point Panorama

A delightful photograph that would perfectly compliment the existing range of featured panoramas; my only complaint about the image is that it's not a bit taller, since I'd love to make it my desktop wallpaper! Admittedly it would benefit from some expert editing to make it really come to life, but the foundations are there for a true visual stunner.

It appears in Zabriskie Point and was taken by Maveric149.

• Nominate and support. - CountdownCrispy ⁽

• ^{Stronger support for edit 2.}

^? 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment adjusted brightness, contrast and intensity TheJosh 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

... thereby blowing out the highlights in the clouds. Oppose edit, Weak oppose original. (Neutral for edit 2.) I've been there, and this image doesn't really convey the feeling of the place. --Janke | Talk 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose edit, weakly oppose original. Agree with Janke, and there are Stitching problems in the sky. Also there should be a higher resolution version available. --Dschwen 09:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Note that we already have a featured picture of Zabriskie Point here. That one could be considered for delisting however as it does not meet resolution requirements. --Nebular110 16:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That one has already been nominated for delisting at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley NP.JPG delist. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose original, oppose edit 1. Stitching errors in both, and blown highlights in edit 1. --Tewy 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral for edit 2. Better than the first two, but there are still the unfixable stitching errors and blown highlights. --Tewy 19:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - can someone have another go at editing the image? I think it could be good with increased contrast, but without the blown highlights. Stevage 23:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, look at edit 2. Actually, now looking at the thumbnails and comparing to the other 2, it seems a bit too intense. But looking at it by itself, the image doesn't look as washed out as the others. The histogram is clearly more balanced than the other 2.--Andrew c 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Original, Oppose Edit 1, Support 2. Per Stevage. Edit 2 is much better. NauticaShades 20:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although edit 2 made the colors nicer (except for the dark spot which became bluish), the stitching errors are still visible. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2. I believe my concerns have been addressed. howcheng {chat} 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Would everyone mind taking a look at edit 2 again. I have uploaded a new version that tries to address the stitching issues and the greenish tint in the dark part of the central horizon.--Andrew c 17:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose All Original is too washed out and the edit is overdone. In addition, sure it has 3000 pixels in width (and thus technically passes the resolution requirements), but it has only 540 pixels in height which really doesn't give you a lot of detail. Disappointing in a wide landscape scene where you aren't exactly going to be cropping a lot of top and bottom out (and there aren't and digital camera's which don't give you at the very least 1000 pixels of height). I also don't think this was taken at the best time of day as too much of the picture is in shadow. --Fir0002 10:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 In case it wasn't clear above.--Andrew c 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Zabriskie Point-Panarama-edit2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How was this promoted? Looks like the consensus was oppose... Cєlαя∂σяє^Talk 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree. I don't understand how this was promoted. JHMM13  01:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lemon

This is another excellent image by commons:User:Aka and is featured at the commons. It appears in lemon, Citrus, Citric acid, List of fruits, and Ripening. The image is well composed, illustrative of both the inside and outside of a lemon, clean, sharp, and well ballanced. (The highlights on the rind are on the boarder of being blown, but I can still make out some detail).

• Nominate and support. - Andrew c 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support "When life hands you lemons, you make lemonade." TomStar81 (Talk) 00:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice, good quality image, that shows the subject of the picture well. Hello32020 02:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Easily the most delicious picture I've ever seen in my life! Very tasteful, high quality, and illustrative of lemons. Jellocube27 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Will support if table is removed from the picture. --Ineffable3000 05:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blown highlights, relatively low resolution, and a little bit of artifacting/noise. --DonES 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support both - Nice composition, realistic colours, crisp clear picture. I can't see any wrong highlights. - Alvesgaspar 09:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see any blown highlights either - if it is indeed blown, it doesn't significantly affect the image so I don't see it as a reason to oppose. It could be higher resolution but it is sufficient the requirements. The aperture is f/29 so diffraction would probably limit the sharpness if the resolution was increased, anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per DonES.--Bridgecross 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice presentation (cut and whole fruit, what I misste in the recent onion FPC). The white in the right fruit is a little blown, but that detail can be seen in the left one, and the lighting brings out the inner parts pretty well. --Dschwen 14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose original, lots of glare and blown out detail. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support edit, less glare in my face, but detail still seems kind of mediocre on the left cut side. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. If the right lemon edge is blown it's not by much, since I'm still seeing yellow spots there. Resolution above requirements. The shadow noise and the glare don't really bother me. Redquark 19:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original — I'm getting tired of people crying wolf all the time, "blown highlights this, blown highlights that." Seriously, where are the supposed blown highlights in this picture? ♠ SG →Talk 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • what's that big glaring shiny spot right in the center? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have created an edit that slightly darkens the whole image, and burns in the detail in the rind area.--Andrew c 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's hardly what I would call "blown." The surface is shiny, as the image shows. Also, I support the original version, as edit 1 seems to be a little too saturated, as if it's a little too orange. ♠ SG →Talk 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. I like the darkening, and the image itself is fantastic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support either - it's clear the highlights in the original were not blown, as Andrew C's edit reveals significant detail in the supposedly blown regions. Debivort 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. The edit fixes the highlight issue (turns out they wren't blown after all). NauticaShades 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Both images are beautifully descriptive. T Steinway 11:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. Just a good shot all around. --Tewy 03:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - this picture is a lemon for sure... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. It's all been said. --jjron 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per above.--HereToHelp 00:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - this picture certainly isn't a lemo... oh damn, Janke's already made that joke! Let's try, "What's a lemming's favourite pudding? Lemming meringue pie!" -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Why is there a patch of blue in the middle of the background? Otherwise I'm fine with everything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antilived (talk • contribs) .
• Support Very descriptive of lemons. Nice colors, too.
  • Please sign in. Votes by anonymous users are not counted. --Tewy 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lemon-edit1.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caprock Canyons State Park

Appears in Caprock Canyons State Park and Trailway. Uhmm.. the picture pretty much rocks. It's sharp from the foreground to background.. has some fall color (um, one yellow tree haha). Good color and balance all around, too. No blown highlights, no deep darks.

• Nominate and support. - drumguy8800 C T 07:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This suffers a lot from uneven exposure - the shadows at left are soot black, and the right end looks a bit washed out. (Difficult subject, sure!) Also, the right edge is fuzzy in full size. Restitch and some photoshocking for a better result? --Janke | Talk 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Right side is washed out, as Janke said. - jlao ⁰⁴ 08:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weaker oppose. I still oppose, but at least it's better than before. There is still too much black. - jlao ⁰⁴ 08:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with the above and also, the hill second from the left is motion blurred. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I can make out adequate detail in the shadow, however at 100% there is an odd quality to it. It is just not sharp, and it has the illusion of some sort of blur (out of focus, motion) and then having the sharpness artificially increased. Regardless what is causing it, it just isn't as crisp as I would like a FP to be at 100%.--Andrew c 13:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurry, not great quality. Also, IMHO, the color burning on the edit is uneven. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• 

  

  totally black pixels at left
  I still oppose. The shadows are sooty, because they're severely clipped, look at the amount of 0,0,0 pixels in this histogram. --Janke | Talk 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above, and too artificial-looking. --Tewy 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venera 14-Surface of Venus

Image:Venera14Surface.jpg (hard linked because it is a non-free image) This is a digitally remastered image of the Venusian surface, showing a wide surrounding view

Have you seen the original Venera 14 images. They're pretty weak compared to this. See some if you want to by clicking on these links. The rarity of quality imagery of the Venusian surface has to be taken into account. So, there was Magellan but it only showed the surface with its radar. This is a high quality image that I stared at for a long time and thought, wow, so that's what the surface of Venus looks like.

This photo is on the following pages:Venus, Venera 14, Geology of Venus.

BlueMars

• Nominate and support. - A mcmurray 00:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Information. Featured pictures must have a free licence, fair use images are ineligible. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• More information. If he does decide to license it freely, he has to also remove that watermark; digital watermarking in user-created photographs is not allowed. Hbdragon88 07:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Copyrighted, watermarked, and not particularly "eye-catching". T Steinway 10:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movable type

Image by stock exchange user wilhei66 Used in Typesetting, Sort (typesetting), Composing stick. This image was the picture of the day at the commons and is a FP there. I am partial to this image because I studied typography at school, and we had an oldfashion letterpress shop. The image is sharp, high resolution, illustrative, and otherwise, in my opinion, fulfills all requirements.

• Nominate and support. - Andrew c 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very encyclopedic, illustrates the subject well, good quality. --Janke | Talk 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very encyclopedic, and one of really the only ways to do an FP quality shot of this subject (other than maybe paper as it's being lifted off type, but that wouldn't show it's mobility as much as the troughs of type here do). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is exactly what we should strive for here... good composition, good quality, and most importantly, you learn a little something :o) tiZom_(2¢) 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. I especially like that the writing is upside down, so we aren't distracted by the words. Redquark 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, that is the way typesetters used to work, upside down and backwards. Where do you think "mind your Ps and Qs" came from? Lowercase p looks like a lowercase q, and vice versa, when it comes to metal type (same for bs and ds).--Andrew c 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. We had one of those at school too! My only minor criticism is that I would have liked to have seen more of the case. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Caption should explain what's in the boxes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I see now, it's the letters, but the actual characters aren't visible on them, nor are the sides of the letters in the frame visible, so it's hard to tell that the blocks in the frame and the blocks in the boxes are actually the same things. Weak oppose because the angle makes it hard to tell this, and a slight change so that we're not looking directly overhead and instead can see the side of the mounted blocks would fix this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the imput. It is very informative. Being familiar with what is being depicted removed my objectivity. I know what a type case is (I have one hanging in my apartment), I know what lead type looks like (I own some), its good to have an outside perspective from someone who doesn't recognize this stuff. This image is a little busy because it includes so much stuff. However, I still would like to see it featured as a good snapshot of letterpress materials.--Andrew c 03:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Relatively good quality, very encyclopedic. NauticaShades 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Night Gyr; it's difficult to tell what those pieces are without prior knowledge, and the angle could be improved. --Tewy 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I want to see the letters in the boxes. I think this simple change would improve it greatly. For example, look at [4]. howcheng {chat} 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That, also, is a good photo, but it is illustrating a different subject: wood display type. Those blocks are most likely 5-10cm tall (or over 200pt), where the metal type displayed is probably 12pt text type or 5mm. Furthermore, this photo illustrates a type case and the use of a composition stick. As I said above, maybe it is too busy and has too much stuff. Criticism noted.--Andrew c 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support A great picture, very encyclopedic! Jellocube27 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support Encyclopedic, well exposed, nice composition. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Encyclopedic, but it looks a little grainy to me. BeefRendang 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support As per above, but kudos for the mention of Hermann Zapf in the text as well as "The Quick Brown..."• Leon
• Question If you look at the text on the metal type, there's a possible POV issue (the end of the text reads 'Hermann Zapf, the most famous of the'). Is this a problem? (Leon... appears to think not given the comment above.) --ais523 13:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume it's going to go on to say "of the Zapf family". Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hermann Zapf is probably the most famous typographer of the latter 20th century, who ironically was an early investigator of digital typography. I don't think it's POV because articles like Ludwig Wittgenstein describe individuals as e.g. "ground-breaking" without hesitation. I don't think the text itself is *especially* relevant; I was merely commenting that in this case, it's a nice touch that it concerns the subject. However, he is also probably the most famous :-) • Leon 22:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as above. enochlau (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Metal movable type.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Lynx Spider

It's been a while since we've seen a spider pic, so here's a macro photo of a Peucetia viridans (Green Lynx Spider). Photo by Clint & Charles Robertson (via Flickr), and licensed CC-BY-SA. Macro usually means shallow DOF, but the focal point is right on the spider's head, so most of the important parts are clear.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice, but blurry (even in the areas that are supposed to be in focus) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong SupportI think your eyes are overly critical, it looks all in order to me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC).
• Oppose. I find too much of it is out of focus. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I agree the DOF is poor, but I don't feel that it is enough to oppose the canidate. --Andrew c 01:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much of this spider is out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 20:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Low DOF. --Tewy 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boll Weevil

Another bug macro shot by Clint and Charles Robertson, this time of a Boll weevil. Also licensed CC-BY-SA.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 22:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Large parts out of focus in this one too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support once again, the DOF alone of macro photography is not enough for me to oppose (especially for something so small, article says average size is 6mm). Very unique looking critter. The composition is nice, and important aspects are in in focus and crisp.--Andrew c 01:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Beautiful composition, but once again, the extreme difficulty of macro photography has led to DOF problems. There's just too much out of focus for me to support. --Tewy 01:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It's such high quality, and the insect in question had a historical and economic impact, that the focus problems almost don't matter. Almost. --Bridgecross 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 20:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby-Stafford rail routes

Self nomination - I produced this map primarily to illustrate Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line, but as I produced it I realised it could be used for other local lines as well. It has undergone several alterations to make it appear clear at the right resolution, but I now feel it meets all the criteria listed in WP:WIAFP.

• Nominate and support. -  — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, this map needs to be in SVG format. Secondly, while I appreciate this took a fair amount of effort, compare it to some of the other maps in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, Drawings, and Maps and you'll see the level of quality necessary for a map to become an FP. howcheng {chat} 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Where does it state that it has to be SVG format? I used Image:Madrid-metro-map.png as an example of a similar diagram (maybe diagram is a better description than map). — Tivedshambo (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, it doesn't really say anywhere, but diagrams and maps usually should be. The Madrid metro map is an old FP (it was promoted back in May 2004), but it were to come up today, we'd demand SVG format. Also note that it was redone in SVG: Image:Red de metro de Madrid.svg. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I can probably produce it in that format, but it'll be Monday before I have access to the software. — Tivedshambo (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Uploading images#Technical aspects. --Tewy 04:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think you have to try a little harder to produce a map which is easily readable and also pleasant to the eye. Here are some hints: it is not necessary to define a unique scale or to conserve directions or distances as long as the map is topologically consistent with the real thing. This freedom can be used to manipulate the overall distribution of lines in the available space (see the subway maps, they are normally very good); the lines should be thicker and coloured; the titles should be evenly distributed in the available space even if you have to cheat with the scales; the lettering should be carefully chosen. The type you use is too thin; is the legend really necessary? - Alvesgaspar 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree, this looks like it's from the 1990s. I'd suggest making an SVG using Inkspace and using thicker lines with aliasing.. that way they won't be so rigid but they'll look way sharper. Also I'd suggest a font like Trebuchet MS.. its very appealling to the eye and easily readable. Also.. the colors you've chosen are a little flat (simple red green and blue).. but that might be exacerbated by their thinness. drumguy8800 C T 09:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it was SVG, I would support it. --SonicChao 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - doesnt make much sense to viewer, font too small, and looks horrible. --Ineffable3000 23:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats a little strong, how about you do better and then say stuff like it "looks horrible". That was pretty brazen and unnecessary Ahadland 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's all been said. --Tewy 04:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, doesn't look anywhere near the standards of a FP. - Mailer Diablo 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Macedonia

Quite simply the best way of explaining a complicated history I've ever seen. Five seconds watching it and you understand a very complicated history of a name.

Appears in:

• History of modern Macedonia
• Macedonia (terminology)
• Template:Macedonia intro
• Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Templates
• Maps of Bulgaria
• Maps of Greece
• Maps of the Republic of Macedonia

Made by NikoSilver, who really must be congratulated.

• Nominate and support. - Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are many other regions identified as Macedonia, e.g. the nation Republic of Macedonia and this map does little to clarify or identify that. Debivort 01:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, given the massive edit wars that have erupted over macedonia on wikipedia, an image that blinks through frames in seconds doesn't really give the chance for careful consideration of borders that should be necessary. We're better off laying them on a plain map in a single frame, without the distractions of animation or satellite photography. Also, given that there is no official definition of Macedonia, isn't this an inherently POV map? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - good picture for the article page; bad picture for the front page. --Ineffable3000 23:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small and apparently controversial. --Tewy 04:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Ok, with the clarification below, I'm reconsidering. As far as size, if there really is a nearly double version of this, then I might weak support. As far as controversy, it sounds like that's been cleared up as well. But even with those improvements, I still don't think this is the best Wikipedia has to offer, so I won't fully support. If the larger version is added to this page, then I'll take a look at it and vote accordingly. --Tewy 22:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak support larger version. The size is better now. --Tewy 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Uploaded double-size Image:BigHistMac.gif per request. Hope you have a fast connection (3.8Mb!). •NikoSilver• 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with thanks to Adam Cuerden, and explain to all:
  • First, I found out randomly browsing about this nomination. I think there should be some procedure involving notification to the uploader.
  • Re: "other regions defined as Macedonia": Of course there are! They are illustrated in all other relevant images and articles. This image, is about the early history of the region of Macedonia. That region (white), appears in the first and last frames of the gif, so as to be always printed like that. That region includes all subregions, no matter how disputed they can be. It includes the main sub-regions of Aegean Macedonia (i.e. Macedonia (Greece)), Vardar Macedonia (i.e. Republic of Macedonia/FYROM), and Pirin Macedonia (i.e. Bulgarian Macedonia), plus some small parts in Albania and Serbia.
  • Re: "massive edit wars": Of course there have been. The issue is highly controversial, and it is still one of the open disputes in the UN. Note, however, that since the creation of the featured article Macedonia (terminology) that includes all those POV's in an NPOV way, these edit wars have stopped. All editors from all sides have approved this non controversial map and have supported the NPOV article where this map is placed.
  • Re: "inherently POV": No it is not POV. Splitting the region would be POV. Showing names in the subregions would be POV. The whole region's existence is not disputed. There seems to be an academic consesus on that, and that is clearly illustrated in the featured article Macedonia (terminology).
  • Re: "Single frame maps": This image shows all early history, not a static frame of history (past or contemporary). For related static images browse all those over at Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Templates.
  • Re: "Small": Please explain what size is acceptable, as I have this image in almost double size, including all sub-regions and historic regions as separate objects in my PC.
• Thanks to all, and waiting for constructive comments. •NikoSilver• 11:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I like the idea and it's well researched, but I'm not sure an animation is the best medium for this. Something more like Image:Europe Balkans Macedonia zoomed2.jpg is better. Regardless, I think the NASA WorldWind image underlying it makes it more confusing -- a simpler background like Image:LocationMacedonia-HEL-2-z.png would make this a lot clearer IMHO. howcheng {chat} 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uploaded double-size Image:BigHistMac.gif per Tewy's request. Does this solve the confusing issue? Needs fast connection (3.8Mb!). Also, the image you proposed was rejected (even described as cat vomet! :-)) I could slow down the frame alterations to help in focusing on each part of history if you wish. Now it is at 1.5sec each (except contemporary which is 2.0sec). •NikoSilver• 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above reasons. --Arad 21:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for above reasons, and because it is misleading to say there is only one contemporary definition. Jonathunder 18:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted -- tariqabjotu 03:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reed bed

OK, here's one for you to shoot down... ;-) I think the encyclopedicity overweighs the aesthetic aspects, for instance the tight cropping and the little patch of blown sky. It appears in Reed bed and Phragmites, and does add value to those articles.

• Self-nominate and support edit 1. - Janke | Talk 08:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support I'll not shoot this one down. But I'm normally driven by the aesthtetical aspects more than the encyclopedic ones. In this case, the distortion due to a large FOV is not evident and the picture is nice to look at. - Alvesgaspar 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The framing makes it like looking through a mail-slot. It is pretty wide, but some more room in the vertical would benefit the picture. --Dschwen 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too wide for me to consider voting 'Support'. --SonicChao 20:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Width is not constrained by the FPC criteria per se, as long as an image is sufficiently wide, which this one is. Debivort 22:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose tight cropping, per Dschwen, also therefore lacking resolution on vertical axis. Debivort 22:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• weak support - normally I don't care that much about blown highlights, they don't "distract me" much. However there is quite a field of white above the treeline - so my support is weak. Debivort 18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Debivort. --Ineffable3000 23:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Despite the vertical cropping, I think this still represents its subject well. --Tewy 04:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit 1. More shown vertically, but then more of the blown sky is shown, sadly. --Tewy 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Would the opposers consider supporting a version with added vertical resolution/size? I could give the originals to one of the "wiki stitch experts" - this was my very first attempt using Hugin... --Janke | Talk 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well depends on how big your original is and are they aligned well. If it goes all over the place then no matter how good a person is with Hugin or anny other software you can't get a good stitch. Try do a multi-row or shoot images in portrait if you don't want the hassel of stiching multi row panoramas.
    • Can't do a reshoot until next summer, it's all covered in snow now... --Janke | Talk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• New version, not really an edit, but a total re-stitch. This should address the concerns voiced above (so please don't complain about the blown sky... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit1 - I won't shoot down this one either. No full support beacuse of blown sky... Alvesgaspar 15:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - New version just gives blown out skies and not much more about the reeds. It's the reeds that's supposed to be illustrating, and composition is not good for that purpose (the most left quarter is basically useless). --antilived ^{T | C} 08:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Staircase of the Titanic

I'm (Andrew c) completing this nomination for Ahadland1234 (talk ·  contribs) because the initial nom was ill-formatted and didn't follow procedure. The original reason for nom was "interesting image which conveys the tragic beauty of the doomed passenger liner". The image is included in Grand Staircase of the Titanic. It was uploaded by Ahadland1234 on Nov first and the copyright tag is PD-self.

• Nominate and support. (originally Ahadland1234)
• Oppose image isn't that sharp, color balance is off, the shadows are awfully dark, and there is a blown highlight in the middle. Plus, where is this image from? It can't be a photo of the actual Titanic. Is it a recreation, or from the movie (if it is the latter, then the copyright would be off)?--Andrew c 00:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well is there anyway you could make it less crap, your never gonna believe it but its actually from my parents home. Skeptical, because i can afford a good camera and my parents have tasteAhadland 01:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose no source information.--Wiltoey 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrew c, this is a staircase in your parents house?, is this something that should be on Wikipedia? --Coasttocoast 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that reconstructions are intrinsically invalid - we use photos of roman re-enactors on Wikipedia - you could equally well say of those, "That's a chartered accountant from Norwich? Is this something that should be on Wikipedia?". If this is an authentic reproduction, based on good sources, of something for which it isn't possible to get good-quality photos of the original, it might be a valid featured picture candidate. That doesn't answer image quality objections, of course. TSP 02:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Downsampled, rotated, level-adjusted, sharpened edit added as edit 1, mostly because I was looking at it in Photoshop so thought I might as well. I don't know if it's much better.... The original isn't much above minimum size, and has a lot of JPEG artifacts which sharpening at full size immediately brought out. TSP 02:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose original, oppose edit 1. Off color and artifacts. The edit helps, but is too small for an unexceptional image. Plus, the subject is questionable as said above. --Tewy 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Off colour and artifacts" im not sure what you mean by and artifacts, thats what the ship itself looked like, although the picture was taken later in the day, but I think it has a charm. Is there a way to make the woodwork sharper?
    • The lighting gave the picture an overuse of warm colors, which doesn't look natural. I'd prefer to see it in a well lit setting. If it's too dark because it's indoors, then a longer exposure might help. You can see artifacts in areas such as where the two front pillars meet the dark areas, or on the white ceiling panels. I guess that's minor, and since you've explained that this a replica true to original plans, I'll change my vote to a weak oppose. As for detail, it might just be the camera (but without the metadata, I don't know the specs of the shot are, so I don't know). --Tewy 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is really in your parent's house? That's rather amazing, but it does make me question its validity for FP status, and also makes me think it should be pretty easy for you to get a better picture of, e.g., better lighting, better composition (get the whole staircase), address other concerns above, and perhaps a different angle would be more informative. --jjron 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty severe focus issues throughout entire picture. I can't make out any of the nice detail on the banisters. Also I'm still not clear, is this a photo hanging in your parents house, or is it a recreation to scale? --207.38.206.107 15:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC) --Bridgecross 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (why can't i stay signed in?)

It is a recreation to scale, scale meaning it is identical to the ship's staircase

• • Can you sign this please? (I'm pretty sure it's Bridgecross) --Tewy 17:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you check "Remember me" (or "Remember my login on this computer" in Special:Preferences) when you sign in? --Tewy 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If this photograph really is from your parents' house, then the caption should explicitly state that this is a replica, and should include some evidence of the accuracy. --Tewy 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed the caption and have expressedly indicated that this is a replica
  • My parent's applied to view the original plans from the Harland and Wolff shipyard, they were given some photographs, which craftsmen recreated. It is built with the same materials as theTitanic's staircase, i.e. bronze, wrought iron etc. It would be impossible to get a picture of all of the staircase as it descends four levels.

• Im no expert critique but the image seems pretty clear to me
  • Can you please sign your comments with --~~~~ ? Thanks. --Tewy 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Whem I look at the pineapples on the rail, and the wrought-iron work, I just dont see the same crisp detail as other architectural FPs at max res. Are you using a tripod for stability? Also more lighting would get you a longer exposure. Just some suggestions.---Bridgecross 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But the staircase is lit naturally via the dome. Admittedly the gilded light fittings help too, but they're not that powerful Ahadland1234

There is one part of the image I'm unhappy about. In the top left part of the image, the second white panel from the left appears to have a mark on it, could an edit take that out?

If you mean the hair or dust, I think my edit already did take it out; though the only way I could get sharpness I was happy with was to take down the resolution significantly. Is this a scan of a printed photo? If so, could you rescan (higher resolution if possible) and save it as a maximum-quality JPEG? The main quality problem at the moment is artefacts from being saved as a low-quality JPEG; though framing is also an issue, so if there was any way you could get a larger field of view that would be helpful too. TSP 00:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well its a scale replica of the staircase in my house, and i was right up against the wall to take it though. Other than technical faults tho, is it a good subject? encyclopaedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) .

I think a really high-quality image of this subject might have a chance at becoming featured. It would probably need to be immaculately well-composed, 2000+ pixels across, really sharp, and free of JPEG artefacts, though, to overcome the concerns about encyclopedicness of the subject. At the moment, this doesn't provide all that much better an impression of the staircase than Image:Titanic_grand_staircase.gif, which is also more encyclopedic because it is a photograph of the original, not a reconstruction. Standing slightly to the side might give a less obviously 'cropped' view of the subject (stopping the bottom step being cut off), as well as enabling the carved panel to be seen properly instead of being blocked by the torch. PS. Please sign your comments using ~~~~ - it gets really confusing if you don't. TSP 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the {{PD-self}} tag, Image:Titanic_grand_staircase.gif seems to be another photo of Ahadland1234's parents' replica. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. The respective captions on Grand Staircase of the Titanic suggest otherwise, though, and Ahadland1234 has said above that there exist photographs of the original and his family is in possession of them (which would also be consistent with the image's low-quality and black and white nature), so I'd just assumed it was a mistag and should have been {{PD-pre-1923}} or similar. TSP 17:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Kenton Memorial Bridge

The acute angle of this shot exaggerates the arch of this well-engineered suspension bridge. Depth of field is deep and color well saturated. The shot is typical of river towns along the Ohio River. The photo appears in Simon Kenton Memorial Bridge It was taken 10/29/2006 by Greg Hume.

• Nominate and support. - Greg5030 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. I quite like the picture - it's quite well taken, if not exceptionally attractive, for example those ugly building at bottom left. But the article it is in is very ordinary; can something be done to improve the article or get it in an article more conducive to a FPC? --jjron 13:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the angle but not the composition; first plan is a little confusing. - Alvesgaspar 16:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The composition of the picture is very bad, and too busy. -Gphoto 22:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Isolating the bridge would only detract from its encyclopedic value -- you wouldn't be able to see the context in which the bridge exists. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Bridge is already cut off on the right side, so any more cropping will not make too much of a difference. -Gphoto 17:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't like the angle at which the bridge has been photographed. enochlau (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Face

The typical smart look of a golden retriever, inquisitive and always learning. This image clearly supports the well know fact that golden retrievers are very curious and hence learn quickly. You can also see kindness which another feature of this gentle animal. The image has spontaneity and is true to life. I have created this picture, his name is Riley and this image appears in.. you guessed it “Golden Retriever”

• Nominate and support. --Calyponte 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too close up. It would be more informative to show the entire dog. Redquark 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article already has a full view of a golden retriever, the close up was taken purposely to show its facial expression in detail.
• Oppose. clearly supports the well know fact that golden retrievers are very curious and hence learn quickly. You can also see kindness. This is about as unencyclopedic as it gets. With this caption it might illustrate the pathetic fallacy article (check the link, it's not an insult!). --Dschwen 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • While I agree that the photo is not encyclopedic, the caption does not render this a good illustration for pathetic fallacy, which relates to inanimate objects. The golden retriever in the picture appears to be alive. -- Moondigger 22:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • True, although the article states Animal Farm as an example. Anthropomorphism would probably be a better fit. Anyway I'm not suggesting putting the picture in any article, its rather the whole nomination that serves as an example :-) --Dschwen 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is very much alive indeed.
• Oppose. Not terribly encyclopedic, though it is a nice photo of the dog. -- Moondigger 22:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. In terms of the photograph itself, the biggest problem for me is the fringing around the edges of the dog's face. But I also can't support an image like this without it being in an appropriate article. Right now it is not. I think this picture would best demonstrate the tendancy for humans to personify animals into having emotions and human expressions and such, but I don't know if there's an article for that. --Tewy 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Anthropomorphism --Bridgecross 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess what I meant is the tendancy for humans to see the general shape of a face, and recognize it as such (like this :) ;-) :-( :-D ) Someone looking at this picture would see the dog's "expression" and think the dog felt a particular emotion. Is there an article on that recognition, or does Anthropomorphism cover that range too? I've read the article and can't find anything specific about it. Anyone more familiar with this subject? --Tewy 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The only thing this photo shows is a Golden Retriever's head, nothing more. I don't see any inquisitiveness whatsoever. To me the dog has a blank, almost stupid look. Goldens aren't known for being particularly smart either --Dobelover12725 22:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL. ♠ SG →Talk 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm reasonably sure the dog will not be offended. --tjstrf talk 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Why? Because he is too stupid to understand? Man, you're just making it worse ;-) --Dschwen 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That dog could make a reasonable case at WP:RFAr. ♠ SG →Talk 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Golden retrievers have got to be the dumbest, stinkiest, clumsiest and most intrusive dogs ever. Their faces with that "Who am I and how did I get here?" expression plastered on everything from dog food cans to business cards is so obnoxious. The only place their idiotic faces should be plastered anywhere is on a poster against backyard breeding to show why it is never a good idea. Or as a symbol of the "dumbing down of America". Which in a way, it probably already is. The only being dumber than a golden retriever is a golden retriever owner.

[edit] Dempster Highway

The Dempster Highway is a highway that connects the Klondike Highway in the Yukon Territory of Canada to Inuvik, Northwest Territories on the Mackenzie River delta. It is the most northern road in Canada.

• Nominate and support. - PierreWiki 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's really not a bad shot in terms of the composition, but the technical aspects of the photograph prevent it from becoming a featured picture. The two biggest problems in my opinion are the noise and the blown highlights in the sky. --Tewy 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Do you have one without the noise?• Leon
• Oppose. Agree with previous comments, it is good compositionally but the quality of the image is quite low. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks like someone intentionally put it through a grain filter, or one that makes it look like a painting. NauticaShades 07:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice composition and beatiful image. Pity that technical quality is so poor. - Alvesgaspar 08:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, An edit could probably reduce the color noise, but it could do nothing for the sharpness. The image looks smoothed over and the detail at 100% is very poor.--Andrew c 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much noise to be a featured picture. Hello32020 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I'd normally oppose, but I've been really interested in the Yukon and Northwest Territories over the past few days for some reason. I discovered the beauty of the Bitterroot Range in Montana last year (while on the Wikipedia!) and I vacationed there for nearly a month last summer.. this year I hope to do Canada :). Anyway, this picture just helped reinforce me wanting to visit. drumguy8800 C T 19:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female Eastern Grey with Joey

An early morning shot which involved painstaking caution! These are wild animals and at the least provocation will hop off on you! So even with the 200mm on this lens, capturing them in this detail is pretty exceptional IMO. Illustrates a number of articles quite well.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Very encyclopedic shot, and no quality issues. I love how the joey is looking at the camera, but the background is a litte distracting. NauticaShades 07:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. High quality, informative, attractive, nice composition - I can see no reason to oppose. --jjron 13:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, good shot but not FP quality. The background isn't so nice, especially that white blob. I think it would definitely be on of the worst featured mammals. gren

グレン 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree it is an attractive and nice composition. But certain details, like the unfocused fence and the white blob, prevent from being FP. - Alvesgaspar 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support either. Good subject, bad background. --Tewy 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subject cut off (can't see the feet or tail), distracting backgroup, grass stalks in foreground in the way, too much of the shot is wasted (could be fixed with cropping), urban backdrop un-natural. sorry. Witty lama 20:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice and sharp, but the grass around the subject and the roof in the background are both distracting. -Gphoto 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Support - Re the above; I can understand how difficult this may have been to get, but the ¿shed roof? in the right background, brown thistles in the foreground and trees are all about the same colour as the kangaroo and distract a bit. (Changed in light of "in the wild" discussion) • Leon
• Support. It's a picture of a kangaroo in the wild. I think the background only adds interest to the picture. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Ack Leon. And the bg doesnt fit the kangaroo in the wild theme. --Dschwen 20:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it does. Maybe you're thinking of a kangaroo in the Bush or something, but this picture shows a wild kangaroo near human settlements, breaking a stereotype. howcheng {chat} 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I just think the settlements are a little distracting within the composition - it's still a great image, but I'm just reluctant as far as featuring goes • Leon
      • You're absolutely correct Howcheng. It was taken near 37°15'48.66"S 147°43'17.90"E - wack that into Google Earth and you'll see it's a very remote area in Alpine Victoria. --Fir0002 09:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • What is it now: Very remote or near human settlements? It's your back yard, isn't it ;-)?
          • What, people can't live in rural areas? howcheng {chat} 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought the stereotype was kids riding to school on the back of a kangaroo in Australia? ;-) Anyway, for the record Fir0002, that coordinate seems to correspond almost directly to corner of Great Alpine Rd and Swifts Creek Omeo Rd, right in the centre of town - is that right? Looks to be on the side of the road. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Geez, honestly - I guess you missed the near part - I gave you the co-ords of Swifts Creek (as used by the article I think). I don't know the exact co ordinates of where the pic was taken, but as you can see the area around there is heavily forested - which is where the photo was taken. --Fir0002 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm at a computer lacking photoshop, so I apologize, but anyone just wanna try cropping and repost an edit? -Cody.Pope 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a crop from the original but we're getting very close to 1:1 again and hence the quality isn't quite as good. --Fir0002 09:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - it's a lovely shot, pure and simple. The background is slightly distracting, so just clone the white blob out with some green, and be done with it. This isn't a photography competition, this is about getting the best images for Wikipedia. Stevage 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It looked a bit over sharpened to me? --Windsok 00:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Landing Party

A legendary World War II photograph: Members of an American landing party lend helping hands to other members of their organization whose landing craft was sunk be enemy action of the coast of France. These survivors reached Omaha Beach, by using a life raft. The image appears on Battle of Normandy.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 08:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many jpeg artifacts. I'll look for a better version. NauticaShades 12:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Nauticashades. --Tewy 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Icons

This is a picture which I have always considered good, but had never thought of nominating. It is sharp, has little, if any, grain, and is encyclopedic because it shows four items common, and almost considered "sacred", in America. It appears in Cuisine of the United States, Apple Pie, United States, and Culture by region. The picture was taken by Scott Bauer.

• Nominate and Support | AndonicO Talk 12:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's nothing American about apple pie!

Seriously, I find the composition a bit lacking too. The focus of the picture seems to be on the apples, as they're in the centre-foreground and are the only items wholly in frame (even the pie, which is supposed to be the subject of the photo, is cut off). But apples are not even proverbially American; they're just there to let the viewer know that the pie is an apple pie. (Why not just cut the pie open?)

A picture along these lines but with more American icons would be a great idea. And arranged so that you can see the things, rather than with them artistically escaping out the sides of the photo.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've seen this pic before and always thought it was a little cheesy.--Niro5 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, however, a featured picture about one culture or another would be good —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
• Oppose. Too cheesy. Also, I believe the trifecta is "Mom, baseball, and apple pie." howcheng {chat} 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. --Ineffable3000 20:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for image's technical problems... not for excessive cheesiness. gren グレン 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is ironic that this image of American icons disrespects the flag of the USA by using it as a tablecloth. —dm ^(talk) 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, this image is the only one I have seen with a discussion page. They were arguing over this there. Here's the link. | AndonicO Talk 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

dm, I saw your post on the talk page of the picture, and I read the link you gave there. Can the nomination be closed early because of the reason you gave? | AndonicO Talk 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per extreme cheese. A technically fine image, but for the four subjects it depicts, Cuisine of the United States and Apple Pie don't match because it has a baseball stuff and a flag. As for United States or Culture by region this tells me nothing of the subjects. Perhaps this better represents Still life. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How about Secular icon or Cultural icon?
• Comment — This is an excellent photograph. However, one of the criteria for FP is accuracy, and pie isn't really something exclusive to the United States. ♠ SG →Talk 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: though I enjoy cheese with apple pie, this is a bit much. Jonathunder 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Completely token support-it illustrates [the symbolism of] Americana well. –Outriggr § 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am glad somebody supported this to some degree, I could not. It lacks encyclopedic value, but there is no denying(by me atleast) that it is an excellent picture. A whole whack of opposes on FPC is not reason to think your picture is not wonderfull(lord knows I know), it only means it is not encyclopedic. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But I think it is encyclopedic: Americana - perfect! –Outriggr § 00:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-22 Raptor

The most impressive of the F-22 Raptor pictures. Very Beatuiful fighter if you ask me.

• Nominate and support. Baseracer 02:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'll reiterate my vote on the last nomination, in that it's not as sharp as it could be, and has artifacts and blown highlights in the clouds. --Tewy 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It quite clearly failed last time and nothing has really changed. It IS a good photo but has significant flaws. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as last time; not so sharp and pixellation in the sky and clounds. --Bridgecross 14:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This picture is too small and too pixelated for a plane FP, of which there are many. NauticaShades 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the previous nomination, in which I was the nominator by the way. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Skyline

I posted a poor version of this picture I took a month or so ago. This one is much better and I believe it to be a good candidate. This picture is the compilation of 9 images taken in early October from Adler Planetarium.

This picture appears in the Chicago Article. Created by Brian Uphoff 10/6/06.

• Nominate and support. - Buphoff 08:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent panorama. Good colour and detail, the horizon looks level and the stitching looks pretty good to me (minor issues with some of the waves I think, but not particularly noticable unless you're looking for them). Good excyclopaedic image overall. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It always is ironic when a Wikipedian misspells "encyclopedic." ;-) --Tewy 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd misspell everything if I didn't spell check it...we didn't all pass the 5th grade.Buphoff 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support The quality is much better than the last one you nominated. | AndonicO Talk 10:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per above.• Leon 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Crisp, clear, good composition. VAST improvement. Adding more to the left of the Sears tower gives the viewer a better perspective. About time Chicago had it's skyline displayed in the same quality as my home town. Now you just need to nominate the other Chicago skyline for delisting. --Bridgecross 14:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good composition, nice pretty blue sky. Good choice of vantage points to take the picture. Did you use a tripod?Spikebrennan 15:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Just a little more water would have benefitted the composition, IMO. --Janke | Talk 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice. InvictaHOG 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent picture. I wonder if a little more water could make it even better. Alvesgaspar 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice. --Midnight Rider 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This one is a big improvement over the last one. NauticaShades 07:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great image! --WillMak050389 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A bit grainy, and any stitching errors are very minor, but this is a very nice, encyclopedic image. --Tewy 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great shot! - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks very good. - Darwinek 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Difficult composition, good shot, depicts subject in a clear manner. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, fantastic picture. Nice colours, encyclopedic. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 16:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, very clearly showcases Chicago's landmarks and is very clear and large. Mrmaroon25 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very crisp and looks kind of cartoony but not, in a way. Jake Humbles 14:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It acts both as a good photo and a Chicago skyline exhibition. Zeitcatcher 01:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent photo, clear and very high resolution. --the marble 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Superb. A marvelous photo that is definitely worthy of featured status. Wikipediarules2221 05:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Quintessential Chicago, but still original. Awesome! Thor Rudebeck 08:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

Pretty good scan of a famous, public domain photograph. This photograph appears on the following pages (among others): Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, Facial hair, Beard , American School (economics), List of United States Presidents by height order, Contributions to liberal theory, The Greatest American, Illinois in the Civil War, Alexander Gardner (photographer), Historical rankings of United States Presidents, Chin curtain, Military leadership in the American Civil War, and various other places.

• Nominate and support. - Spikebrennan 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good resolution. -Gphoto 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice, sharp, high-resolution, image of Lincoln. Hello32020 03:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good resolution, nice image. Regards, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either. Extremely valued picture on Wikipedia, and historically significant. NauticaShades 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support (edit 1). Top score for encyclopedicity and historical significance. Could do with some dust & speck removal, though. Also unnecessary large, since it is blurry in full size. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though you voted support, I created edit 1 to address these issues. I'm not sure if it was problematic, but I also removed the 1900 writting (because the photo was taken decades before then).--Andrew c 22:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This picture is displayed ad nauseam. It's almost hard to escape. It's in text books, all over the internet, and might soon appear in my nightmares. Let's feature something different and refreshing. T Steinway 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I hardly find that a reason to Oppose. By your logic, Image:Astronaut-EVA.jpg, Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg, Image:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg, Image:Us declaration independence.jpg, Image:March on Washington edit.jpg, Image:NormandyLST.jpeg, and even Image:Unclesamwantyou.jpg should not be FPs. NauticaShades 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original - It is a good unique painting. It's appearence all over the place proves that it is high quality. --Ineffable3000 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support either. Something weird is going on with the cheek area. --Tewy 04:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just because it's iconic and factually significant doesn't mean the image is good. If you look at the hi-rez version, even on the downsized Fir version, the detail of the face is very low. The hair is blurry, the skin is blurry, just ick. There have been B&W iconic photos that have been featured, but this one just doesn't make the cut. It's about on par with Image:CheHigh.jpg - iconic, but low quality by modern standards.--HereToHelp 00:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind WP:WIAFP explicitly states that the more historically significant a picture is (and this one is very significant), the less quality it may have. NauticaShades 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Even though I was the one who originally uploaded the image from the LoC and I enjoy it very much, it really isn't of "featured" quality; it is, afterall, a blurry 1860s photograph. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that it is from 1860 and that it can never be taken again allows it to be somewhat blurry. NauticaShades 14:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Though the same could be said for any portrait photograph taken in that time period... GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, at full size it looks like a picture of a picture, not a picture itself. I think someone photographed the original to digitize it with a focus that was a bit off; hence excess blurriness. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — There really isn't anything significant about this photo, other than the fact that it is of a famous person and that it was taken in the 19th century. There are many other old photos that have gained featured status, but they are of superior quality or actually show a significant event. ♠ SG →Talk 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm... Abe Lincoln isn't just some old guy plucked out of the street, you know...Borisblue 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Hmmmmm, I think everybody here agrees on image's significance, thus it has very low resolution, not even a candidate img for me. --WalterHumala |wanna Talk? 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What is that supposed to mean? NauticaShades 11:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It also has some smudges, iu could scan it again, but from the original picture.. --WalterHumala 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A very historically significant photograph! Ackatsis 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per ♠ SG →Talk 2 -- mcshadypl ^TC 21:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original. Very encyclopedic. | AndonicO Talk 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support either; there's some strange concentric distortions around the right cheek and shoulder but the resolution is great • Leon 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Iconic Borisblue 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Abraham Lincoln head on shoulders photo portrait.jpg --Fir0002 04:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falcipennis canadensis

A high quality, encyclopedic, and attractive photo of a female spruce grouse. Appears in spruce grouse, created by Mdf.

• Nominate and support. - Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I only wish there was more detail, so I could appreciate the plumage better. NauticaShades 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice image, though I do agree with Nautica. Hello32020 03:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great photo. --SonicChao 21:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak support - weak because of detail, per Nauticashades. I think there is waning enthusiasm for bird FPCs, given the paucity of votes on these two recent nominees. Debivort 22:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not very appealing to the eye. --Ineffable3000 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. A little blurry (per Nauticashades). --Tewy 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice quality as usual from Mdf, but not attractive to the eye - bland background and not ideal positioning of bird. --jjron 12:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good wildlife photo. Ackatsis 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good quality but not very eye catching. I guess that isn't the birds fault but smile for crying out loudBuphoff 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think there is plenty of detail there to be honest. You won't get much more detail than this out of any modern camera. Yes, it has been downsampled but that USUALLY just makes existing detail sharper rather than removing a lot of detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Falcipennis-canadensis-001.jpg --Fir0002 04:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semipalmated Sandpiper

This photograph, taken by Mdf, is I think a quite beautiful image. Granted, the colors are not vibrant, but in my mind this just adds to the atmosphere. Too many "flashy" eye-popping images are promoted nowadays, so instead try to enjoy the quiet serenity of this picture, instead of opposing on the basis of "no 'wow' factor". It is also taken at a very encyclopedic angle and there are not quality issues. It appears in the Semipalmated Sandpiper and Wader.

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 18:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Very nice quality, but I find the blurry "thing" in the lower right corner very distracting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I've had a change of heart, the blurry thing is just too distracting for my support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - another bad bird picture. --Ineffable3000 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind explaining that? NauticaShades 07:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Good shot as usual, but the blurred lower right is distracting, and there's a bit of noise that is visible in the darker regions. --Tewy 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support High quality image of the bird, however, if it could be edited so that the blur on the lower right could be removed, i think it could very well be a strong candidate for FP status. Ahadland 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not one of Mdf's best (and there are some heaps better shots taken by him) --Fir0002 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --Fir0002 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windsor Castle Quadrangle

I took this six segment panorama on the weekend (along with the lead image on the Windsor Castle). Yes, there are some blown highlights on the right side of the sky, and I know it doesn't scream "wow!", but it is a high quality image of the inner sanctum of the largest functional, inhabited castle in the world and in my opinion worthy of featuring. Just don't dare point out any not-quite-verticals! ;-)

• Nominate and support Edit 3. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original or Edit 3. I love the lighting and the silhouette of the equestrian statue. You can also see every detail of the walls, including the gargoyles. And actually, the "blown" highlights don't look 100% blown. Have you checked the histogram? NauticaShades 11:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm impressed by the geometric perfection of this segment photo (just compare with this one, which I did not support). I'll probably vote "support" after acepting some details which I'm not sure I like such as the slightly weird colouring and the dark statue (I would prefer no to be a silhouette). I don't think the blown highlights are much relevant. - Alvesgaspar 11:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason for it being geometrically 'perfect' is just that it wasn't such a wide view and I was able to use rectilinear projection (which kept all straight lines straight). What do you mean weird colouring? It was taken just before sunset so the light touching the building was slightly red-orange hued. If you think those colours are strange, check out the lead image of the article. It turned into a very pink sunset later in the evening. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree about the strange colours; I think the weather makes the castle itself a lot less punchy, and I think Fir is right about the tower being cut off. In the edits, the subject is not emphasised enough on account of the sky.• Leon
• Comment. Regarding Fir0002's crops illustrating possible stitching faults, I'm not sure myself actually. The uneven pavement could be either a fault or simply that - uneven pavement - although it does look a bit odd. As for the balustrade, it looks ok to me but I'd have to consult the original files to know for sure. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Even with the grass looking oversaturated (which I don't mind, as seen in many other FP), and the possible very minor stiching errors, and the partially backlit subject, I feel this is a unique image, with very sharp detail, and good composition and exposure. How do you get the detail so sharp?--Andrew c 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I think those are stitching glitches - there's a small one in the grass just under the big gate, too. Withholding my vote, I'd like to see a version with some level/curve correction, addressing the concerns about the "weird" colors. A bit more spiffy, please! --Janke | Talk 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You're going to have to be more specific about what is wrong with the colours...! Otherwise I may just adjust them in the opposite direction of what you'd prefer ;-). I'm still struggling to see what the problem with them is. As for the stitching, I think you're right, I see the one under the gate - what gives it away as being a stitching fault and not just deviation of the grassline is that the entry itself shifts slightly at the same point as the grass! As for Fir0002's other question about the stitching of the building (not sure I'd call it a balustrade though - more like a safety rail), I don't see anything wrong with it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • OK, since you ask, see the example here, which lightens up the building a bit, but leaves the sky untouched... --Janke | Talk 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • To confirm, that's what I meant also :-P. Although Janke's edit looks a little blue to me • Leon 08:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - very nice, high detail. The comments about stitching faults are silly - they're incredibly minor (if they even exist) and don't even remotely detract from the image. We *know* it's a stitched panorama - looking for faults to say "it's been stitched!" is kind of pointless. The colours could be slightly better, but it easily meets the standard already. Stevage 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor faults? For a pic by Diliff the panorama perfectionist, they're huge... Haven't you noticed we keep a special standard for him and Fir, lest FPs should consist of pictures by them only - with the same standards all over, nobody else would ever have a chance... NOTE: -->  ;-) --Janke | Talk 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. We shouldn't allow anything but perfection from his hands... Alvesgaspar 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - clean and encyclopedic. I like it. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 00:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support The picture is great, but it's not "Diliffic". Agree with Janke. | AndonicO Talk 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think Edit 1 is overdone. The castle looks now pale, sick (I suspect someone has to go there and take a pic at sunset just to make sure what the real colour is...). As for the perspective I really don't know what you mean. Can´t see any relevant difference (except in the left turret which is now leaning to the right). Alvesgaspar 08:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Edit 1 has fixed the stitching problems (although I largely agree with Alvesgaspar on the color), but I think this would have been better taken at a different time of day, as the backlighting on the subject is neither encyclopeadic nor aesthetic. I'm not sure on the availble vantage points, but it would have been good not to have the tower on the LHS to not be cut off. Also, and again I don't know if it was possible, but a pano looking top down (perhaps from a tower) would look better. --Fir0002 08:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The backlighting is not what is supposed to be encyclopaedic.. I find it ironic that you mention the encyclopaedicity/encyclopaedicness (no idea what the correct word for that is!) of backlighting as you have submitted an image to FPC in the past that featured a completely fake substitute sky (war memorial). There were no other vantage points as the entire quadrangle (and majority of buildings around it) is off limits to the public. The only view is through a fence where I took the photo or on the other side of the statue but that view offers less of the quad). The 'tower' isn't actually a tower, it is just a protrusion of the State Apartments wing. I think it provides some framing and context for the left side of the photo though. It isn't possible to get a significantly better vantage point as a member of the public, although I accept your point about the time of day/lighting though. My ticket allows multiple visits in a 12 month period so I may go back to Windsor sometime in the future and see if I can improve on it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No you got it wrong - that's the tough part about text you can't get the emphasis on the words. The point I was making is that there wasn't a good reason for it being taken with backlit condidtions - not that being backlit meant that it was unencyclopeadic. But that aside I don't see how being backlit lighiting ties in with fake skies - ironically or not. Anyway I look forward to your future attempt! --Fir0002 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure you expressed it that way previously, so it was difficult to interpret it any differently! Unfortunately I think that due to the UK's position on the planet at this time of year, the sun rises to the left of the frame, moves across the frame and sets to the right of the frame, meaning it will be backlit for the majority of the year! :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 3 - For the composition and 'geometric perfection'. Alvesgaspar 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support edit 3- --Janke | Talk 14:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle Corrected 2- Nov 2006.jpg --NauticaShades 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CH-53E Sea Stallion conducting a helo-cast

I regularly peruse http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp and came across this image. Once in a while, navy.mil comes up with a beautiful, high-quality, illustrative photograph. I think this is one of them. When I found the image, I went to the CH-53E Super Stallion article and found the images there to be lacking the action/unfolding drama (if only a training evolution) this image implies. I also found there to be no correlating Commons category (and thus created one). The article on the helicopter refers to it having the nickname "Hurricane Maker". I think this photograph helps visually depict how this helicopter picked up the nickname.

I did some color balancing on the image, but found this original version to be better than the color balanced version (which was really just slightly different anyways). I was originally thinking this image could not qualify due to it being only 800 pixes wide (per criteria) but the image is 1200 pixels high, so it clears that hurdle. I did not perform any jpeg compressions on the original; what you see is an exact copy of the source. I've had two other images receive FP status (1,2), but this is my first nomination. I hope you enjoy.

• Nominate and support--Durin 15:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The quality of the image is not that good (Jpeg artifacts), and it is too tightly cropped. I also find the sea in the foreground distracting.--Diniz 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The image was not compressed with jpeg. What you are perceiving as jpeg artifacts are possibly effects of sea spray surrounding the helicopter. The sea in the front is important to the image to show what the helicopter does to it, in support of the helicopter having the nickname "hurricane maker". This is why I did not crop it down. --Durin 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since the source file is a .jpg, it was almost assuredly made with some jpeg compression. There might be artifacts in the original navy source. Debivort 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• The cropping remark seems to have been misunderstood as well. Too much cropping, not needs more cropping ;-) --Dschwen 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose My hate is sloping pics and this one's sloping (look at the sea "horizon" and the sand against the cliffs). Most people probably wouldn't care about a minor slope but I do - Adrian Pingstone 23:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

With occaisonal lapses: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Radcliffe Camera, Oxford :-) --Fir0002 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn: I'm rather surprised the standards here are so high. This picture is rather unusual, is of high quality, and depicts aspects of the helicopter not depicted by any other image. What others are seeing as artifacts is spray from the helicopter. So apparently what the helicopter is doing, by way of being itself, utterly precludes the possibility of this image or any similar image from being a featured picture. Such an image like this, by definition of the nature of it will not be crystal-clear-utterly-sharp. It can't be. I'm also surprised at the cropping comments. The only thing cropped out is the tips of the rotor blades. Come out any further, and the helicopter is less and less the main part of the picture, and the swimmer dropping from the helicopter becomes less apparent. That would detract from the image, not enhance it. C'est la vie. It's an awesome image and it's on the article, and that's all the good it need do for the encyclopedia. If getting a picture to FP status is this arduous, it just isn't worth the effort of trying. I've wasted my time nominating it. *shrug* --Durin 01:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[edit] Eisenhower with Paratroopers

A legendary World War II photograph: General Dwight D. Eisenhower gives the order of the Day. 'Full victory-nothing else' to paratroopers in England, just before they board their airplanes to participate in the first assault in the invasion of the continent of Europe. Version 1 is from the commons, which meets all preexisting size requirements, and version two is the one we currently have here on Wikipedia. Ours is somewhat clearer, but does not meet size requirements, I have posted them here togather so they could be compared for the FPC process. The image appears on Battle of Normandy and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 08:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both Quality problems. A larger version with the tonal quality of version 2 just might stand a chance... --Janke | Talk 09:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support for new larger version 2. --Janke | Talk 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Support Version 2. Per Janke. I'll look for a better version. NauticaShades 12:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The larger version of version 2 is much better. NauticaShades 10:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• oppose both Support Version 2 - I might vote for a larger version of # 2, but I couldn't vote for either of these knowing something better is out there. Very nice. --Niro5 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 2 — Looks good to me. Sharp and very historical. ♠ SG →Talk 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 Is this the 101 airborne? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. Thats why the 101st airborne link appears in the 1st picture's caption ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like the contrast between the cleanliness of Eisenhower and the dirt of the troops. howcheng {chat} 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 2 - very interesting photo. Jpeob 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 2 - I like the emotions on the faces plus the historical value and the size is just perfect. Good quality too. --Arad 01:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Eisenhower d-day.jpg NauticaShades 12:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic Wreckage

A great image with no real technical faults

• Nominate and support. - Ahadland 15:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too dark, and just barely meets minimum size requirement. I know there are better images out there of the wreckage. tiZom_(2¢) 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you expect, its 2½ miles beneath the surface. The bottom of the ocean and natural light don't really miz Ahadland 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment 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!") Spebudmak 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • Thats a fairly daft opinion given that people have been fascinated by the sinking of the titanic, and therefore, her wreckage, ever since it happened. Hence, how that became the highest grossing film of ALL time. The fact that the legend of the ship still lives on is as good a reason as any to promote this image.
  • That's why theres a caption —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC).
    • I mean, 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). Does that fact have an impact on this photo's suitability for FP? Spebudmak 22:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support if there are better pictures, I would like to see them. Until then, this picture is very good. Wikipediarules2221 05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • Please sign your comments using ~~~~. It gets awfully confusing if you don't. TSP 14:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very little visible. Darkness. 65.93.215.29 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The darkness adds to the ambience. If it was lit up like a Christmas tree it would not have the same effect. A haunting and effective image of a shipwreck that killed so many. Legis 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballpoint of common ballpoint pen

• The details of the pen in this picture seem to be absolutely amazing in detail. the shine on the of the ink on the actual ball of the pen is great looking, and the photograph really captures the inticracy of gold-colored tip's rings.
• Ballpoint pen
• User:Brandon.irwin

• Nominate and support. - FireSpike 02:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is much too small. Please see the size requirements at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? --Tewy 03:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone hasn't checked the size requirements (approx 1000 pixels high or wide, minimum). The larger version of this pic is 320 by 246! - Adrian Pingstone 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - please actually bother to read the requirements before posting a pic, you're just wasting server space and our time. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, don't get all insane, bud... he just read wrong.--the marble 05:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remember: WP:BITE. --Janke | Talk

• Comment - Nevermind, I misunderstood the requirements, thinking it was 1000 pixels or bigger total, not that it was at least 1,000 in width or length. FireSpike 18:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to Oppose with no snarkiness. I'm sure that this attractive and informative photo was nominated in good faith, and that the servers can handle it, and our time is not so valuable, that they can't be wasted a little. --Bridgecross 14:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ps; find a larger, hi res version and I'll support. --Bridgecross 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, okay. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I just took a replacement for this, Image:Ballpoint pen close-up.jpg, but I do not think it is FP material. I did replace this one in the article with it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose resolution. I wonder, what would be involved in this subject becoming an FP, is it possible? Opinions please. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croagh Patrick

• Self nom I think this is an attractive picture, good size (1600x1200). EamonnPKeane 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It might be 1600x1200 but the quality is quite poor. There is little detail or texture in the grass or mountainside. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor detail, despite the size. --Thelb⁴ 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Dilif. I also see numerous artifacts in the ground Alvesgaspar 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quite hazy as well as poor quality, very visible on the grass. NauticaShades 13:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go Kart

A nice action shot of a go kart at the Bairnsdale Kart Club, and althought it looks like it needs anticlockwise rotation, if you check to plane of the two front wheels they are in fact horizontal.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Titlted :-). The two wheels should not be level as the cart is not driving parallel to the camera (perspective). I'd rather take the apparent horizon as a measure. --Dschwen 09:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And while the quality is quite good the subject looks a bit dull. Aren't there lots of carts on a track? I imagine something like a view from a little more ahead with chasing carts in the background and more exiting bits of the track. --Dschwen 09:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment... But... the subject is not supposed to be horizontal as it is viewed at an angle and perspective dictates that it will appear diagonal as you are not viewing from exactly straight on (this is the same phenomenon that we debated in the Radcliffe Library FPC) The horizon should be straight but anything above or below the point parallel with the horizon will converge. I'm not particularly good at explaining perspective. Perhaps a Mapmaker/Physics PhD student could do a better job. ;-) Suffice to say though, the kart appears to be driving uphill, but otherwise, its a pretty good capture of movement. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Dschwen beat me to it. ;-) But obviously our sentiments are the same. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Have uploaded an edit which address rotation and is a little more striking (although if you think it's too much I can do another edit without). --Fir0002 10:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not interesting enough, with little sense of movement. I think more than one Go-Kart is needed - Adrian Pingstone 12:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a very impressive shot, and Go-Karts are quite common. As Adrian Pingstone, it would be nice if there was more than one. NauticaShades 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since we're racking up wishlists, how about proper protective gear? That jumper is not going to save his skin and bones when he goes over. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barrage Balloon

This almost comical image not only has very historical value and is one of a kind, but it is at a relatively good resolution. Although the quality is not perfect, I think this could still make it. As well as being a Commons Featured Picture, this image appears in Barrage balloon and Operation Plumbbob.

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 15:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is a very interesting picture. Gphoto^talk 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• very weak oppose - I love the subject - but - there are rubber-stamp duplicated regions in the grassy foreground. It looks manipulated. Debivort 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• strong oppose - I can now see manipulated regions all over the bottom sixth of the image. Sorry. Debivort 09:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well spotted (although they are obvious when you look for them). Whodunnit? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is the image from the US gov site. The weirdness in the grass is on the original, so it was not the doing of a wikipedian.--Andrew c 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I wonder what DOD is trying to hide ... hmmm ... Debivort 01:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's useful for the article conspiracy theory? ;-) • Leon 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me as though that might have been wrinkles from the original image that came through in the scan? The left side at the bottom looks as though it were bent when scanned. Gphoto^talk 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think so, there are exact duplicates of certain shapes and textures in the grass. It definitely looks like photoshop clone stamping or healing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• SupportVery interesting photograph with historical significance. Wikipediarules2221 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Unfortunately due to the misrepresentation of the foreground grass. If they were going to hide something - even if just scratches on the negative or something - they should have put a bit more effort into it before publishing the photo! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Uploaded edit - crop. --Thelb⁴ 17:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - Unless the DOD was trying to hide a UFO with that cloning, I don't think I would have voted for it anyway. Interesting, but not every mushroom cloud is signifigant--Niro5 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, the poor quality of the upper part makes it clear that this was scanned from something that wasn't the original medium. Quality is blah. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This image is already tagged as a featured picture and a picture of the day? --Cody.Pope 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • On commons, which has different standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, sorry, I should read more often. --Cody.Pope 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version. One-of-a-kind composition; rez is excusable.--HereToHelp 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
===[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ |Non-nude example]]=== I am nominating this picture to be a featured article because I think it is very encyclopedic and significant to the article it is contained in. The image is eye grabbing and forces you to do a double take and absorb more of the information in the article. The photograph is high quality, properly centered, and manifests an artistic mastery that is uncommon among many images on Wikipedia. It appears in the Nudity article and was created by Craig M. Groshek.

• Nominate and Support.-Wikipediarules2221 06:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a re-nom, originally March 2006 - it was then shot down pretty harshly, only 2 supports (not counting nominator) vs. 19 opposes. The photo certainly hasn't got any better since then... "Artistic mastery" - you're joking, right? --Janke | Talk 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Heh. I mean, Oppose. She has red-eye! Stevage 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry to disagree, this a common snapshot and also a quite innocuous one. Alvesgaspar 09:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blown highlights on the jewelry, very grainy, too dark. NauticaShades 09:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very poor quality. Please read WP:WIAFP before nominating, this image obviously fails to meet criteria 1, 3 and 7. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment This fails number 7? Um, have you read WP:WIAFP youself? If you have, I highly doubt you comprehended what you read.Wikipediarules2221 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's keep things civil here. "Pleasing to the eye" is a matter of personal taste, and there is no need to make comments like that. Raven4x4x 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have made it a little more obvious that I was joking. No harm done (I hope). Cheers!Wikipediarules2221 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose If this is a featured picture, then so is every other image on the internet. It's just common, and only mildly titillating. --Bridgecross 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Just a snapshop, a featured picture needs technical excellence. Nice to look at though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose if you're going to rebel against your parents, at least don't do it half-heartedly --Niro5 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Um...what...?!Wikipediarules2221 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, If you (A freshman girl) are going to rebel against your parents (by flashing), at least put your heart in it (by showing nip). Just a little joke.--Niro5 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Is that not a little "nip" on the girl on the left? --DonES 08:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Has been nominated and failed before. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks kind of like a teaser for Girls Gone Wild. howcheng {chat} 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

More like girls gone mild! sorry, too easy. Ok, I am done with this thread.--Niro5 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I fail to see any reason why it should be featured. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 15:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, even if... the photo's not impressive either. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per many above, Pstuart84 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a ridiculous nomination for too many reasons to say, just look at all of the above reasons. --the marble 05:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Why was this renominated? I see no reason to change my vote. SteveHopson 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Mary's, Bairnsdale

A good shot of the interior of the Roman Catholic Church showing the intricate mural work done by out of work Italian artist Francesco Floreani, during the Great Depression

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I like this picture the sensation that the walls are going to fall down is too strong. I will support it after a good edit to make vertical lines parallel. Alvesgaspar 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is an inescapable side effect of using a 17mm lens - but it's not as bad as the distortion on this FP: Image:Bodie ghost town.jpg. I don't think there can be too much done to it. --Fir0002 05:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try selecting the entire frame and performing transform -> distort. Then bend the top left and top right sides outwards so that the 'verticals' are actually vertical. It probably won't fix it completely, but it would certainly help. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Goes to show the compassion of the church. In a time when thousands of people were in desperate need of food and housing, they decided to build an elaborate cathedral and employ an Italian artist to decorate it. It looks tacky, the Jesus and Mary in the background look plastic. Carpet also takes away from the gradeur. --liquidGhoul 12:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no need for potentially offensive comments which are not related to our task here. Also, please comment on how the image illustrates the subject in a pleasing way, rather that criticising the decor.• Leon

• I am not voting here because I probably have a bias against churches and don't have the skills to evaluate architectural photos. As for "criticising the decor", it is perfectly valid in this context. The criteria states: "Be pleasing to the eye", and I don't find tacky statues and carpet in a cathedral that pleasing. Sorry about having the comments out of place, but I am never going to censor what I say because it is "potentiall offensive". What I usually have to say isn't offensive, but if I wish to express something, I will. --liquidGhoul 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - is it really that red? It seems a little unreal! InvictaHOG 16:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose What a unique church! I agree with Alvesgaspar with the respect to the walls. Also, I reckon a more symmetrical crop would be better. • Leon 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Would this be better as an HDR image? --DonES 07:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As mentioned already, could do with some geometric distortion correction. As far as the photo itself goes apart from that, it is reasonably good, although I'm not really convinced it is a significant enough subject. For that matter, and perhaps it would be best brought to the talk page, do we have a policy about the significance of the subject when deciding on an image becoming FP? Should it be a consideration when deciding? Subconsciously, I've always weighted more support on important/significant subjects and, conversely, been less likely to support a less compelling subject, even if the FPC images are roughly equivalent from a quality/compositional POV. Thoughts? Is this overly elitist? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, but I personally feel that perhaps it should be the reverse since it would demonstrate why Wikipedia is so unique - Wikipedia can have articles on places like Bairnsdale and recognise the significant archeticutre there. Something like Britannica would have that so that in a way makes it even more special. And as long as it fulfills the criteria and is a good picture I don't see why it shouldn't be a candidate for FP. Anyway thanks for your thoughts --Fir0002 11:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, there's a definite tilt to the image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Could you elaborate on how this image was taken and postprocessed. It has a peculiar look to it. The reds look fleshy and partly oversaturated and there is a ambient turquoise shine to it. How comes? --Dschwen 15:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • HDR blending. Perhaps this different blend is more to your liking: Image:St marys - bairnsdale.jpg? --Fir0002 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Exposure blending (check this)? It is interesting to compare both blends next to each other. However my comment holds for both of them. Exposure blending with a luminance mask has the inherent problem of oversaturating colors. Have you tried blending the channels seperately? --Dschwen 09:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • HDR Blending - I'm well aware or the difference, I actually use Photomatix --Fir0002 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
        • What difference? HDR blending makes absolutely no sense. You either directly blend images with different exposures. Or you create an HDR image from an exposure series and use tone mapping to create a displayable image, as the HDR image cannot be displayed on conventional monitors. So it is either Exposure blending or Tone mapping. --Dschwen 23:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Touched by His Noodly Appendage

This was originally nominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Touched by His Noodly Appendage. However, it's just too funny to go without being on the featured pictures list. It encapsulates everything you need to know about comical pictures, and if you want to have a better go at describing the value of this picture (which wouldn't be difficult), fire away!

If you want actual reasons to vote for the pic:

1. It's a high quality image, 1600x1200, no compression artifacts etc.
2. It is, quite simply, the best work of art that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It adds an informative value to the article Flying Spaghetti Monster as well: an article can be ambiguous about appearance, whereas this picture couldn't be if seen from 200 yards away.
3. It's not biased by any point-of-view, it's pleasing to the eye in its accurate blending with the ceiling (and, as Shadow1 points out, a brilliant use of Photoshop), and most of all, it had me laughing on the floor and it's only extremely mildly obscene (if that).

• Nominate and support. - haz (talk) e 19:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not only is it brilliantly funny, but it's a great example of Photoshop use. Shadow1 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. Will ^{(message ♪)} 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - as a devout Pastafarian, I am grateful for this chance to spread our religion on, and ensure its survival in Pasterity. toresbe 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - I was a primary advocate for this image in the last nomination. But I think it is too soon to consider a repeat nomination. Debivort 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per last time --Fir0002 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for all the same reasons as last time. I encourage others here to read the previous discussion. -- Moondigger 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Last nominated <1 2 months ago. In addition (FP criteria):
  • 1 The quality of the image is good the but quality of the painting is far from encyclopaedically significant on its own.
  • 5 "help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." This image is a fan-produced tribute, and to me doesn't add anything to the articles over the other images. It's like FP-ing a company's billboard used to illustrate the company itself, especially since the black bars and slogan make the image less representational.
  • 7 "in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image" What is the subject? If it's the monster, why the black bars/slogan? The image is not primarily representational. So it needs to be demonstrated that the image itself is significant to FSM, parody religions, &c.
  • 8 "be neutral" This is a fan/promotional image. The obvious objection is Uncle Sam wants YOU, but that image is a depiction of the poster, which is itself highly significant.

I think this image offers wikipedia little over squillions of existing deviantart-esque pieces of fan art - a casual browser would be surprised to find something like it amongst the featured pictures. Again, please read the the previous nomination.• Leon 05:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Last nomination was first signed 13 September and was closed on the 21st, thus making it exactly 2 months... but yes, admittedly it's not a great length of time. haz (talk) e 10:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I forgot about October :-P • Leon 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. After reviewing the past discussion, I can see no convincing reason not to support. It is probably the most iconic image of an obviously encyclopedic topic. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper. Image quality is great. 72.241.12.8 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Forgot to sign in... Irongargoyle 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the image would be better without the caption in the image and a different descriptive caption. This caption is ridiculous Buphoff 06:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  If you are referring to the caption on this page, it is not the caption used in articles. The captions in Parody religion and Flying Spaghetti Monster are much more descriptive. Raven4x4x 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason as last time - Glaurung 08:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I might sympathize with the objectives of the Pastafarians, I see no aesthetical or encyclopedic value in this picture. For me it is just bad taste to mock the wonderful painting of Michelangelo this way. Alvesgaspar 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think this should have been nominated again so soon. I also think it would set a dangerous precedent if pictures designed purely to mock people's religious (or political or other strongly-held) beliefs were featured. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per last time. I don't mind a picture with a strong point of view (and this happens MY point of view) but this picture just leaves me flat. In addition, I don't think Wikipedia is well served by speedy re-nominations. What's to keep somebody from nominating the same photo once a month? Are you waiting for different voters to come along? --Bridgecross 14:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I supported it last time. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• oppose Hilarious, but not encyclopedic. Borisblue 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• It's not going to make any difference, given the current consensus, but Strong Support. Absolutely hilarious, and I giggle every time I see it - 'touched by His noodly appendage', brilliant. Also linked with International Talk Like a Pirate Day, an official public holiday of pastafarianism. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not encyclopedic. Gphoto^talk 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support As Vanderdecken pointed out, it's pretty useless to say anything with the current consensus, but still i support it. It a great picture. —PYMontpetit∴

• Strong Support — I can't believe people can be so closed-minded. This image is not pushing any agenda. It is not saying "I want YOU for the U.S. Army." And give be a break about "not encyclopedic."

You seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia has a drawings featured picture category.
This image is well-drawn, meets quality standards, is free, and is very notable. If this image isn't encyclopedic, I think we need to redefine what the hell "encyclopedic" means in the featured picture criteria. ♠ SG →Talk 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Be of high quality. It should be sharp (Check) and of pleasing colour balance (Check), contrast and brightness (Check), free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed JPEG files) (Check), burned-out highlights (Check), image noise ("graininess") (Check), and other distracting factors (Giant noodles and a naked man).
2. Be of a high resolution. The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. 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. (Check)
3. Be Wikipedia's best work. It should be a photograph, diagram, image (Check) or animation that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work.
4. Have a free license. It should be available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. (Check)
5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image. (Check)
6. Be accurate. Supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page. (Check)
7. Be pleasing to the eye. Taken or created in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image. The picture should make a reader want to know more. (Check!)
8. Have a good caption. 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. (Check, Flying Spaghetti Monster has a good caption.)
9. Be neutral, An image should not put forward a particular agenda or point of view, but instead should illustrate the subject objectively. Specifically images of maps should be uncontroversial in their neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). (Check, not pushing any agenda.) ♠ SG →Talk 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Besides the more obvious reasons mentioned by others why this should not be included, I must add that this image is not at all pleasing to (my) eye. If people want to invent a fake deity (and it HAS been done before, people!) could they please try to cut down on the tentacle-and-googly-eye-ness. It gives me the willies. Spebudmak 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But the whole point is that it is (if you'll excuse the language) a piss take. It's a joke - the ridiculousness of the FSM is the fact that it's a flying monster made of spaghetti and two meatballs, accentuated by the caption 'Touched by his noodly appendage'. As it says on the WP page itself: '_{The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter on his website, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator that resembles spaghetti and meatballs called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and calls for Pastafarianism to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design.}' Please note the phrases 'parody religion' and 'reductio ad absurdum'. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment SG, it would probably be best if you didn't run around calling those who disagree with your opinion "closed-minded." That said, I want to address some of your reasoning.
  • 1. Be of high quality. Frankly I find this to be of mediocre quality at best. The color palette of the FSM differs from the man's palette (referring to the "paints," not the pixels). Also, the FSM was clearly "painted" by somebody who lacks Michelangelo's talent and skill -- a noble attempt by an amateur, sure, but by comparison it's as if a child's drawing has been pasted into the middle of a masterpiece. (Of course, that's basically what's been done here, so the juxtaposition is not surprising.)
  • 3. Be Wikipedia's best work. You placed your "check" at the wrong spot -- yes, it's an image (of course), but I disagree that it's Wikipedia's best work. See #1.
  • 5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. This does that -- how? The concept is quite adequately explained in the text of the article. It's not as if somebody could read the article and still be confused, but then see this image and have an epiphany. "Oh, I didn't really get the idea of an invented deity, but then it all became clear when I saw the image." Sorry, it just doesn't comply with this criterion, despite your insistence that its encyclopedic value is obvious.
  • 7. Be pleasing to the eye. Another subjective one -- what's pleasing to your eye is not necessarily what's pleasing to others' eyes.
  • 9. Be neutral. This one was beaten to death already on the previous nomination. Suffice it to say your reasoning conflicts with my understanding of this criterion. Frankly I have no idea how you can possibly conclude that this is neutral when it is so blatantly non-neutral. If this is neutral because of its placement on an article describing the controversy, then the ninth criterion is meaningless and unenforceable for any image. -- Moondigger 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Edit: FWIW, had I been around for the Wikipe-tan discussion, I would have opposed it as well, though not for all the same reasons. -- Moondigger 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

      1. What, now the benchmark for featured pictures is Michaelangelo?

      3. The check was placed at the correct spot. It features Wikipedia's best work as an image. It's pleasing to the eye, and well-drawn in my opinion.

      5. As I mentioned in another response below, without actually coming out and saying "God doesn't exist," it shows opposition to intelligent design by creating a deity of its own, as there is no proof of any god whatsoever.

      7. I agree with you. But be honest; are you opposing this because you don't think it's pleasing to the eye, or because you believe it isn't NPOV?

      9. And again, I don't understand how it can be considered non-NPOV. It is not mocking anyone or any faith. Is it merely showing that since there is no proof of God, anyone can make up their own. To put it short, this is reductio ad absurdum. (We've featured propaganda images, too, by the way.) ♠ SG →Talk 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same reasons as before. POV image that shouldn't be on the front page. PPGMD 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per SG. It's a humorous work, not a deliberately POV image. NauticaShades 09:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The nominator forgot to mention one last, but most important, requirement all pictures have to comply to before being promoted to FP: they must pass through this scrutiny and be approved (Not Check) - Alvesgaspar 10:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Same reasons as before. (I was the nom in the first round.) --Billpg 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In response to SG, my biggest reason for strongly opposing is that it's a piece of fan art. The moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia is illustrating (left out of criteria 1 in his post) moe anthropomorphisms. This is not primarily illustrative in function at all, as evidenced by the caption. That was my thrust, closed minded though it may be • Leon 12:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And Wikipe-tan isn't fan art? "Not fan-art" isn't one of the requirements for a featured picture. This image illustrates parody religion, FSM, and creator deity. Anyone familiar with the Michaelangelo work will realize that God has been replaced with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and thus, even without a caption, it perfectly illustrates modern-day opposition to intelligent design. ♠ SG →Talk 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for lollage. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Exeedingly Strong Oppose My reasons:

1. Parodie that insults other views. Not NPOV.
2. Disrespectful to Michelangelo. Not a "real" work of art.
3. "Touched By His Noodly Appendage" should not be in the picture.
4. Should not be renominated so soon. (previous nomination.)
5. Plain and Boring; not funny.

For these reasons I do oppose, as I did barely 2 months ago. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • First of all, I'm sure Michelangelo would laugh at this, not feel insulted. Second of all, it being funny or not is comepletely subjective and unrealted to WP:WIAFP. NauticaShades 09:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How on earth can you be sure about such a thing??? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right, funny depends on the individual (even though I've never laughed at this). Michelangelo, howevery, would almost surely have disliked this. (I think the reasons are obvious). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Are you sure Michaelangelo would be insulted by this? I'm not agreeing with Nautica here and saying that he would laugh, but I'm pointing out that none of us here know Michaelangelo on a personal basis. Unless he actually came out and told us that this is disrespectful, then don't use that as an argument.
          "Touched By His Noodly Appendage" is an important part of the image. Why should that caption be removed?
          Now, this image is NOT mocking any religion, it is parodying the idea of creationism. Just so you don't call me an atheist, I believe that there is a god, but what PROOF do you have that our god isn't a giant flying spaghetti monster? Show me that proof, and I'll oppose this nomination. ♠ SG →Talk 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not an impressive picture. It depicts satire I suppose, but I don't see the encyclopedic value. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per SG. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. POV and uninformative; promoting this would be a minor embarrassment to Wikipedia. Anyway, this was renominated too soon and probably deserved a speedy close. Redquark 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as last time. –Outriggr § 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, it still violates the NPOV portion of criteria 9, and I don't think it is going to stop doing so any time soon. --tjstrf talk 09:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per all oppose and comments made during the last discussion. This is POV, unencyclopedic and was renominated WAY too soon. --Nebular110 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It is of the right dimensions, quality, and illustrates the subject in question. It's no more POV than a picture of Jesus supports the POV of his existence. Weak because it's not a particularily stunning image. Iorek85 01:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per AndonicO. Not very encyclopedic, the image isn't even that great and it's POV. aviper2k7 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Unencyclopedic POV image. Sulfur 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not, IMHO, Wikipedia's best work (FP criterion 3), Pstuart84 17:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong SupportFor all reasons listed above-- I'm not going to repeat them! Jellocube27 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's a bit too fast to renominate. Plus, the image is not enclopedic and it doesn't make me want to know more. The rest is already said. --Arad 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support as per the comments of SG, which I was going to make myself before I saw he had done it more comprehensively. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • SG glossed over the substantial POV concerns with this image. Images don't allow for qualification from context the same way articles do, because of this a featured image essentially must avoid an anti-anything stance, even if it is only implied. For example, an article on Blood libel could be written in an npov manner while describing the views of blood libel's proponents. A blood libel poster on the other hand, could never be npov'ed without completely altering its content. (He also insulted Wikipe-tan.) --tjstrf talk 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, it may illustrate the article, but it is not featured picture standard. In particular, the letterboxing is distracting. I can't see it looking good on the main page. Bob talk 10:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Angoulême

This is a historic image from 1877, one of the very first color photographs printed on a paper base. (comment added by Janke)

The du Hauron article had an external jump for pic, considered to be the very first colour photo. I decided to upload a 886x634 retouched version. Changes include contrast and saturation.

• Nominate and support. --Brand спойт 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose original. Not a very good scan. I've seen much better reproductions. Furthermore, this isn't the first color photo - it was made 11 16 years earlier, by James Clerk Maxwell. Also, not in any article, a requirement. --Janke | Talk 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Brand спойт 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to put the new, better scan into Angouleme? --Janke | Talk 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I did it myself. --Janke | Talk 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support new scan, 1548x1132 pixels, which I just scanned and uploaded. Historically very significant, added to the Louis Ducos du Hauron article. A correction, too: it was taken in 1877, not 1872. Note how the cyan, red and yellow images overflow the edges of the photo, showing the subtractive color process. I added it to color photography, too. --Janke | Talk 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is historically significant, and the new scan is quite good. NauticaShades 13:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. The historical context alone would make me support this image, but also, I find it very visually appealing. I particularly like being able to see the edges in the new scan. Spebudmak 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support new scan. Historically significant, etc per above.--Andrew c 00:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support New Scan. As above. Terri G 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support new scan - I wonder if anyone has a better scan of Tartan Ribbon, the first permanent colour photo? Warofdreams talk 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a couple of good reproductions. I'll see what I can do. --Janke | Talk 08:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. See color photography. Is it good enough to nominate - perhaps not? --Janke | Talk 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support new scan, superior quality, historically significant. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support new scan, This is a beautiful and historically significant photograph. Excellent quality. 152.23.96.133 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Hunter
• Support Historical is good. An excelent find. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Duhauron1877.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cempa_stilthouses

Image created by Dheera Venkatraman (me). Just thought when I saw this that it really exemplified a rustic village of stilt houses built of traditional materials (as opposed to the more modern concrete stilts used in many villages today), illustrating the concept which is often not seen by inlanders and those in other regions of the world. I have a higher-resolution version (2592x1944) but am not sure how to replace an existing image.

• Nominate and support. - Dheerav2 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It might be best to upload the larger version under a different name. But if you want to overwrite this identical, but smaller version, then upload the larger version the same way, but give it the same name as this version. (I'm fairly sure). --Tewy 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just click on "upload a new version of this file" on the image page. Raven4x4x 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah! Wow, now I feel dumb...but that's ok. --Tewy 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't seem to have this link. The original high-res image is at http://dheera.net/singkep_55_cempa.jpg . Do I require special permissions? Dheerav2 12:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 800x600 is too low res --Fir0002 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • see above, need help uploading a higher-res version
    • Larger version uploaded for you, but FYI, the link to do so is right below the file history (above the "File links" section). howcheng {chat} 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeLike Fir says - Adrian Pingstone 10:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cassilis Historical Area

The once thriving town of Cassilis now lies as a ghost town. This image I feel captures the feel of the place and is quintessentially Australian.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, the image is so busy in places that it seems to turn into noise. The abandoned cars don't seem specific to a particular town, or even a ghost town. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose Wrecked cars are quintessentially English as well!! I don't see how car wrecks illustrate the feel of a ghost town, but it does illustrate a ghost car-and-truck-dump quite well :-)) - Adrian Pingstone 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can see this featured on commons for pure image quality, although to me it has that weird exposure blending look that some of Fir's pics exhibit lately. But I miss notability and the subject looks somewhat like a (very old) junkyard. --Dschwen 14:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting critique considering your comments here ... :-) --Fir0002 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Dschwen, Fir0002's images have looked a bit quirky since he has been using DR compression techniques. The idea is good but that sort of thing requires a lot of skill and a good eye.. It is quite easy to incorporate all of a scene's dynamic range but the result often look rather false unless you can do it in a way that fools the eyes into believing it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I wondered what was odd about the image, if it's DR compressed, that explains it. I'm opposing mostly because the image is basically unintelligible at thumbnail size (ie, I had no idea what the purple thing was until clicking on it, making it pretty useless for illustrating articles. And usefulness is our primary concern. It's also not (IMHO) very pretty :) It is, um, interesting though! Stevage 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair though, an image doesnt have to be self explanatory in the thumbnail. It comes with a caption that explains what it is! And although a FP is essentially the lead image to an article when displayed as Pic of the day, it does also come with a detailed summary of the image/article so you're never really clicking it blindly. That said, I agree with you. It looks a bit messy, lacking contrast. It mirrors roughly the dynamic range of our eyes but it doesn't display it the same way our eyes perceive it, so it looks strange. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have to be "self-explanatory", but I really had trouble understanding that I was even seeing trees with a wrecked car until I saw the bigger version. Something about the dynamic range makes it look just like a mass of colour. Image:Cassilis historical area.jpg illustrates the place better anyway. Stevage 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Token Support. I like this and the other, similar one you had on FPC - daring subject, interesting details. –Outriggr § 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I love the quality DR compression gives it.. I could never figure out why the color/feeling of the image intrigued me so much. That junk looks magical or something, haha. Also, ah, it's not that notable. Even if its an historic area, not much differentiates *this* junk from oh say, Cadillac Ranch in west Texas.  :D. so, neutral. drumguy8800 C T 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young kitten

An excellent face close-up of a kitten, a featured quality picture in my eyes. This appears in the cat and kitten articles on the mainspace and was originally created by That Guy, From That Show!.

• Nominate and support. - Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose very weakly. This photo is actually much higher quality than the thumbnail might suggest. I'm just not fond of the out-of-focus grass blades in front of the kitten's face. --Bridgecross 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some points for cuteness, but the foreground grass distracts too much.--Janke | Talk 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. But rest assured I would vote support if this was based soley on cuteness. Unfortunatly I'm not digging the grass in front of the kitten's face per Bridgecross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark jedi requiem (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 November 2006
• Oppose Unencyclopedic, only shows the head and some grass and illustrates neither the cat or the grass well. An indoor shot from a lower angle showing better facial features and a bit more on the sides would be better. --antilived ^{T | C} 22:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - as has been said before me, great picture of the kitten, shame about the grass blades. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not enough DOF, and the blade of grass in the forground is very distracting. NauticaShades 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes,the three blades of grass wreck it for me - Adrian Pingstone 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I'm not as opposed to the leaves of grass as the rest of you seem to be, but I do think that the picture's value is mostly cuteness. Also, at least to me, the kitten looks more like a lion cub. --Iriseyes 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose What I like less in this photo is the distorted face of the kitten, which probably results from taking the shot too close. Alvesgaspar 20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SupportIts really good and nice and pretty! Anonymous user. Please sign in before voting. Alvesgaspar 11:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using the caliper

Didactic animation to illustrate the use of a vernier caliper. Appears in article caliper. Animation created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nicely done, demonstrates the concept perfectly. InvictaHOG 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Painfully weak oppose - I'd happily support but for a small border, about 1 px wide, of black on two edges and light grey on one other. Sort that out and I'll change to support. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's done (I hadn't noticed. Conversion problems) Alvesgaspar 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Good job, I support. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Question about the commas as the decimal separators in the numbers. Would this be an issue in making this image a featured picture on the English wikipedia, as (as far as I know) the use of commas is not common in English. (I know people who would be confused by it, mainly because their French teachers didn't teach them.) Is there a policy about this? Spebudmak 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'll bet it would be easy to make a version with the decimal marker changed. The non-English version is a candidate for Featured Picture in Wikimedia Commons, where issues germane to specific languages are not important, but in the English Wikipedia, it would be a stronger candidate if it follows English conventions. Fg2 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Info I hesitated before using the comma as a decimal separator. Finally I was driven by the fact that it is used in Europe (except UK) and in many other countries in the World. On the other hand, the decimal point is the standard in English written scientific papers. Conclusion: I will soon add a new version with the decimal point. Alvesgaspar 08:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Can't be much more encyclopedic than this! Support also valid for a (future?) version with decimal point instead of comma. --Janke | Talk 06:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Precise, and nicely done. One a side note: most of today's calipers are digital, you just have to read what the screen says... -Glaurung 06:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I prefer the third edit. As I knew before how to use a caliper, the first and second versions were cristal clear for me, but from what I read on this page, that might be a little bit confusing for those who have never used one of these tools. I think the third edit helps explaining the concept. Glaurung 06:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Info Here is the decimal point version. It is basically the same animation and I think it should be considered as the same nomination. Alvesgaspar 11:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support and thanks for the version with the English decimal marker. Fg2 12:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to be honest... it took me a long time to figure out where the 0.07 figure came from. It looks like an arbitrary number until you realize that you're trying to line up the marks. I know that the red line indicates that it matches up, but maybe it could be more explicit? Maybe you could mark a red line on each mark until you get to the 0.07 mark, and then extend the line the whole way to show that it matches up? Just a suggestion... (Or maybe it really is easily understood, and I'm just slow!) tiZom_(2¢) 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think the animation is unnecessary and distracting when I'm trying to focus on reading the lines for myself, only to have it suddenly loop back to the start. Why can't we just have the final frame on it own? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Info. OK, here is an improved version which, I hope, will satisfy some critics. Thank you for the suggestion, tiZom. The objective of the animation is to show how the movable parts (verniers, jaws and probe) work, more than to illustrate how to read the scales - Alvesgaspar 16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, you still have "2,4" at the beginning -- it switches to "2.4" when you do the addition. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. After viewing this several times, I still have no idea how the 0.07 part is calculated. I see how you get 2.4, and then the red lines moving and all, but I have no idea WHY you stop at 7 to get that measurement. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Info The "0,07" is read directly in the vernier (which is graduated in 1/100 cm), at the exact point where there is a coincidence between a segment of the vernier scale and a segment of the main scale (i.e., when they line up). But this is the kind of explanation that we should put in the caption, not in the picture itself. Alvesgaspar 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Let me see if I understand this: The main scale is where the 2.4 was measured, right? So are you saying that you get 0.07 because 7 lines up exactly with 5.2 on what I'm calling the main scale (and 1-6 don't exactly line up with any other lines)? howcheng {chat} 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's correct. I think that with edit 1, it's much easier to see what's going on. But maybe there is still some confusion? tiZom_(2¢) 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Man, that took me a long time to understand. There has to be some sort of mathematical principle that makes this work or something, because otherwise it still seems pretty random/arbitrary/coincidental to me, and it really should explained in the article. I think agree with BernardH (below) that animation just makes this even more confusing. This could just as easily be done with a static image. Heck, the last frame by itself is probably good enough if you combine it with a good caption. howcheng {chat} 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see the explanation in vernier scale. Got it now. howcheng {chat} 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
            • To finish my thought from earlier, I still oppose this. One, the animation is totally unnecessary. I don't need to see the caliper open and the nut go in. Two, it really doesn't illustrate caliper well -- it illustrates vernier scale, where Wikipedian-made images already exist to show me how it works. So if the last frame of this animation (which I think is the most informative one) were to replace the existing photo, it would have to be in SVG. Even given all of that, I don't think it's FP material. It's extremely useful, but compared to the complexity of some of the contents of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, Drawings, and Maps it doesn't quite pass muster. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 09:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose - when the newest edit transitions from zooming in to the red line starting to move, there is an (~1px) adjustment of the pixels at the .07 mark. For an animation trying to convey strict precision, this should be fixed. Debivort 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - nicely done. Debivort 18:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thank you for noting. It is fixed now. Alvesgaspar 11:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but would prefer without the animation. --Bernard 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support the 3rd version but with periods. IT also needs the caption I added. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, it was a mistake. It is fixed now. Alvesgaspar 11:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Any either of the second two versions; fantastic! • Leon 11:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Third version. NauticaShades 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, but would support non-animated one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I stared at this thing a long time and still didn't get the 0.07 without the above discussion. I think the animation needs a third phase, where the camera zooms in to the little marks, showing how the first 6 marks don't line up, but the 7th does. Also, it should pause longer at that point - it moves too fast when you're trying to understand such a subtle point. Stevage 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Info - It is not easy at all to understand how to read a vernier scale. And I agree with you, and with Howcheng, that it might be frustrating (and most irritating) seeing the animation restart when you try to figure out how it works. But the main objective of the animation is just to illustrate the use of a caliper, not to teach how to read a vernier scale. For that purpose, a static image like this one is better. If we could stop the animation where we like, that would be perfect. But we can't, as far as I know. Alvesgaspar 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But it's obvious how to use a caliper: it's reading the vernier scale which needs instruction, and I still think that's the focus of this animation, not how to insert the nut. (Which makes me notice that the captions are wrong: the bolt is the screw-without-a-pointy-end that goes inside the nut). Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly -- that's why I argue that the focus of this image is on using the vernier scale. Otherwise, why devote so much time to marking off the lines and showing the total size of it? If you want an animation to show how to use a caliper, perhaps it shouldn't be a vernier caliper. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't think that just because it is vexing how this contraption works, that the picture isn't incredibly helpful. Anyhow, it seems to me that the way it works should be written in the article itself. AJarvis 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for addressing the issue of the decimal comma/point. Latest version of the animation is clear. Spebudmak 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very informative. I would prefer the one with the decimal point better. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Using the caliper new en.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandelbrot Set

Good high-resolution picture. Best picture of the Mandelbrot set on Wikipedia. Mathematics images are under-represented in WP:FPC

• Nominate and support. - Ineffable3000 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original - new version will not load on pages. --Ineffable3000 01:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. These images can go a LOT bigger, in theory, so I think someone who was willing to use that much computer time could make a better one. However, it is very sharp and attractive, and I think that makes up for the size. Those zoom links are fun... --Tewy 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support larger version. Much better. This allows you to see the close up detail as well as the whole fractal. Now if the thumbnail issue can be fixed, I think we'll have ourselves a featured picture --Tewy 01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - 1280x960 is a very high resolution for Wikipedia. This is the best fractal image on Wikipedia so far. If a better one is created, we can always nominate that one. --Ineffable3000 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it's a pretty typical resolution for FP. --Tewy 02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Bernard version These mathematical monsters are fascinating creatures. Let's promote one to FP (the father); more and more beautiful will come after. Alvesgaspar 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We already have two Mandelbrot FPs: and .
• Comment Yes, and beautiful they are. But this one is special, it is the whole Mandelbrot set. - Alvesgaspar 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - And in my opinion, this one has better coloring and better perspective than the other ones. --Ineffable3000 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I think the colormapping of the points just outside the boundary looks fantastic. I would love to see a higher-resolution version with the same colormapping.Spebudmak 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Brilliant image of the Mandelbrot set. Visual mathematical image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.51.15 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC).
• Support, although I agree with Tewy that a higher resolution image would be better. Warriorness 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This looks like the default settings on a fractal program. If you have never seen a fractal before then it is amazing, but if you have you will know that it is a very plain rendering(see [5]). Also a fractal can be limited in size only by the 20mb limit, I would want a much larger render. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 07:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support 10000x8000 version Assuming that the wikimedia software eventually resizes the image hehe, I support this version. While the rendering is plain, that is compatable with an encyclopedic goal, and the giant resolution gives details that one does not regularly see when looking at a screen sized version. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great picture! --JustVisiting 13:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Larger Version. I actually prefer this simple version to the more complicated ones. However, i prefer the darker blue of the smaller one. NauticaShades 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• support better than the existing ones. Borisblue 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Rather boring compared to existing ones --Fir0002 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The sequence starting with the image is particularly good, but for the first image we can do better. I have uploaded a picture that improves in several ways: size, framing less tight vertically, non cyclic colors, sharper boundary. Mmmmm the thumbnail doen't seem to show on screen, maybe 10000 pixel wide png is too much. I will downscale if needed. --Bernard 23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I feel embarassed after having given my strong support to the first version. Of course this one is better, and if we care to produce a larger and more detailed version it would be even better! What to do with this kind of images? It looks like a contest, similar to finding the largest known prime number in the world ! Should we put a limit to size and resolution of fractals and evaluate only the aesthetical aspects? Alvesgaspar 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • PS. The problem here is that a higher resolution version of some fractal not only shows a larger image but also reveals new and unexpected details, i.e., it can be considered as a new picture ! - Alvesgaspar 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The only real limit to picture size is the 20 MB limit. I think voters know enough to vote according to all of its aspects, not just the size. Though I do suppose that someone could create a version with different colors and attempt to pass it as FP. For now, I would say to pass this version, and only replace it with another version only if it is clearly superior, not just different or larger. --Tewy 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I would go with aesthetics rather than resolution. An encyclopedia viewer does not need to look at a 1 Gigabyte image. --Ineffable3000 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia's best would be the one with more pixels. We do not have to choose between aesthetics and resolution, as the mediawiki software resizes large images for small displays. Any fractal can be redered to any size so why not 20mb? I say we use wikipedias best. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The current High Resolution image is not displayed on pages though. When it will be displayed on pages, I will Strongly Support it. And I want the new higher-resolution image to replace the old low-resolution image so that we do not have to relink all pages to the new image. --Ineffable3000 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No worries there, PNGs are slow to resize, so when you choose a new resolution to display it will be unavailable for about 20 minutes, a couple hours tops(you can place it on a talk page at a size and wait for it to render, then place it into an article to avoid the dead image in the duration). All you have to do is wait a while after a new size is chosen, subsequent uses of the image at the same size will be instant. In other words it is a temporary problem that fixes itself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Conditional Support High-Resolution Version - if a resolution thumb shows up on all pages and the new version is replaced with original version. --Ineffable3000 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment From what I see, there are still serious thumbnail problems with the 10000x8000 file. Wikipedia is actually serving the original full size image instead of a downscaled version (probably because it failed to create the thumbnail), and lets the users' browsers downscale the image themselves. I don't understand everything, but it looks very bad. I hope it can be fixed. For the moment, I've replaced the thumbnail with a 2500x2000 version (the 5000x4000 version has the same problems). We can't let the 10000x8000 thumbnail stay here, my browser slows down every time it tries to display it. --Bernard 02:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - 2500x2500 is fine. But I would recommend you get as high resolution as Wikipedia will display as thumbnail normally. --Ineffable3000 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Or just link to the larger version. --Tewy 03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I still think that 2500x2500 is enough to get the point across. It's not like something amazing occurs at the micro-level. It's just an iteration. --Ineffable3000 03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does not iterate, it is different in every location, subtly different, but different. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been doing fractals since, well, 20 years ago. Mandelbrot images are less than a dime a dozen. Yes, there should be *a* Mandelbrot featured picture. This isn't the one. Let's get something exceptional. Also, an image that showed the low numbers of orbits (1, 2...) more clearly would be more informative. Stevage 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support for version 2. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support the 2500x2000 version. An image isn't encyclopedic if the reader can't see it because it's so big. --HereToHelp 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. --Ineffable3000 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mandelbrot set 2500px.png NauticaShades 10:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SouthEast Asia fires Oct 2006

This is one of best illustrated pictures, currently used in 2006 Southeast Asian haze article, of recent forest fires on Borneo and Sumatra islands that have destroyed large tropical forests, damaged public healthy in Singapore and Malaysia by its haze and recently has killed 1,000 orangutans.

• Nominate and support. - — Indon (reply) — 10:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose In the image, there are blurry parts, which I find off putting and I find the red parts scattered over the image - which i suppose are meant to represent the fires? - look, unseemly. However,if a better method of indicating the flames could be found and the sharpness enhanced, I'll change my vote to support
• Oppose Not good enough. The information depicted is unclear and ambiguous. Are the red signs the spots where fires started, an indication of burned areas or of those still on fire? Also, the inclusion of a digital made coastline and/or a coordinate system would help to locate the areas of interest. Alvesgaspar 15:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted NauticaShades 10:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gherkin

I took this photo last weekend of the Swiss Re Tower in the City of London. It is a high quality panoramic (four segment vertical) image illustrating both the tower and the contrast of the the very modern architecture of the tower to the more traditional buildings in London. I don't think it has any significant distortion or tilt but the trouble with the building itself is that the shape and details make it difficult to 'measure'. :-)

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nice work, again! Iorek85 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I love this picture! It is so crisp and clear, and is beautiful! Good work, Gphoto^talk 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This may just be my computer, but I can barely distinguish the top of the building from the sky. Regards, Gphoto^talk 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It must be your monitor, as I can distinguish the line (though it does fade significantly, as I stated in my vote). --Tewy 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. A very nice image. The only thing I don't like is that the tower isn't very well lit. The top of it almost fades into the sky (as Gphoto mentioned). I do like the contrast between modern and traditional, but that prevents the tower from standing out on its own. Is there a location from which a picture of the tower can be seen top to bottom (and with minimal distortion)? --Tewy 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Short answer, no there is no location anywhere in London where it can be seen from top to bottom. Have a look at the article to see what sort of views you can get of the tower. I work nearby and I have tried to find the ideal viewpoint for taking a photo of this unusual building, but it is really not possible to find a better location. The lead image is also quite good with less distortion, but with a lot more distractions in the foreground. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to illustrate my point about the location, here is a hybrid google map showing the tower in relation to central London. It is one of the more built up cities in the world so unless you find an open space, buildings will block the view of the tower completely, or you might just see the tip of the tower. I took the photo from the south-west looking across the courtyard. There are no other nearby viewpoints as the building is obscured in all other directions. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• oppose, poor contrast at the top due to its lack of light makes it blend into the night and the division between building and sky hard to see, which is detractive when we're trying to show the building. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)\
• Oppose, blown out highlights, if the subject is the Gherkin then it should be centered, speckles that were apparently on the lens, this image has problems... gren グレン 09:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don't think any of those are really legitimate problems. Yes, there are blown highlights on the interior of the building but this is going to be the case in ANY night time cityscape. We've featured plenty of images with this 'problem' before. Not all subjects have to be centered for aesthetic reasons and there are no 'speckles' on the lens. They're called stars. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, they do seem to be stars. If you take this again you will need to steady the camera better since they all appear to be lines sloping upwards to the right, which is not natural. I disagree with you on the centering issue in this case. I understand that there will always be blown out highlights, but I think they make this picture look bad--unlike on Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg. Maybe it's not a technical problem (I think the stars are, though) but just a problem with how the building is lit. In that case I would argue that the best way to deal with this building is not a night shot. Part of it is likely that most shots of single buildings at night are not that good. I look forward to seeing more of your pictures--your other featured ones are great. gren グレン 13:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the stars are sloping because the world is turning. ;-) Each exposure was about 15 seconds, enough for the world to turn just enough to blur the stars slightly. Technical fault? Perhaps you could consider it that, but aesthetically it is so minor that I'm surprised you even mentioned it. It seems that people tend to be far more critical of images than is necessary. More resolution is almost always better, I agree, but is it necessary to critique the image at full sized view for an image of this size? If I downsampled it to the minimum resolution requirements for FP, you'd barely even see the stars, let alone their slight movement. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
        • True, but at a lower res they wouldn't be as likely to impress and gain support. --Fir0002 06:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like the composition and the quality is great. But is it only me who noticed a quality decreas in voting comments? What ever happened to In my opinion..., I'd prefer... etc., it still is just a minority, but some comments are pretty bold... ...and equally clueless. --Dschwen 13:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A bit grainy at the top, but this doesn't detract to much from an otherwise great image. NauticaShades 17:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Minute oppose - glorious, but for the lack of contrast twixt the top of the gherkin and the sky. Sort that out somehow and I'll happily support. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A good night shot of a very unusual building! But agree with above, the top of the building really mars the otherwise excellent sharpness of the image. --Fir0002 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a great photo, and it's crazy to expect no blown highlights AND perfect contrast in an area with lights off. • Leon 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support --MichaelMaggs 09:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Most excellent image. I am puzzled by the comments on the lack of contrast against the sky on the uppermost part of the building. On my CRT monitor (19 inch Viewsonic) the transition from building to sky is perfectly clear. Secondly, the uppermost storeys have no lights so why should the transition be any clearer? This is a night picture! - Adrian Pingstone 10:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support I can't see how a better photo could be taken with these conditions. How did you manage to get almost all lights on in the white building?... What I don't like (and this justifies the "weak") is the angle, pity it is not possible to take the shot from a higher position. Of course, the sky doesn't stop moving during the exposure. Alvesgaspar 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support While I don´t like the fact that the building in the foreground looks more like the subject than the actualy tower (I thought the Gherkin is the church or whatever building in the foreground when I first saw this) other aspects of the photo is great. --antilived ^{T | C} 09:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - pity the thumbnail size looks blurry, but the full size photo is stunning, very sharp, which is tricky for a long exposure. Nice job! Stevage 13:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support The faults are minimal, and only the blown highlights are noticable. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support STRONGLY support, this is a brilliant photo, hearty congratulations to the photographer. This is almost enough to make me want to purchase a DSLR and get down to London as soon as I can to see if I can take one anywhere near as good. Mikeserieys 20:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Week Oppose I wish the building in front didn't focus your attention the way it does. Also it would be better if the background sky was more black. Right now it almost blends with the building's lighting. Buphoff 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with those who say that at full resolution the image looks great, however, at thumbnail size it looks kind of fuzzy. The encyclopedia uses the thumbnail version, and so I don't know if it adds enough to the encyclopedia to be FP. As for the composition, including the contrast with 'traditional London buildings', I prefer the first image in the article (which is probably not clear enough to be FP). Spebudmak 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Great resolution and good contrast between old and new architecture. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice night shot. I love the contrast between New Age and Old Age! Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:30 St Mary Axe - The Gherkin from Leadenhall St - Nov 2006.jpg NauticaShades 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peppermix

This is a self nominated image. It is used in the Capsicum article. It depicts red and green jalepeno peppers, red and green banana peppers, chili pepper and a habanero. It is used in the article in the varieties section. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - like the colours, but the background is really unattractive. The image is also pretty soft (could do with some sharpening). Nice, but not quite exceptional. Stevage 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose blown red and green channels, it looks like you've been saturating it too aggressively. --antilived ^{T | C} 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rather unattractive background, and it needs sharpening. NauticaShades 09:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. drumguy8800 C T 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Habanero closeup

The current picture of a Habanero is being delisted. I have taken this one in the hope of replacing it. It is of higher resolution and addresses the concerns for the one being delisted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not very attractive unfortunately. Kind of looks like a mug shot :) A more interesting composition and background perhaps? Stevage 04:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well my attempt was an encyclopedic portrayal. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, don't think the two are opposites: FPs are by definition both encyclopaedic *and* attractive. Stevage 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Valid point. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Much better than the previous FP and should definitely replace it on the article, but not sure about FP quality. Good job nonetheless. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Good pic but somehow boring. Perhaps more than one of these peppers would have been more interesting, and I would have liked some indication of size. - Adrian Pingstone 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Better than the old one, but kind of dull. The lighting could be better. --Bridgecross 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral until it gets cleaned up. There's some purple near the top of the stem and the stem itself could be clearer. An edit by Fir0002 could bring this up to FPC quality.. I'd also like to see the back cleared out in favor of a white background. drumguy8800 C T 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not Fir, but I uploaded an edit that hopefully addresses these concerns. Sharpening can only do so much before it starts to look bad, and the strong highlight remains. That said, I think this version clears some things up and I would support edit 1.--Andrew c 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Fir edit. Nice edit Andrew, but Fir addresses my concerns better.. I meant completely white (except for the shadow.) drumguy8800 C T 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 Well, even if you aren't Fir, this cleanup is pretty darn good. I'll support this for sure. --Iriseyes 03:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1. The whole "Lets get Fir0002 to edit it!" thing is a bit silly anyway. Basic photoshop editing can be done by anyone (although obviously good technique and attention to detail helps). Always suggesting a certain person is a bit exclusionist for the many other competent editors. Anyway, this edit is good but I'm sure a more aesthetically pleasing composition would improve its chances. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that a hint of jealousy I detect? :-) --Fir0002 11:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Diliff is in anyway jealous.;-) --Arad 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, FPC criterion 7 states "The picture should make a reader want to know more." It isn't doing that for me. Pstuart84 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Either edit. Good encyclopeadic shot, although the fruit has some minor blemishes. --Fir0002 11:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Edit 1, Oppose Original and Edit 2 - The reflection ruined it for me. The background of the original is not good and Fir's edit introduces large halo and the background looks unnatural (what was once a nice, blurred, out of focus transition from the subject to the background is now sharp and looks obviously edited). --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ok picture but I don't see this as FP. Editing is pointless, even by the great Fir ;-). Reshoot! If the lighting in the original is too hard, no edit can ever fix it. There were two recent examples of nice lighting: the lemons and the onions (which unfortunately had other flaws). --Dschwen 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I indeed have alot to learn about lighting, one of the harder parts of photography in my experience. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canon Powershot S3 IS

A very good product shot of the Canon PowerShot S3 IS, illustrates the subject very well, of high resolution and reasonably sharp. Created by KirinX.

• Nominate and support. - antilived ^{T | C} 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very grainy, and lots of blown highlights. The bottom part of the camera is also indistinguishable from the shadow it casts. Finally, since the camera is grey, it should not be photographed on a grey background. NauticaShades 09:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rather underexposed to be honest. Dark background doesn't help it stand out, either. While still not quite ideal (not enough depth of field to show the entire camera in focus - partially due to the angle), this is a much better photo, and it didn't pass as FP either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Underexposed and blurry in parts - Adrian Pingstone 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - blurry, colour noise, blown highlights, JPEG artifacting, bad background. Also not very well lit, and not really that notable or pleasing to the eye. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Unattractive image and looks more like a overexposed magazine advert than an encyclopedia article. --Iriseyes 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above, esp. focus issues. --Bridgecross 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment From the comments it's very interesting to note that many people are saying it's grainy. IMHO it's not camera noise, but it look grainy in reality. The background does look like that in real life (or at least I've seen background like that in real life), the camera look like that and if you look at the rim on the front of the lens you can see it's not grainy there. Also, can anyone point out the major focus issue in the photo? (I know the rim on the left of the camera is slightly out of focus but it is not that important on a shot from this angle) --antilived ^{T | C} 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I see your point, but few people are going to look at this picture and try to figure out why it looks grainy; they will just assume that it is grainy. The photographer should have dusted off the camera before taking the shot. --Iriseyes 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, blurry, not impressive. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphin in the Military

I found this picture on the Wikiquotes page for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with the caption: "So long and thanks for all the fish". I uploaded a hi-res version and put it up here. I think it is pretty sweet.

• Nominate and support. --Cody.Pope 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - a fairly well known and quite remarkable photo. Further, photo is of good quality; clear and sharp. Comment below it is poor though (see Bottlenose dolphin article) - edit: just noticed: "This image was selected as a picture of the day for August 13, 2006."

Per BabyNuke's talk page, I bow to his superior caption skills. :-) --Cody.Pope 22:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bad composition; the dolphin does not have enough head room, and the soldier is cut off. Also, the quality of the image is not that good. Gphoto^talk 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grainy, cramped composition. I also think the man is not very interesting and probably shouldn't be in the picture at all.Redquark 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the noise in edit 1. In the article this image specifically demonstrations interactions between people and dolphins. Generally, I think combined the image's wow factor, the difficulty of catching a dolphin mid breach, and the novelty of military equipment on the animal overcome the technical flaws. --Cody.Pope 04:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even with the edit, the compodsition is still cramped and tghe grain is still quite visible. The quality is just lacking. NauticaShades 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• CommentI think the soldier (sailor) is important to have in the picture because, as uninteresting has he is, the dolphin isn't wearing its army boots, so without the soldier, we don't know that camera is for a military porpoise, I mean purpose. I agreen the quality is low, and I agree it is a rare/difficult shot. How about someone check out dod.gov and see if they can't find something better? If not, I might weakly support it.--Niro5 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

like I thought, go to [6] and search Dolphin or Sea Lion and you'll find some good shots (including this one). You could look for seals also, but you'll have to look at a lot of pictures of humans to find the animals. I would help out more, but I'm at work.--Niro5 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose edit 1 the noise reduction took too much detail out of the photo (look at the man's vest and shirt). Also the lightening on the underbelly of the dolphin isn't quite right. It seems too dramatic/unnatrual, and brought out some noise (that may be foreground water, or jpg artifact, or just grain/noise that was already there).--Andrew c 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I got some contact information for the photographer and I'm going to see if he has any other version (less cramped) and/or similar shots from the same series that aren't on the Navy's various sites. --Cody.Pope 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok actually, it looks like he is in Iraq right now, so I'm not sure if I'll get any thing anytime soon.--Cody.Pope 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - both are grainy, oversharpened but still blurred, have low detail and aren't very pleasing to the eye. There was also no need for the size reduction in the first edit. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support original Edit 1 removed too much detail...so I'm sticking with the original. I support the original mainly due to it's "WOW" factor. It's certainly a unique picture (you don't see that everyday) and also a featured pic on Wikimedia Commons (11 support, 5 oppose thus feature on June 6, 2006, but listed for removal on Nov. 14, 2006 currently with 5 keep, 6 delist). A featured pic should be more than simply being pretty (i.e.: utterly free of any tiny trace of jpeg artifacts and big enough to be a desktop wallpaper). It fit's the loose requirements to be a featured pic and adds significantly the articles it is linked to. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bathurst Courthouse

Panoramic view of the Bathurst Courthouse on Russell Street, Bathurst, New South Wales. This building is regarded is among the most significant courthouse buildings in regional Australia. This quality panoramic image captures the building nicely.

The building was completed in 1880 in the neo-classical style with an octagonal Renaissance dome. The wings, built as the postal and telegraph offices, were opened in 1877. The entire structure is 81 metres long and 45 metres wide. The west wing is now occupied by the Central Western Music Centre. The east wing is now the Historical Society Museum.

• Self-nominate and support. - jjron 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. - Please blur out the license plates in the image; that just strikes me as sketchy. Other than that, I think it's a great image and as soon as the plates are gone this would change to Support. --Iriseyes 01:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't see why that would be necessary. A license number isn't private information, especially when there is no information to tie it to a person. Redquark 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Somewhat boring subject in my opinion, but the photograph displays it completely and in high quality. Redquark 01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It has too much useless space above and below it. Once cropped only 840 pixels in height is left, which is quite marginal for the resolution requirements. The cars are also very distracting as they stands out even more than the building but I guess there's not much you can do about that. Also it looks slightly asymetrical and unbalanced (the right is slightly bigger than the left). --antilived ^{T | C} 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you don't like the space you can supply an edit so we can compare, but I think it would probably hurt the composition. I think 840px in height is fine since it has 3300px in width. By eye I'm not seeing the asymmetry. Redquark 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well here you go. I've made a less tight cut and now there's 856 px in height, which still means I shaved off nearly one third of the original height and it is not a very extreme cut. Also I've put it lines to highlight the differences in height between the left and right. --antilived ^{T | C} 02:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, now that I look at it, I wouldn't really mind if the image were cropped. I'm still not seeing any asymmetry though; as far as I can see, your lines prove that the left and right are almost exactly the same except at the sidewalk level. Redquark 03:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• The lines are supposed to show that they are aligned at the roof level, then progressively become different sized and most noticeable in the sidewalk. It's only a few pixels but it is noticeable. Also, try compare the distances between each corrisponding segments on the semi-circle on the structure far left and far right. The far left segment on the far left is smaller than the far right segment on far right and you can tell by perspective and actually measuring it. (sorry for confusing wording, can't really express it in words) --antilived ^{T | C} 05:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I acutally thing the extra space imporves the composition. However, the cars are just too distracting and obstructive. NauticaShades 10:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Version 4. Much better. NauticaShades 06:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I quite like the image, particularly with the crop that Antilived has applied (subtracting the red lines of course), but perhaps with slightly more sky visible. Also, I'm not sure how wide the viewing angle is (hard to tell from the image) but it may look better in rectilinear projection, albeit slightly distorted at the edges. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose ... if it weren't for those cars, I might support. Yes, I know that cars are often parked in front of public buildings, but they simply kill the picture for me, as an architectural photo. --Janke | Talk 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. For those that are concerned about the cars, I have this alternative version, not that I really want to make this one of those confusing multiple noms (I waited around for about 2hrs until there were no cars, but the bus up the end spoils it a bit - by the time the bus left, half a dozen cars had parked again. I went back at 8am the next day hoping to get a clear shot, but there were cars parked already, and by 9am I gave up and took the original nom - who's at a courthouse at 8am on a Saturday morning? The photo (or seven stitched originals) is actually taken from out on the fairly busy road in front of another parking bay, and I was dodging cars trying to get it, so sorry about that couple of pixel misalignment Antilived). I think the lighting is a bit better in the original nom. Re Diliff, I'm not quite sure what you mean, but the building is 81m, from where it's taken is probably 90 degrees field of view. --jjron 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. I have to agree with Janke on this one. It seems quite regularly that I get comments on my photos/panoramas that they would prefer a different angle or different time of day/year or something distracting removed from the background. Although these may be legitimate issues, ultimately you can't always wait all day/year to take the perfect photo - particularly for essentially volunteer projects such as this. Even so, sometimes you do have to accept that some photos just don't quite have the edge without all elements being perfect. Architectural photos such as this can be difficult to get through since (in theory) they are very easy to reshoot... If you live in Bathurst! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Have uploaded a new edit to try to address some of the concerns (but looks like I'm wasting my time). Yes, we'll have to wait for someone else with the right equipment to travel to Bathurst who has a few days or weeks to spare there waiting for the right weather and traffic conditions. I guess there's just too much wrong with these photos. --jjron 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're hardly wasting your time. Edit 2 is superior and should probably replace the original on the article(s) regardless of whether it passes FP. FP is somewhat of a peer review really - even if it doesn't pass muster, you'll still have a bunch of constructive criticism to take on board! Like I said earlier though - some subjects are just more easy than others to get a FP quality image of. Oh, and what I meant earlier was that if the angle of view wasn't too large, a rectilinear perspective (straight lines remaining straight) might look more aesthetically pleasing, but would result in distorted edges on the left and right side of frame if the angle was too large. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest I think the cars are a valid criticism, and I guess there's a degree of personal taste in how much to crop off the height - I suppose all the 'weak' votes indicate it was worth a nom. Some of the other suggestions I don't necessarily agree with. I won't be reshooting though cos it's 800km from where I live, and not an area I frequent. Perhaps I should just request NASA to do a reshoot if I want to get this through ;-) .

Sorry Diliff, I don't mean to waste your time, but re the rectilinear projection, the verticals are currently straight, do you mean doing this would make the gutter line straight for example, which it is in reality, but when you say it could distort the edges do you mean it would then throw out the verticals on the wings or what? If so, personally I think I'd prefer the bending gutter. --jjron 05:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rectilinear projection will make all lines straight, verticals, horizontals etc. However if the FOV is too wide it will distort things at the sides quite greatly, so it really depends on your FOV (my guess: about 80 degree?) and the result you want to choose which projection. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have tried various other projections and stuff in other panos, but usually I end up going back to the standard. --jjron 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - no offence, but I have literally made a hundred panoramas (eg, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) about this quality. It's just not difficult - you take three photos, focussing on the same point each time, download autostitch, and off it goes. There's nothing particularly spiffy about this image - nice, workmanlike, but not "exceptional" or "unique". Stevage 14:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations on racking up the century, you must be very proud. I think there's more goes into doing a good pano than what you make out - lighting across the range, composition, flawless stitching, etc; but evidently you do them a bit more easily than me. Why don't you go ahead and nominate those you've linked to and see how they fair if you consider them as good or better? And weren't you the one raving about what many considered another 'workmanlike' pano here a couple of weeks ago, despite stitching flaws being pointed out, which you were happy to overlook? Or is that just bias? --jjron 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Let's be civil here guys, no personal attacks please. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• To be fair though, there was a total of ONE stitching flaw in that image (the railing had no faults), not flaws, and as he rightly pointed out, it was extremely minor and only obvious if you really looked for it. Everyone is, as always, entitled to their own opinion about the images - particularly how 'spiffy' it is in their opinion. Sure, he could have expressed it a little nicer but he wasn't saying anything that controversial and it didn't appear that he was suggesting that his panoramas WERE worthy of FP so I'm not sure that the "well why don't you try and see if you can do better!" taunt is appropriate.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is just that image stitching is trivially easy these days. Please, search for autostitch, download and try it. It's a hands-free operation. You load your images, and that's it. Provided you don't move the camera much when taking the photos, and provided nothing moves (cars, people, trees, water...), you never get stitching faults. Therefore I don't think "Nice panorama, no stitching faults!" is sufficient reason for an FP at all - it has to be an interesting, attractive, sharp, encyclopaedically valuable image. The image is pretty good, and without the motorbike, bus and banner, it'd be close. I half suspect that these days, "panoramic" photos should be the normal way of getting high resolutino images, not the exception...Stevage 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with you there Steveage. There is the additional step (at least with PTGui, not sure about Autostitch as I don't use it) of ensuring that you select the most appropriate projection and set the central point of the image - usually on the horizon to make vertical lines vertical and in the center of the horizontal plane. I almost always try to create a mosaic/panoramic stitch whenever the subject is static enough. You even have the added benefit of being able to shoot frames individually to crop out distractions such as people and traffic. Do this and you end up with a much higher resolution photo or alternatively you can downsample it to lower resolution but with much higher quality detail - true pixel level detail rather than the soft Bayer algorithm digital camera CCD output that never quite looks sharp at 100% no matter how expensive your camera is. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"...it didn't appear that he was suggesting that his panoramas WERE worthy of FP so I'm not sure that the "well why don't you try and see if you can do better!" taunt is appropriate".

That's not what I said - the whole idea of quoting someone is to actually quote them, not change their words to what you want. The clear implication (to me at least) in Stevage's original comment was that this was a pointless nomination because anyone can knock out photos/panos of this standard or better at will, six of which he linked to. And a bit of an odd comment to me given his votes on some other nominations, not just Diliff's. To be honest, there's nothing said above that changes that interpretation.

Now perhaps that is true and this is an absurdly ordinary picture, but if so then why have most people opposing only 'weak' opposed, usually with detailed reasons, while others have supported? Surely such an average photo should merely attract a string of full opposes with five word reasons? And therefore if he feels the panos he links to are of similar standard, surely they could be worth a nom as people may think they do make the grade? Or doesn't that make sense to anyone else? --jjron 07:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Well, at least I'm not the only one who's getting all worked up when his pictures are unheedingly bashed :-). The picture is nice but the lighting and the unspectacular composition makes me oppose. Maybe (and I'd immediately believe you if you said so) it is not possible to get a better picture. But that's fine. It's just that FPC are the best of WPs work, not the best of a particular subject. --Dschwen 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Funny, I actually thought of some of the odd reasons for opposes on some of your photos during this nom as well. Not that it matters, but just for myself to clarify - do you mean you don't like the lighting on either of them or just the second version, i.e., number 4, which I also said I wasn't so happy with the lighting on? --jjron 07:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's hard to answer :-). Partly both of them. One version has good lighting where the other one is too shadowy and vice versa. Maybe an overcast day would provide softer lighting exposing the details in all parts of the building. Then again blue skies always look nicer. Sorry, I don't really have any idea how to make a better picture of that subject. --Dschwen 12:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, thanks anyway. Yes, I think I do understand what you mean. The sky is quite beautiful in the first one, but I see what you're saying about the shadows (even though the sun was behind me and therefore shining face on into the building, so not sure how you'd eliminate the shadows, perhaps using HDR (or whatever you want to call it ;) )). In the other version there's sort of better detail in some areas, but the sky is not as nice. --jjron 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per last sentence of Dschwen above. Further, like satellite photos, panoramas have an inherent 'wow' factor, so something extra is required for a given panorama to qualify as a FP, IMO. Pstuart84 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic carpet

In Russian folk tales, Baba Yaga can supply Ivan the Fool or Tsarevich Ivan with a flying carpet or some other magical gifts (e.g., a ball that rolls in front of the hero showing him the way or a towel that can turn into bridge). Such gifts help the hero to find his way "beyond thrice-nine lands, in the thrice-ten kingdom".

In 1880, the rich industrialist Savva Mamontov commissioned Viktor Vasnetsov to illustrate the folk tale about Tsarevich Ivan and Firebird. The painting represents Ivan returning home after capturing the Firebird, which he keeps in a cage. Ivan is riding the flying carpet in the early morning mist. This work was Vasnetsov's first attempt at illustrating Russian folk tales and inaugurated a famous series of paintings on the themes drawn from Russian folklore. When exhibited at the 8th exhibition of the Peredvizhniki, the painting was panned by leading critics as a commerically motivated betrayal of realism and return to the aesthetics of Romanticism. On the other hand, it was enthusiastically received by the Slavophile artists from the Abramtsevo art colony.

Vasnetsov's painting provides an exceptional illustration of the article magic carpet. The image is high quality and high resolution. You feel like being transported into a fairyland.

• Nominate and support. - Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent, eyecatching, beautiful. (And no blown highlights... ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support <just kidding>Actually, if you look closely, the neck of the firebird looks like it has blown highlights.</just kiddnig> | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great quality, and an amazing outfit! • Leon 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Even the oil dabs on canvas are visible. Is it your first FP nomination, Ghirla? :) --Brand спойт 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It was me who uploaded Image:Lugano prokudin.jpg and the original version of Image:Sochi edited.jpg, although the latter was reuploaded with miniscule changes and no attribution as to the first uploader. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above, although I do not want to be transported to fairyland. Too many fairies. --Bridgecross 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, impressive, excellent image. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great picture, great quality. I've cropped it just now to make a desktop and it looks great on my widescreen monitor. --Xtreambar 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great scan of an interesting image. NauticaShades 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent image, terrific quality. Hello32020 00:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I find it to be a highly amusing and skillful painting, scanned in high-quality. Jellocube27 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Vasnetsov samolet.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orlando Furioso

This is an illustration for Orlando Furioso by Gustave Doré. It represent Ruggiero rescuing Angelica from the dragon. Doré as been a very important illustrator of the end of the last century and a master of image composition. This picture is a good example of his work and link to 3 different pages: Gustave Doré, Princess and Dragon and Angelica (character)

• Nominate and support. - PYMontpetit 23:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support This is a wonderfull image, excellently depicting the Princess and dragon concept. However, I would like to see a signigicantly better scan. Line drawings really need alot of pixels to avoid aliasing errors causing a criss-cross effect or stair like lines. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support per HighInBc. Redquark 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Definitly a great image. Beautiful piece of art. Would make a nice FP. Metabaron5 05:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. This is a tremendous illustration. I just wish there was a better scan. NauticaShades 10:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - while I see significant moire in the image page version, I see only very minor moire in the full resolution version. Debivort 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, in particular for FP's criteria 5. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Nice image, though not terrific quality. Hello32020 00:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Orlando_Furioso_20.jpg Raven4x4x 05:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyoto Geisha Nape Makeup

This is a lovely image that illustrates the makeup, hair and kimono of geisha perfectly. It's good quality, vibrant to the eye, and just all-around interesting. This has been in the Geisha article for a long time and helps illustrate the back of a geisha. David Bachler took the photo.

• Nominate and support. - Iriseyes 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - resolution is on the low side, but it's such a good illustration, and very attractive too. Excellent way of showing both front and back at the same time. Stevage 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, blurry/artifacted at full size Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. For a picture that small, the quality should be impeccable, which it is not. NauticaShades 09:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's a shame that the resolution is so poor.This is a quite attractive picture, composition and colouring are excellent. Alvesgaspar 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I love this picture. It is within the resolution rules (I believe) because it's 872 by 1052 which is OK, surely? I agree the focus is not amazing but the clarity, colour amd imaginative composition swing me to a Support vote. - Adrian Pingstone 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Changing my vote. Heart has won over reason. Alvesgaspar 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Artifacts, but made up for by the composition and color. Redquark 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Interesting picture. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak support - great as a thumb! Grainy in full rez, but good enough for me. Debivort 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not terrific quality, but still a good picture. Hello32020 00:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - i'm not someone who can quibble over quality, but this is a high-res photo prominently showing a rarely known aspect of geisha custom. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Colors and Composition are great. - Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Geisha-kyoto-2004-11-21.jpg Raven4x4x 05:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View from Sky Tower Akl

This is my first time nominating, but I've been lurking around here for ages and finally found a pic I thought was worthy of being Featured. This picture appears in Auckland and Sky Tower and I think excellently depicts a large part of Auckland, including the hospital, university, port, marina, Harbour Bridge & Viaduct Harbour. It is also clearly shows a large part of the Waitemata Harbour and the placement of the North Shore (particularly Devenport & the two volcanoes) and Rangitoto. The quality is excellent. It was created by User:Antilived.

• Nominate and support. - -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I like it but there are pretty serious stitching defects to the bottom left and up right of the "crowne plaza' building. Debivort 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks for nominating my image but I agree that there are some pretty serious artifects. I tried to fix it manually but can't manage to fix everything. I will try another stitch soon with even more control points (15k already) in Hugin. --antilived ^{T | C} 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I saw no other stitching issues Debivort 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's because I've fixed quite a few of them manually already. The crowne plaza one was not transformed correctly and I cannot fix it without breaking other things and there are also quite a few breakage in the west (far right) which I hid but can still be spotted on the full resolution one. BTW, I cannot see the breakage in the bottom left. Can you be more specific? --antilived ^{T | C} 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• My description was badly worded. I mean to say that there are problems both down-left and up-right of the Crowne Plaza. Debivort 06:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Almost there but not quite. I'm not usually one to scream "blown highlights!" but the sky is quite badly overexposed. Antilived, would you mind if I attempted to re-stitch it? I'm not saying I could definitely do a better job but I could give it a shot. If you're happy to let me, send me an email through wiki. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well that's where the sun is and in order to keep the details of Northshore I have to overexpose the sky (can't really do HDR or the like as there are quite a few people up there the day I went and they probably don't want me to hog the view all day. Also I didn't bring a tripod and I doubt my computer can handle that as it struggles to do this). --antilived ^{T | C} 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Is it taken from the inside? Then it would be a rotation >10m off the nodal point of the camera (shooting while walking aling the panoramic winwos of the observation deck). That's a tough stitch job in any case. Apart from that I don't like the exposure too much. Looks like you tried to capture the sky a bit, which renders the streets overly dark. I'd rather have a completely blown out sky and good exposure on the street level than both only half good. --Dschwen 08:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it is taken from the Sky Deck in the Sky Tower. I took two pictures (One for top and bottom) from 17 of the 34 segments of the Sky Deck. I have no idea what that nodal point thing means but yea it is quite a tough job on stitching. If I had blown sky I would have quite a few "blown highlight" comment and IMHO this is a nice balance point between it, not too much blown highlight and the details on the streets are still visible. If only it was a cloudless day and I could actually use my polariser.... (but then the sun will be destroying the north-west part of the panorma) --antilived ^{T | C} 09:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I used to think the Nodal Point is the pivot point for panoramic photography which allows parallax-free overlap (for easy stitching). But the wikipedia article just told me thats a common misconception :-). Anyways you'll find that the term Nodal Point is widely abused for just this purpose. --Dschwen 13:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well the nodal point is so near to the same thing that unless you're doing macro panoramas (a weird concept, thats for sure.. you'd have to find a perfectly spherically concave subject to keep it all in focus), you wouldn't need to know there was a difference. Its easy to approximate it to being the 'middle of the lens' - SOMEWHERE inside it is the focal point! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've just uploaded a new version which addresses some things like the stitching artifect and the blown sky. --antilived ^{T | C} 10:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately there are still some stitching artifacts.. There is one to the right on the horizon. It is subtle but there - the clouds, horizon and to an extent the houses are split down the seam line. Also, the horizon is not parallel. You know what I think might be contributing to the faults (just a thought).. The glass might be distorting the view just enough to make lining things up exactly impossible. That said, you've done a good job. I had just as much trouble trying to stitch it without fault. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Uhh Diliff can you correct the colour tint of the glass? There are quite a few breakages in the building and one in Northshore but nevertheless a good stitch. PS: do you know why is there moiré in the water? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 03:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah I see those errors in the building :/. I really think there was some diffraction or something going on with the window glass cause it just warps so suddenly, but your version seems to have 'fixed' it, so I'm not sure. As for the colour tint of the glass, are you sure thats what it is? Yours is more contrasty and brighter and less 'overcast' looking but it was overcast from what I can see. You might need to apply the colour edit yourself since you know what you intended it to look like. As for the moire, I have no idea as I can't refer back to the original files (at work at the moment) but your version has it too so it must be something common to both. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm quite sure it's the tint of the glass. My version looks more natural and it wasn't really overcast, just patchy sky. I just used a fairly high temperature and low on green WB to correct it. The moiré is there on the RAW and that question is inteneded to ask do you know how it got there in the first place (first time I see moiré on non-man made object on my camera). --antilived ^{T | C | G} 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1. A very encyclopedic image. NauticaShades 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saturn's rings from Cassini

I saw the image while browsing on the Internet, so I thought that it would be an excellent addition to our Saturn article. Well, when I was looking where to add it, it turns out it already was uploaded here, and was put on Rings of Saturn. It has a good caption, and is unique due to its rarity, has adequate resolution, is accurate, pleasing to the eye, in the public domain ({{PD-NASA}}), and of overall good quality. I believe it exemplifies Wikipedia's best work.

• Nominate and support. - Titoxd^(?!?) 01:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. What value is given to the picture being taken with the sun directly behind it (assuming that's why it's lit up so strangely)? I would prefer to see an image that was taken from the other side, that shows details of the atmosphere and rings (such as Image:Mars Valles Marineris.jpeg). --Tewy 02:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason the Sun is behind is that it allows all of the rings to be seen. When it is is to the front, the outside, fainter rings are not visible. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well if the picture shows the rings, then I still can't support, as they're not as sharp as they could be. There is also significant dust on the image. --Tewy 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      • "dust on the image" -- in a picture of dust rings. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I was referring to what Janke said; the black dots and scratches. --Tewy 01:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original, oppose original nomination and edit 1. Per Janke. --Tewy 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support An absolutely superb picture. Promote this one as soon as possible!!!! Ackatsis 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support (original file only) An astounding image. Some scratches and specks could be removed. --Janke | Talk 14:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • At the same time, those specks are stars, or in the case of the one left of the planet above the brightest ring, that's Earth... Titoxd^(?!?) 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I was talking about the black specks (hardly stars...) and black vertical scratches. They don't show in the original, so my support is for that only. Fir's edit looks a bit posterized. --Janke | Talk 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1. Cassini's pictures are some of the most spectaular space photographs I've ever seen. NauticaShades 17:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, purely amazing. (now that the original is available I prefer that) --Golbez 18:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Big support - wowee! -- CountdownCrispy ^(? 20:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Holy..!! Mgiganteus1 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Question. If this image was taken from directly in front of the sun, how is it possible that the far side (not receiving the sun's light) is visible and illuminated? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason is that the image nominated is not the original file as produced by NASA but an exaggerated edit. I've added the original which I feel is far superior. For interest, this is the original source of the nominated image I think: Image:Saturn eclipse exaggerated.jpg --Fir0002 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a bit suspicious of how they managed to show the far side of Saturn illuminated. I understand that this sort of image is inherently a composite but the exposure difference between the sun-lit rings and the far side of the planet receiving only starlight should be enormous - far greater than it seems to illustrate. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, however (at least for the outside of the planet) being a gas giant would mean that a certain amount of light would be able to diffuse through the atmosphere. This could then presumeably be reflected so that the center is somewhat illuminated. The other thing is, I'd expect NASA to have some pretty high tech camera gear and the dynamic range they can capture (particularly since they are taking photos of objects in darkness) may well be much higher than what you (or I) have experienced with DSLRs. --Fir0002 06:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the dark side is illuminated by the light diffusely reflected by the rings. Olegivvit 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy that - the ring is essentially a flat disc. Any light diffused by it would have to: 1> penetrate through the 'structure' of the disc for millions of kilometres to reach the area of the disc not exposed by the sun's rays then 2> diffuse again with enough light to reach the observer so that it is only minimally less bright than the directly exposed area of the rings. It just doesn't sound plausible to me. Compare diffused light to direct light and you will see just how little of it is actually reflected. Then consider it diffused twice over great distances (where only a small amount actually reaches a specific destination) and I can't see how there would be enough left to reach us in a visible amount. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood me. I mean, the dark side of the planet surface is illuminated by the light diffusely reflected by the rings. Then we see the rings in transmission. I agree that this light is reflected twice, but in the image we compare it with the light reflected once, not with direct sunlight. Thus there is one order difference. The rings are quite large and can give enough light. Olegivvit 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood. I understand that there is only one order difference but you can't use their size as a reason for the brightness. The size of the reflective surface of the rings is not really relevent as the rings might be large but the area that they need to illuminate is also extremely large. Light would have to reflect/diffuse off the rings, penetrate through the rings for millions of kilometres (because aside from a second reflection off the planet itself, that is the only path that will reach the rings) before reaching the 'dark side' and then diffuse again in all directions before finally reaching the CCD on Cassini. There would simply be too much light lost in the process in my opinion. Notice the area at the bottom-right of Saturn where the rings meet the rear of the planet. There is a definite shadow on the ring where the sunlight is blocked by Saturn. The far side of Saturn is quite a lot brighter than that shadow, despite being much further away from the sun-lit rings than the shadow. That to me seems like pretty conclusive evidence that this image is a composite, possibly with very different exposures for the planet and for the rings. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

...you can't use their size as a reason for the brightness I can. The amount of light received by a unit surface is determined by integration of incoming light over the solid angle above the surface. If the moon would have its visible area doubled (by being closer to the earth, for example), the illuminance (and therefore the brightness) of a surface illuminated by it is also doubled. The rings of Saturn are very close to its surface. They probably cover one-third of the sky when viewed from the Saturn's surface. About a half of the rings is in the shadow. So, I estimate the illuminance of the surface to be about 1/6 of the brightness of the rings. ...surface of the rings is not really relevent as the rings might be large but the area that they need to illuminate is also extremely large. Wrong. The illuminance of a surface by a source does not depend on what else is illuminated by this source. It depends on brightness of the source and the solid angle covered by the source. ...penetrate through the rings for millions of kilometres before reaching the 'dark side' First, the thickness of rings is 5-30 meters. Second, transmission through the rings is 8-95%. Third, there is no need to penetrate through the rings before reaching the surface. ...There is a definite shadow on the ring where the sunlight is blocked by Saturn. I see it. ...The far side of Saturn is quite a lot brighter than that shadow, despite being much further away from the sun-lit rings than the shadow. Distance does not matter in this case. The ring cannot be illuminated by the ring itself because it is in the same plane.

If, as you say, the light is reflecting off the rings, onto the surface of the planet, then back onto the ring not illuminated directly by the sun, then reflected again to Cassini, then WHY is there a black gap between the the directly illuminated rings, and the edge of Saturn (which you admit you see)? Surely it should be illuminated in exactly the same way as the rest of the ring receiving reflected light from Saturn? Why are there rings in front of Saturn that are quite a lot brighter than the equivalent point of the rings in the 'gap'? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I made an illustration.There is the first order reflection from rings and the second order from the planet surface. The rings in the gap are poorely illuminated because they can receive only light reflected from the surface. Thus, it is the third order. The rest of the ring in the shadow is visible in transmission, not reflection. Olegivvit 14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying now, and this may be the case, but then why do the rings correspond directly to the darker and lighter parts of the reflections, and why is the exception to this the area above the rings where there is a thick dark line and a transition to brighter above it? A non-transmissive ring? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside the shadow: Brightness of a ring in transmission scattering depends nonmonothonically on its density. A thin ring is poorely visible because there are few particles which can scatter the light. A thicker ring scatters more light and is brighter. When a ring is very thick (the central dark ring), the light is lost inside it. Inside the shadow: Darkness of a ring in transmission depends monothonically on its density. The thicker is a ring, the darker it is. The central ring is thick and dark. The internal ring is almost transparent. We see the unevenly illuminated surface of Saturn through it. The surface of Saturn is brighter below the equator (reflection scattering), dark on the equator (in the plane of rings), and less bright above the equator (transmission scattering).

I disagree with NASA having higher tech camera gear that we are used to now. The probe was launched almost ten years ago. Just think about what the cutting edge was back then (In 1995, a 1.3 megapixel Canon DSLR = ~USD$15k). And then there is the fact that as NASA's gear is not mass produced, and have to be built to withstand huge environmental stresses, it would be far more costly still. To be completely honest, I don't think NASA's technology is cutting edge in terms of electronics anyway really. Cutting edge in terms of space/aerospace engineering, perhaps, but not electronics. The consumer electronics industry simply has a greater market and budget. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Digital cameras used on imaging satellites are usually custom made. In terms of "higher tech", I don't think consumer cameras and satellite camera are on the same playing field. Consumer cameras are used for everyday shooting in visible light, whereas satellite imaging cameras need to have super high-resolution imaging sensor(s), have multiple filters for different wavelengths, and be extremely durable (and are the size of washing machines). =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support As per everyone above (Original or edit 1• Leon 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC))• Leon 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original file or Edit 1 only. An astounding view - imagine seeing that in real life! --Fir0002 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original file or Edit 1, per all above. --Bridgecross 02:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either Both great, terrific images. Hello32020 20:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Impressive is all I can say. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fir0002’s edit Nice picture. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Either - Wow...those are photographs? Amazing! --Iriseyes 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support IF ORIGINAL - Since this is an actual image taken by Cassini representing an actual 'Solar Eclipse' view where Saturn is the occluding body, I would hate to see it doctored (edited) in any way shape or form that would compromise it's authenticity.Buphoff 20:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original per Buphoff. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support top version. Mike 22:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Saturn eclipse.jpg. The NASA original has it. Raven4x4x 05:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nepenthes villosa

Decent image of this unusual pitcher plant species. Photograph was taken on Mount Kinabalu in Borneo at an altitude of ~2400 m. Appears in the following articles: Nepenthes villosa, Nepenthes, List of Nepenthes species, and Plant. Self-nom.

• Nominate and support. - NepGrower 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The picture is nothing special, and is too busy with all the sticks and stuff in the background. Also, I think that there is a slight motion blur. Gphoto^talk 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I see motion blur too, and the lighting isn't great. The subject is stationary so it should be possible to get a crisper shot. Great plant though! --Bridgecross 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think its motion blur. Just fuzziness from being just outside the focus. I agree that the photo is not spectacular but the subject is somewhat unique - I have no idea if it is indigenous to only high altitude Borneo but it is still not something you find in your backyard. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • N. villosa is endemic to Kinabalu National Park. Its natural distribution is restricted to Mount Kinabalu and Mount Tambuyukon at an elevation of 2400-3200 m. NepGrower 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. The subject is very rare, but the quality of the photo is a bit lacking. NauticaShades 07:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bridgecross. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pi with 4000 digits

Few days ago I saw an image 0.999999999 which received considerable support with a poor quality. I though that this photo, which is IMHO encyclopedic, eye pleasing and also representing Dielectric Shaders and 3D models can be a good addition to FP considering that a wikipedian made it. It contains more than 4000 digits of pi. Here is 3 different colors of it; It appears is pi articles and it's made by User:Don bertone

• Nominate and support all. - Arad 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose First of all, I doubt 3 images that are so similar could all be featured, but I appreciate giving the voters options on which color they like best. That said, I feel that these images are not encyclopedic. How does this illustrate π? Did you happen to check out the animation that clearly illustrates π that was featured? This image does not help me understand the concept of π, and hardly any of the numbers are visible at this resolution. As for Dielectric Shaders, I feel that other images at that page do a better job of illustrating that concept as well. These images aren't terrible by any means, but they do not really meet my standards for being featured.--Andrew c 02:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think if anything, it helps illustrate the concept of "the decimal representation of pi". Debivort 02:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely unencyclopedic. --Janke | Talk 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Unencyclopedic. 4000 digits? Well maybe, but I can only clearly read the first 21 of them. Besides, same problem than with 0.99999: what is the size ratio between each digit? What is it supposed to show that Pi is "infinite"? Well but so is 5/7 for example. If you find a way to graphically show that Pi is transcendental for example, that may be encyclopedic -Glaurung 06:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, I'm afraid it won't be possible to graphically represent 4 000 digits with only 1280 pixels available... The rendering is quite attractive though. Alvesgaspar 09:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• About the 4000 digits, I'll recheck with the creator. --Arad 13:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is overdone. We already have a featured pic for pi. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, IMHO it fails FPC criterion 3 - to be Wikipedia's best work, Pstuart84 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I understand the point that you're trying to make with these pics, that pi goes on forever, but it doesn't work well with this because pi is irrational so it doesn't convey the same kind of message.--th

e marble 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, pi is irrational, but that doesn't mean it's undefined, right? Pi goes on forever, so this picture tries to illustrate that. It doesn't do a particularly good job of it though. --Iriseyes 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose More encyclopedically depicted in a text file. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't really see the value in it. Mikemill 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • the value is aproximately 3.142 ;-) --Dschwen 23:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh, touché Mikemill 15:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STS-95 Florida view from space

This is an amazing picture of Florida from space, that really gives you a new perspective on the earth. This image appears in Florida, NASA, and List of U.S. states by area. It was created by NASA from the Shuttle Mission STS-95 on October 31, 1998

• Nominate and support. —Captain538[talk] 03:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although I would be careful about nominating this for FP status, if some people do not understand the ballot, there could be a recount ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, impressive image. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great detail and image quality. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, very unique and a great image. --Yarnalgo 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - While its a great view of the peninsula, at high res, it seems grainy and dull. Iorek85 01:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe I'm spoiled by all the great NASA pictures but I find this boring. There's little to set it apart from hundreds of other pictures of Earth from space. Redquark 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Redquark. Sure these pictures are nice to look at, but what does this tell us that a good map wouldn't tell us ten times better? --jjron 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose it's nice because it puts the peninsula in context of the curvature of earth, but there is very little detail in the full res, and is therefore dissapointing to me. Debivort 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per jjron and Redquark. --Bridgecross 13:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Many satellite photos such as this will and do look stunning - just not convinced what makes any one worthy of FP status Pstuart84 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good image, great details featured. Hello32020 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose not an execptional satellite image by any means. Stevage 05:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing special, and seems a bit hazy to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Already said, nothing special and not the best of wikipedia. --Arad 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per ZeWrestler. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's unique compared to typical satellite images due to the angle. Noise problem has to be fixed though...kind of distracting (but only in full-resolution). Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support amazing. Mike 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six-banded Armadillo

I think that´s a nice picture of an interesting animal. The photo shows a good composition of the entire animal in a non-distracting environment. It also has a quite good resolution (2000X1500), a nice DOF and a soft and homogeneous tonality.

• Self-nominate and support. - Exlibris 15:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Tighter cropping would be preferable. Also, a side view would be much more encyclopedic, and there are some blown highlights on its claws and face. Overall, the quality is all right, but not FP material. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral it's encyclopaedic, but artistically I would have preferred a lower point of view, and not to have the subject staring at the camera, to get away from that "I stuck my camera over the rail at the local zoo" feeling. Other than that, the detail is good and the colours are nice, although the shadow is a bit distracting. Stevage 23:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support for crop. It's actually still pretty high resolution. Stevage 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. A side view would have been more preferable, as would a tighter crop. NauticaShades 09:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. The crop is an improvement. NauticaShades 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well, I think you´re right in your opinions. Anyway, I´ve uploaded a new version of the image, trying to minimize some of the picture´s flaws. Thanks. - Exlibris 12:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Better than no picture of an Armadillo, but doesn't strike me as exceptional or particularly gorgeous. For encyclopedic value I'd also prefer a less frontal view. --Dschwen 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black-headed Gull flying

I took this photo earlier today in St James's Park in London, England. This gull normally has a black head in summer but loses it over the winter and retains just black spots/streaks on its head. I'm fairly happy with how this image turned out - the symmetry of the wings, the sharpness (aside from the wing tips which denotes movement) and the fact that the seagulls head is tilted just enough to view the beak and eyes, whilst also looking a bit curious and cheeky, something very stereotypical of a gull. I know we have an abundance of gull FPCs, but this may be the only one of a gull in action, rather than just standing on a rock or dock. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Why do you still have to nominate? It should be automatic! Iorek85 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice and sharp. SteveHopson 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow!! - Adrian Pingstone 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic! Also a very illustrative angle • Leon 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Amazing. --Yarnalgo 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original Excellent. Alvesgaspar 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but come back to Australia and photograph some *real* wildlife :) Stevage 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific image. Hello32020 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Kehaar vill support dis damn fine image. --Bridgecross 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support another one from THE one (lol) --antilived ^{T | C | G} 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either. Very good, and nice to see you're exanding your repoitre to wildlife! --Fir0002 04:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've always shot wildlife[13][14][15][16][17][18]! Its just that there is less to shoot in urban ol' London. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Disappointing is that half of these pictures are not FP. --Arad 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original I feel the sharpening enhanced the artifacts more than the detail, and didn't add much. Otherwise, it's an astounding image. --DonES 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either. The view is new and interesting, but doesn't lose on encyclopedic value, which is very hard to do. Obviously, there are a few blown highlights, but this is to be expected. As for the two versions, the edit increases the artifats a bit, but it is sharper, so I don't really mind which version is promoted. NauticaShades 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow, that is an excellent image. mstroeck
• Support Edit 2 the original is still good but i felt i have to remove those white spots under the gull. And the noise. Anyway, good one again Dillif --Arad 13:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support any Sometime, you should take a picture of me Diliff. You would make me look better than I really do, like you did to that gull! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree. Should we all line up in a queue? Alvesgaspar 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • First you have to upload an existing photo, and then I'll determine whether you're salvagable as a portrait subject! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, here it is . Alvesgaspar 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's hopeless. Only some of Fir's heavy naughty retouching can help here :-) --Dschwen 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Here is my naughty editing. Hope you like it --Arad 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original, Oppose edit 1 and 2. The original is great, per above. Edit 2 removes the grain (I guess technically a kind of noise, but a noise that is acceptable.) Doing this makes the background look artificially blotchy. The subtle random color variation looks better to me than blurring it together with an average, nearest-neighbor tone. Also, the noise reduction was sloppy, because a lot of detail on the body of the bird is lost. Edit 1's sharpening is too dramatic, and while the darker colors on the bird look more dramatic, it seems artifical. There is nothing that says a bird can't have grey feathers.--Andrew c 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. Impressive image. - Mailer Diablo 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original, Oppose edits. The original is good enough. --Dschwen 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think now no one has a reason to oppose edit 3 because it removed the only minor flaws the image had. If you pay attention you see small white dots around the gull specially under it, and I don't think those dots add anything to the quality. --Arad 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Arad, I'm not sure those 'spots' are really flaws. I'm not certain but I suspect they are out of focus drops of water from the gull's feet as it had just launched itself out of the water and was flying away. I don't think they're particularly distracting or necessary to remove. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Well I didn't meant flaws. flaws with Diliff are impossible but IMHO they are distracting for me. Well maybe that's only me but I prefer to remove them. Also there are some small (one pixel or two) small white dots sometimes black. There not a big problem anyway. --66.36.146.173 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. Great capture, very encyclopaedic and well documented on the image page. At full resolution there appears to be a single bright white pixel right on the tip of the gull’s beak, but I hardly wanted to mention it as the other 4,165,231 pixels are so nicely arranged. Oh, and nice modelling work by the gull too.--Melburnian 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• You don't really need my support, do you? Great shot! BTW, I support the original. --Janke | Talk 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, probably the original. Good composition, interesting angle. Dark background shows plumage better than typical sky/sea type shots. Bob talk 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support stunning shot--Mike 04:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Black-headed Gull - St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maddux Teams

Image:MadduxTeams.jpg I nominate this picture for featured picture status because it helps clearly demonstrate Maddux's teams and, you have to admit, it's a pretty cool picture. It is quite large and not at all blurry. In my opionion, it deserves to be featured.

• Nominate and support. - Mrmaroon25 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I'm a fan of Maddux, this picture is far to small to be featured. It also doesn't exhibit Wikipedia's best work in my opinion. Imaninjapirate 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, where are theses images from, doing a google search I found one of them [19] and it has a copyrighted image on the left corner -- Coasttocoast 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a better image for pitcher than it is for Greg Maddux. In addition, as mentioned, you may have put three thumbnails together, but the individual images are still likely copyrighted. Meniscus 00:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and list on Potentially Unfree Images, almost certainly derived from copyrighted images, making the public domain release invalid. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Questionable copyright status and not up to picture of the day standards. --Geoffrey Gibson 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under criterion G12, if anyone can find any of the original three photos. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've deleted the image as unfree since Coasttocoast demonstrated at least one of the three was unfree, meaning the license was clearly incorrect. I'm leaving this so the FPC experts can delist this properly. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image was deleted as unfree. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richat Structure

This highly detailed image, reconstructed from sattelite photographs, is aesthetically pleasing and shows many geological features, such as parallel dunes, erosion gullies, cliffs, and of course, the eroded anticline. It appears in Mauritania and Richat Structure. NASA created the image - so, public domain. Oh, and high res, and no blown highlights I can see.

• Nominate and support. - Debivort 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've uploaded a version that I downsampled from the tiff. It has less artifacts. Due to the nature of the image, there's all sorts of aliasing going on. [20] --DonES 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for that DonES. I had just downloaded the tif and planned to do so myself. Debivort 07:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent nomination, incredible image. I saw almost no artifacts in full-size. --Janke | Talk 07:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, very nice. Good example of many geological features. --Gphoto^talk 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as above. enochlau (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent image. - Mailer Diablo 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, good encyclopedic value, very appealing, and done via an interesting process! Jellocube27 04:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I set my browser to full screen and this picture looked excellent. I would love to have this picture on my page as Today's Picture of the Day. User:Sd31415/Sig 02:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A very good image that made me want to learn more about the subject. cacophony 03:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Richat Structure - SRTM.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg

Nominate because it is a beautiful and rare image of a developing human. Also very informative caption, highly detailed, great quality image.

Used in:Fetal development

Photograph by Ed Uthman, MD.

• Nominate and support. - DO11.10 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this image now represents the "larger version".

• Oppose A bit small - and maybe not so rare after all. Wish we could get Lennart Nilsson´s images with a free license... --Janke | Talk 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Though the size is a bit small the resolution is great. A spectacular image no matter what the size it. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A great capture, very encyclopedic! My only gripe is the noise-- if it could be touched up, it'd near-perfect! Jellocube27 04:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support very informative picture. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support if only for the caption. If I had my way, all captions would be as informative as that one. I want to know everything about who what when where and why the photo was taken so that I can get as much as possible out of it. You would never see photos in textbooks or scientific journals with captions like we have on our FPs. Its something good to strive for.--Niro5 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Unortunately small, but it is too encyclopedic to oppose. NauticaShades 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Simply one of the most awe inspiring picture on Wikipedia! Caption needs a bit fixing though and the noise needs to be reduced. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note from original photographer: Much thanks to all who have commented. I have taken the critique to heart and re-scanned the original 2001 Ektachrome transparency at higher resolution (1874x2000), then tried to reduce the noise (actually original film grain) in Photoshop. The upgraded image is now on my Flickr site at <http://www.flickr.com/photos/euthman/304334264/>. The image is still public domain, as are all my specimen images. I'm not sure if the upgrade delivers any more detail, as the original scan was pretty much at (or above) the resolution of my klooged macrophotography rig. (This is a really tiny embryo!) However, it does have smoother gradations, and the colors are more true-to-life.--Euthman 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Support large version, which I uploaded from Flickr to Wiki. I took the liberty to adjust the levels slightly - the image had grayish blacks. --Janke | Talk 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks Janke for the color adjustment and the upload, you beat me to it by mere moments. I think that the second version is better, and looks really good at a small size, such as would be used in an article. I would like to replace the first image with the second, but I am unsure whether that is the proper protocol?? Could someone with more knowledge of the process let me know what to do? Also, I must be missing what specifically needs work in the caption? Thanks--DO11.10 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd go with WP:BOLD. The pictures are similar enough, with the new one being a clear improvement (IMO). Whats the worst that can happen? A revert. But then you can call us over for help ;-) --Dschwen 09:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. The image shown on this page is the HIGH resolution image.
• support large version amazing free source image. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support new version. Thanks a bunch for the rescan and making such a picture PD! --Dschwen 09:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support --WS 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for your great work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Yarnalgo 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg Raven4x4x 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Echidna

OK looks like I was wrong about the enc of a cat stuck in a tree, but this image I definetly think fits the bill for enc. True it was shot in a zoo, but there is no clear indicators of this and so I don't think it's a major issue.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 09:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, Fir0002. It's close, but this one has insufficient depth of field for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enc is there :-), but this is way below your usual quality. Little contrast in the whole picture, unattractive flash lighting, and the sharpening created a noise of white pixels from the tiny flash highlights. I don't understand why you nominated it. --Dschwen 10:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just food for thought. --DonES 10:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've moved this to Fir's talk page, where it is more relevant. --DonES 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment unrelated to this particular picture, but I count seven self nominations by you on this page right now. This seems a little absurd to me and makes me again wonder about your motivation. --Dschwen 11:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that comment's out of order, Dschwen. Let's just judge each photo on its merits. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Motivation? To maximize the number of FPs he's created - naturally. I don't see anything wrong in that, since it also makes Fir a prolific contributor, benefitting all of Wikipedia, not only FPC. --Janke | Talk 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree on a number of points here. First of all out of the seven nominations only one had a consensus of support. Secondly, what ever happened to contributing just to improve the project? And third of all whats the use of cluttering up this page and making it a one man show? --Dschwen 18:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you can add and nominate your own pictures, so if you don't want this to be a "one man Fir show", just go ahead and do it... I see nothing wrong in self-noms, if they're good, they will be FPs, if they're not good enough, they are at least new pics added to Wiki articles! --Janke | Talk 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • They are already new pics added to Wiki articles, whether I add them to FPC or not. And I don't really believe in self-nomination. Nominations should come from outside the picture crowd. Pictures should be nominated because they stand out and strike other people. --Dschwen 21:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think if we eliminated self-nominations we might have problems keeping up with at least one new FP per day. Debivort 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • • This is really just too bad Dschwen. I have probably been contributing to this page the longest out of anyone here, and now you are trying to run me out of it are you? If I do nominate many images, it is because they are of a high standard and easily conform to the FPC criteria. Every single image I've nominated here is either of something hard to capture, artistic or encyclopeadic; most of them a combination of the three. I personally feel this image is just as good as the pelican image, and I don't appreciate sarcastic comments insinuating ulterior motives. Until there is a rule banning self nomination or restricting the nominations of a single user (at which point I will leave WP:FPC) then I shall continue to nominate my images as I see fit. It's bad enough to see my efforts shot down, but to have someone like you attacking me as well as the image, it is almost too much. --Fir0002 22:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• lol, Fir had a burn out. Oh well, nothing wrong with self-nomination, but it's true, too many self nom is a bit selfish. But Fir is taking this too seriously. IMHO, Fir, you think of Wikipedia as some sort of Mafia or Kingdom? No one is trying to run you out or attack you, Dschwen only gave his opinion, and I think you should take this easy. --Arad 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a strange person Arad, Mafia or Kingdom??! --Fir0002 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• lol, I knew you wouldn't get the point. My bad. I just wanted to say take it easy. Take wikipedia as a hobby not a job ;-) --Arad 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dschwen, to me the fact that you used the expression below your usual quality with respect to Fir's image is to me indicative of the high quality of his submissions. WP:FPC hasn't been overloaded with submissions, verdicts are generally quite clear cut, and there is no rule preventing him from self-nominating - perhaps questioning his selectiveness rather than motives would be more appropriate. Either way, both "questioning motives" and calling people "strange" approach personal attacks, so let's cool it! LE✆N 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Tell these to Fir, he needs to cool down --66.36.143.72 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose DOF & flash problems (redeye & strange fur). Not one of your best. Remember, we have set a higher standard for you! ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I really don't like the echidna's eye, or the use of flash. The result is just bland. The cropping feels awkward as well. Overall, this looks like the type of shot you end up with when you have an uncooperative subject, not enough time, or something. Fir0002 is perfectly justified in nominating all the images he wants - it's mildly narcissistic, but that's why many of us are here, after all (me included :)) Don't let them get you down, dude, and remember - if we supported all your nominations, it would take all the fun out of it :) Stevage 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose flash ruins it for me. I say let the votes bear it out. It is impossible to know if something will pass or not before nominating. I have seen images I thought would be an easy pass that failed and vice versa. Keep up the good work Fir. Also, others: KEEP IT CIVIL I *will* remove comments that are not civil. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and agree with Ravedave. I figured the moment that I saw this image that it was a below-par image in terms of aesthetics (low contrast, flash highlights etc) and probably wouldn't pass, but then again I've felt that a few of my images were of sufficient quality and they have been shot down, so it just goes to show that everyone has different standards. If we didn't, we wouldn't have to nominate in the first place! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - reasons stated above. --Puma5d04 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The flash ruins it for me. --Tewy 04:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lionfish Closeup

Another difficult to get fish shot from the Melbourne Aquarium. Shows the fish's head in great detail and has no real quality issues.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 05:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see it in the fish head article... ;-) Seriously, I'd like to see all of the very interesting looking fish, the cropping seriously hurts the enc. ("enc" is an abbreviation for "encyclopedicity" I'll be using in the future.) --Janke | Talk 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfotunately he swam too close to the glass and that was the only shot I got, I guess I'll have another go some other time if people aren't happy with the close up. Btw nice idea on the enc! --Fir0002 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Fir, for me this picture is not at your usual standard. The back end of the fish is too blurred (therefore I think it does have a quality issue) and the cut off is annoying, making me wonder what its tail looks like - Adrian Pingstone 08:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The full fish looks like this . Well, I suppose Fir's picture makes you want to know more... ;-). But it is a shame that the other pic of the entire fish taken in its natural habitat was pushed down into a gallery section. --Dschwen 10:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. So, I put the whole fish back on top, and the head into the gallery. IMO, the most enc image should be the first in an article. --Janke | Talk 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I would prefer to see the whole fish. Better this one: . Alvesgaspar 11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - same reasons as above, not a good display of the lionfish's most notable attributes, and natural habitat is blurred. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose too bad you couldn't get the whole fish. --Bridgecross 14:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support That is one weird looking fish - Puma5d04 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I think that the image of the full fish is FP worthy though. Mike 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Enc suffers in this one, and the sharpness just can't make up for it. --Tewy 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central_Park_Reservoir.jpg

Image taken by Darien S. Acosta 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC) from the south side of the Central Park Reservoir in New York City.

• Nominate and support. - Epiphanyp7a 04:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose VERY VERY VERY visible artifect in the clouds. Most of the image is absolutely dark and I think a single RAW shot of a decent DSLR can cover the same dynamic range, and thus is not a very good example for HDRI. Also it does not add to any article which is a requirement for FP. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Visible misalignments in the leaves of the plant (lower RHS) --Fir0002 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, stitching errors, severe in clouds and leaves (a re-stitch might fix this), also it appears not to be in any article. This would be a nice desktop picture, but it is not very "enc". --Janke | Talk 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose blurring in the buildings to the right, either focus or motion problems, in addition to all issues mentioned above. Nifty picture though. --Bridgecross 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Misaligned images. All the source images used in HDR need to be exactly the same size/frame or else this occurs (the next best thing is to very carefully hand align the images by resizing, or get the software to do it, though I don't know how accurate of results that gets).--Andrew c 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The image is blurry, and has various misalignment problems. Hello32020 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ahem, can I just point out the obvious: this picture is gorgeous. Really nicely done. Yes, it has some stitching problems that probably can't be fixed (looks like the clouds moved), but, well, good job anyway :) Stevage 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Sorry to disagree with everyone (above), but I think this actually meets the criteria, although the quality isn't the best of FP. --James 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pauliyas Hongkong

I think this panorama shot is quite breathtaking, and deserving of praise.

• Nominate and support. - humblefool® 03:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. This is an awesome panorama. Strong Support. --SonicChao ^talk 04:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Mostly I would like to see a larger version, but there are also some minor stitching errors to the right of the image. I don't think the blown sky on the right is too much of a problem. --Tewy 04:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, per above. --Janke | Talk 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 — Seemed a tad bright, so I modified it a bit. ♠ SG →Talk 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support either. Amazing panorama of HK Island skyline! typhoonchaser 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 There are a few blown highlights, but this is still very good. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose edit1. Sure, the brightness of the image is dominated by sky and water, but the detail is in the skyline, which is rather dark. The edit makes it harder to see details in the skyline. --Dschwen 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose original. If that courthouse below isn't deemed FP worthy I cannot support this one with a good conscience. It is ok craftsmanship, and the subject is prominent, but the lighting is suboptimal. The picture is also on the small side. Most buildings in the skyline are a mere 150px high. For me this doesn't cut it. --Dschwen 10:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agreed with you about the courthouse below but in my opinion this one has a 'wow' factor which the courthouse hasn't. Pstuart84 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose both the contrast seems washed out. Also, though it exceeds the 1000 px criteria horizontally, it is only 480 pixels tall and the detail suffers. --Bridgecross 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit. Very nice and informative. enochlau (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1. There are a few blown highlights and stitching errors and I would like a larger version, but this this is otherwise quite a good image. NauticaShades 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit1, impressive image. - Mailer Diablo 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 Very nice, amazing, image. Hello32020 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - fabulous, really sets the standard for cityskape panoramas. Stevage 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I can't help but think I must be seeing a different image to everyone else. There are HUGE stitching flaws in this, including the duplicated 'half' boat about a quarter way across, and some big obvious joins right through, but especially visible in the water, some of which I could see on the image page even before opening it full size. There's also weird changes in colouring across the image, very noticeable even in thumbnail, the most obvious being where the water changes colour about a third way across. Also per Dschwen's reasons above. If this is the new standard for cityscapes, then the standard's changed. --jjron 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm, I think I see your point, but the half-boat shouldn't be a stitching "flaw" - the boat had moved into the next picture while User:Pauliyas took the photos, I suppose that's rather unfortunate. I would think that the colour of the sky, including the clouds, reflects onto the seawater? I'm not so sure though. typhoonchaser 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You could be right about the colour being due to reflections. I suspected it was due to camera settings being changed or being used in auto mode. Either way I find it quite unattractive. You are right about the boat, but to me this is a stitching flaw, and incidentally probably quite easily fixed using the dreaded cloning, especially in an image this small (height wise) where the detail is limited. Only in the last couple of days it's been pointed out on FPC how easy it supposedly is to make perfect panos, so I don't know why we would accept these significant flaws, whatever their origin. Oh, BTW, I also think it's cropped too tight to the tallest building, which I forgot to say in my original oppose, but that's just a minor quibble. --jjron 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. You are quite right about the stitching errors. We have much better city panoramas as FP. Alvesgaspar 09:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jjron. The coloring changes (which I expect are due to the clouds on the left) are too much for me. Also, I'm not particularly good at seeing stitching errors, but these ones are somewhat blatant... tiZom_(2¢) 15:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support although it would be a little nicer if it was larger. Still, great shot. Mike 22:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Stitching flaws are unforgivable (I've seen images shot down for far, far less noticeable flaws than one-and-a-half boats). I think we need to start taking vertical resolution into account for panoramas - it's all very well sticking a lot of frames together and getting a huge horizontal size to push you over the 1000px mark, but this image would be useless for printing. A non-panoramic shot with this level of detail would get destroyed here. --YFB ¿ 03:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted , although it was quite close. Raven4x4x 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Map of the United States

I think this is one of the best maps on Wikipedia. It is an SVG map of the USA.

• Nom + Support. -SonicChao 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good quality image and very encyclopedic. Hello32020 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yeah it's good quality, but these scale problems pointed out make me oppose (somewhat weakly). Hello32020 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - a fine map technically, but the information in it is so prevalent, it has no wow factor for me. Also, the black lines used to identify the small eastern states are too irregular and dark compared to the rest of the lines. Also, what's the scale and projection? Are Hawaii and Alaska on the same scale as the rest of it? Debivort 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ack Debivort. And Alaska actually more than twice as large as Texas! Scalebars missing. I could see a really informative specially crafted map getting FP status, but this is just to plain. --Dschwen 23:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It would look better if the text were curved to match the sloping of the lines of constant latitude. In addition to the problem with the scaling mentioned above, there is a serious problem with the landmasses of Nova Scotia and part of New Brunswick being cut off entirely. Spebudmak 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, it doesn't make sense that the St Lawrence River is depicted so wide across that it is resolvable on this map. Near New York State it is much thinner than what is shown. And why is it the only river in North America that is depicted? Spebudmak 00:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Very crude map, cartographically speaking. No coordinate system, no scale, no indication of map projection, not even the North direction. For an administrative/polytical map like this one it is a serious flaw that Alaska is not represented with same area scale as other states. Also, the size of the map would allow much more information to be depicted, like the majors cities and main physical features. Alvesgaspar 00:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Not that encyclopedic. Missing details found on common maps, especially scale bar. The black rules leading from the names of the smaller states are too heavy. Plus, the typography is poor (but that is a short coming of using SVGs on wikipedia, due to font liscensing issues).--Andrew c 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Question Could someone who knows how to edit SVG files please add Nova Scotia (and the other half of New Brunswick) to this map? Right now the map is blatantly inaccurate with at least a million people seeming to live underwater. In my opinion, until this is sorted out this map may not even be suitable for the encyclopedia, let alone as a FP candidate. Spebudmak 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. This issue is particulary important since the map appears in the key article United States (among others). Spebudmak 04:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks like a crude version of every map hanging in every classroom in the U.S., but with much less information. Some of the state names cross borders, there are no capitals or scale. District of Columbia missing. Should show at least the national capital. --Bridgecross 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I still do not think such a simply map is FP quality, but I have edited the map to fix the glaring issues. I added a scale, drew in PEI/Nova Scotia, and the Bahamas, and resized the rules. I think with SVG, we should have much more detail (such as San Fransisco Bay, Everglades, rivers, etc) or more information (city and capital names).--Andrew c 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Spebudmak 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Elementary school classroom style map with minimal detail. Bwithh 19:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Mike 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I just don't feel it has enough of a 'wow' factor to be featured Krowe 11:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It just doesn't look good. – b_jonas 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The original has no scale, the place names to not follow the lines of lattitude and there is an inconsistency in the width of lines. On the update, Indiana is called "ndiana" and it generally shows how biased Wikipedia is towards America for this to even be considered as a good picture. It's reminiscent of South Park. --Footballexpert 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat stuck in a tree

A domestic cat stuck up in a tree and uncertain of how best to procede. Perhaps not overly endowed with "wow" factor, but the image is of encyclopeadic value and the image quality is great.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't really see how it adds to the Cat article, other than it shows a cat up a tree with the same caption. It doesn't explain why it's stuck, how it's stuck, how it's rescued etc. A cat being rescued will be more encyclopedic on this behaviour than simply being on a tree. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to check its placement in the article? --Fir0002 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and while the article rave on about high places and things there's a picutre showing a cat on a branch of unknown height with a simple caption of "a cat in a tree". Now I'm not being negative but it doesn't add a lot to the article, not when the reader have no idea what is wrong with the cat. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support. The picture is quite good in quality, but it needs an expanded caption. NauticaShades 09:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I liked it for its anecdotal touch when it was nominated on commons (although I was the only one..) But I fail to see the encyclopedic value. Context is missing, how high up is the cat, why is the image relevant for the Cat article? --Dschwen 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, have you had a look at the placement in the article? Opening line in the seciton: "Most breeds of cat have a noted fondness for settling in high places, or perching" pretty much shows the relevance. But I'll expand the caption a little more if you wish --Fir0002 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. This article is overloaded with mostly low quality images. And technically this one is one of the best in there. Still now the caption mentiones the height but the picture doesn't show it. --Dschwen 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of my pet articles (please excuse the pun), and it suffers from the problem of people always trying to stick in photos of their cats, so I think we've tried to be accommodating. I personally have replaced a number of extremely low quality images with pictures from Commons, but yes, the article could use some better cat photography. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. A cat in a tree... Nothing special, not encyclopedic. Mere technical quality does not an FP make. --Janke | Talk 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Janke, good photo, no magic. Alvesgaspar 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support/Neutral Good quality image, but not very encyclopedic. Hello32020 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But encyclopedicity is an important criteria which sets this page apart from Commons:FPC. --Dschwen 23:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm changing it to plain neutral. Hello32020 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support — It is already placed in the "perching and falling" section of the cat article, which this image illustrates perfectly. It is perfectly encyclopedic for that reason. ♠ SG →Talk 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, as Alvesgaspar above JanSuchy 07:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I have mixed feelings about this one. I think it is encyclopaedic (cats get stuck up trees), but it is also lacking a "wow" factor, so I can't quite support it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Stephen Turner. I also don't like the branch that hangs over and interferes with the picture. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - i might change this to support if the picture was referring to something really being discussed in the article (the section it's near has more to do with the cats falling from high places), if the section was about the United States anecdote about firemen rescuing cats from trees - it may be better. additionally, like previously stated, the branches get in the way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. I really like the photo, but its encyclopedic value is a little hard to find. enochlau (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - excellent shot, you've caught it at a great moment. So much more interesting than the echidna above. I have slight misgivings about the encyclopaedic value of the cat, but it does illustrate the given paragraph of Cat well, and it would make a great lead photo for Cat getting stuck in tree syndrome, whenever that gets written...Stevage 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support of course!--Mike 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom, SG, and Stevage. User:Sd31415/Sig 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose but not because I don't think its encyclopedic. The issue for me is that it doesn't significantly add to the cat article. It illustrates a very small part of the article regarging cats liking high places and falling from them and it would illustrate that pretty well if that was what the article was about. Who knows, in future the cat article may be split and a separate article might be the perfect location for the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's better not to take the FPC requirements too literally sometimes - otherwise, we should theoretically be delisting images the moment they happen to get removed from their associated articles, or the article changes in a certain way or whatever. I kind of agree with you, though. Stevage 01:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • delisting images the moment they happen to get removed from their associated articles? Thats exactly what we should do. Images get removed for a reason. If the crowd at the respective article doesn't deem it good enough anymore there is no reason to keep up FP status. I did nominate a bunch of removed FPs for delisting about a year ago, and I still have the script to detect them on my computer. Maybe its time for a second sweeping. --Dschwen 08:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support The out of focus branch in the foreground is somewhat distracting, but great pic otherwise. Not too sure where it will go in the cat page...there's already way too many pics there. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Seriously, 80% of the pictures in the Cat article need to go, this is all "I want my cat in Wikipedia" frenzy, but this one actually stands out for good quality and composition. I don't mind the branch in the foreground at all, it adds depth. The image needs to be cropped though, there is an artifact in the lower right corner, and the cat should be centered in the picture. ~ trialsanderrors 20:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow.. what an immense and ridiculous waste of time, energy and internet space. You should all be absolutely ashamed. Are you people for real, adding these comments and truly debating the ins and outs of this picture being used in a wiki article? Get the hell off the computer and go play outside, or have a conversation with a real person. Get a life, people.

Shit, I'm amazed at you shut ins. No wonder our planet is going to hell in a hand basket - we need to be absolutely sure that this fucking cat in a tree should be used alongside the Wiki article.

Morons. Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard's Pipit

The Richard's Pipit (Anthus richardi) is a medium-sized passerine bird which breeds in open grasslands. This picture shows three chicks in the nest. I think it's of quite good quality, informative, and meets the standards. Would like to see if others agree (first time nom so would appreciate feedback).

• Self-nom and support. --Benjamint444 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Where did you shoot it? --Dschwen 08:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great photo. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good - how did it go down with the mother? Was she out fetching food or just watching. Or did you get attacked! ;-) Either way nice shot --Fir0002 10:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent image, very enc. --Bridgecross 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Andrew c 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support even though they look rather gross, with their teeth in their throat... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Classic. NauticaShades 10:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Love it! For me, some of wikipedia's best work. Pstuart84 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Feed me! --Calibas 22:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support me =) Puma5d04 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Feed me too! - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Amazing picture. Like the detail Krowe 12:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Supper, I mean Support. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, of course! ^o^ - Mailer Diablo 19:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Pippit-closer.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lighthouse

A Turkish lighthouse, captured by Flickr user 'borabora'. Truly striking, in both the composition and lighting. The preceding unsigned image was nominated by User:Axpd - LE✆N 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unfortunately, this image fails the resolution requirements by a large margin, and is probably not significant or encyclopaedic enough to overcome this. There are prominent artifacts, and blown highlights. LE✆N 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose size -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wow... I mean Oppose, that is some serious JPEG artifect...... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 05:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, quality of image is too poor. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Really pretty picture, but size too low, I cannot see the enc. HDR is fascinating and I toyed around with it too, but the technique alone should not be justification for an FP. --Dschwen 08:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Terrible image quality, lots of vignetting at the top and JPEG artifacting - could almost be used as the artifacts example on WIAFP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Very nice photo, but does not meet size or quality standards. I disagree that this is not encyclopedic enough, it certainly illustrates a lighthouse well. --Bridgecross 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. I would like to see as many HDR photos has I do panoramic photos on this page. Provided the effect doesn't overwelm the subject.--Niro5 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for technical reasons mentioned above (size, compression).--Andrew c 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - massive artifacting, too small, vignetting. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Too bad too, because it really is a nice photo. howcheng {chat} 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Great picture, though. User:Sd31415/Sig 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great picture, but the size is too small and the quality is too bad. NauticaShades 09:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Although it's a great shame about the quality, no chance of a better quality version then? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, while I like the composition and atmosphere of this image, the image resolution simply isn't good enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Way too many jpeg artifacts. I would have hands-down supported had it been a high-resolution and clean picture. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above Krowe 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First color photo

The very first color photo. Scanned, descreened, levels adjusted. This is a better scan than the previous one, which I overwrote. Despite the low image quality, this has enormous historical significance, "enc" is 100%.

• Nominate and support --Janke | Talk 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• question - what is it a picture of? Debivort 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree on the enc, but we shouldn't lose sight of those other criteria. I cannot consider this one of WPs best works. And, forgive my ignorance, didn't we just promote another first color photograph yesterday? --Dschwen 09:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the first subtractive color photos, printed on paper. This one is three additive color images, projected as lantern slides, in red-green-blue. --Janke | Talk 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. According to the James Clerk Maxwell article, it's a tartan ribbon. He took three photos and superimposed them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. After some thought, I'm going to oppose this one. I can't deny the historical significance, but the quality is so poor that I don't think it can be featured. Debivort's question says it all. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. The guidelines specifically have a clause for images like this. It is impossible to take the first color photo again. The first photo ever taken is a FP, so why not this? Very historically significant and encyclopedic. I think historic photos is an area that is lacking in FP, and I hope that isn't because the technical qualities were worse back then.--Andrew c 16:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I'd happily demote that one too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you forgetting that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? FPs function as "teasers" to draw readers from the front page to an article (just like featured articles). I think both the very first photo, and the first color photo do deserve that. --Janke | Talk 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Andrew c. Alvesgaspar 17:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A true color photo - in 1861!? I, for one, do not believe image quality can even come close to detracting from encyclopedic value with a historic picture like this. Thegreenj 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support for historic value. howcheng {chat} 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Andrew c. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Andrew c and Janke. User:Sd31415/Sig 01:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful picture of tartan. Kidding, its mega-historical. What other 1st pictures are left? 1st space picture? 1st digital picture? We should get those too. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • First picture of me? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Too historically important for me to oppose. NauticaShades 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Historical significance is incredibly high. | (Unsigned vote by AndonicO)\
• Support, as the quality may not be great, but the historical importance makes this feature-worthy. --RandomOrca2 01:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support per historical significance. (BTW, this is SO much more fun than AfD ;-) Mike 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support as per Andrew C Sotakeit 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Sorry, but this is a scan of a book print of the first color photograph, and the halftoning is blatantly obvious. Find a faithful reproduction of the original and it would be FP. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The halftoning is filtered out. What you think is halftoning, is in fact irregular graininess (look at the full-res image), probably from the original - an offset printing halftone is always regular, and would furthermore cause a moiré if not filtered. I don't think it would be easy to find a reproduction that was not printed, in one form or another. --Janke | Talk 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It might not actually be halftoning but this image leaves many questions open at which stages it was altered from the original slides. I could actually imagine that some of the graininess comes from the paper surface of the scanned book. There are also questions about the hue of the reproduction, as compared to, e.g., this or this version. And finally, looking at the picture of the original slides, this version has been restored rather clumsily (do a close-up of the lower left corner to see the masked scratches). In total, it's neither an acceptable faithful reproduction of the original nor a very good restoration like some of the Prokudin-Gorskii images from the Library of Congress. We should put this on hold until a better version canbe found. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The links you gave are to very inferior scans. Also, you cannot define a "right" color, since it depends on the projection setup and filters used to view the image. In fact, the image is partly "false color", since there were no panchromatic emulsions available in 1861 - the red color was fortuitiously recorded because it also reflected ultraviolet, which was exposed on the red plate. (If you can find a superior scan, feel free to upload it, but I doubt any is freely available.) --Janke | Talk 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not promoting any of those to be considered FP. But I also don't consider a second generation image with unidentified provenance, unidentified degree of manipulation and printing artifacts FP worthy. This is a pretty clear violation of the "accurate" criterion. There is no compulsion to make this version a FP just because alternatives are worse. ~ trialsanderrors 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - great work on getting a much better scan than my version. Warofdreams talk 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tartan Ribbon.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Post-promotion comment I added a response from the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation to the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] elephant

Breathtaking picture of the savannah with a wide range of animals shown.

• Nominate and support. - froth^{T C} 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Calling Dr Fir0002, looks like it could do with some more contrast and other stuff. Nice image though, especially with the background. Is it me, or has the image been stretched horizontally? Stevage 06:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Why only half a pachyderm, and no feet? Lacking in enc. Otherwise nice and sharp, though. Guess it is shot with a mirror tele, right?--Janke | Talk 07:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose malpractice (edit1). The ivory thingie tusk looses detail (blown-out). The birds in the forground get their heads blown out as well. The sharpening is overdone and makes the elephant skin look weird to me and the blurred zebras get somewhat noisy / lose the softnes of the DOF blur. --Dschwen 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose edit 1 too much (sharpening, contrast, brightening, blown trunk). Weak oppose original per Janke. Animal is cut off. It is a striking image, though.--Andrew c 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. As has been previously said, an FP with only half a subject is unacceptable. Furthermore, there is something strange with the background. I don't know it is all noise, as Dschwen mentioned, but it would seem to have something to do with the lens as well. I'm no expert, but it just feels off, and even Fir0002 can't fix it. Thegreenj 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I don't agree that the entire subject has to be within the frame. Doesn't strike me as logical - by definition, you can never see more than half a subject at once (unless you have mirrors...). Sounds like a strange ideal that's been over-applied. The "blown out" birds' heads in the foreground are so minor as to not be a problem. This image is really fantastic, and the setting of the animal in its (pseudo-?) natural habitat is a huge bonus. It would be a huge improvement over Image:Elephantreaching.jpg for the lead image at Elephant. Stevage 22:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Tell Colbert it's not always about elephants: I've placed the Firedit in savanna and Ngorongoro Conservation Area (and neologisms). –Outriggr § 06:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. The edit made the tusks look blown. Can someone try again? NauticaShades 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I thought I should try my n00bish hand at editing it since Fir hadn't yet done another version. Unfortunately the tusks are again quite white (although some areas are (245,245,247) in the original) and there's some detail lost near the elephant's mouth. Leon 05:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Uninteresting composition. Too much of the elephant is cut off. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note from original photographer: I'm honored you guys would choose this photo to be a featured picture canidate, but I must say the origional, while I'll admit is somewhat lacking in "punch", is much closer to reality than any of the edits... Also, it was taken with a Canon 100-400L IS lens, just to clear some stuff up :). The previous unsigned comment was added by Schuyler s.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoverflies mating

This image was exceptionally difficult to capture, as the insects are only about 10mm long and tracking them in order to get a focused closeup is not easy! Taken at the extreme macro end of my Sigma 150 macro, the DOF is perhaps not ideal but I don't think it detracts very much from the image.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support despite obvious (and almost inevitable) shortcomings: blur, shallow DOF, uneven background... (I could go on forever ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All kidding aside, why would uneven background be a shortcoming? It contrasts well with the subject. And IMO the DOF thing is way overrated. The key point is that all interesting parts are in focus and no information is lost, with information taken in a sens that no otherwise surprising details are omitted. --Dschwen 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you missed Janke's smiley!! - Adrian Pingstone 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, i saw the smiley, hence the all kidding aside thing. Apparently I was misunderstanding the degree of irony here. Shortcomings are negligeble vs. Made up shortcomings. --Dschwen 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How the heck did you catch that? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of persistence and about 3 days of shooting :-) --Fir0002 07:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

3 days - that's serious stamina... from Fir and the hoverflies ;-) --YFB ¿ 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

 :-) --Tewy 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent capture. Will support if information about where it is taken (place or region, even though I can guess :)) is added to the image page for "encyclopaedic" factor.--Melburnian 07:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done --Fir0002 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Support nice work--Melburnian 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, well, if it still means anything, this one is really excellent. Support. --Dschwen 08:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Alvesgaspar 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice.. Things get a bit messy with not quite being sure where one fly ends and the next begins, but not a major problem. However, you've replaced the lead image with this one. I'm not sure that its the ideal image for the infobox as there are other images with simpler compositions that would illustrate the hoverfly better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(Later comment - of course it's difficult to tell where one fly ends and the next begins! They're mating! DS 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

• Strong Support I don't think any DOF issues relate to what is essentially a clear and beautiful image of a rare occurance. LE✆N 11:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I think it is more of a somewhat rare image of a common occurance! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• OMG insect pr0n!!! I mean Support. So which one is the male and which one is the female?? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 11:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The male on is on top. In most hoverflies the eyes touch in males. This is most likely Melangyna viridiceps (Macquart, 1847). It is often referred to in Australia as the Common Hoverfly and belongs to the subfamily Syrphinae of the family Syrphidae. -- Lycaon 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow! Incredible shot! - Adrian Pingstone 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Here is a completely superfluous SUPPORT This one is astounding. --Bridgecross 14:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Dont want to sound like a broken record - but wow. One thing though, really minor, couldn't you remove that nagging little grey dot on the far left. Not important, but begins to distract from the flies themselves. Chris_huh^talk 16:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that - can't believe I didn't see it! --Fir0002 23:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

•  :-O Support because I couldn't oppose. Impossible image; good work Fir. *audience applauds Fir* | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Unbelievable! Just gorgeous. -Thegreenj 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The quality isn't incredible, but it must be incredibly hard to capture. NauticaShades 10:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, buzzbuzz. --Golbez 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Outstanding, 'nuff said. Pstuart84 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above.--Andrew c 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support how the hell did you get this picture? --Calibas 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This picture is simply amazing. I agree with all the support. --RandomOrca2 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific! - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Supersuperfluousupport, I had to vote even though it's a given... beautiful work. --YFB ¿ 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, beautiful picture! must have been a killer to capture. --the marble 19:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work Fir, a difficult shot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, impressive pic! - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support! For obvious reasons. --Tewy 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support awesome, good job Fir.--Yarnalgo 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Wilkes

I was looking through random articles and found this, thought it might be suitable and a change from Fir002's excellent wildlife. Hope you agree with me. Seems to be more than big enough and I can't see any major faults. Appears in the John Wilkes article, it is from an old engraving, so I don't believe there are any copyright issues. Image created by User:Daderot from an engraving by William Hogarth.

• Nominate and support. - Terri G 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm afraid. I've always been a bit skeptical of featuring old works of art, but in any case there are much better Hogarths that could be chosen. A political caricature is just not interesting so long after the events. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How can you make such an opinionated statement in a manner which presents it as entirely factual? I find such old-fashioned caricatures fascinating, as they provide great insight into past culture, lifestyle, and politics. Though I agree with you that this is not FP-quality, it is still very amusing! Jellocube27 17:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Support - I agree with Terri. It matches the crteria of a Featured picture and gives an insight to past culture, lifestyle and politics. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I like the idea of this (an old political cartoon) for a FP as per ZeWrestler, and it has relatively good quality, though a little fuzzy around the face. For maximum relevance and interest, either the subject or the artwork or publishing itself should be more notable. Spyforthemoon 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Glad to see someone is taking an interest in this pic. It caught my eye, so I thought it could have a chance at FP. There was no criteria saying it couldn't be a work of art, and I can't see any problems with quality, if there is something specific, can someone point it out to me, so I don't make the same mistake again. Terri G 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you didn't make a mistake at all. Maybe my words were too strong before. There's nothing forbidding works of art, and there's nothing wrong with the quality. I just personally don't feel that this has that special something which sets it apart from other works of art, but other people may disagree. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuxedo cat

I happen to think this is an excellent cat portrait, and not just because it's my own cat. Facial details are sharp and colors are bright and well-balanced. Spanky (that's his name) decorates the Domestic longhaired cat article. This my first self-nom so take it easy on me, people. :)

• Self-nominate and abstain. howcheng {chat} 21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. C'mon Howcheng! :-) Did you try applying FPC rules to this image before you nominated it? Does it add significantly to the understanding of the article? A closeup facial portrait is fine for a prominent human being, but since this is demonstrating a cat, surely it should show more than just a fluffy face. It would need to show the entire cat at least. And it would have to be pretty damned spectacular to be a featured picture of a cat..! In any case, it IS quite a nice image, but there are too many just like it. I have probably 20-30 pics of my cat that I could upload to wikipedia, but they'd be somewhat redundant. The article is full of them. You certainly picked a difficult category for your first self nom! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  What's so unencyclopedic about a great close-up of the face of a cat? If a photo illustrates the facial features very well, what's wrong with that? Not that I'm saying this photo is necessarily the perfect close-up, but I don't see why a photo must show the whole cat to be sufficiently encyclopedic. Raven4x4x 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with you that it doesn't have to show the whole cat. I was just saying that it faces a tougher battle for FP because it inheritantly loses significance in the article when it only illustrates a small portion of the cat and would probably have to be outstanding to qualify. This is just my opinion, I suppose. Perhaps I should upload a photo or two as I have an interesting image of my cat 'stalking' a magpie, but I don't think I'd nominate it for FPC. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weakish oppose. The image is quite sharp and I like the eyes. However, I think the background is distracting. (BTW, nice vibrissae here!) --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blown highlights in the cat's eye (minor), and I can't make out the face from the body. Overall, I like Fir's cat better (below), and he's getting opposed there too. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Quite boring and its not very appealing to the eye. I have pictures of my cats of this caliber. --Midnight Rider 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose — Technically a good photograph, I'm just afraid we aren't seeing enough of the cat's facial features due to it facing downwards. Considering this is your first nom, I can see there's some promise in there. Take photos of things we need featured pictures of, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of your photos (no more birds!). ♠ SG →Talk 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a quality picture, but IMO far from FP standards. We really need to give the FP status to a cat!. Alvesgaspar 09:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The blown highlights and low DOF ruin it for me. NauticaShades 09:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Distracting background; difficult to distinguish head and body. Pstuart84 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry howcheng, I have to agree with Diliff that you've picked just about the most difficult subject to get through FPC; thousands (millions?) of people must have taken photos of their cats from this sort of viewpoint. There's not much wrong with the quality or the composition in my view, but it's just not that special. SG is spot on - go and take photos this good of things we currently lack good photos of, and you'll be onto a winner =) --YFB ¿ 02:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P-51 Mustang

Very clear and bright picture of a classic WWII figter, shot from a rare head-on in flight;

• Nominate and support. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll amend that to now support edit 1. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great picture.--Mike 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I hate to do this to my favorite aircraft of all time, but it's a bit grainy, there are jpg artifacts in the sky, and the wings' leading edges are all blown highlights. --Bridgecross 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Still oppose all edits!" he cried weakly from the bottom of the pile :) --Bridgecross 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wouldn't like to discard this remarkable picture too quickly. I don't care for the highlights but there are "finger-type" stains all over the image which don't look like jpeg artifacts. Alvesgaspar 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats dust on the digital sensor. A common but rather annoying problem. Could easily be cloned out but the only real solution is cleaning the sensor! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support because of the grain. Not a bad picture overall, and I don't mind the blown highlights (it might even be the sun's reflection). Perhaps Fir could fix it. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. More likely, they're water spots on the canopy of the plane that the photographer is in (you can see part of the canopy in the lower left corner). But it's a very nice capture otherwise. howcheng {chat} 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. howcheng {chat} 07:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either edit. Amazing angle --Fir0002 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Did you seriously clone out hundreds of blotches?! That gets you an effort-support edit (the perferably the lightened one). --Dschwen 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Good detail, distinctive colours, exciting angle - the plane really looks like a proper fighter in a photograph like this. Bob talk 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A good picture and a great background. User:Sd31415/Sig 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like this picture, so I will not shoot it down. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice!! --Midnight Rider 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 — Great photo, great edits by Fir. I oppose edit 2 though, as it seems to have turned out little too bright. ♠ SG →Talk 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. Alvesgaspar 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. I love the angle, and the edits fix most of the quality issues. Edit 2 is a little too bright, however. NauticaShades 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support either edit. I chaged my vote. It's just about perfect now. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support either edit, though I think I slightly prefer edit 2. Great image of the greatest fighter plane ever. :-) « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 15:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either edit! A great shot. Jellocube27 17:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Edit 2 seems a little too light, so I'm sticking with edit 1. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 per above --antilived ^{T | C | G} 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support edit 1 near perfect with the edits.
• Support edit 1, fantastic pic! - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edits 1 and 2 both work for me. ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 only. Edit 2 is too light for me. Good shot. --Tewy 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:P-51 Mustang edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African Daisy

Excellent sharpness and colors and taken from a slightly different angle than what you typically get for a flower pic. To get the full effect you really need to see it a full res
Note: Yes this is a flower, but I don't think that being a flower automatically makes the image ineligible for FP status. So I would appreciate if people don't just say "oh its a flower, meaning it's inherently pretty and therefore it's not worthy of FP" - please keep it to problems with the image if you do choose to oppose!

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are other problems than this being the photo of a flower. First, it's lacking in enc due to the composition - no whole flower visible. Personally, I don't like the foreground out-of-focus flower partly covering the main one. These are not hoverflies, it's such an easy subject that you could get a much better angle. Fir, echoing an earlier comment about your prolific noms (which I didn't agree with, in priciple), please be very critical yourself about what you nominate - we do expect only the very best from you... (To preclude mistunderstandings, that was a compliment.)--Janke | Talk 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thechnically this picture is way better than that echidna pic. I'd even use this one as a desktop bg, the DOF creates a nice foreground-midground-background effect and gives the picture depth. That beeing said I agree with Janke about the enc (even in principle). I can see how you'd nominate this picture, while the echidna is still beyond me. --Dschwen 08:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As has been said, there is no single flower visible/in focus. The flower OOF closest to the viewer is far too obscuring. As Janke said, this is a flower and can easily be re-shot with a better composition. I don't think being a flower makes it ineligible either, but it is more difficult to make the image 'stand out in the crowd'. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Good quality and interesting angle, but the out of focus foreground flower and the fact that not one is completely shown detracts from the encyclopedic factor. NauticaShades 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose All of the flowers are either cut off, or blocked by others. And we already have an African Daisy. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do have an african daisy FP, but the existing one is lower res and shows a flower that is either picked to early or is quite old (curled petals) --Fir0002 04:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Puma5d04 05:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pretty but composition isn't overly 'enc', lacks a certain wow-factor for me. --YFB ¿ 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The price of coffee

Pictoric pie chart illustrating the various components of the price of coffee. This is an eloquent and high quality work by Dominique Toussaint, appearing in article Economics of coffee. Please see picture file for numbers.

• Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure I can support it. It lacks any references and surely the price (particularly the tax and transportation elements of cost) would vary from region to region. It simply cannot be accurate everywhere for this reason and is therefore a flawed concept. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Diliff. Also, what is a troll (other than a large, stupid rock with diamond teeth)? I am guessing it is toll. --liquidGhoul 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What do you consider rose, and what pink? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The biggest slice of the pie is rose, the next one is pink (at least in my monitor...) Alvesgaspar 14:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A tilted pie chart is almost always a bad way to display data, because segments at the front look larger than those at the back even if they have the same angle. Additionally, it looks as if there are two pink rose segments because of the swirls in the coffee. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Amazing idea. I like how the coffee is the chart. --SonicChao ^talk 15:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cute, though. Pink and rose are nearly identical to me, it lacks context (is this worldwide?), and it lacks numbers. Do we have any other pie charts (or charts at all) that are featured pictures? --Golbez 16:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Info. I'm trying to contact the author in order to answer the questions about the data. Alvesgaspar 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A case where the picture is a clever illustration of a concept but not, IMO, the quality of a FP. Agree with Stephen Turner about tilt and other comments abour rose/pink confusion. Pstuart84 18:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems gimmicky and cutesy and "clever". Not that illustrative of the actual concept. Also, the rendering seems a little dated. Reminds me of early/mid-90s 3D computer art. Also the reflection and patterns in the surface seem odd/distracting. I'm personally not fond of it aesthetically, and I also feel it doesn't meet FP requirements exactly. --Andrew c 18:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's nice, but it lacks too much (per above). Also, I thought rose and pink were the other way around. Is there a way the colors can be confirmed? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I assume the colours go round clockwise, ending with green, though that won't save this picture. Pstuart84 22:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support if references and a specific location are added. Not expecting it, since the nominator is not the author. –Outriggr § 03:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - now i know where money goes --Puma5d04 05:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose unless this is all sourced. I do like the image, however. gren グレン 09:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting idea, but unencyclopedic. NauticaShades 09:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems a bit on the amateur side. It's a good concept, but the CG can be much better. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's just a pie chart/coffee mug combination that isn't as well executed as it could've been. Not feature-worthy. --RandomOrca2 20:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No source for the data. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice concept, but I don't think it deserves featured picture status. Also, I agree with above comment. Maybe include a source in the caption? Krowe 11:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - It is almost always a bad idea to dress up a chart or graph with "chartjunk", in this case the coffe cup framing the pie chart. The coffee cup graphic itself adds no information to the pie chart but does take up space that could be used for real information/data and, as noted by Stephen Turner, manages to skew the chart. I also object to the word "wealth". The correct term is "money" or "revenue" -- "wealth" is something else. Really bad. MapMaster 15:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Another Tufte fan? Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, indeed. He's not always right, but he has some great insights. MapMaster 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: agree with Andrew c that the surface of the coffee looks ugly and unnatural. – b_jonas 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, this picture is better suited for the boring PowerPoint^TM slides. - Mailer Diablo 19:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per MapMaster JanSuchy 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apis mellifera

example of pollination --Luc Viatour

• Nominate and support. - Luc Viatour 13:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support featured at commons, should also be featured at enwiki. --SonicChao ^talk 15:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Just by looking at this picture, I understand pollen better. It's also a very appealing shot in itself. --Iriseyes 15:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Great picture by itself, but I don't think it illustrates the concept of pollenation exceptionally well (and it isn't used in any article currently). The pollen article has a better picture already in it. And I just added this one which shows pollen sticking to a bee. --Dschwen 16:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a picture that illustrates pollination (I can't see any on the bee). Needs cropping to get rid of extraneous background on left, right and above. Nice picture, though! - Adrian Pingstone 16:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Nice picture. But I agree with Arpingstone, look at this FP: . Alvesgaspar 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, that's even better! --Dschwen 17:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Adrian Pingstone and Alvesgaspar. Pstuart84 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Adrian Pingstone. --aviper2k7 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Adrain Pingstone --Puma5d04 05:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I love the composition, but the blown highlights and the low DOF detract from the picture. NauticaShades 09:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Uhm, some blown highlights are unavoidable in any picture that has specular reflections and direct sunlight. Maybe this opposition reason should used a tiny bit more sparing ;-) --Dschwen 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nice picture, but the existing images illustrate the concept better and I suspect there are a lot of shots of similar quality --YFB ¿ 02:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The image shows the bee great, but I don't like the flower or the background much. – b_jonas 16:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)