Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Current nominations

[edit] Pool Cue and Chalk

Reason

Well, I haven't submitted a nomination in more than a month, and I'm on my way to Switzerland in a week so I thought I'd put a few pictures up for FP. I've been busy lately and working for my school's newspaper had taking up all my photography motivation. Now that's over you'll see some photo journalism on my part: at least in the form of sports pictures. See, my advantage is that I get to keep the copyrights to the photos I take, even if they are for newspaper.

On to the photos: All are technically sound I think and are illustrative and perhaps artistic but let me say a few words about subject matter. Most of our FPs are as follows: Historical stuff, NASA stuff, Stitched pano landscapes/architecture, Bugs, Birds. Well, none of these images fall into any of those categories. So, while I am not so sure how well they will fare here, I am trying to branch out for myself and our FP collection with Images that are useful, artistic, and technically great. I'd like you to tell me how I did. ;-) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Cue sports, Cue stick

Creator

Fcb981

• Support as nominator --Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This picture has more aesthetic value than encyclopedic value. The cue stick is mostly cut off and out of focus. victorrocha (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golf Bunker shot

Reason

While I was a player on the golf team for my school, I also happened to take pictures for our newspaper. These are photo journalistic but I think very valuable the the encyclopedia.

Articles this image appears in

Golf, Golf course

Creator

Fcb981

• Support as nominator --Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Very well done picture. Sharp and well exposed. Representative of the challenges of golf. The posture of his swing does concern me because I am not sure if this is recommended for a sand trap. victorrocha (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, he is about a 6 or 7 handicap though, so his swing is pretty refined. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frisbee Player(s)

Reason

These are some top quality action shots... Of frisbee players. The things I was made to take pictures of: Not sure if Fir's lawnmower races beat me though. ;-)

Articles this image appears in

Flying disc (Frisbee redirects there.)

Creator

Fcb981

• Support as nominator --Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball Action

Reason

It may be a high school game but I think the photos are illustrative and high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Baseball positions, Putout, First baseman

Creator

Fcb981

• Support as nominator --Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose They're both just too snapshotty. Cut-off heads, awkward composition (where did that ball come from in the first image!); and it'd be easy to get a better shot with higher EV. SingCal 08:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patience

Reason

A rather nifty example of a programme that both captures the theme (aestheticism) and the humour in one image. A fine example of Victorian graphical art. Downside: Resolution (while within the guidelines) could be higher, but I doubt me we'll get higher anytime soon.

Articles this image appears in

Savoy opera, Savoy Theatre, and Patience (opera)

Creator

Clement Smith and Company

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose -- interesting image, but I find the sloppy pencil note on upper right distracting. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That can probably be photoshopped out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The image is quite nice, but unfortunately it just barely passes the size limitation and the scan is not of the highest quality. NauticaShades 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bratislava, Slovakia, in sunshine and snow

Reason

I'd like to nominate these two as a set; I think first and foremost they illustrate from an excellent vantage point Bratislava's two very contrasting districts; secondly they show the contrast between a city under sunshine and one covered in snow.

Articles this image appears in

Old Town, Bratislava; Nové Mesto, Bratislava; Weather.

Creator

Schcambo^{aon scéal?}

• Support as nominator --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support -per Schcambo --Nelro (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Something about these pictures just doesn't grab me. They're good quality, and I'm sure they have enc value, but there's no wow at all. One comment: I don't think the second picture illustrates a "heavy" snowfall-- it looks more like a light dusting to me. You can still see the shingles on most of the roofs. Clegs (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I feel sold short by the church spire in the foreground. Would like to see more of the buildings closer to the observer. Also not too keen on the snowfall - there's hardly any snow at all. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral of St. Stephen

Reason

Great quality photo that illustrates it's article very well.

Articles this image appears in

Litoměřice, Czech Republic

Creator

User:Karelj

• Support as nominator --CPacker (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support It's a little bothersome that the subject isn't a more prominent part of the shot, epseically given the volume of information elsewhere in the image... but still nice. SingCal 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Composition is awkward. Sharpness and clarity are fairly minimal for a complex landscape such as this. There are also some coma and aberrations on highlighted surfaces. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - great picture, beutiful background, very clear, subject is prominent, but doesn't overshadow the rest. very good. --Nelro (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I found myself wondering if the town in the foreground is part of the cathedral or just happened to be in the picture. While good quality, I don't feel the cathedral is prominent enough in this picture to make it an FP. Clegs (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'd just like to point out that the image is currently being used as the lead picture in an article about the town the cathedral is in, not the cathedral itself. Guest9999 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nectarine Fruit Development

Reason

Very high encyclopaedic value, very useful, nice quality.

Articles this image appears in

Fruit, Peach, Drupe, Prunus

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - just what an encyclopedia needs. --Janke | Talk 12:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Janke, well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - high quality, highly encyclopedic. Xenus (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Cacophony (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The individual pictures are available at a resolution of 1200 by 800 px, and there's no reason they should be any smaller than that when assembled into a poster. Other than that, looks good—I'll be happy to change to support once that's fixed. Thegreenj 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Feeling rather stupid now... Support Thegreenj 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support-Very encyclopedic, very well done. ~Meldshal42 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Thegreenj mentioned, there is no reason for each image to be a much lower resolution than it previously was. This can easily be fixed. In which case, I will suppport. NauticaShades 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. It would seem I made a mistake. NauticaShades 22:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per thegreenj. I thought that was raised and understood when alvesgaspar nominated his composites. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The resolution of the image is 2,440 × 2,480, which means full resolution of the individual images has been used (although it is possible that even larger resolution is available). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great quality and EV.
  • Forgot to sign the above... ¢rassic! (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support quality of some of the individual images could be a little higher, but the illustrative value trumps that. Well done.--Svetovid (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per above. Thinking before speaking is handy. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You're so much smarter than the rest of us Diliff. We really admire you. You've never made a single mistake in your whole life, and I'm sure it's only out of modesty that no major award has gone your way yet. The thing that most impresses me is how you always know exactly when no further commentary is needed, and refrain from such unnecessary verbal drivel. Deeply impressed. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You chose to ignore that it was a light-hearted joke. They help lift this process beyond mindless bureaucratic drivel. We're humans. We all make mistakes, but there should be nothing wrong with poking fun at them at times. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't worry. I took your comment for what it was: jest. ;) NauticaShades 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support very nice although I'd prefer the numbering to be visible at the size it's used in articles. Guest9999 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very encyclopedic. An excellent addition to Wikipedia. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Marvellous idea and well created - Peripitus (Talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nicely done. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Explorer Hobart

Reason

Seems to meet the technical standard, high resolution, free license, accurate, adds value to an article (urban exploration) and clearly illustrates the subject. Main technical problem is some blowout in the top left of the image which has been treated with image editing software. If this is problematic a scaled version could be used which would still meet resolution requirements.

Articles this image appears in

Urban_exploration

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This looks like a mine field. Noodle snacks is one of two recent main contributors to the article, the first half of which is entirely unreferenced and possibly unverifiable. It's not clear to me how "draining" can redirect to "urban exploration". It makes me think of lettuce. Noodle snacks may also be the person shown in the picture, which for me raises further questions over the motivation behind this nomination. As for the picture itself, it is speckled with noise and artefacts, with some hint that the original image may have been severely underexposed, with retouching to crank up the brightness to the max. Perhaps what I'm looking at are the previously blown white areas, but I also find some evidence of this in center bottom of image. Once the picture is cropped to avoid these areas, and denoised, it may not have much merit as an FPC. What we'd be left with is a man standing in a sewer. If the figure wasn't in the image, I might say that it's a reasonable illustration of graffiti, although not an FP in my eyes. I'd say that any "wow" that the thumbnail may have, but the full size image lacks, is in large part due to the graffiti. I'm going to raise some POV concerns about the article on its talk page. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought I might mention that a more careful examination of the edit history would reveal I haven't done any significant editing to the text of the urban exploration article. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Thumbnail piqued my interest, had to check article... ;-) Slight grainyness doesn't matter, fits the subject. --Janke | Talk 12:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Technical problems: blown out sections, very grainy. Clegs (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose-Shadow in top right, you can barely see the man in the drain. Definitely not an FP. ~Meldshal42 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It's got a lot of noise on and to the left of the person in the picture. There are jpeg artifacts to the left of that, and the railings have fringing issues too. It's a great snapshot, and retaken with a good camera, a tripod and long exposure it would look amazing. Easily reproducible however, hence the oppose. bad_germ 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I would have to agree with the above persons comments. First of all the image lacks wow factor. Then we have blown out grainy sections and the man in the drain cannot be seen quite clearly. There is nothing impressive at all with the content. It is speckled with noise, it also looks as though it has been brightened to make up for under exposure. This image was uploaded twice, the first version being darker than the other. I say nay . Adam (talk) (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with the other comments above. The image is a little to grainy and a bit underexposed. Plus I detect a little too much highlighting and contrasting. The are I am highlighting as a slight problematic area is that spray painted face by the bars. It has a too artificial quality to it (Sorry if I don't use more technical terms!). Brothejr (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was taken with a tripod, longish exposure (0.8) seconds, remote shutter release and an EOS 400D/Digital Rebel XTi. I am not sure what the source of the graininess is. The blowout was unfortunate, The brightness levels in the shot varied from pitch black to quite bright sunlight, a balance is difficult to find. The picture could benefit from HDR processing if recreated (and a still subject was found). The second upload was not darker than the other, the difference was some processing to reduce some visible fringing in the top left quadrant, it is attached now. The technical problems would probably be hidden at 50% size, but then the subject is too small to be seen clearly. I used some fill flash to even out the light in the scene, a pure long exposure would have either blown out in the middle or left the edges very dark. I think the artificial looking face referred to by brotherjr is most likely the result of the flash reflection. Silver or White spray paint makes a very good flash reflector. The darkness in the top right is mostly because that is what the natural light is like at that location. If the shot was recreated at a later date I suspect that a flash that could be aimed towards the right hand side would improve the lighting quite a bit (but I don't own one). It might also be wise to pick an overcast day (to soften the light through the grill). I might try again one day If i ever get an after market flash, however the subject of the photograph in that case would have to be someone I know (it'd be unlikely to meet someone down there at that spot who doesn't mind being photographed), but i don't see that happening for a long while at any rate. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not try taking the picture at night. You could use more time exposure, use a flash and you could use torches or candles as an additional light source. It would probably be easier at night due to the fact that you wouldn't have to worry about light coming in through the grill and causing that part of the pic to become over exposed. Also if you did take the shot again I wouldn't mind seeing a wider shot. It would have been good if you included the tunnel on the right hand side that is slightly visible. If the tunnel is to dark for you to photograph you can place a few torches or candles in strategic places within allowing the tunnel to fill will light. This would work well with time exposure. With some of my tunnel and fort panoramas I used a flash and while the shutter was open for four seconds I waved a torch about to create extra light. It seemed to work well with some of the images, even though they are not the best. If you were to go down there again I don't think it would be necessary to have someone in the picture. If you wanted to have people in the picture you should make it look as though they are exploring the tunnel.

• Oppose Very low quality. What's in his hand?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crassic (talk • contribs) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a torch. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Rail Splitter Repairing the Union

Reason

Political cartoon from 1865 that illustrates Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson mending the rift that had caused the American Civil War. A good example of mid-ninteteenth century political cartoons with a particularly important underlying topic.

Articles this image appears in

Reconstruction era of the United States, Andrew Johnson, Editorial cartoon

Creator

Joseph E. Baker. Restored version of Image:Lincoln and Johnson original.jpg.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 06:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very nice restoration. Time3000 (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well done.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question Was that a poster or...? Where was it published?--Svetovid (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that it would be interesting to have this information. In case your concern is about licensing, if it's a period piece, it would have definitely been published prior to 1923, which places it in the public domain. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The Library of Congress doesn't state, but this site states that Currier & Ives was a publisher for this artist. It's unclear whether they published this particular image. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I love these things. Punch-style cartoons are great! Nice job, looks good. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - good quality, high importance - great restoration. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, nice job, but I think its file name have to be changed to "Image:Lincoln and Johnson.jpg. Xenus (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm constructing an image restoration tutorial for Wikibooks. There's a Commons file for successive steps in the work on this image. The filename makes sense in that context, and the goal is to show more people how to do this kind of work themselves. :) Durova^Charge! 18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Political cartoons are great, especially when they are old. illustrates a point. ---Nelro (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support-Great encyclopedic value, very well done. ~Meldshal42 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support per high EV. There's a little tilt that could be fixed, though. ¢rassic! (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The hand drawn image was not perfectly symmetrical. I chose the top border line as a guide marker and adjusted that to a tenth of a degree. Then I selectively copied, rotated, and pasted the bottom caption text. This leaves the bottom border line unaltered, which is about 0.15 degree off true parallel from the top border. I contemplated fixing that also with clockwise rotation, but decided that might give the image too mechanical a feel. I still could make that change if anybody thinks it's needed. Seems truer to the period this way, IMO. Durova^Charge!
    • Ah, okay. ;) ¢rassic! (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice image, good theme, high quality and enc. Spencer^T♦C 14:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good reconstruction, obvious FP material. - Darwinek (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic primary source with high quality. Illustrates the point perfectly. - Codram (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soweto Housing

Reason

I think this image is a great photo that does a lot to illustrate typical shanty town housing in Soweto, just south of Johannesburg, South Africa.

Articles this image appears in

Soweto and Shanty town

Creator

Commons:User:Matt-80

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Clear and well taken. Has just enough of the shanty town to be illustrative without being cluttered. Many of the other images I've looked through are too wide angle and the shanty detail is lost, others are from street level and also lack something - Peripitus (Talk) 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support - Illustrative and encyclopedic. Doesn't carry the wow factor (hence weak rather than full support), but still worth it. Durova^Charge! 07:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "Uncluttered" shanty town? Like the youthful dancers, preferably without an audience? I think it's an excellent photo, and it does show detail that images of shanty towns often don't show, it also looks south African, rather than Western Hemisphere, or South Asian, but I don't think it has any wow factor, as User:Durova says above, that would make it an excellent photograph, encyclopedic, and a featured picture, imo. Possibly a close up of a resident in the shanty town, or some detail might make it more interesting, or something that made the image totally Soweto/South African shanty town might give it the necessary wow. Overall, a compelling image, though. --Blechnic (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Also, shanty towns like this exist in many places, nothing links this to Soweto, thus low enc. --Janke | Talk 07:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it could easily illustrate Shanty Town, as it is probably better than most of the existing images there. What you're saying is true, but surely we don't have to prove that it is in Soweto? Is there a doubt that the image uploader is credible? Do you want a sign saying "Welcome to Soweto" in the picture? ;-) The point is, unless we know a lot about the subject, most of our featured pictures aren't innately self-describing and we take it on faith that it is what it says it is. Nothing about a photo of an obscure insect links it to its genus or species, but we feature those because they exist in the approprate article! I just don't think it has to scream "Soweto!" for it to be a FP. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Put it in Shanty town and you'll get a (weak) support from me... ;-) Weak, per Durova. --Janke | Talk 12:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I can probably sign my name behind that statement as well. This image narrowly beats out the very similar photo on Shanty town (not an FP) on size and colour balance. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Have done so now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose All you can really see is a bunch of corrugated tin roofs. A much better shot would be down on street level, actually letting us see what they are like when you are in them. Clegs (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support conditional on it remaining in the Shanty town article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I can't imagine there being any major complaints though but I'm surprised it wasn't already there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support its use in the shanty town article. It is a compelling image of a shanty town, not of a single shanty. It does appear South African because of the age, neatness, and foliage, but it's hard for anyone without any additional knowledge to know this, so it's more compelling in the shanty town article, than the townships article. The corrugated roofs in the bright sun appear to ripple along with their irregular shadows in the photograph, the shadows of the tree play everywhere and there's enough detail at large size to make the picture even more worth looking at: a woman hanging her wash, children playing, the varied windows and cloths, the roof vents, the rocks and boulders and tire holding the tin down, the spray-painted numbers, the colors the variety of building materials, fencing, the rust. It's also a good color capture of a bright sunlit image at this latitude. It's framed beautifully also. This is an arty interpretation, I realize. --Blechnic (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Machu Picchu,Peru

Reason

encyclopedic, goodquality, should be featured

Articles this image appears in

click here

Creator

Allard Schmidt

• Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Previous nomination. MER-C 10:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• i am nominating other version (sunset version). though picture by the same author is labeled as a sunset as well as sunrise. Let the picture for reconsideration. Alokprasad84 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There is an existing Machu Picchu FP and I've added it to the side for reference. For that matter it may even be worth nominating it for delisting as it is a bit awkward and low quality by current standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice image. Also a lot better than other image User:Diliff attached ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support A few artifacts from noise reduction but other than that a very nice image. I'd say keep the current FP though - it's a welcome change from the 'standard' view of the site. Time3000 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Crisp and lifelike, better than current FP, high quality Capital photographer (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. It might be taken at a nice angle, but the sky is blown and it's very grainy. NauticaShades 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yeah, not a bad photo but not FP standards either I don't think. Its one of those places I'd love to visit sometime and hopefully do the scene justice. I've heard it is quite often completely covered in fog though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Overexposed sky is very distracting. Muhammad(talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support -Per Alokprasad84 Nelro (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good picture, but there are too many quality issues. Clegs (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good picture, but its got focus, and depth of field issues. It looks like it has been taken with autofocus, and shake filtering. --Amckern (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Low quality, imo. It's a decent photo, but not FP. ¢rassic! (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Great picture. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Let down by full size - haloes and overly sharp edges, seems to have been subject to some kind of filter, and I don't agree with the results, or vice versa. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support Granted, I don't have the world's most photographic eye, but I didn't see to many quality issues (graininess? where?). Obviously the blown sky is an issue, but the actual subject is so well captured that I almost didn't notice. SingCal 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose the sky is overexposed and this shot should a wider angle or a panorama to fully illustrate the setting Thisglad (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knot table

Reason

I think this diagram meets all of the applicable criteria, it helps readers visualize the differences and similarities between different knots.

Articles this image appears in

knot (mathematics), knot theory, knot tabulation, prime knot

Creator

Jkasd

• Support as nominator --Jkasd 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support very well done illustration. Cat-five - talk 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support I think some colour would make it more interesting and engage the viewer more. Nothing fancy, perhaps make the captions coloured. Capital photographer (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's simple and informative, but also uninteresting. It is not an example of Wikipedia's best work. NauticaShades 14:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I've chosen to change my vote, because I have little expertise in this area. The image does not look particularly striking to me, but that's not for me to decide. :) NauticaShades 22:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This picture was created to illustrate what the different knots look like, not as an artistic expression. Jkasd 16:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think this diagram does a superb job at illustrating a somewhat-difficult topological concept clearly and cleanly. Knots are a topological concept, so any position you could move the knot into without breaking the string is a valid representation - hence I can also praise the creator for choosing particularly clear forms to illustrate them in. It is admittedly true that it does help if you're a topology geek, or at least an amateur one, and it's also admittedly true that it's a very basic drawing. Still, we shouldn't knock things just because they're simple, particularly in cases like this where the simplicity aids in understanding, so I must support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unless there is some sourcing for this image... gren グレン 05:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The knots can be found in many places, [1] for example. Jkasd 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying this image was wrong... but, I don't tend to like adding sources to someone else's image since they should, ideally, source exactly what they used... not something found afterwards. Since you are the creator if you used that page could you just add it saying you used it to help create the image? We just need to make sure images, since they are parts of articles, live up to WP:RS, especially when they become featured. gren グレン 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I created the picture with Inkscape, but I used KnotPlot [2] to get the diagrams, I've updated the image description at commons to reflect this. Jkasd 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak support, it doesn't fully have the "awe" factor but it is a well done image. gren グレン 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Is this a complete catalog of these classes of knots, or was any selection involved? Spikebrennan (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete table of all prime knots with crossing number up to seven excluding mirror images. I've updated the caption to clarify. Jkasd 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support per nom. Useful and encyclopedic. Caption could explain what the subscripts mean. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexander-Briggs notation is just an arbitrary ordering of the knots, the large number is the number of crossings, and the subscript is just the arbitrary order used by J. W. Alexander and G. Briggs. See Knot theory#Tabulating knots and the article in progress Knot tabulation. Jkasd 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I wish this picture could be more interesting to everyone, but I feel that adding color or something else would be distracting and detract from its encyclopedic value. Jkasd 04:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Jkasd. I would prefer that the lines be a bit thicker in the knots. Spencer^T♦C 14:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made the lines thicker now, and also made sure all the ends look like they would meet under the crossing. Jkasd 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination. Please close nominations from the bottom up.

[edit] Cub polar bear is nursing

Reason

The only video at wikipedia which shows process of nursing of a wild polar bear. The mother licks her cub to encourage him to nurse and during the nursing to comfort him. All the time she keeps watchful eye at her surroundings.

Articles this image appears in

Polar Bear

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Is this a new record for length of time before someone posted any kind of reply to a nom? I think this is a great video, but I'm hesitant to vote on it (and I suspect others are too, given the silence) because I really don't know where the bar is for videos on WP. As far as EV, I'm sure this has it; besides the fact that it's obviously a video of nursing, it also clearly shows that older cubs still return to mom for a snack, as mentioned in the caption. My problem is with the technical side. It seems a little small, at least in comparison to the videos you see on YouTube or MetaCafe, etc., but I don't know if it's a valid criticism. It looks pretty clear. Ah, hell, put me down for a Support, though you may want to trim out the last second or so, which switches scenes and is a little distracting. Matt Deres (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support with agreement with Matt about trimming the last second or so. Encyclopedic and valuable. It'd be nice if the camera sway could be stabilized, but I don't know whether this is possible. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Highly encyclopedic. Could use some video editing to correct for camera motion. Could make FP with a little more attention. Not quie there yet. Durova^Charge! 02:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you all for comments and for votes. My special thank you to Matt Deres. It was great to get your comment and your support after few days of complete silence. I am afraid I have no programs, and I am not sure how to edit videos. it took a long tome to learn how to convert videos to Ogg Theora (the only format Wikipedia takes). I've nominated the video because IMO it is quite interesting and it is the only video of wild mother and cub polar bears at Wikipedia. If you believe the problems with the video is too big to make it an FP, so it be.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bryce Canyon

Reason

Affect with wonder, really good quality

Articles this image appears in

Bryce Canyon National Park, Geology of the Bryce Canyon area (added 6/8/08)

Creator

Luca Galuzzi

• Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - very encyclopaedic, stunning, technically of a very high quality and has a good caption. Should be placed higher up the article, methinks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support What he said. Clegs (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support A stunning view; a shame about the minor drawbacks like the small bush in the lower left that is just a green blur. Matt Deres (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • After reading the various comments below, I have decided to switch to Neutral. Some good points about EV have been raised and there are minor technical issues as well, but I can't quite bring myself to oppose. My earlier support was probably unduly influenced by the thing pictured rather than the picture itself. Matt Deres (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Picturesque and very nice. High enc. and good view. Spencer^T♦C 02:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Wonderful colour and depth, a wonderful landscape Capital photographer (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article already has an FP, and this one is only in a gallery -> no additional EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - the other FP is kinda blurry, and not as spectacular - I'm thinking in nominating it for delisting. diego_pmc (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think that photos that only appear in galleries add enough value to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Image has been placed in the main body of an article where it supports the text. Guest9999 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a problem with the article then? Capital photographer (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing the concern of Guest9999 and Papa Lima Whiskey of that this photos only appear in galleries not adding enough value to the article seems unreasonable becoz importance Bryce Canyon National Park is only due to of Bryce Canyons and only because to of this photo is not placed at appropriate place the importance of this canyons should not be disregarded. i am inviting all concern peoples who are interested in this photo to render legitimate placed place for this photo. Alokprasad84 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Criterion 5 of the featured image criteria states that the image must add value to an article (and hence add value to the encyclopaedia). In my opinion whilst galleries can add value to an article the fact that an image is only found in a a gallery and not in the main body of the article supporting the text means that it does not add enough to the encyclopaedia to be considered featured content. I'm not saying that this image couldn't become featured I just don't think it meets the criteria at the moment. Guest9999 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Criteria 5 has nowhere mention that image must add value to article but if present it will be given priority. i am not against image should add value to article. this image helps readers to understand an article. is it not? Alokprasad84 (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• "A featured picture...Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." - emphasis added. In this instance there are many other photos already in the article that illustrate the park, that they are not of the same technical or artistic standard doesn't really affect how much they help readers understand the article - they provide adequate illustration. For whatever reason the editors who created, maintain and improve the page have chosen to leave this image out of the main body of the article, galleries are routinely removed from articles for various reasons (to achieve featured status, policy reasons or just as general clean up) and I think a featured image should have the status within the encyclopaedia that removing it from an article (without replacement) would be detrimental to the readers understanding - for this image that is not currently the case. Guest9999 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• He meant that we could simply move the pic out of the gallery, and that's it. I would change the current FP with this one, for example. diego_pmc (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's a good chance that it wouldn't succeed. Some articles are being watched by a larger number of people. The idea is the right one, though, since an FAC nomination could lead to the gallery being removed from the article. I don't think we should be promoting images that will become ineligible as soon as the article goes to FAC. The only way to prevent that is to either replace the current "general illustration" picture at the top of the article, or create encyclopaedic value for this image. The chance of that may be slim. Let's analyse it for a second: the top image is a panorama, which is a more comprehensive illustration of the subject than this image. The other images each have very specific EV that none of the other images have, but the image nominated here doesn't show anything specific, it's just a general picture of Bryce Canyon. It's simply not needed in the article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Commment. Regarding enc value, the gallery caption for this image says "Thor's Hammer formation", suggesting that it has enc value separate to whether it is the lead image or in a gallery. Pstuart84 Talk 15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• But there is no mention of Thor's Hammer formation in the article so no indication of what it is or what if anything makes it a special or important formation as the lead article in a Thor's Hammer (Bryce Canyon) article I would not oppose, if the formation was important enough to have a section devoted to it in the main Bryce Canyon article and the image supported that text I would not oppose. As it is I do not know if the formation is an notable or significant feature of the canyon and the fact that it isn't mentioned in the article and the image is in a gallery suggests it isn't - especially in a featured article that should comprehensively cover the subject. However valuable an image potentially is if it doesn't add to the body of the article I don't think it should be featured. A featured image should help answer a persons questions, what does this look like? how does this work? at the moment this photo just cause readers to ask them. Guest9999 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support beautiful and nice mood Blieusong (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not outstanding in the article, and while technically ok, it is of rather low resolution I bet it mostly gets support for the nice weather, and for bryce canyon being a beautiful place... --Dschwen 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent shot; I think in an article where there are a lot of similar images, once one or two are made featured pics then they can be rightfully placed in more prominent positions. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• All the images currently in the main body of the article depict specific things about the park (e.g. markings, wildlife, footpaths) which help to illustrate the content of the article, these couldn't really be replaced by this image even if it is of a higher technical and artistic standard. Guest9999 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've added this photo to Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, where it nicely illustrates hoodoo formation in the Claron (Pink Cliffs) formation there. This should raise the encyclopedic value of this exceptionally fine photo. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Except that this image does that already? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice one, too, but it's in a different article. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Older nominations requiring additional input from users

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

[edit] Suspended nominations

This section is for Featured Picture candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

[edit] JFK motorcade

Reason

Only free image found so far that depicts the motorcade moments prior to the JFK assassination. I feel that the encyclopedic value of this photograph far outweighs any concerns over its artistic merit or technical quality. Originally uploaded to the commons as Image:John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas.jpg. The original archival scan is now available at Image:John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas.png or in .tiff format at [3]. Current image processing software employed in MediaWiki prohibits posting a thumbnail of the original scan as it exceeds 12.5 megapixels. The crop is just a preliminary suggestion, I'd love to see some FPC regulars take a crack at cleaning up the scan.

Articles this image appears in

John F. Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, John F. Kennedy assassination, several others

Creator

Copyright by Victor Hugo King. Mr. King has since placed the photograph in the public domain.LOC record

• Support as nominator --ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Taken from a unique vantage point to all others I have seen of Kennedy's motorcade through Dallas. The quality of the original is quite poor though understandable for an image from that era. Capital photographer (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There are definitely better quality shots of the motorcade, unfortunately they are all protected by copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose After the Brandeis portrait, this is rather poorly restored. I'm willing to pardon composition and detail but the dust, speckles, etc. are inexcusable given the excellent restoration abilities of some Wikipedians.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not that confident in my restoration abilities :) I apologize as this nomination now appears to be a bit premature, since the cropped scan exhibits a number of fixable blemishes. I'd appreciate it if Durova, or any other FPC regular, take some time to see what could be done to improve the quality of this photo. Perhaps in the meantime it is best to move this nomination to a more appropriate forum, like WP:GL or WP:PPR. Nonetheless, I believe that this photo is a substantial asset of our free content community. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Although this image is about half as old as the Brandeis image, technical and circumstantial factors are quite different. The Brandeis image is a formal portrait taken under studio conditions, and that had extensive damage that took roughly 20 hours to restore. This is a snapshot taken on the day of President Kennedy's assassination, and the photographer has released it to the public domain. On a technical level these two images are not very comparable. I might be able to do something with the image file (no promises), but really suggest weighing the special historical nature of this photograph. Better portraits of Kennedy may be available, but would they carry such meaning? Durova^Charge! 07:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Temporarily withdrawn pending request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#JFK_motorcade ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Please don't simply remove a nom from the FPC page. In a case like this where holding off for a bit might produce a better picture, the nomination can be moved to the suspended list. Removing the nom from the FPC page completely is just asking for it to go missing. Also, I was giving the cleanup a go myself and then thought I was going nuts when I couldn't find the nomination anywhere (here or on PPR, I wasn't 100% sure where I saw it). Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was not aware of the proper procedure for suspending noms. I can assure you that this one will not go missing, it's too good of a learning experience for me for things to avoid should I ever nominate a picture again :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   • {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
3. Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions. If any of those images were on Commons, be sure to tag the description pages with {{missing image}}.

When promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]

   • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:

   Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
3. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 10 are listed at all times
4. Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
5. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.

   Don't forget to update the count too.

6. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian) - newest on bottom

   The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Photographer". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the photographer (or organization) does not have an article, use an external link where appropriate. Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Photographer". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.

7. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top
8. Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture|image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/image_name), and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image. If the alternatives were on Commons, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
9. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
10. Notify the nominator by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
11. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}

[edit] Nominations for delisting

Shortcut: WP:FPCD Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions to delist or replace (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s. Use the tool below to nominate for delisting. Please use Delist or Keep to summarise your opinion.

[edit] Einsatzgruppen killing a Jewish man

Reason

Image has been deleted - see here and Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II (look for the missing image in the gallery). However I believe it was promoted in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Einsatzgruppen / Holocaust beginnings. There were concerns over licensing in the nom, but it was eventually promoted. We appear to still have access to the original version from the nom, which I have put up here as Available version.

Nominator

jjron (talk)

• Delist deleted image. I'm happy to support a Replace if licensing, etc on the Available version is clear. — jjron (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Commons deletion request. MER-C 06:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• If the tagging on the non-deleted image is correct, then we can ask the deleted version to be restored here and then refeatured. MER-C 07:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not that clear on the licensing issues, etc, to be honest, but part of the reason I put it up here rather than just 'auto-delisting' or swapping for the available version was in case someone could put the featured version back up here. I think Commons admins still have access to deleted versions, so if one of them is around perhaps they could retrieve it and replace it here? --jjron (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delist as ineligible. This image is non-free in the US as in Germany. Another case of faulty labeling by the USHMM. Perhaps someone should do a trawl of similar photos and confirm that they are correctly tagged. Mangostar (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have evidence that it is non-free in the US? the arguments on the nomination made a decently good case for it being free. So far the only people saying that it is still under copyright in the US (I know it still is in Germany) have not put forth any evidence to support their claims. Until then, I will have to say Keep. I guess the correct thing would actually be to Replace with existing. Clegs (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree, wikipedia commons has different copyright rules than the english wikipedia, if the image was used in war crime trials as evidence, it most likely is in fact devoid of copyright as seized property (and who is the author of the image, where was it first published?) Thisglad (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delist closing procedure

Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   • {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   • {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.
3. Replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} text from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
4. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
5. Decrement the count at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures.