Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 31: Line 31:


===Supporting and opposing===
===Supporting and opposing===
* If you approve of a picture, write "Support" followed by your reasons.
* If you approve of a picture, write '''{{tl|Support}}''' followed by your reasons.
* If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reasons for your objection. '''Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.'''
* If you oppose a nomination, write '''{{tl|Oppose}}''' followed by the reasons for your objection. '''Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.'''
** To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <tt><nowiki><s>...</s></nowiki></tt>) rather than removing it.
** To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <tt><nowiki><s>...</s></nowiki></tt>) rather than removing it.


Revision as of 13:04, 20 June 2005

Featured picture tools
Shortcut

Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant (see also Wikipedia:Featured articles). Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Pictures that are striking but do not illustrate an article can be submitted to Featured picture candidates on the Wikimedia commons.

If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below into the Current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image that currently exists in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures gallery should not be there, the Nomination for removal section of this page can be used to nominate it for delisting.

For delisting, this page is similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license. Since an image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use) fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery.

For listing, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the general consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations.

Also, be sure to sign your nomination by using "~~~~" in the editor - this will add your log-on name with the date and time.

When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Procedure

How to add your nomination

Nominations are now created as subpages.

  1. Create a new subpage named   Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image
  2. Edit the subpage to give your reasons for nomination using the following format
    ===[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image|Name-Of-Image]]===
    [[Image:FILENAME.jpg|thumb|CAPTION]]
    Add your reasons for nominating it here,
    say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
    * Nominate and {{support}}. First vote here - ~~~~
    * {{Support/Oppose}}. Reasons for vote. - ~~~~
    <!-- additional votes go above this line -->
    <br style="clear:both;" />
  3. Add  {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image}}  to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
  4. Add  {{FPC}}  to the nominated image's page. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.

If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish to simply add your nomination to this page without creating the subpage, that is OK as someone else will create the subpage. The important piece of information is the pointer to the image, and the reason for the nomination.

Supporting and opposing

  • If you approve of a picture, write {{Support}} followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write {{Oppose}} followed by the reasons for your objection. Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Community standards

Please adhere to applicable community standards and conventions of writing and layout as relevant for contributions to a dialogue.

Current nominations

Please add all nominations and self-nominations to the top of this list.

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Wine Grapes

Wine grapes from an Australian Winery
Wine grapes from an Australian Winery

Pretty good shots of wine grapes. Wine grapes are very different from table grapes in that for the particular wine these were going to produce the "wrinkling" of the grapes is desirable.

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I feel the grapes are too small in the first image, and badly framed in the second, though they look lovely :). - Longhair | Talk 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons as Longhair. - Mgm|(talk) 16:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like both. I think the colour of the grapes is very rich, it contrasts very will with the leaves and the background. I like the way we get to see how they bunch up on the vine in the first pic. I can't imagine better pictures, particularly as I get sick of seeing them not in a natural state i.e. on a plain white background or something. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: My bias might be showing. I've seen a lot of grapes on vines :) -- Longhair | Talk 03:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I like both images, are both to become FPs or just one? Phoenix2 18:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't find them beautiful or striking. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the picture on the left (Image:Wine grapes03.jpg, but it should be trimmed to remove the partial bunch on the left. No vote on the other picture.-gadfium 02:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wine_grapes03.jpg has really nice colors. Intersofia 5 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
  • Support the second photo - the close-up of grapes. Harro5 July 5, 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Promoted Wine grapes03.jpg +6 / -3 -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)

Daisy1web

African Daisy.

Very beautiful and striking. One of the best flower photographs I've ever seen. Used to illustrate the Daisy article. Uploaded by JoJan

  • Nominate and Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow! Sango123 00:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Groovy colors. TomStar81 00:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Bling bling. Josh Lee 03:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice --Fir0002 08:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, black background enhances the colors -- Chris 73 Talk 17:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Absolutely fantastic! - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, to some extent a flower is a flower, but this one is especially beautiful. Phoenix2 21:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent colors, high res. Very nice. -IanMcGreene 22:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- I didn't even have to click on the image to know I was liking it. - Longhair | Talk 09:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, very detailed, nice color. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - amazing pic. Guettarda 13:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --brian0918&#153; 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Lovely flower and photo. - Darwinek 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Submit to commons instead. Support now that the picture illustrates the right article and has been removed from daisy. See discussion below. - Haukurth 14:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) The image is certainly striking and beautiful. However, it doesn't really illustrate an article on Wikipedia, which is a requirement here. The Daisy article currently deals with three species of flowers, none of which is african daisy (Dimorphotheca aurantiaca) or even a member of the same genus. Until this is sorted out the picture is out of place. As a side-note I think the picture is more beautiful than illustrative. The black background means that we don't see the flower in its natural context. We don't even have any reference to estimate how large it is. - Haukurth 16:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a very good argument. Your reasoning is more in favor of creating an article on the flower than deleting the picture because there is no article. There are plenty of other plant/animal FPs that don't have articles on the exact species, but are illustrative of the type. As for the background color, that's pretty subjective. --brian0918&#153; 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Create an article on this flower species and I will support the nomination. Until then the picture doesn't illustrate an article on Wikipedia (keeping the photo in the Daisy article is misleading). My notes about the background are not subjective. Whether the black background makes the flower more beautiful is, on the other hand, subjective. - Haukurth 20:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • This picture is on commons, and is here. And the picture is fine for the WP article as it is a Bellis perennis which is what the article is about. The other images have just been misnamed in naming them "Dasies". --Silversmith Hewwo 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I freely admit that I'm not an expert on flowers. But I don't think the flower in question is a Bellis perennis unless it's been twisted and painted. I'm not sure what species it actually is or whether that species is properly called African daisy. I hope someone with more knowledge can clear this up. This page seems to be the source of the picture: [1] The only info here is that this is an "African daisy with studio lighting". Hmm... Weird licensing info: "If you plan on using this picture commercially, that's not a problem but please use some due diligence. I've tried to make sure I have a valid copyright on something before releasing it to the Public Domain, but the standard for commercial use is much higher. Don't be a dumbass." I'm not sure if we should take this to imply that the person writing is not the actual author of the picture or perhaps that he/she doesn't quite understand the Public Domain concept. I hope it isn't unreasonable to want these issues to be cleared up before the image is promoted. - Haukurth 21:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Regarding the license, it is clearly Public Domain and usable by us. I think the author fully understands the concept of public domain. from the pd photo about page [2]: "However, there are some things to keep in mind: This doesn't mean that you can take the material as is and then copyright it yourself. It's in the public domain and that's where it must stay. And if you intend to use an image you find here for commercial use, please be aware that standards for such use are higher than for other uses. Specifically, if you see a picture here with people you should assume no model release was obtained. And pictures featuring products or property may open you to litigation if you use them commercially without permision." I hope this clears things up. Lorax 01:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
              • Thank you. Yes, that's surely good enough. Now I just want to know what species the flower is :) - Haukurth 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a type of "Trailing African Daisy" Genus: Osteospermum fruticosum. The "Daisy Family" is Asteraceae, to which the plant in this picture belongs. I will make a seperate article tomorrow for this Genus, as that seems to be the system, which we can see by looking at Chrysanthemum. --Silversmith Hewwo 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a cultivar Osteospermum 'Pink Whirls'. This cultivar has pinkish-purple flowers with 'spooned' petals; reverse is purple to lavender-blue; disk is blue. See this site [[3]]. I happen to have this plant in my garden. I'll make a few photos and I'll upload them in the Commons. But I'm afraid the quality of my photos won't be on a par with this excellent picture. JoJan 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support–Kaldari 22:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Should obviously be featured --Oblivious 21:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Shivanayak 13:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I argue that it is inellgible since it illustrates no article. It isn't mentioned as a variant of daisies in the daisy article and it is only tacked on to the bottom of another. Submit it to commons. Being featured there is no less of an honor. Note: I think it is a great photo. This link is Broken 22:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cultivars hardly get a separate article, unless they are very commmon such as the cultivars of Malus domestica, better known as the apple. Nevertheless I created the article Osteospermum, where I've mentioned this particular cultivar Osteospermum 'Pink Whirls'. There is not much more to be said about this flower. JoJan 13:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good work, JoJan! I now support the nomination. - Haukurth 14:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alright I'll change to neutral. My concern now is, do we know exactly what species this flower belogns to? (forgive me i know very little about flowers). This link is Broken 14:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On second second thought. I support. I don't know what i was whining about. This link is Broken 17:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A cultivar is NOT a species, therefore you don't need to be concerned. JoJan 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added the photo to the cultivar article, which previously didn't have any images. - Haukurth 16:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A strong image triggering activity in writing articles is part of what Featured Pictures is about. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
    • Promoted Image:African daisy (Osteospermum sp. 'Pink Whirls').jpg This link is Broken 4 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)


Redwing_nest.jpg

Redwing nest with four hatchlings and one remaining egg.

My wife took this picture yesterday. I think it is vivid and crisp and illustrates redwing, nest and bird nicely. It does need to be viewed full-size to be fully enjoyed, though. I suppose it could be cropped closer around the hatchlings though I think it's nice that one can see that the nest is on the ground. - Haukurth 15:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We checked on the nest again today. They're all dead now. It was probably a fox - though he didn't even eat them all. We found two of them a meter or two from the nest, blue and lifeless but not torn apart. The scene was just too sad to photograph. - Haukurth 20:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominate and support. - Haukurth 15:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, good, but not quite good enough. --Fir0002 09:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although I do think they look like groovy rockers with their spiky hair-styles. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for voting on the picture. Might I bother you for more specific reasons you think the picture lacks merit? Perhaps it can be improved or replaced (we have a couple more of the same nest) and if not then at least we could have a better idea as to what to look for in the future (try a flower next time, maybe?). - Haukurth 13:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To be more specific, I find the birds a bit hard to see, as their colour is very close to the nest's colour, and the shadows don't help. I almost supported, but I don't think it is striking enough to be featured, it's just a nice, fairly interesting picture. Maybe the others you have are better? --Silversmith Hewwo 18:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, that's helpful :) We looked at the other pictures again but still feel this one is the best. We tried cropping it differently and fiddling with color levels and contrast but still feel it looks best unprocessed. The shadow is there because the lighting is natural. You can see that the nest is placed in a small depression in the ground. The hatchlings are similar in colour to the nest, that's probably how Nature/Darwin/God intended it. The nest is hard to find unless you know exactly where to look. Again, thank you for your comments. - Haukurth 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I happen to like it. If anything, 1/3rd of the nest is a bit in the shadow, but that is not a big flaw I think -- Chris 73 Talk 17:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I like it, but I don't think it's quite up to featured standard. Phoenix2 21:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not especially striking. Kaldari 22:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Bernard Helmstetter 16:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That brownish stuff at the right is distracting. Enochlau 06:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The moss? That's just what the ground looks like. Would you support a closer crop? Not that it matters at this point. - Haukurth 10:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As an image its not perfect and the lighting could be better, but it is by far the best illustration on nest. My guess is its not so easy to come across a situation like this and having one unhatched egg is a major bonus. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe the poster that the nests are rare to come by and he is probably right that the color coincidence is no coincidence, if you know what I mean. Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Not promoted +5 / -5 -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

Image:Fold-us-flag-animated.gif

How to properly fold the US flag

This informative diagram by Jacobolus illustrates beautifully how to fold the US flag. - Josh Lee 03:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Josh Lee 03:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The animation is much more effective at conveying the information than the accompanying prose description. - Burn the asylum 11:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment: Any chance we can get this in 3D? This is quite boring, sorry. Mgm|(talk) 12:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I like the animation, but it doesn't show which way the flag gets folded (ie: over under, etc). In all honesty it looks like someone's taking siccors to the flag and cutting along the dotted lines, although I'm quite sure that is not what Jacobolus was aiming for. TomStar81 00:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It goes a bit too fast for me and I'm not sure I quite understand it. There seems to be a large step near the end. What does that indicate? I think a clearer, slower and maybe 3D version of this would have great FP potential. - Haukurth 01:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this would only be of interest to Americans.--Fir0002 09:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
You are wrong - I'm Polish - but I've got only some idea. Basia from Poland.
  • Oppose - I still have no idea how to fold the flag no matter how often I watch it! - Adrian Pingstone 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Phoenix2 21:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it's not an effective demostration, while noting that Fir0002's objection is quite irrelevant. — Dan | Talk 00:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The animation doesn't really show "folding" in progress, and it's missing about a dozen steps between frames 10 and 11. --Carnildo 03:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. As much as I like the idea (and I thank the creator, because I'd always wondered how you get to the triangle), it doesn't consistently show if the flag is being folded over or under. Put arrows on it and you'll have my vote. Deltabeignet 03:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    it's obviously being foldeed under or the pattern being folded onto would change. This link is Broken 01:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I beg to differ; when it's been folded horizontally twice and is being folded in triangles, the stripes would remain the same whether it was being folded forwards or backwards. I tried it out in MS Paint. Deltabeignet 18:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This link is Broken 01:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Chameleon 01:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -9 -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

Sunset in Bali

Sunset at Jimbaran Beach, Bali

Bali, an island recovering from the recent bombing incident, is indeed, recovering, however, remains the human paradise, and always be, not any amount of force shall alter that stance. Reflected here is the very indulgence human could ever have, the sunset in Jimbaran Beach is the very need to embrace this lovely island. Photography will help to publicise this message. Used in the Bali article and Slivester Nuenenorl was the photographer. - Slivester 11:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Slivester 11:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Way too small. Enochlau 12:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Replaced with a larger resolution version. Slivester 12:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Still oppose, ordinary. as per comments below. Enochlau 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Its not as ordinary as it seemed, the process was tough. There are some elements blind to the human eye. Slivester 02:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by elements blind to the human eye? If I can't see it, what good is it in a featured picture? Enochlau 04:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we unfeature all the Hubble pictures? --brian0918&#153; 13:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Something profound that it should be featured. Slivester 14:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, that does not mean we should unfeature Hubble pictures. It's just that I think this one, although nice, doesn't quite have the stuff for FPC. Enochlau 05:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quite certaintly you deem so, what is then a matter for feature? What is the policy shall we have to refer to? If this isn't, there is more, in my point of view, should be unfeatured. Slivester 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, good picture, but not featured material. Phoenix2 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Nice shot, with great color and composition. Alight 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I would love to visit Bali, this is just another sunset photo. We have much better already in the FP archives. Denni☯ 22:57, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, its just "another". Well, television is just another form of entertainment, and may not surpass other better medium, and I don't see people stop praising it? Slivester 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Just not striking enough. - Longhair | Talk 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, how shall I strike then? Slivester 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For all the opposition reasons given. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it seemed all words are given for you too, you seem quite in the middle. Slivester 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Caught my eye at the Bali page, and I think it's beautiful. Dzof 11:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice picture! so, Submit to commons This link is Broken 16:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Chess revolution

"Chess revolution" Painting of N. Gabrichidze

I nominate this image because this artwork is a best illustration of how so called geopolitics goes now days. I feel that image was meant to represent the common mans reaction to the “game theory” which is saying that top ranking politicians are a players who use rest of humanity, and even whole countries as a pieces in the endless chess game. Image shows what might happen if this "game" goes too far. Artists had put himself at the rioting pieces side, but I also know people who associate themselves with a players and are pretty scared by the painting .. Image was painted by Dutch/Georgian artist (and my friend) Nick Gabrichidze at 2003-2004 and will be on display at his upcoming public art project in Holland Casino Amsterdam (opens July 27-28).. Image is used in the articles about Surrealism and Nick Gabrichidze as far as I know.. Was uploaded by Gabrichidze . - Knutson 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. First vote here - Knutson 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its a rather nice illustration, but I'm afraid "Fair use" images are inelligible for Featured Picture Candidates, as described at the head of the page. However, with the permission of the artist, it is possible to release a particular photograph of a painting under GFDL, whilst the artist retains the copyright on the original painting. See for example Greencastle Harbour. -- Solipsist 22:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note Copyright status changed 17 Jun - (comment by User:80.126.57.218 16:08, 17 Jun 2005 -- Solipsist 15:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))
The license has now improved, but the restriction 'for use at wikipedia.org only' effectively still prevents it from being GFDL. -- Solipsist 15:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This does not add significantly to the Surrealism, where the image should be removed IMHO, because Nick Gabrichidze is not a very well known artist (such an article should have images of the most famous and exemplary surrealist paintings). Note also that there's currently a vote for deletion on Nick Gabrichidze (I'm ambivalent on that one). Junes 09:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose - "Unauthorised reproducion is prohibited." Not GFDL compatible. Kaldari 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose likely copyvio. Also, WP:VAIN, and user is presently edit warring to get this and similar art included in a number of inappropriate places. Radiant_>|< 10:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


University of California

File:Roycehalluc.JPG
University of California

I am choosing to nominate this image because it shows what Los Angeles really is. I know that some parts of Los Angeles aren't perfect but when you look at this beautiful building you see why it can be a great place.

The image is used on the Los Angeles and University of California which was uploaded by Satyriconi. - • Thorpe • 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - • Thorpe • 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Okay but not really striking. Junes 16:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice photo, but nothing special. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure that is really is illustrative of either Los Angeles or University of California. Also, no licensing information. --CVaneg 18:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Represents neither the best of LA nor UC. Chicago god 18:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose no licensing information and picture isn't that informative or striking anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 20:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although the color and sharpness are good, this is a poor architecture shot, as it suffers from severe "keystoning" (e.g. the building looks like it's leaning backwards) Alight 20:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not that great. Enochlau 01:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- building looks like it is leaning backwards. - Longhair | Talk 01:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Fir0002 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Cool picutre, nothing amazing, also no licensing. -- IanMcGreene 22:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose--ZeWrestler 16:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Mont-Saint-Michel

Mont Saint Michel

A striking image, suitable in articles in "middle age" category, it was taken by user "Ncihtich". Roscoe x 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. Could be categorized as a kingdom of heaven - Roscoe x 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks really odd, almost photoshopped (not suggesting that it is). Light spot with off colors in the middle. Junes 16:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not high enough quality, and I prefer pictures of le Mont Saint Michel with the water surrounding it. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Noticeably off color. Chicago god 18:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the composition quite a lot. But as others have mentioned, problems with the scanning (colour banding, colour casts, dust spots etc.) falls some way short of a Feature Picture. -- Solipsist 19:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice composition, but far too many technical problems. Denni☯ 02:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Oppose has an annoying pink blob in the middle. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose MontStMichel is great image but better photo can be found Knutson 11:10 pm, 16 Jun 20
  • Oppose -- Not natural colour. - Longhair | Talk 03:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - very poor quality - Adrian Pingstone 18:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Krilleyekils

Compound eye of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba

Gorgeous, scientific, and enhances a string of pages. By Uwe Kils, used on Antarctic krill, Compound eye, Eye and others. - Mark1 03:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. Mark1 03:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • neutral - looks really good if you click twice in the image Uwe Kils 03:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Dr. kils' pictures are, as always, a feast for the eye. El_C 12:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--very informative. Meelar (talk) 13:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Something to make some wonder. Image is wonderful. • Thorpe • 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow! Sango123 17:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Very cool. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just another macro photograph in a long line of macro photographs. Chicago god 18:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The wider view and closer view are impressive too. And there's even a diagram, so you can build one yourself ;-) Very illustrative. -- Solipsist 19:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support. Copyright-Fair Use images aren't appropriate for Featured pic. (too bad, it is a nice picture) The larger version says GFDL, so if the copyright is clarified, I will change my vote. Lorax 23:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
changed it to gfdl - did not know it - I would like that many people can see this amazing structure of this mystic animal of the Southern Seas - Uwe Kils 23:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Great, I changed my vote. You know if you put the GFDL in double braces '{' it will put in the licensing box and catagorize it correctly. For an example, look at the picture directly above this one. Lorax 00:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Stunning image, hypnotic in effect, and informative too. Tannin 06:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support.I nominated another image so I oppose his one.. But generaly I have nothing against it.
Actually I am sorry, I didn't knew it is possible to vote for multiple imagesKnutson 23 : 37, Jun16, 2005 (UTC)
  • support. Actually, it may be a good illustration to the article Tessellations of the sphere. In the image you see that the small bubbles squeezed into hexagons. It can be mathematically proven that it is impossible to regularly tessellate a sphere into hexagons only. The Nature (or God) surely knows this. Exercise: find pentagonal bubbles in the picture. mikka (t) 23:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice — I think I can see one pentagon. See also Geodesic domes of Buckminster Fuller. So not only does this echo Pollinator's Dragonfly eye, but US Navy Radomes too. -- Solipsist 23:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that you liked it, I have to confess I was a bit imprecise: I was speaking about the regular tessellation, where every edge is shared by exactly 3 faces and every vertex is shared by exactly 3 edges. Also, the whole sphere (or egg, or balloon of any shape (topologically equivalent to sphere)) must be covered. Other examples you've shown do not "use" the whole sphere. Nice they are, anyway. mikka (t) 00:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Starlette

Photographers crowd around a starlette at the Cannes Film Festival.

Self-nom. I expect to be charged of objectifying women for this one, but there's to much dead things on that page yet ;-). Ericd 19:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It's a photograph of photographers which I think is silly. It's a no, no from me. • Thorpe •
Comment. This picture also illustrates Photojournalism where the photographers are the subject. -- Solipsist 19:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I love it. It seems to tell so much. Also, something different than usual FP candidates. Junes 16:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I spotted this on Ericd's images page a couple of weeks ago. I'm impressed that we have professional(?) photographers contributing images of this quality. I particularly like the way the starlet is sunlit, whilst the photogaphers are in shadow. (And curiously the photographers appear to have dated more than the starlet.) -- Solipsist 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Amateur. I was in high school when I shot this one. That's beginners luck. Ericd 22:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I umed and ahed but then decided it was very interesting considering when it was taken. Love the fashions on the photographers. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I also found this photo a few weeks ago and I love it, it's somehow very different. I like how it captures the clothing fashion of the time. Teklund 18:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lingerie-clad woman with oogling men -- do we not have enough of this in the media? Need it be a FP too? Chicago god 18:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Notice how no one is actually looking at the woman? They're all studying their cameras, and the photo is of them, not her. How profoundly illustrative. And also great photography. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 01:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - curiously appealing. They're all so stuck in their roles. Denni☯ 02:45, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Support - fine photography and fine psychology. Kosebamse 05:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - psychologically very interesting, adds to the article -- Chris 73 Talk 14:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The subject matter is a different beast to many of the other nominations here, and the profusion of action is nice. Enochlau 07:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- good image. - Longhair | Talk 01:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- illustrative, striking and different. - Haukurth 20:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --brian0918&#153; 13:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- captures several essence of the times in one shot Robin klein 15:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting. — Chameleon 01:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


San Pardo Cathedral- Architectural detail closeup

Closeup view of the Cathedral's architectural details, including crisp geometric carvings and lion statue

The picture shows exactly why many consider the Cathedral of San Pardo one of the finest examples of early Gothic architecture in Italy, or even Europe. It also shows another side of the Cathedral. Generally, photographers focus on the 13-pane rose-window, thought to be the only one in the world. The other architectural details such as the fine carving and statuary tend to be overshadowed. Although the image only depicts a small part of the building, one must keep in mind that the subject isn't really the cathedral, but rather its constituent parts. The image is used in the article Larino. It would obviously be better suited for an article about the cathedral, but currently, that is part of the main entry for Larino. I don't know who took the picture. I found it on the Italian Wiki. - Larineso 16:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support - Larineso 16:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good but not exceptional. Junes 16:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree with Junes. Sango123 17:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Such pictures are a bit of a dime a dozen in Europe. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Silversmith. Chicago god 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But they seem to be missing in Featured pictures65.94.225.171 01:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I've seen one that is of a gargoyle on Notre Dame. There'll be more I'm sure. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Support if a higher resolution image can be obtained Anish7 06:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Support Larineso states that it shows exactly why the cathedral is an example of fine architecture. From the point of view of someone interested in the architecture of this building this picture would prove quite useful. Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Here we go again lol I withdrew my vote because I misunderstood the point Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -4 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)

Mouse Cutaway

Mouse mechanism combining graphics from Illustrator and Photoshop Effects.

Mouse had no image explaining the basic function. I pulled some patent images but this one adds color and motion. The photo is original as well. - jk 03:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) (changing start date of nomination -- Solipsist 21:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

  • Nominate and support. First vote here - jk 17:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one seemed to disappear from FPC. ed g2s • talk 11:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Let's give this one another two weeks. Today is the first time I've seen it in the nominations page. - Bevo 03:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - very nicely done. I think the big red arrow could use a little work though. —Josh Lee 22:33, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Nice to see the inside of a mouse without having to destroy the one I use. It's very informative and the image is nicely done. Mgm|(talk) 09:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, fantastic diagram. the wub (talk) 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- llywrch 23:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I think it would have been better if the original image of the mouse was of higher quality (this one is a bit dark). But the illustrative parts are great. --Fir0002 04:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Resolution could have been bigger though. Junes 16:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't like the blurry mouse. It's all a bit dull. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I agree with.Fir0002 --CVaneg 18:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The mouse is dull and low res. Illustration could do without the red arrow I think. Chicago god 18:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Come on! How high a resolution do you need? You can't make it any bigger than the original mouse image. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an image I might have nominated myself. I quite like the fact that the photographic part is blurred as it gives visual weight to the illustrated cut away portion. -- Solipsist 18:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The blurry mouse is actually good - focuses attention on the bits that make the mouse work. Enochlau 07:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- TomStar81 00:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Average, would support if it was animated to show how wheels move when the mouse moves horizontally and vertically. -- Dzof 11:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --brian0918&#153; 13:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, very illustrative. We need more diagrams in our library. This link is Broken 03:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mouse-mechanism-cutaway.png +14 / -3 -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)

SMAW.welding.af.ncs

Gas metal arc welding

Excellent lead image in a featured article. It is striking and impressive, adding significantly to welding. This image effectively illustrates gas metal arc welding.

  • Nominate and support. Sango123 16:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but note that when I first found this picture, I thought it was shielded metal arc welding (hence the "SMAW" in the title), but after looking at it more, I'm pretty sure that it's gas metal arc welding. --Spangineer (háblame) 01:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks - fixed caption and nomination. Sango123 02:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support That's awesome. --Fir0002 05:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Of course! Junes 16:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fabulous. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another image I had been thinking of nominating. -- Solipsist 18:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - TomStar81 01:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Excellent image. - Longhair | Talk 15:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --brian0918&#153; 15:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - if you view the hi-res version, you see a refelction of a sign or something on the face shield saying "satellite". Wouldn't that normally be a mirror image? Something's not right - Ian ≡ talk 07:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's inside the mask – it's the mechanism that automatically darkens the face shield when the welding arc is struck. Take a look at this vendor site to see the little box a bit more clearly. Optrel Satellite is the brand name/manufacturer of the mask. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


Simmon-hall-mit-boston-usa.jpg

Simmons Hall, built in 2002

I just thought this picture was striking, improves the articles, and so on. Although it's kinda confusing where's sky, where's not, it's a nice picture. Taken by ReneS (Rene Schwietzke) used in Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. - WB 05:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - WB 05:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't find it striking; the repetitiveness in the windows gives it a rather ordinary look. also, its artificiality is a little too apparent. Enochlau 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too repetitive like Enochlau said. There isn't much to see except squares of windows. • Thorpe • 11:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Boring. -Lommer | talk 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ditto. Is this a picture or a computer generated image? --Fir0002 04:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't know for a fact, but I assume it's the side of the building. you can see curtains in some of the windows. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- This is featured pictures, not puzzles. -- Longhair | Talk 02:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's great. I love the geometry and the colours. It reminds me of a Mondrian. (oops, I forgot to sign). --Silversmith Hewwo 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's great too. Ericd 21:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like that sort of symmetry and grid effect. Looks really clean. --Bash 08:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the style of the photograph, although the rotated alignment seems a little perverse. However, we already have one FP of a post modern building on the MIT campus. Also the Simmons Hall isn't much discussed in the text, so I'm not sure it does add that much to the article. -- Solipsist 18:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't know if this is a computer drawing or photograph, either way round it's very boring - Adrian Pingstone 18:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a real picture. See this picture.-- WB 11:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - orientation is confusing. which way is up? Kaldari 22:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The sky must be up, no? -- WB 11:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
In this case I don't think the sky is up. I think the pic is just taken high up the building, where you can see the sky to the side (Note the curtains). But I could be wrong. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, I guess the point of the rotated frame of reference is to get you to concentrate on the pattern and symmetries of the facade - which it succeeds in doing. If you stare straight up in New York, you can get this sort of sideways verticle view point almost anywhere. But sometimes going for the artistic effect, obscures the subject a little too much. -- Solipsist 14:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looking at this picture from a diferrent point of view, it is viewing up (the sky). If you see my above comment to Arpingstone, the building isn't that high up anyway. -- WB 23:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, boring. Phoenix2 01:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Not promoted 4 / 9 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hindu goddess

The beauty of the Hindu goddess speaks for itself. User:DaGizza

  • Oppose the resolution is too low. This link is Broken 04:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Far too small. ed g2s • talk 10:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unknown copyright status. Ericd 20:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no copyright info. Mgm|(talk) 09:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, So low res that it hardly worth having it on wiki at all. Leaves a person frustrated, like the donkey and the carrot, a treasure chest without a key, a thumbnail you can't expand. --Fir0002 04:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very small. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too small. Phoenix2 19:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless a larger version is acquired (I'm looking for one right now, with little luck). As an artwork, this scale is inexcusable. When I see a photo thumbnail on Wikipedia, *especially* of an artwork, I fully expect to click through to an UBER HI-RES version. If you look at this version of the picture I just found, it seems that our copy has been somehow modified from the original, much like the "enhanced" Last Suppers floating around the web; if we're going to proudly show off an artwork we need to have The Real Thing(TM) and not some rebuilt interpretation. In closing, if this was screen-filling I would say it was beautiful and fully support it as a featured picture, but the way it is it's worthless to us.--ooops, formatting! I found and added the source of the image, not that that helps much... Master Thief GarrettTalk 03:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Not promoted 1 / 8 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Image deleted from WikiCommons, no license. Thuresson 18:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caulfield Grammar School awards pocket

File:Caulfield pocket.JPG
An example of a Caulfield Grammar School awards pocket.

I created this image to use in the Caulfield Grammar article's uniform section as an example of a school blazer awards pocket. It is a high-res, bright and interesting image. Harro5 09:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Harro5 09:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fairly boring. ed g2s • talk 19:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I admire the attempts of bringing such a disputed thing as a school article to FA status, but this image is not interesting or striking enough for featured status; informativeness is limited. - Mgm|(talk) 21:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Get Real Anish7 05:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not interesting. Enochlau 03:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -Lommer | talk 19:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- not interesting. - Longhair | Talk 08:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For reasons stated. Chicago god 18:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Not promoted 1 / 7 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Image:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

M1 Abrams with the Tank Urban Survival Kit

The picture speaks for itself. Shows the M1 Abrams fitted with the Tank Urban Survival Kit

  • Nominate and support. Anish7 04:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ed g2s • talk 08:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It certainly illustrates tanks, yes, but is it particularly striking, impressive, beautiful, fascinating, or brilliant? I don't think so. It's just some pictures of tanks and their parts. Sputnik 13:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The often quoted "striking, impressive, beautiful, fascinating, or brilliant" is just a guideline, and anyway, it does add significantly to it's article so I would say it is fascinating. ed g2s • talk 19:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a very interesting image. Junes 22:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Adds significantly, and this isn't Commons FPC, so "adds significantly" should outweigh any of the catch-words commonly cited. --brian0918&#153; 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Illustrative and very well done. --CVaneg 04:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. "Adds significantly" has always trumped æsthetic concerns, obviously. James F. (talk) 21:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreed with Sputnik. Enochlau 08:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree it adds significantly to the article in question. But at a resolution images are commonly used the text and smaller images just aren't clear enough to view comfortably. Mgm|(talk) 09:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sure it adds to the article, but it would still be a fine article without it. Also, I find the layout and quality of the picture to be poor given its objective of illustrating the TUSK system. What decided my vote though was the spelling mistake: "reactive armore". -Lommer | talk 03:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A nice composite - clean and does the job. --Fir0002 04:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bland and dry, like bad toast. Chicago god 18:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, very poor layout. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Adds signifigantly, and is clear and concise. TomStar81 01:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing special at all. Bland, straightforward, uninteresting. Dzof 11:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Bad and boring. Darwinek 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - boring and not especially good layout. Kaldari 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)



Not promoted 7 / 10 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver.jpg

File:Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver.jpg
View of the Lions' Gate Bridge and Vancouver from West Vancouver.

I think it illustrates Vancouver, Lions' Gate Bridge, and Stanley Park well along with the glimpse of a ship that often travel here. Although it might not be the most high-resolution picture available, as long as it is used in an appropriate size, it looks fine. Picture was taken by WB (me) and it is currently used in Vancouver and Lions' Gate Bridge article. - WB 00:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Self-nominate and support. - WB 00:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Mgm|(talk) 19:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Grainy and not very exciting. Junes 22:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If we use it as a smaller image, it would not be grainy. WB 23:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Might look better with some auto-leveling and/or auto-coloring. Graininess isn't really a problem, but some of the sections look out of focus. --brian0918&#153; 02:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Can anyone actually do that? I'm not so good with editting pictures... so yeah. thanks. WB 00:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It contains too much that doesn't belong, and while nice, it's not exactly striking. Deltabeignet 02:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not striking. Enochlau 08:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When image is viewed I see it isn't clear. Sort of blurred. Definetely a no. • Thorpe • 11:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As I stated above, as long as we use it as a small image, it's not so blurry. Obviously we are not going to use the full sized image on any articles. WB 18:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A panorama is useless in a small view - and the full view can hardly be called large either. Blurriness (details such as the supporting lines) cannont be seen in the image. --Fir0002 04:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the picture has a lot of weight. Plus I just like this bridge. Zhatt 22:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lions' Gate bridge is a very nice bridge and it is easy to take a nice photo of it. This is not a nice photo of it. The cables of the bridge are not visible even at full size and you can't tell what colour the bridge is. -- Webgeer 16:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


Not promoted 3 / 6 / 1 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nominations older than 14 days, the minimum voting period, decision time!

Ibexes.jpg

Ibexes in the Israeli desert

This image takes a couple seconds to appreciate, but it really jumped out at me when I saw it on Camouflage. Make sure you look at the full-size image too — how many Ibexes can you see? Image taken by Sputnikcccp and released under the GFDL. -Lommer | talk 23:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -Lommer | talk 23:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What hi-res version? Oppose. ed g2s • talk 23:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, by hi-res version I mean the full-size image, I'll change the nomination speach. -Lommer | talk 04:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It's far too small, grainy and out of focus. ed g2s • talk 08:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressive. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I know it's a picture I took, so I don't know if this nomination counts, but I have to say it is a very good picture. It illustrates Ibexes and Camouflage well. — Sputnik (Talk) 21:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Is there any chance of a higher res pic? --Silversmith Hewwo 08:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though could used higher res. Circeus 10:52, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know if the picture can be altered to create a higher res image. If someone with more photo-altering knowledge would like to try, go right ahead. And in my defence, Ed g2s, yes, it's slightly grainy and out of focus, but I think that adds to the effect of camouflage. Sputnik
      • Generally speaking increasing the size will not create a better image, and as it stands the image is far too small for FP. ed g2s • talk 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The colour is horrible - you can hardly see the features of the ibexes, which look rather like the rocks. Enochlau 08:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's the point of the picture! The ibexes blend in, they look like the rocks. If you can't find them, neither could a predator. That's what camouflage is for! Sputnik
      • oh gosh I'm so stupid... in any case, still an oppose because the image quality is not too good - compare it with the clarity of the second picture on the camouflage page. Enochlau 13:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Small and out of focus. --Bernard Helmstetter 20:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Though I like hunting for ibexes, the resolution is prohibitive.Deltabeignet 21:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, suffers from compression/lack of clarity. --Fir0002 04:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Bad compositon, color and overall lacking in sharpness. Alight 20:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although it illustrates the article well, it's not particularly aesthetically pleasing. Dzof 11:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Image:Medal of Honor Flag with Gold Fringe.svg

The flag that is presented to those who been awarded the Medal of Honor.

This flag, which is something that I made recently, is probably one of the best flag illustrations that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The qaulity of the image is better than what I have seen, and better than the quality that I replaced a few days ago. The image is currently used on the Medal of Honor article and was created, as mentioned earlier, by User:Zscout370.

  • Nominate and support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, graphically very dull — Oska 07:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, graphically very basic. --Chris 73 Talk 11:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think images of flags are striking or informative enough to be featured. A photograph, however, might be. Mgm|(talk) 20:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Far too small, far too boring. ed g2s • talk 23:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply because the resolution is too low. Might consider supporting if width were 2400 or more. dbenbenn | talk 14:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with dbenbenn. Simple things like flags should be available at high res. --Fir0002 04:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For reasons stated. Chicago god 19:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Image:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg

Buzz Aldrin poses for Neil Armstrong

A photo of Buzz Aldrin taken during the first moon landing surely deserves to be a featured photo, especially one of such high quality and resolution.

  • Nominate and support. - Anish7 01:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. High res, interesting subject, and no doubt useful in illustrating a number of articles. Mgm|(talk) 19:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I was thinking of nominating this picture, but it looks like you beat me to it. :-) Sango123 19:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Great pic, an important historical event also. Electricmoose- Electrifying 20:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support - like [s]he said, it deserves to be featured. --Oblivious 11:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely deserves to be featured. Kaldari 16:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, proves that the landings were faked! This link is Broken 21:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Proves that the landings were faked"? How have you determined that? Sango123 22:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Read Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Issues_of_photographs This link is Broken
        • I've read the arguments and counter-arguments with a neutral point of view, but I believe the landings were absolutely real and not hoaxes (see also this site). However, I respect your opinion, and the important thing is that this is an excellent picture, however we chose to interpret it. Sango123 14:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • The fact you seem to have missed is that....I was joking. This link is Broken 04:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Yep, I missed that... several times over; you seemed to be quite serious. :-) Sango123 23:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --YUL89YYZ 16:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, nice picture. Phoenix2 23:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely worthy. Enochlau 08:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely worthy. Neutralitytalk 02:59, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there an echo in the building? Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ECHO echo echo echo :-) --Fir0002 04:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Longhair | Talk 02:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --TomStar81 01:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd Support if Aldrin wasn't such a coward, liar, and THIEF for faking the landings...... :) Bart (I got my ass beat by a 70 year old) Sibrel&#153; 15:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Promoted Image:Aldrin_Apollo_11.JPG


Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page.

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  • Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage: {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }}
  • Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  • Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions.

When promoted, perform the following:

  • Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage: {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}}
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - latest on bottom
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs
  • Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture}}, and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image.
  • Notify the nominator by placing {{PromotedFPC|file_name.xxx}} on the person's talk page. For example: {{PromotedFPC|Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
  • Optionally, you can check Wikipedia:Picture of the day and feature the image as upcoming POTD.

Nomination for removal

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel do not longer live up to featured picture standards.
Note: Support = Delist | Oppose = Keep


Template:JuneCalendar2005

Template:JulyCalendar2005

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=15493369"