XM and Sirius merger: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:37, 29 July 2008

Skip to:

Table of contents
Current nominations
To be closed
More input needed
Recently closed
Suspended candidates

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage 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, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) 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 ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

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

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.

Step 2:
Create a subpage

For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.

Step 3:
Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment for Candidate Images

Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
- To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.

Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.

Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
- To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate.

Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache.

Current nominations

Iowa and Nebraska lands

Reason: Period advertisement from 1872 for land sales in Iowa and Nebraska. Clear large file articulates loan terms and settlement inducements offered by a railroad that engaged in land speculation. Restored version of Image:Iowa and Nebraska lands.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Burlington and Missouri River Railroad, History of Iowa, History of Nebraska
Creator: Burlington and Missouri River Railroad

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Superb.--ragesoss (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Another good one. Dengero (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. A good quality scan and restoration of a historically informative image. NauticaShad es 14:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Like I said above, you deserve a monument. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support as a valuable historical image. Doesn't seem to say when the offer expires... Fletcher (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Hurry up and take this down so we can buy all that land!!! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- And you aren't sharing your time machine so the rest of us can go back and do this why? :) Cat-five - talk 08:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  - When people imagine themselves in 1872 and want to rush out and buy farmland, that's the highest compliment I could get. Thank you for letting me feel like I've brought a little history to life. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 09:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Very nice scan of a historic and encyclopedic document. Cat-five - talk 08:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. High enc value. - Darwinek (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Iowa and Nebraska lands10.jpg MER-C 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, BC dusk panorama

Original A panorama of Vancouver, BC at dusk, viewed from the south with mountains behind. 20 stitched images

Reason: A sharp, 9000 pixel wide panorama showing off the downtown buildings, bridges and stadium of Vancouver, BC at dusk against the mountain setting of the city with illuminated ski runs.; Note this is to replace the earlier withdrawn nomination with a third and better version to reduce confusion, please re-vote.
Articles this image appears in: Vancouver, BC
Creator: Mfield, Matthew Field

Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Absolutely stunning! Clegs (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. A beaut Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Boring composition, jpeg artifacts, blown areas....tsk tsk :D victorrocha (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Is the link to your website necessary on the creator field ? I much see this as a form of "free" advertisement, and I believe it's not welcomed here. Blieusong (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It was unintentional - I had copied/pasted the creator info from the image page when i created the nom. Now what do you think of the image ;-) Mfield (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a clear support :) (I would have supported any version of it). I do like it a lot and sometimes wish I live in north America so I can try to shot similar night cityscapes. Blieusong (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You've taken a very impressive cityscape in Paris though. That sort of view would not be possible in almost any North American town! I'm quite jealous of you living in Paris to be honest! It is a far more photographic city than London is! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :). I agree that it must be difficult to duplicate on other cities, as the montparnasse tower (from which was taken the panorama) stands far above the surrounding buildings. I also think Paris is a wonderful city for photography and... not so far from London by eurostar :) Why not visiting us (again) some times ? Blieusong (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have you remove the link by the way... I may be a little too paranoiac, but since Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites, some might be tempted to use it as an advertisement device, which is prohibited as far as I know. -- Blieusong (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's actually a problem. The GFDL is specifically designed to ensure that authors get credit for their work. Providing a website address for ease of contact seems a perfectly natural and permissible part of that, provided that it's a personal website of the author and relates to the work it is attached to. TSP (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Support great. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support better than the ones here. --Spencer^T♦^C 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Outstanding Fg2 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Per my reasons in the previous nom. NauticaShad es 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Nice work - per reasons last time (good to see you managed to get rid of the banding) --Fir0002 04:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Quite the piece of work. Actually, stunning. Great job. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support because it would look better without those railings in the foreground. Picky, picky. Fletcher (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Really great light and exposure. A pitty that you downsampled it so much :-( --Dschwen 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Vancouver dusk pano.jpg MER-C 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse

Reason: Highly encyclopedic image showing a close-up of a modern disaster. This was chosen as one of the 12 most powerful photos of 2007 on ABC News online: [1]
Articles this image appears in: I-35W Mississippi River bridge
Creator: Kevin Rofidal, United States Coast Guard

Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. It's a unique and valuable image, but with due respect to the ABC News poll, neither this nor many of the other 11 photos have much going in terms of technical or aesthetic quality. I find most of the rest of the collapse-day images in the bridge article at least as compelling as this one.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this was a poll by ABC News: the photos appear to have been chosen by the editorial staff. howcheng {chat} 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  - You're right. That's what I meant to say: "with due respect to the ABC News list".--ragesoss (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral It gets the green light on encyclopedic terms, although like Ragesoss, I doubt it's technical quality even compared to the other ones. A side question, why are all the cars numbered? Dengero (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- It was part of the investigation; the photographer (with whom I was in contact) was unsure as to exactly what was done with the numbering. howcheng {chat} 03:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Not the best quality, but more or less a encyclopaedic image. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because "more or less" encyclopedic doesn't quite cut it for me; I want to see a high quality image. Lighting in this image is rather drab, and while it does show the damage well, I think I'd rather see a wider perspective showing more distinguishing features of this bridge on this river. One could for example mistake this image for earthquake damage were it not captioned. Fletcher (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Edit 1 uploaded. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 14:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Edit 2 uploaded. I don't think much more can be done for the picture. That being said, since it's in the bridge collapse article, and titled bridge collapse, I think the likelihood of it being mistaken for an earthquake is low. If is it mistaken for an an earthquake, that just underscores to me how bad the damage was. pschemp | talk 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. A good picture with encyclopedic value, but not especially interesting in terms of technical or aesthetic quality. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Though encyclopedic, low technical quality prevents me from supporting. Spencer^T♦^C 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Busyness of the image and other issues aside as far as the best image on the subject I think this falls quite short, surely one of the collapsed bridge and the debris from that is readily available, more encyclopedic, and probably be of a good quality while more easily fulfilling encyclopedic obligation. Cat-five - talk 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment For composition, I might prefer Image:I-35W-bridge collapse-Minneapolis-20070801.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I think for a disaster of this magnitude, there is a place for both detail shots showing the intimate horror and large general shots showing the overall view. Both what happened to the bridge on a large scale and the experiences of the people in the cars on the bridge are valid parts of the event. Saying we can only feature a picture that is an overview is limiting what can be powerful information. pschemp | talk 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I disagree with Papa lima whisky; I think this pic has much better composition (but that's just me) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Has EV but not enough else. Durova^Charge! 10:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Coca-Cola

Reason: A very good image which does a good job of showing 19th century advertising.
Articles this image appears in: Coca-Cola, Hilda Clark
Creator: The Coca-Cola Company

Previous Votes before Restoration Work

* Support as nominator --Bewareofdog 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support excellent Thisglad (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support Yeah that is pretty hilarious - but the image could do with a bit of a touch up to remove the white flecks in the hair of the model. The other thing is the face supposed to be so soft? Compared with the Coca Cola logo thingy it seems almost as if it is suffering from some kind of blur... --Fir0002 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - lovely details and colour. -bodnotbod (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Oppose This image could use some Photoshop work, per Fire0002, after which I would certainly support it. Also, since the caption is a FP focalpoint, I wonder if it is really necessary to say what the image says, when it is already so obvious? smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose, for now Would like to see this get a clean-up first; there are lots of white spots and streaks throughout. Clegs (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspend per fir0002.Greener Cactus (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please clarify; Fir 'weak supported' and didn't suggest suspending. --jjron (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Lots of dust spots and age spots are visible in the picture than can be cleaned up quite easily. I think some attention to the border is also warranted. In general, the image needs to have some restoration work. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support though a cleaning wouldn't go amiss. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Agree with Holiday. Rj1020 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Question Can this be PD, is it even eligible for FP? It includes a logo trademark which is still protected... --Janke | Talk 13:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Coca Cola logo is old enough to be out of copyright, and is indeed PD. It is protected as a trademark in some countries, but that does not affect the PD copyright status. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Clean up white spots, please. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspending pending cleanup... MER-C 06:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I presented this image to the Graphic Lab, and will post here when update is available. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Support This is a good image, and it had a very large effect on Coca-Cola's history. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Six hours later I am done restoring this picture. Changes include: Cloning out spots tears creases, Removal of border, Replacement of top background to remove excessive wear on the photograph. I tried removing some of the glare that came from scanning this photoraph(evident on the letter) but it's a tight area to work. Anyone willing to try their hand at a restored version to fix the border just contact me and I'll hand over a jpg or psd. I never want to see a coke logo again. User:victorrocha (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Shall we begin again, then? MER-C 04:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Edit 2 Although it is slightly unauthentic as edit 2 vs edit 1 removes the yellowing of the image (presumably due to age) Edit 1 is just for lack of a better word ugly due to the yellow aging tint. Great work removing the white spots btw. Cat-five - talk 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I need to clarify to anyone that I have the cleaned up image with the border if anyone prefers it. I was leaving the nomination suspended to get some feedback, sorry for the extra work MER-C. User:victorrocha (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 It looks great now. I'm not sure about edit 2, though; I'd think the LOC has their scanners pretty well calibrated, and none of us has any idea how the original looked, so correcting the white balance of a painting really is a shot in the dark, IMO. It's plausible the original painter chose a warm scheme on purpose. Thegreenj 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 Looks more natural. Nice job on the restoration. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 Bewareofdog 07:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I suppor the 1st edit, but this picture is intriguing. Clever, even. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Edit 1, but am pretty neutral between Edit 1 and 2. If Edit 1 is the more authentic we should go with that. Fletcher (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2. Warmer color-scheme seems natural enough. Without seeing the original messing with the white balance is inappropriate. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Support either one. Just a thought: could this go on advertising also, in the history section? It talks about advertising in the early 20th century. It could probably also go on some of the other marketing articles too... great job anyway! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cocacola-5cents-1900 edit1.jpg MER-C 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

LCAC

Reason: It isn't easy to get a good photograph shooting through a binocular lens and this is quite a sight. It's the only photograph of this type on Wikipedia or Commons and it happens to be a view of an encyclopedic subject: a United States Navy LCAC hovercraft assigned to USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7). For reference, the type of binoculars used for this shot is Image:Navy binoculars.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7), Binoculars, Hovercraft
Creator: MC3 Michael Starkey

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, impressive shot through the binoculars with good detail on the subject. DoF is better than most shots of this kind, keeping the binocular eye cup acceptably clear (so we know what we're looking through). Could use more eels. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Support for quality, EV, rarity. Very cool. Fletcher (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Very cool, very ENC, and very unique. Clegs (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Skepticism - I really doubt this is through binoculars. It looks much more like a porthole. 1) It is not round - I have never seen binoculars (or any optics set up) with non round lenses. 2) You can see a weld-point at left, suggesting the housing is metal. 3) The tube is in near focus throughout - intervening lenses would have to make some of that tube unfocused. 4) The tube is all dinged up with pits and scratches, not like a piece of optics built to fine enough tolerances to generate a universally sharp image like that. 5) there is lots of light hitting the inside of the binocular tube/porthole - since the focal distance for binoculars is very short (You have to put your head right up against them) - how can this much light be getting in with the camera sufficiently close? 6) That there is no blur, even on the outside of the "lens" challenges credibility. I've taken photos through binoculars before, and there is always blur. [2]. de Bivort 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nominator linked to Image:Navy binoculars.jpg which appear to be heavy duty, metal binoculars mounted to a ship, which would explain their condition. I can't explain why it doesn't appear circular -- an optical illusion maybe? The lighting appears to have been extremely bright -- 1/500th second exposure at f/8, so there was plenty of daylight to illuminate the tube. Additionally, a porthole shot is unlikely, because you'd have to wait for the hovercraft to enter your field of view, and how would you even know you're stationed at the right porthole! It would have to be an extremely lucky shot. By contrast, the binocs can surely swivel on their mount. Lastly, and no offense, but a navy photog with a dSLR can likely take pictures you can't get with that Olympus P&S. I'd still be curious how he or she took it. Fletcher (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The linked binoculars appear to have plastic eye pieces - they are smooth and without weld points. They cannot be the same as the tube we see here. Optical illusion taking a circle and rendering it as a rounded rectangle? Please... You could know which is the right porthole by looking over the rail - portholes are often built right into the gunwale of large ships look along the tires. As for the olympus shot vs DSLR, true, but with my new D20, I have found identical constraints shooting through both binoculars and microscopes. other military photos too. Honestly, there is no way the microscope or binocular housing can be in focus while the subject is also in focus. The light paths through the lenses don't work that way. look a the light path and tell me how the entire length of the tube could be uniformly in focus. de Bivort 18:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - I know exactly what's going on here. Through the porthole you can see wake preceeding the hovercraft. This is because LHD 7 has a stern loading bay for hover craft. Take a look at this military blog and this image. The aft rail of the ship, the one with the obvious shot of the approaching hover craft has portholes that are easily visible in that photo! They even are of the correct shape! de Bivort 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Plausible... I wasn't too convinced by your tugboat image, as the Iwo Jima doesn't seem to have portholes on the gunnel like that, but it looks like it does have them on the stern.Fletcher (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

conditional support if it is removed from binoculars article. de Bivort 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I also share doubts that it is taken through binoculars... and even if it were, I don't see the encyclopaedic value of a photo of a hovercraft taken through binoculars. ;-) To me, the housing of whatever it is we're looking through is simply a distraction, in the same way that artificially introduced vignetting is a distraction. The actual image of the hovercraft is quite good, but to crop the image to remove the 'binoculars' would make the resulting framing too tight. I just don't think it works particularly well as an encyclopaedic photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I thought about the hole as a distraction, but ended up thinking that it was good for this image, since it shows a view of the craft from its "mother ship", kind of uniting the two ships into a single system. Not bad since it illustrates both the hovercraft and LHD 7 articles. Admittedly, a steady shot from a third ship along side the landing scene would probably be better. de Bivort 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced.. I agree that the concept you mentioned is a good idea, but surely a view that actually shows the "mother ship" as something more than an out of focus, unidentifiable metallic frame around the main subject would be better. I don't think that this particular photo gains anything from this composition. Even just a photo from an elevated position (such as the control room maybe?) looking down at the stern of the ship toward the hovercraft would be far better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think it should be removed from the binoculars page; it's the only example of looking through a pair of binoculars there. Also, what if there's no lens at all? Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's not actually through binoculars, that might be a reason to remove it from the binoculars page. :-) Fletcher (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Is this about binoculars a joke? Permit me to doubt that this is shot through binoculars. I've made such shots myself, but they never turn out as sharp as this one - there has always been some chromatic aberration, as well as loss of focus at the edges of the image. Furthermore, the source page states: A landing craft air cushion assigned to Assault Craft Unit 4 approaches the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) while under way in the Atlantic Ocean July 8, 2008. The Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group is conducting a composite unit training exercise, which provides a realistic training environment to ensure the strike group’s deployment capabilities and readiness. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Michael Starkey/Released) - nothing at all about binoculars! To me, it looks like it is shot through one of those cast iron holes (er, the hole is in the casting, to be precise) used for passing ropes through (I don't know the proper term for it, sorry...) You can even see raised lettering typical of cast iron items in the upper left corner... --Janke | Talk 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment To the doubters, I respect your concerns. U.S. Navy "big eyes" binoculars have removable synthetic rubber facial cushions. Those were removed for this particular shot and were installed for the other featured picture of the binoculars. And yes, "big eyes" viewpieces do have this shape. If any doubts remain, please contact the webmaster at DefenseImagery.mil. It's an official U.S. Government website and the armed forces policies restricting image manipulation are extremely strict. Editors who know my professional experience may trust my word (and it does relate directly to these concerns), yet for the rest of FPC voters--the horse's mouth is a few clicks from the source link. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the text on the image source page state it is a shot through binoculars? Is it just an assumption, or can you point us to a reference saying it is, please? If so, I'll retract my doubt... --Janke | Talk 21:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the right eyepiece; note the ergonomic shape of the border. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not enough for me - please note the perspective of the hovercraft - if shot through binoculars, there should not be as strong a convergence between the lines of the left and right edges (draw the lines) - you'd expect the typical "crunched" perspective of a long tele lens... Interesting, though - and in fact, I'd like to be proved wrong on this ... ;-) --Janke | Talk 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps my recollection fails me. It's been a few years since I served. Will check this out at oh-dark-thirty; the office is probably on East Coast time. ;) Durova^Charge! 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the logic Janke has used here. And in addition to the issue of a relatively wide perspective (consider also how far below the horizon the hovercraft is. Either the ship is extremely tall and you are looking through 20x magnification telephoto binoculars, or the ship is just pretty close to the hovercraft, which seems more likely to me), I imagine that if you were to take a photo directly into the binocular eyepiece, you would have to do it from very close up, in much the same way as a human viewer does. And if you were to take it from close up, the frame of the eyepiece would be far more out of focus than it is in this shot. This is purely intuitive, but from my experience, with an aperture of f/8, focal length of 24mm and with that degree of out-of-focus-blur, I would imagine that the photographer was half a metre or more away from the eyepiece/port hole/whatever it was. So as I said, intuitively, to me, it just doesn't make sense to be binoculars. Oh, and I had a quick look on Flickr for images of the stern of the Wasp class, and I didn't find any close ups with good detail, but this was probably the best of the ones I did find, and there are some suspiciously similar looking port holes that could well be what the photographer shot through. Just a thought anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The DOF isn't a problem for me - you can adjust binoculars so that the plane of focus is almost anywhere - even close to the eyepiece! Scrutinizing the image closely, there's one thing that points to a glassed-in hole (maybe even lensed-in...), i.e. not a rope hole as I originally assumed: at top right, there is a smudge in the image that couldn't be hanging in mid-air, and there are a few circular out-of focus smudges in the image itself - more out-of-focus than the edge of the oval... This is very interesting - maybe I'm wrong and it is a binocular image after all? Amazing aberration-free quality, in that case. Proof, please! ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that smudges could just as easily be water droplets on the camera lens itself, though. I've got many photos taken in the rain with somewhat similar smudges. And the DOF may not be a problem (not having had any experience taking photos through binoculars, I must admit), but surely the vertical angle that the photo was taken from should be as I mentioned above. It just seems an implausibly steep angle for such high magnification (large distance to subject and steep angle = very high camera location). And that, combined with the perspective of the hovercraft, points towards the photo being directly photographed. But I suppose we're best off waiting for Durova's proof! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'll have to wait. Interesting, in any case! --Janke | Talk 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found this image which is far more high res and has some almost identically shaped slightly oblong portholes at the stern just like the one in this nomination. I'm almost positive this is what was shot through - not the binoculars... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination - haven't gotten a reply yet, but as I think about it this is better not to run without certainty. Removing from the binoculars article as a preventive measure and will re-initiate only if confirmation is forthcoming. After sleeping on the matter, it really is better to be certain about this. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 02:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Magnifying glass

Reason: This picture adds signifigantly to the article by showing the effect of a magnifying glass on a smaller object. This images orginates from the commons, and is already featured there.
Articles this image appears in: Magnifying glass
Creator: Heptagon (Commons user)

Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak support Fascinating composition. Is it possible to get a better focus on the stamp? Durova^Charge! 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I don't think it's great as the lead image in magnifying glass, but would perhaps have higher EV in stamp collecting and/or philately. --jjron (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This could have great use at Postage stamps and postal history of Germany. Spencer^T♦^C 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Support as long as it goes on the stamp collecting or philately or postage stamp page(s), like jjron said. but it does give some value to magnifying glass by showing how one works Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Here is an image of the stamp in question. Spencer^T♦^C 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose if I'd never seen a magnifying glass before, this image would be confusing. Nothing is seen at the same distance both without and with the magnifying glass. —Pengo 08:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How many people who have access to the internet have never seen a magnifying glass? Surely as many people who have never seen a stamp! Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If everyone's seen one, why does it need illustration? —Pengo 10:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Unencyclopedic for Magnifying glass (the purported subject of the photograph, which is the magnifying glass and not the stamp, is out of focus). Spikebrennan (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Response. If you'll look at the reason for nomination, you'll see "This picture adds signifigantly to the article by showing the effect of a magnifying glass on a smaller object." It's not supposed to show the magnifying glass, it's supposed to show what a magnifying glass does. Clegs (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Reply to response. Yeah, but does it? The stamp viewed through the magnifying glass has been lifted up, so it's closer to the camera than the background stamps-- no wonder it looks bigger. The effect of the magnifying glass might be more effectively shown by depicting how it magnifies one of the stamps that's still in the sheet on the table. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, Tom, but is this really encyclopaedic? --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because it's a clever image, but not a mag-nificant one. It seems to sit on the fence between being sort of encyclopedic for two different topics, but not very encyclopedic for either one. Agree with Spikebrennan's comment that the rim should be in focus for this image to be encyclopedic with respect to magnifying lens. --Fletcher (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Very cool idea, and you pulled it off. Clegs (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Table d'hôte menu

Reason: A period cultural document of some artistic merit in a high resolution file. Contains the signature of symphony conductor Walter Johannes Damrosch. Shows the basic elements of a table d'hôte menu and demonstrates the opulent philanthropy of the Gilded Age.
Articles this image appears in: Table d'hôte, Walter Johannes Damrosch, Gilded Age
Creator: unknown (illegible)

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Great! Makes me hungry! Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Support very interesting. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-25 12:53Z
Support, but the image's usage in Walter Johannes Damrosch is pretty weak. I would suggest cropping out everything but Damrosch's signature if you wanted to use it there. Spencer^T♦^C 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Once again, I say you deserve a monument, maybe even a tower in your honor. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Minions would be better. Want to volunteer? Many more FP-worthy images are out there than I could possibly restore alone. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Support a decent image. Another fine image candidate from Durova. Acalamari 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lotos Club3.jpg MER-C 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Harper's Ferry, 1862

Reason: An original Union Army manuscript map of the army positions for the Battle of Harper's Ferry, September 14-15, 1862. Restored version of Image:Attack on Harper's Ferry.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Battle of Harpers Ferry, Robert Knox Sneden
Creator: Robert Knox Sneden

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I think this image should be either more cropped or less. The map was pasted into a diary, and the same handwriting as the purple caption is present in the borders that were cropped out. Was Robert Knox Sneden the creator of the map, or did he just collect and annotate it? If the latter, it might be better to crop to the black lines. If the former (which it looks like from the hand), I think more the page should be kept, including the different top caption, the page number, and the cross-reference. There should also be a link to whatever is on page 1072, if at all possible.--ragesoss (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh, I was a little concerned that someone might head in that direction, but expected I'd have time to create Robert Knox Sneden and didn't anticipate a comment so soon that went so far. Private Sneden organized his diary after the war. It is over 5000 pages long, more than 4500 of which are text. I have located digitizations for most of the illustrations but for none of text pages, and to the best of my knowledge the principal text has never been published. He was a mapmaker for the Union Army. There are several ways an image such as this one could be restored and my intention is to get as close as possible to the appearance of the document when it was newly created. My hope is that for a moment the viewer of this image can imagine himself or herself in the uniform of a Union colonel, holding the field map in hand, and comparing it to the campfires from the enemy army on the other hill. That is why I cropped its proportions very close to the original paper dimensions and discarded the later diary notes that added very little direct value to the image (just a page reference and a rephrasing of the caption). Your suggestions would be very appropriate if this FPC called Diary of an American Civil War soldier, but that image would appear at different articles and I would probably select a different page for that. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  - The cross references makes it seem like page 1072 is another image, but if it's just text then that's that. A bit more context would be helpful on the description page. I think the bottom caption should be cropped or cloned out if you want it to be close to the original map, since it looks like that caption was added after the map was originally created (but maybe before it went into the diary). This is just my suggestion, but if you feel strongly about that I don't think it's a huge problem.--ragesoss (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Thanks. I got a little tiny start into the page. Will expand it in a few hours. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. We seem to have scared everyone off. When I look at it again, the map itself is just too good an image not to support, regardless of the context issues discussed above.--ragesoss (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)--ragesoss (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Very encyclopaedic, good job. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Too good not to pass. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Support per ragesoss. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Attack on Harper's Ferrypass5.jpg MER-C 06:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

American Tree Sparrow

Reason: The image is high quality, encyclopedic, and informative. It is already a Featured Picture on the German Wikipedia. And, well, it's cute.
Articles this image appears in: American Tree Sparrow, List of Kansas birds, List of New Jersey birds, List of Iowa birds
Creator: Mdf

Support as nominator --NauticaShad es 03:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Edit~~s 1 and~~ 2. Too much detail is lost during noise reduction. I would, however, support a color corrected but not noise removed edit. NauticaShad es 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Edit 1 is now acceptable. NauticaShad es 14:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~ !vote updated I think the DOF and size are just about sufficient, otherwise it's perfect! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support nice, excellent lighting and very enc. Mfield (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~ Very strong oppose to either edit--ruined a lovely picture, one of my favorites of all the FPN lately. All the usual, but it's also cute as all. --Blechnic (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Does the strike-through mean you've withdrawn your support from the original? NauticaShad es 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  - I strongly support the original only, repeat: no support for edits. No, I love the original, it is gorgeous, and enlarged it includes lovely soft belly feathers of the bird. God alone (pick your deity) knows why anyone wants to ruin a gorgeous picture, though, and I don't want any mistakes made that include anyone thinking I support crapping up this fine image of an American tree sparrow. What a waste to readers who could come and get a lovely image to have it replaced with so something much lesser. --Blechnic (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Support excellent detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-22 13:12Z
Support good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 Per above - surprised now one pointed out/fixed noise before me... --Fir0002 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh look I can be childish too - strong oppose original due to noise which completely ruins it! Come on guys you're being silly about the noise - it's failing criteria no.1 of WIAFP and you're happy to leave it in that rut?! --Fir0002 04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  - If an otherwise encyclopedic and gorgeous image is noisy and correcting the noise appears to mean ruining the picture by taking away part of the detail, part of what makes it gorgeous, then I am not being childish to reject it. And consider that temper tantrum in bold italics the equivalent of WP:NPA. --Blechnic (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Take it easy buddy - if you have a problem with the NR removing detail then say so, but at least refrain from "crapping up this fine image" "What a waste to readers" "God alone (pick your deity) knows why anyone wants to ruin a gorgeous picture". I don't want to single you out but you are acting a little unrationally here to say the least. Btw just checking you realize I've revised my edit twice now to overcome concerns about feather detail and now the bird is essentially untouched (appart from chromatic noise reduction in the belly which doesn't lose detail) --Fir0002 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
      - Taket is easy pal! Please, take it easy! Slow down! Catch your breath. At work we call Wikipedia's Featured Pictures our "What not to do," to reflect that fact that most of the images that have any scientific value could not be used in scientific articles anywhere but on Wikipedia because of the type of photoshopping (whatever your software) done on the images. The eager race to get their first and edit nature out of the images, change nature in the images, and promote the unnatural when perfectly good images are nominated is annoying, but the the results that leave usable scientific images as worthless are more than annoying, they detract from Wikipedia's value overall. So, take it easy on that editing software buddy. Relax the next time you see an image and consider first its scientific value by, for example, looking at the feathers as part of the bird first. Have I accounted for your mood well enough? And as accurately as you surely pinpointed mine? Did it enhance my post to ascertain your mood at the moment you read my post before launching forth? --Blechnic (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
        Oh, back to the images, now that we've dealt with each others' feelings, so important and transparent in Wikiworld. Edit 1 is okay. I don't see the need for it, but the bird looks the same blown up on my standard monitor, but not sure about viewed on my imaging system. Still, this last point does not matter to me for FP as the image is for a general audience. --Blechnic (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
        A few things: Human eyes see without digital color noise and therefor its removal (which as fir said leaves no artifacts) is more "natural". Secondly, photos here, I'm sure, have been used for scientific applications as much as is practical. I have a summer internship at the Harvard University Molecular and Cellular biology labs and a large part of what I am doing involves image capture and editing of mouse ES cells on Nikon Microscopes costing upwards of $200,000. I also set up a studio in a bio-safety level 3 underground facility for taking pictures (for publication) of animals. Without a doubt the editing I have done on the two dozen images of chimeric mice was more extensive than this. That is my (limited) experience with imaging in a scientific setting and I think the editing is necessary. Sorry, what's your experience? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        Well, that argument fails, because those algorithms do not remove noise in the same way the human eye does (fact number 1: the human brain compensates for natural noise inherent in the architecture of the human eye; fact number 2: the normal human brain is capable of compensating for digital noise, too). Anyway, my popcorn's run out, and I'm hoping not to have to go back to the microwave. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        Fact no. 3 wait another year or two and a DSLR will be able take the same photo (same lighting/settings) with zero noise - aka the same way you get with NR. Noise is a deficiency of a camera, one which manufacturers strive to minimize. Leaving noise like that in an image is a cardinal sin to a photographer. --Fir0002 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        I don't know how your comment addresses anything I've said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
        It's quite simple - don't treat the noise in this image as an inherent part of this scene. The noise is not a natural part of it, it is there because the camera was unable to do a better job at capturing the image. Hence your "fact" 2 is wrong - the human eye is not going to magically edit out the noise in this image (obviously since we can see it) to create what it would see if it where the camera because the noise was not in the original scene but was generated by the camera. --Fir0002 10:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 2 Very good photo. But I thought a better noise reduction was needed + a touch on the colors and contrast. --Arad (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 2 Edit 1+Original not enough lighting in my opinion. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
oppose - this bird is fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairyholebutt (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 July 2008
- User's second ever edit. NauticaShad es 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  - User blocked for vandalism. Spencer^T♦^C 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Support original, oppose edits 1 and 2. I think the noise is acceptable; the edits are losing detail on the belly of the bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)(UTC)

Comment - The belly of the bird was 90% noise. I thought that too, that we are losing detail. However this is not true, we're loosing noise. There is actually barely any detail on the belly. I agree however that it's now soft. Which is another point. And is an acceptable one. --Arad (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah. To my eyes, the edits do create an unnatural edge between the belly and the rest of the feathers. I can't convince myself that that's what we should be aiming for, regardless what we believe about how much of the belly is noise. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say good eye, Papa Lima Whiskey, but it's so obvious I can't understand why no one else sees it. The edits create a horrid "unnatural edge between the belly and the rest of the feathers," and lose all of the detail of the belly feathers of the original. It's awful. --Blechnic (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support original Very sparrow-like. The edits look strange with the high contrast around the eyes and the glow in edit 2. Narayanese (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've redone my edit with more careful masking which should allay people's concerns - and frankly it would be plain stupid IMO to promote an image with easily fixable noise issues!! --Fir0002 09:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Better, but still blurring the edges of the bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Ok I've done another edit - hopefully the last --Fir0002 04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    - It's still pinching the tuft of feathers on his right foot. Well, I've said that the noise seems a minor issue to me, so I'll stick with my !vote. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      - I assume you mean the claw? The claw is slightly affected but it's so minor I can't believe you'd bring it up... Fixed anyway, but I assume at least you no longer oppose edit 1? --Fir0002 10:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        Actually, foot is the more widely used term, and used throughout biology. Cf. Image:Birdmorphology.svg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Support Original Oppose Edits I'd rather a bit of noise than zero noise and lost detail. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I like the original much better. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Geez, what am I doing oppose all. Yes its an MDF, but sorry, an 1 Megapixel image?! You've got to be kiddding me. And I gotta give Fir this much credit, the noise and artifacting is pretty bad. All in all it is just an oversharpened bird shot. We've had way better. --Dschwen 03:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad you agree with the noise issue but I have to say it's frustrating to now see that your original vote seemed to be a knee-jerk one... --Fir0002 07:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Is this constructive? --Dschwen 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Well hopefully a gentle slap on the wrist now will encourage you to give edits a fair chance in the future... --Fir0002 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      - Wow! Talk about AGF. I'm really sorry that the edit bussiness is an obvious source of frustration for you here. If slapping me makes you feel better go ahead. But be aware it makes you look slightly condescending. After all I have quickly corrected my mistake... --Dschwen 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support edit 2 Though I do agree with Papa Lima Whiskey. Spencer^T♦^C 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 and original, Oppose other To much background contrast in Edit 2 --Base64 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE EDIT 2 - I remade the edit. Like Fir's Edit, the belly is untouched. However more background noise was removed and the contrast corrected. --Arad (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - I think it's better to put this nomination on hold until we get a clear consensus. --Arad (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus Trainwreck, original too noisy. MER-C 06:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion plan of Gothenburg

Reason: High resolution map of the expansion plan of Gothenburg, very high encyclopedic value despite the fact that all text is in Swedish. Many, if not all of, the buildings and areas in this map which are written out have articles in the english wikipedia.
Articles this image appears in: Gothenburg, History of Gothenburg, and Kungsportsavenyn.
Creator: Creator is not credited by any source I know of.

Support as nominator --Krm500 (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because it's really just a decent scan of an old map. It isn't really that exciting in itself just for being old , else we'd be having every scanned in old document featured. Mfield (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's just not an old map, it's a quite unique expansion plan. It is the best preserved unvarying area of 1870–1920 urban planning ideals and architecture in Sweden, maybe even in Europe. --Krm500 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I can see its high encyclopedic value, but it's torn in some places (I think), and it looks like someone spilled an entire coffeepot on it, especially in the upper right hand corner. the faded text also detracts from the value. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Faded text? If it help I have it in higher resolution, but the original file is too large for browsers to open I think, and users with low bandwith would have huge troubles viewing it. --Krm500 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  - If it's under 20MB, upload it, and see if anyone at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab can help restore it. Thegreenj 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Definite encyclopedic value. Unfortunately time has not been kind to this map. The decomposition has not been too extensive in the essential locations, so a restoration would be possible (although it would be laborious) but this particular scan is not high enough resolution. The inscription below and to the right of the title is too pixelated to be very legible and the lines outlining the city blocks are incomplete. This is probably a shortcoming of the scanner settings, not of the map itself. So if a better scan is available I would gladly share restoration tips with the nominator and possibly assist with the work. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - Not the best scan, but definitely encyclopaedic. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to recant this nomination, when I was about to upload the original resolution of the map I found a copyright claim on the source page. If someone is good at copyright law please contact me at my talk page. --Krm500 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Masculine Beauty

Reason: I believe this is the only good-quality scan of a cartoon from this notable British artist that we have.
Articles this image appears in: George du Maurier, Swimsuit, Physical attractiveness, Sea bathing. It is also a gallery image in Victorian fashion.
Creator: George du Maurier

Support as co-nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support as co-nominator Durova^Charge! 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support -- good encyclopedic value, nice, clean copy, entertaining cartoon, good example of a noted artist's style. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Another one I'm going to have to print out. This is just like me getting in the water. Fletcher (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I like the co-noms. Might be the first I've seen at FPC. Anyway, nice job, guys. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Very manly beauty, I must say. Spencer^T♦^C 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Punch - Masculine beauty retouched1.png MER-C 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pula Aerial View

Reason: The best photo of Pula, Croatia that Wikipedia can use
Caption: Aerial view of Pula, Croatia
Articles this image appears in: Pula
Creator: Orlovic

Support as nominator --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jpeg artifacts, not very sharp, possibly oversaturated colours... Very nice view, but not the best quality photo technically. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Diliff, it may be the best photo of Pula we have, but its not the best aerial photo of a city, and that's the benchmark. Mfield (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose What they said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought exceptional quality was an issue on commons, and here just encyclopedic value ;( --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd best read up Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria then. In some ways, we're a lot harder on images because we need both encyclopaedic value and technical quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Valued images? Might be appropriate for that, if it has materialized. de Bivort 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC

I believe it's commons only. Here's the link, though. NauticaShad es 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I nominated it here. NauticaShad es 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For completeness: TFG is partly correct, our resolution requirement is lower than that on Commons. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be pedantic, TFG is completely incorrect, since he was under the impression that we were just looking for encyclopaedic value. Just because we have lower res requirements, it doesn't mean we don't have res requirements at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be pedantic, I prefer to say he is somewhat correct over saying he is mostly wrong. Just a matter of courtesy. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you're not being pedantic, you've delibrately glossed over the original point, which was that he misunderstood our FPC requirements, in order to be courteous. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, my logic is just different from yours. There are several ways to decompose his statement, and yours is just one of them. But that plurality would have been intolerable to you, I really should have known, having interacted with you in this same style on several occasions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

oh my gosh it doesn't really matter. the confusion has been clarified; no need for more discussion. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 15:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Long Billed Corella Beak

Reason: Great quality. Already successfully nominated a picture of the whole bird, however this one serves a different purpose, demonstrating beak structure. This image also provides greater detail for the most important part of the bird for identification purposes.
Articles this image appears in: Beak, Long-billed Corella
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support It's a great pic, but is it my eyes (from the white), or are the feathers south-west of his eye VERY blurry? Dengero (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment existing FP of exactly the same subject, by same creator. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolute Oppose This picture is already an fp. Rj1020 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose existing FP covers the apparent subject/focus of this image adequately already. Mfield (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - a crop of a FP is not a new FP. pschemp | talk 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think it's a crop, but still. Fletcher (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose since its a crop of another FP. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The other FP already does a very good job of illustrating this. Clegs (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. FWIW and in the interests of fairness, this is neither an existing FP nor a crop of the existing FP, even if it is clearly taken at the same time and is almost certainly the same bird. --jjron (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Meadow Pipit

**Edited version**:Scaled, noise reduced, sharpened version

Reason: Quite a nice shot of a sometimes elusive bird. At Peer Review, Noodle snacks created a much better (I think) edited version of this photo, which is also shown here. The original was taken on a very, very dull day (the English summer has been awful) against a background of limestone quarry cliffs - hence the high ISO, as otherwise would have been too dark/blurry).
Articles this image appears in: Meadow Pipit
Creator: Seahamlass

Support as nominator -- Seahamlass 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not a bad shot, but it's quite noisy even in the edited version and doesn't have the level of detail of most FP bird shots.--ragesoss (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose edit 2, which has severe artifacts.--ragesoss (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  - There is no such thing as lossless noise removal. If you invent it, you can be a rich man. If you tell me what exactly to you is an artefact in the image, maybe I can help you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    - The entire edit 2 image looks posterized in little blotches; look at the bird's foot on the branch at full resolution, for example. I simply don't think any amount of editing is going to make this one FP material.--ragesoss (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      - Okay, let me know what you think of the previous version [3] - better or worse? The fact remains that if this image is scaled down to the minimum required, it's becomes perfectly acceptable in terms of noise. I can't help feeling that you're punishing Seahamlass for uploading an image of high resolution, something that we usually encourage. (Not just you, other people also don't seem to take size into account in what I perceive to be the right way...) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
        It's about the same. I disagree that the scaled-down version is FP quality (and I agree with the principle that we shouldn't punish images for being uploaded in large sizes that reveal flaws, if they have the detail and quality at appropriate sizes). Compare the level of detail in the feathers and claws in this FP candidate, which has strong support and rightly so. It's only 1024 pixels, but those pixels show way more detail than even the full-size version of this. For this image, even the 1024 thumbnail is really noisy to the point of lost detail, and as you point out, any attempt to smooth out the noise means even more lost detail. It was taken on a Canon 40D at 800 ISO and the background is brighter than the subject, with auto exposure and no exposure bias (which probably means the subject was underexposed and brightened afterwards); considering all that, the shot came out great. --ragesoss (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Edit. As far as i can see it is pretty easy to find featured bird shots less detailed than this eg Image:Red-whiskered Bulbul-web.jpg, Image:Netta rufina m2.jpg or Image:Willy wag tail.jpg Noodle snacks (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to see a noise reduced version that isn't scaled down. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support well constructed & detailed Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. They're both too noisy, unfortunately. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose original and edits 1 & 2. The picture falls well below the standard established for bird featured pictures. Great composition and a nice thumbnail, but low image quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Edit 2 added: noise reduction at full resolution. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Çomment- I'm worried about the very yellow cast the plumage has. Other pictures of this bird show much lighter undersides. pschemp | talk 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I can find references to support either colour, both print and online. No sex dimorphism, but possibly seasonal or geographic variation or polymorphism? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Thanks Papa Lima Whiskey for the updated version. I like it! The colour hasn't been altered on the bird, despite the above concerns, some birds are just naturally more yellowish than others. (See the pipit pic at birdwatching.co.uk for another yellowish example.) -- Seahamlass 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Ok, then, works for me.pschemp | talk 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 2 - My concerns have been allayed. Composition is nice and you can see individual feathers. Couldn't ask for more details. pschemp | talk 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. As mentioned above, it's a nice shot, but the noise is just too bad in the original and edits 1 and 2 lose a lot of detail. NauticaShad es 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- In the image's defense, it is almost 2k pixels high, which is twice the minimum required by the criteria. (It's 2.4k wide, but I'll go with height because that seems to be the encyclopaedically relevant dimension in this image). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  - I examined this image with the width being 1000px (the minimum to pass the requirements), and I found that the noise is still quite visible. NauticaShad es 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Noise/quality issues --Fir0002 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - Try to fix the quality issues listed above, then I think the majority of us will support. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think enough effort has been poured into that. If you can't, among the proposed versions, find one that you like, then I doubt there'll ever be a version of this exact photo (as opposed to a lucky-as-hell retake in better light) to please you. With that, I'll carefully place the grail on the floor here, and wait for someone with access to more sophisticated noise removal software than myself to prove me wrong. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Port of Boston, 1876

Original - The port of Boston, 1876.

Reason: Early panorama of an important North American harbor. I ran this on peer review because of concerns about the height (it's plenty wide). Responses were generally positive. Restored version of Image:Boston Harbor 1876.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Port of Boston
Creator: Irving Underhill

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 09:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. It's a very cool image, but between the small height, the limited palette, the fact that most of the detail falls within a narrow band and is hard to make out clearly, and the awkwardly cut off ship on the lower right, I think this has too many negatives for FP.--ragesoss (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support in keeping with my comments on PPR. Shows good detail of the port, a variety of ships in the harbor, looks like the State House in the background, the Old North Church right-center, and the Bunker Hill monument on the right. I don't like the warehouse roof getting in the way, but how many nineteenth century panoramas of Boston do we have? I'm more forgiving of its faults. Fletcher (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Just because it's historic and with a lot of imagination, we can figure out what the buildings are in spite of their small resolution, doesn't mean this can get anywhere near FP status. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Low resolution, can't tell what the buildings are, so basicly oppose per above. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose Good picture, but rather short, and hard to tell where the historical landmarks of the city are. Good picture, but not quite FP. Clegs (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I hope I didn't skew the discussion by pointing out several of the landmarks in the background. Durova can correct me if I'm wrong, but the image is supposed to be mainly encyclopedic with respect to the port not to the city as a whole, and I think it is very encyclopedic showing a historical image of the port. By way of comparison New York Harbor doesn't have any nineteenth century photos, much less panoramas. Fletcher (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is it illustrating about the port? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  - This image appears at the history section of the port article. It depicts the ships, slips, warehouses, etc. of 1876. As a photograph it provides a more reliable documentation than an artist's depiction (some artists add additional ships to harbor scenes to make a port look busier than it is) and panorama format provides a broader scope than ordinary photography. This example is a few decades older than most of the archival panorama photography I've been able to locate, and this type of shot--specifically of the harbor, rather than a vista of the sea as seen from the city--is unusual. It is unlikely we'll ever have a better depiction of Boston harbor of the 1870s. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    - I think there's one single ship that provides enough detail for me to get an idea of what it is, and it may actually be the most anachronistic ship in the image. That's the sailing ship on the very left of the picture. Everything else is just beyond recognisable. I think a map might do better if the layout of the harbour is the main interest. If the age of the photograph makes it notable, it should be added to an appropriate article with a new caption. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

- - - - If you know of a location that would be more appropriate than the history section of the Port of Boston article, I'll gladly add it there too. Durova^Charge! 07:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        This example is a few decades older than most of the archival panorama photography It seemed like you were saying it was notable for being one of the first panorama photographs. Maybe I misunderstood you there. I think the other image differs in the level of detail. The ships are clearer, and the houses in the foreground have a lot more detail than the ones in the background in this picture (I assume the foreground elements in this nominee are roofs of something, although again, I don't know what of). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        I see your point. Well I wouldn't quite call 1876 a historic first for panorama photography, but it's much less common than 1900-1920. I shared some of your concerns when I worked on this image, which is why I sent it through peer review. Thank you very much for the comments about the San Francisco harbor; that was one of the most heavily damaged images I ever restored. Durova^Charge! 11:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

First manned balloon flight

Reason: A 1786 etching that depicts the Montgolfier brothers' balloon with descriptive text and engineering data. Translation and conversion figures provided on image description page. A high quality archival image of a landmark event in aviation history. Restored version of Image:1783 balloon.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Montgolfier brothers, Annonay, First flying machine
Creator: unknown

Support as conominator --Durova^Charge! 23:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support as conominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support --Filll (talk | wpc) 00:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Highly encyclopedic, nice restoration. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support very cool and encyclopedic Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. Hmmm. We're getting very aircraft-centric at the moment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:1783 balloonj.jpg MER-C 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Antelope Canyon

Reason: It´s a great picture; technical not perfect, but even so really stunning in my opinion. It was the 7th place on Wikimedia-Commons "Picture of the year 2008" contest. I made it 2006 in the Antelope Canyon in the USA (Arizona).
Articles this image appears in: ~~I belive, no article uses this picture, but it´s beyond question, that the picture is relevant for Wikipedia.~~--Mbz1 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Antelope Canyon
Slot canyon (added 7/21/08)

Creator: Lucas Löffler

Support as nominator --Lucas Löffler (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support of course. Durova^Charge! 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support duh. I'm surprised it's not already a FP Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Not to rain on the parade, but aren't there already a couple photos of this same landmark which have been featured? -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're exactly right, and I was going to say the same thing. Image:USA 10096-7-8 HDR Antelope Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg is featured here, and Image:Antelope Canyon Mittags.jpg, Image:USA Antelope-Canyon.jpg (current nominee) and Image:Bild 478.jpg are featured on Commons. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Sure I'll vote for this picture. Rj1020 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The current FP is very similar and far superior in quality. The girl also provides scale. NauticaShad es 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. per above. The current FP also gives more a feeling of space and largeness. Dengero (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a particularly spacious place [4]. de Bivort 00:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support: Very striking image -- I prefer it to the other Antelope Canyon FPs, though it is quite grainy at full resolution. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: added photo to Slot canyon, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's already a picture of Antelope Canyon there, but I'll leave it up to the people working on the article. Spencer^T♦^C 11:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

-- and there were two before, one of upper Antelope, one of Lower. I just replaced a weak foto with a stronger one. Agree it would be nice to have more variety, but....

I prefer the original edit -- more saturated color, more atmospheric. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

~~Support~~Weak oppose Despite seeming a little soft, I prefer the composition of this image, and the way it conveys light and space certainly better than 2 of the other FPs. Mfield (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) on further observation there's a dual edge to the rock as if the camera moved. Mfield (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I prefer the other FPs of the same place. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support Both (Preference for Edit) - It has a better composition that the current FP. --18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arad (talk • contribs)
Oppose Both Poor clarity/definition - artefacts going all over the place. The exisiting FP has far superior techinical qualities - and for such a well photographed subject P&S quality (as in this photo) just doesn't cut it for FP level IMO --Fir0002 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, BC night panorama

Reason: A sharp, 9000 pixel wide panorama showing off the downtown buildings, bridges and stadium of Vancouver, BC at dusk against the mountain setting of the city with illuminated ski runs
Articles this image appears in: Vancouver, BC
Creator: Mfield

Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support well done. Cacophony (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I would have liked this to be shot a little later for a brighter landscape. Very nicely done overall. victorrocha (talk) 1:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- You of course meant earlier! ;-) --Fir0002 10:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  - I didn't catch that. Yup that's what I meant thanks. victorrocha (talk) 9:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.210.251 (talk)
Support Excellent sharpness and detail - however whats with the banding in the sky on the LH corner of the image? --Fir0002 10:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

banding? I only see clouds. Mfield (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not significant - in fact you only really notice it if you scroll through the pano (as I did) - you don't really see it if you just stare at it. The banding is a little more visible in this edit - as I say it's not significant but it's odd that only that section of the sky suffers from it and I was wondering if there was a particular reason. --Fir0002 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what - i think it's rain. About 10 mins after shooting this and packing up and walking back across the bridge to my hotel, it started pouring with rain. Maybe its a front of rain moving in from the west. It sure isn't any kind of banding from exposure or blending. Mfield (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC) oops, didn't look at your edit before typing that, it sure is odd, maybe it somehow got introduced during the downsize as its not there in the full size original. When I get a minute I'll fix it anyway. Mfield (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that its just the usual posterisation introduced by lifting extreme shadow detail slightly. It happens in horizontal/vertical bands because of the way the amplifier circuits work on the sensor, apparently. As Fir said, it isn't really visible unless you're scrolling (that said, how else do you view this image?), or looking for it specifically. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but this image hasn't received anything approaching an 'extreme' shadow lift at all - (apart from Fir's edit to show it up of course) and ISO100 on a 5D is pretty much noise free as you know, unless there was something that affected this one RAW frame, but i need to dig out the RAW files to check that. I agree it does look like sensor noise banding in this version of the image yet it's not apparent in the 40000 wide original, I am looking into whether something in the downsize caused these artifacts to become more prominent. Mfield (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the 100ISO noise, it's worth noting that by the 20th 6s exposure in a row (this was shot from right to left) the CMOS had warmed a fair degree and consequently noise would have risen. Its amazing how apparent this effect is, especially on astro sequences. Mfield (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Either. Sharp and informative. In all, a great panorama. NauticaShad es 22:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Support per Nauticashades. Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support extreme aspect ratio, but I find it very nice otherwise. Blieusong (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Would have liked to see a bit more of the sky though, both for compositional balance and a more pleasing aspect ratio, but it is very nice as-is. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Nice work. Aspect ratio is very large as pointed out above, but detail compensates despite being taken perhaps a tad late. That small bright patch of sky is a little off-putting as well and perhaps could be toned down a bit. --jjron (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Preference for Edit overall, even though it does make that bright patch of sky even worse (you can't selectively darken that a bit can you?). --jjron (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
ooh Support either one I couldn't choose! Both great panoramas Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support both, with preference to the edit. Spencer^T♦^C 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment So, have finally managed to free up enough swap file space and free enough RAM for my machine to enfuse two 40000 wide original versions to create a new edit sized as above that's superior to both versions voted upon already. Now I am torn as to whether to add it as a third version this late in the game or to withdraw this nom completely and start again with the new one to save confusion? Mfield (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to start again. You know its going to pass, the only question is which version, so I don't think all the support votes will be in vain, and from my experience, enfused images in scenes like this work very well (as long as you choose the exposures sensibly) - worth doing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Why not let it be promoted as is, then put the new version up in a "Delist and replace" nom? --jjron (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    - More administrative work required to update the various locations for FP twice, I suppose? But I'm not fussed however we do it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      - Eh, close this as not promoted then close the new nomination most likely as promoted, versus close this as promoted then close the delist and replace - administratively it's basically six of one, half-dozen of the other. Anyway, it's withdrawn now. Personally I wouldn't withdraw my image if it was about to be promoted, but each to their own. --jjron (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support per Nautica, with preference for +2ev. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw the nomination because i am about to upload and renominate a better version per my discussion above. Mfield (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Girl with a Pearl Earring

Reason: Our featured pictures are short on paintings by the old masters, partly because many museums make it difficult to obtain high quality digital files and assert spurious copyright claims. After considerable research I located a cache at a Dutch website and chose one of the most famous images, then discovered that an even better quality version was already featured on the Spanish and Turkish Wikipedias.
Articles this image appears in: Johannes Vermeer, Girl with a Pearl Earring, Girl with a Pearl Earring (film)
Creator: Johannes Vermeer

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 10:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment anyone know if the blue headscarf accurately reflects the painting's real color? Because in the other version it looks more turquoise. The painting itself looks to be in pretty bad shape, sad to say. Fletcher (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The two versions are very different. Obviously it has faded with age and its always good to have clarification on whether the digital copy is representing the painting as it is now or whether an attempt has been made to correct the colors or contrast towards what the image originally looked like. I think the nominated version is the correct one color wise, looking at other online resources like these [5][6] and that the yellower versions [7] have just been shot under tungsten light and not corrected. Mfield (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe I saw this during the Vermeer exhibit at the Smithsonian about 15 years ago. Your linked version is _much_ yellower than the actual painting. de Bivort 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This version is very close to the balance of the version I have. The painting has been through restorations and "correct" versions probably have a different balance depending on when the photograph was taken. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The current version on the right is the accurate version concerning color (and everything else by the way). The painting you linked to us is to yellowish. Massimo Catarinella (talk)

Comment: Mentioning the difference in blues is somewhat major in my view. I read a book about Vermeer, and it said that his paintings had a certain blue colour. See Image:Johannes Vermeer - Zittende Klavecimbelspeelster (1673-1675).jpg, Image:Clio.jpg, Image:Jan Vermeer van Delft 012.jpg, and Image:Vermeer - The Milkmaid.jpg. Now obviously in the images given and in the one above, the blue differs a bit, but the original base paint was the same (The paint came from Lapis lazuli, I believe). I would hope that colour will remain in the same tint, but I can't tell. Spencer^T♦^C 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you like me to upload the other version I've found for comparison? It's from a Dutch government archive and was provided by the museum itself. Slightly smaller, slightly different hues. Durova^Charge! 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, the colour in question, made from LApis lazuli, is Ultramarine. I have some paints in that colour (though almost surely *not* Lapis lazuli) and the blue looks right to me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks...I couldn't remember what the colour was. If the blue looks right, I'll support. Spencer^T♦^C 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - iconic. de Bivort 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support either - although I can't quite make out exactly what the difference between the two is. Cacophony (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Either The second one is brighter. Rj1020 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Why it is important not to alter other editors' posts Papa Lima Whiskey struck through part of an image caption I had written.[8] Actually my comment about aspect ratios was correct and an image name conflict caused the confusion. Right now there are two different files by the same name hosted on Commons and Wikipedia. It wasn't apparent until I logged in from a different computer because my system wasn't flagging a notice when it displayed a different version from what the rest of you were seeing. When I log on from my main machine I'll fix it directly. Until then, please refer to Commons:Image:Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg, and please leave me a comment in the future instead of altering my edits. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please sign your captions in future if you want this rule to apply. Thank you. And just as an aside, you didn't notify me about your comment, either. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Signing captions is unnecessary; you should simply exercise better judgment. Except in the most uncontroversial situations, don't hide other people's stuff, don't edit other people's stuff, or more succinctly.... Fletcher (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    - LOL Fletcher, you were recently telling me about self-parody. You make a good candidate for a drink from the cool cucumber. :) Other than that, I can only point out that the essay you linked to is a corollary to WP:IAR, which lists as a "closely related guideline" WP:Be bold. I can hear windmills. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      - Actually my first thought was to contact PLW directly, then I decided it was better to post to the nomination discussion for three reasons: first, I happen to be at the wrong machine to correct the problem directly; second, people who had already based their decision upon the en:wiki file might want to re-review; third, this situation really could happen any nomination of a well-known historical image. Commons doesn't flag the uploader when a new filename conflicts with an existing filename on another project and my main system displays the unflagged Commons cache. I figured out the filename conflict because the strikethrough happened while I was online from an alternate computer, but I don't use this secondary system very often. The difference is significant--it changes the length of her face--and the version I uploaded originates from an official file at The Hague. The main goal is to present the intended alternate files for review, and it's more likely we'll catch the occasional developer-level issue by posting comments instead of by striking through existing captions. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        I'd like to leave that discussion there. I think we've all shown ourselves fallible. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Original per RJ1020's comment, the alternate does seem brighter, ~~with harsher lighting on her forehead and right cheek.~~ Fletcher (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support alternate. Much sharper, even shows every crack in the paint. Other version has interesting detail sink into shadow, loses detail in the girl's eyes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support alternate although the original is great also Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support original - alt looks washed out to my eyes. de Bivort 20:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) - The Girl With The Pearl Earring (1665).jpg MER-C 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Musa x paradisiaca flower

Reason: Good quality image with encyclopedic value. The image was reviewed at PPR with favourable reviews.
Articles this image appears in: Plantain
Creator: Muhammad

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support per nomination, with props for focus and depth of field. Durova^Charge! 11:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I used to have a large banana tree and I would see one of these pop up very very often. Personally, the flash ruined the picture. I would like a picture that's more evenly lit. I victorrocha (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
More evenly lit? Seriously? There's hardly any visible highlights, how can you claim the lighting is uneven?pschemp | talk 04:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I mean the lighting in the picture overall from the subject and the background. The background is just too dark for a common static object. victorrocha (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.210.251 (talk)
Support - Agree with Durova. pschemp | talk 04:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Nice enough image but there is very high level of posterization/artefacts in the greens on the bottom of the image --Fir0002 12:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is this fixable? It seems like the sort of thing a quick edit could correct. NauticaShad es 22:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose It's nitpicky but I don't care for the fill flash that looks cooler than the background, it looks slightly superimposed on the background. Mfield (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. I liked this at PPR as well; may have to look again at the issue Fir raises, but I don't think it's too serious. And personally I like the slight separation of the flower from the darker background that some others complain about. --jjron (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I don't like the flash. I'd much rather have a discussion on whether the background is overexposed than whether the subject is overflashed. Another idea would have been to present two variants of this picture, one being without flash. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking time to review this image. I don't see how the background is overexposed. Versions of the image without flash looked boring, unappealing and did not have enough details, and the position of the plant was such that direct light never hit the small flowers. Muhammad(talk) 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  - No, I'm saying I'd rather have a flaw in the background than on the main subject. If you hadn't used flash and exposed the main subject correctly, you presumably would have had to overexpose the background. I'm saying that overexposing the background might have been the better option given the circumstances. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

Hotel del Coronado

Original - Hotel del Coronado in Coronado, California, 1908.

Reason: Hotel del Coronado of Coronado, California is a National Historic Landmark and the largest beach resort on the Pacfic coast of the United States. Notable guests include 15 United States presidents, and some accounts assert it was in the lobby that Edward VIII of the United Kingdom first met a local beauty, which started a heap of trouble. The Hotel del Coronado has also appeared in films, most memorably as the principal setting for Some Like it Hot starring Marilyn Monroe, which the American Film Institute ranked as the best American comedy of all time. This large and well-composed 1908 panorama shows the hotel as it appeared a century ago before expansions and new development altered the landscape. Restored version of Image:Coronado panorama.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Hotel del Coronado, Seaside resort
Creator: W.D. Lambert

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Chock full of aesthetic and encyclopedic value.--ragesoss (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The hotel on a hill part is beautiful, but it's smudgy on the edges (due to fog from the sea?) and not very interesting, especially compared to some of the panoramas on this page. The smokestack, the railcars, and the tracks in the mud/sand in the bottom left hand corner detract from the picture too. It also doesn't bring much encyclopedic value to the seaside resort page. sorry Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I absolutely concur with Intothewoods29. NauticaShad es 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Detailed and informative. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Grumman Bearcat

Reason: Clear high quality image, sharp focus,; For clarity, original uploaded version discussed at start is here
Articles this image appears in: Grumman Bearcat
Creator: User:Chowells

Support as nominator --chowells (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak support Edit 1 The reason for the weak being that the light in the clouds leaves the image lacking pop. Mfield (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oooh, that's an excellent edit. Thanks. I clearly overcooked my postprocessing in Lightroom. Agree re the clouds - the weather has been awful this summer for airshows. I was interested about the conversion to sRGB - it looks like Lightroom exports AdobeRGB by default. Does this change have much practical benefit, or why did you do it? Thanks :) chowells (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the web is pretty much universally sRGB as only Safari and Firefox 3 support color profiling. Leaving it in AdobeRGB will therefore result in the majority of viewers seeing a washed out, color shifted version in their (probably IE) browser. The degree it gets affected depends on the specific image and the colors used in it. This image really wouldn't benefit from the extended gamut of AdobeRGB anyway. It's best to convert to sRGB before uploading for a majority web based project like Commons. I actually rarely use AdobeRGB unless I have a very specific output and color range in mind, like printing large landscapes with more greens and cyans. Here's a handy link detailing the differences in gamut [9] Mfield (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation. As I can see that the original was so poor, I've overwritten it with something more like yours created directly from the RAW in lightroom. Hope that's ok, cheers. chowells (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support edit Very good picture! Clegs (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not that great, lighting could be better. It's not a very interesting photo, certainly not one of wikipedia's best. Looks okay for the article, but doesn't add much to the encyclopedic value. Greener Cactus (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not very interesting. Maybe to someone who doesn't know anything about planes. As a WW2 fighter plane buff, this is one of the most intersting FPs to come through in a long time. As to not being encyclopedic, what would make it encyclopedic? It doesn't get much better than this: a modern, perfect quality photo of a 65 year old plane restored to look like it's just rolled off the assembly line, and in addition to the beautiful aesthetics, still flying. Clegs (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ~~Shadows on the plane ruin this photo. I agree with Greener Cactus; it's boring and looks like a toy plane. sorry..~~ Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Shadows? Are we looking at the same plane? All I see are cloud reflections. Those are normal when a plane is flying. As far as looking like a toy plane, I don't see where you pull that from. What do you want? A label saying THIS IS A REAL PLANE? It's perfectly sharp, crystal clear, and the plane is perfectly restored, right down to the mirror finish on the blue paint. Clegs (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  - haha okay fine I guess I shoulda figured that out about the shadows... LOL. I personally don't think it's one of WP's finest, but that's just me.
    - Fair enough :-) Clegs (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support of Edit 1 Was really on the fence with this one. I'm artistically kind of opposed to the plain background and lighting (compared to this pic of a P-38, whose cirrus clouds really add to the image, IMO, or to the Spitfire also by Chowells, which is nicely lit and has a better angle of the pilot). But this is for the encyclopedia, and it shows great detail of a rare bird in its natural habitat (the sky). That leads me to support. BTW, I'm still preferring Mfield's edit which to me has nicer contrast. Fletcher (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support edit 1 per Cleg's arguments. Spencer^T♦^C 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support edit 1 It's really the classic picture postcard airplane picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a very nice image, aesthetically speaking. However, the quality in the dark underside of the plane is very poor, so much so that barely any detail is visible. Considering the amount of high quality airplane FPs we have, this one just doesn't deserve it. It has thumbnail appeal, but not much past that. NauticaShad es 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

Suspended nominations

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

Closing procedure

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Armbrust/closeFPC.js

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.

When promoted, perform the following:

Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:

Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG

Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
Add the image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
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.
Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
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.
Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the October archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

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 page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) 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 fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note 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 Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Long Beach, CA at night

Reason: ~~Way~~ too small and buildings are tilted
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Long_Beach,_CA_at_night
Nominator: Mfield (talk)

Delist — Mfield (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Delist. I agree, and more obviously than the buildings being tilted, all the reflections are subsequently tilted. A fairly ordinary picture by current standards. Very little wow. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Delist Insufficient detail, and blown hightlights Thisglad (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Delist per Diliff. Cacophony (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Delist. Small, uninformative, and tilted. NauticaShad es 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I take issue with nominations that say "way too small" when the picture is actually above the limit set out by the criteria. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It was more of a reference to the 480 height than anything, I will strike the 'way' out, but this is an easily retaken image that has been cropped from the original to improve composition. If it had been shot correctly composed in the first place then it would not have ended up this small. Mfield (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You weren't the first one, so don't feel bad or anything. I'll keep reminding other people as well. I've said previously that if people feel the standards have changed, we should change the criteria to reflect this. Cheers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delist per nom., Diliff and Nauticashades. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Delist, just doesn't pass the rigors of our current system gren グレン 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
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.
Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:

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.
Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:

Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive.
If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div id="fpchide"><!-- use this id to hide the intro with CSS -->
-#REDIRECT [[Sirius XM]]
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Header}}</div>
+==Current nominations==
+<!--
+           Make sure you followed all the instructions on
+   [[Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nomination_Procedure]]
+           Place new nominations at the TOP of the group
+-->
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iowa and Nebraska lands}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vancouver, BC dusk panorama}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpg}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Coca-Cola}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/LCAC}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Magnifying glass}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Table d'hôte menu}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Harper's Ferry, 1862}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American Tree Sparrow}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Expansion plan of Gothenburg}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Masculine beauty}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pula Aerial View}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Long Billed Corella Beak.jpg}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/meadowpippit}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Port of Boston, 1876}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First manned balloon flight}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Antelope Canyon}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vancouver, BC night panorama}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Girl with a Pearl Earring}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Musa x paradisiaca flower}}
+<!-- Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. -->
+<br style="clear: both;" />
+==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.
+<!--Under this line, please-->
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hotel del Coronado}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Grumman_Bearcat}}
+{{-}}
+==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.
+<!--Under this line, please-->
+{{-}}
+==Suspended nominations==
+This section is for Featured Picture candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.
+<!--Under this line, please-->
+{{-}}
+==Closing procedure==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Closing procedure}}
+{{-}}
+==Nominations for delisting==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delistheader}}
+<!-- ↓ Add new delisting nominations to the TOP of the list below  ↓ -->
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Long Beach, CA at night.jpg}}
+<!-- New nominations go ABOVE this line  -->
+==Delist closing procedure==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delistfooter}}
+{{-}}
+[[Category:Wikipedia featured content|{{PAGENAME}}]]
+[[Category:Wikipedia featured pictures| {{PAGENAME}}]]
+[[Category:Wikipedia images|{{PAGENAME}}]]
+[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]]
+[[de:Wikipedia:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder]]
+[[et:Vikipeedia:Eeskujulike piltide nimekirja pakutud pildid]]
+[[es:Wikipedia:Candidatas a imágenes destacadas]]
+[[fr:Wikipédia:Images de qualité]]
+[[hu:Wikipédia:Javaslatok kiemelt képekre]]
+[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കാവുന്ന ചിത്രങ്ങള്‍]]
+[[ms:Wikipedia:Calon gambar pilihan]]
+[[ja:Wikipedia:秀逸な画像の推薦]]
+[[pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje]]
+[[ro:Wikipedia:Propuneri pentru imagini de calitate]]
+[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:ภาพคัดสรร]]
+[[tr:Vikipedi:Seçkin resim adayları]]
+[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:正圖候選]]
+[[zh:Wikipedia:特色圖片評選]]