Wikipedia:Featured picture 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).

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures ← On Wikimedia Commons Featured topics Featured picture tools: Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates Nomination procedure On Wikimedia Commons Featured picture candidates archive Featured pictures thumbs Picture of the day Picture of the day archive Random featured picture

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 ().

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, .

Current nominations

NGC 3372 (Eta Carinae Nebula) as pictured by hubble

Reason

Best hubble image I have seen.

Articles this image appears in

Eta Carinae Nebula

Creator

HST/NASA/ESA

• Support as nominator — Chris H 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. Excellent quality, adds greatly to the article. Amphy 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support This is a fantastic picture. There is a truely remarkable depth of detail. It is both aesthetically pleasing and scientifically fascinating. The Bok globules, the lobes of Eta Carinae, the visceral impression of the violence associated with the birth and the death of stars. (Particularly very large O-type stars.) This is one of the best astronomical images of all time. (Although that is a large list.) Calen716 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Calen716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support - wow. ...adam... ( 131.111.244.234 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC) )
• Support. If it's good enough for Reuters, it's good enough for me. JHMM13 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support *Drools*--HereToHelp 01:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Pollockesque. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Stunning and encyclopedic.Pedro |  Chat  10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support It's utterly gorgeous. I can't find a flaw with this. --Paul 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Paul ^^^ Flubeca 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• An absolutely astonishing picture and I happily Support. But, this is a bit embarrassing, where is the star in the picture? Kinggimble 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I added some content to the page that sould help.Chris H 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as if my vote is really needed...per above. --Tewy 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I'm speechless. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Hubble rocks. --Bridgecross 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Ooooo...pretty colors. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support This just looks amazing :O.. good res aswell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yzmo (talk • contribs).
• Support ... --Arad 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Ohhhh... ^8thstar 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Nicest photo I've ever seen...amazing subject material, highly encyclpedic, beautiful resolution. Theonlyedge 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I love these space images... --Valley2city^₪‽ 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Yep, no way anybody could not find this enchanting and mystifying... who would have thought that space could be so beautiful? Although, having said that I find the stars beautiful in themselves... but yes, this is something altogether different. --Vaelta 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support I am...at...a loss...for...words.... Breathtaking. J Are you green? 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support I also recommend including a link to the zoomable version wherever this is placed. It shows the true power of astronomical cameras. Also, it's worth noting that this is Hubble AND CTIO. The people responsible for the image (Nathan Smith, John Bally, and others) should probably be credited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keflavich (talk • contribs).
• Support-until-there-can-be-no-more-support If this doesn't get an FP status, I'll change my name to George W. Bush. BeefRendang 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sorry, last time I checked, this wouldn't qualify for Featured picture. National Geographic is 3 blocks down. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support To my mind, this is as pleasing aesthetically and as valuable encyclopedically as Image:Polarlicht 2.jpg (which illustrates a wholly different subject, to be sure, but a similarity to which one must perceive), which earned Commons POY in 2006. Joe 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy support I think it's fair to say there is a consensus here. Noclip 17:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ngc3372.jpg MER-C 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) – changed to commons:Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg --Ü 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sparrenburg Castle from the western lawn

Sparrenburg Castle in Bielefeld, Germany, as seen from the western lawn.

Reason

A high resolution mosaic of a popular recreation spot in Bielefeld. Much of the city was destroyed during WWII and few historic sites remain, the Sparrenburg being one of them.

Articles this image appears in

Sparrenburg Castle

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator — Dschwen 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the rather ugly lamp post, one of the people at the bottom walking, and the overall composition don't really seem to help this make the grade. Nice enough shot but not FP quality IMHO. Pedro |  Chat  10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the lamppost exists, editing it out would make the image inaccurate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. I don't think the lamp post really distracts from the scene. I suspect there may be an exposure issue though. The grass is much darker on the left quarter of the frame. Not sure if it was an issue with the length of exposure on that segment or whether a cloud obscured the sun while photographing the scene (the bane of multi segment photography!). That said, it isn't that obvious unless you're looking for it. Otherwise a good shot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support When it's not from diliff, it's from dschwen. ack Diliff on the dark grass, but I don't think either that's such a big issue. I like composition and technical quality. Some people may be surprised to see themselves on a FP :) Blieusong 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Rather impresive shot, my first reaction to the full size was that the sky was very fake but actualy it's not too bad. Anyway, the DOF is huge and there is no grain from using high a high ISO setting, also there is no real motion blur on the people is the shutter was long. it looks like a bright day but still you (or your camera) did a great job with the exposure. -Fcb981 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't even notice the dark grass until i read diliff's vote, interesting- Fcb981 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Blurry in some points. Flubeca 20:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, you gotta be a little more specific than that. Where is the blur that vindicated an oppose??! --Dschwen 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support -Catches the eye. beutifull. there are lamp posts in many historic places. i don't thin kthe lamp post really affects the photo. -Nelro 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. All the people in the shot are distracting to me. Perhaps there's another angle? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt it, and it would completely misrepresent the subject. I know, folks from certain contries go nuts about every hut thats older than 200 years, build a fence around it, put actors in costumes inside, and have a friendly park ranger explain the history to school classes. But this castle is no sacred historical preserve. Despite being over 750 years old it is a gathering spot where tons of people hang out, enjoy the view and the weather. --Dschwen 10:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Very nice colors, contrast and illustrates the subject quite well; only problem is that ugly lamp post, it seems to ruine the image; well, auctually it doesn´t really ruine the entire image reputation, but it certainly ruines it´s attempt for being a featred picture in my opinion... But, I will remia neutral due to the other feautures, which ar excellent. ♠Tom@sBat 22:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, sorry, the people spoil it for me. Witty Lama 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Blieusong. If a noteworthy topic normally is surrounded by people, why shouldn't the people be in the picture showing the topic? I also don't think the lamp post - probably used to illuminate the castle by night, and at least to me helps illustrate how the area looks today - should disqualify the picture. highlunder 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose uninteresting camera angle/composition. Nothing artistically or technically interesting about this photo. High resolution is not enough for FP. --jacobolus (t) 05:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Support per Fcb981, although a dawn shot with no-one around would be better =p. FP does NOT have to be interesting. I don't find a picture of a spider with various parts blurred or a clichéd postcard Tower Bridge picture very interesting, but that's no reason to oppose it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I would have supported the nomination if it werent people in the picture. --Albanau 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - Agree it would be better without people. Also, the geometry looks a little weird after the geometric correction. But the composition is nice and the quality of the pano very good. Alvesgaspar 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose E7T9A5 QP, not FP. ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this, but it seems to have some sort of perspective distortion. The tower (and the flag pole at the top) seem to lean out to the left towards the top of the image, while at the bottom right the cars look "squashed" and the same can be said some of the people on the far left. Otherwise, I really like this photo - Dschwen is right to say that the people are part of the enc and I like the way the castle is a surprisingly congruous part of a modern scene. I'll support if someone can do something about the perspective. --YFB ¿ 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot to respond to this one. Check Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_western_lawn.jpg, a separate shot of the tower. You'll see that the flag pole is not parallel to the center axis of the tower. It seems to be slightly tilted. This is not an artifact of the stitching or perspective correction. --Dschwen 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, the flag pole tilt isn't due to perspective but I still find the image distorted-looking. Diliff might be able to explain better what I'm on about (he's on holiday 'til Wednesday) but basically I think the perspective isn't fully corrected-for. Still a great image, I'll hold off supporting until I at least get the opinion of a projection-expert :-) --YFB ¿ 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I wasn't aware my services were required! ;-) I'm hardly a projection expert but I think I do see the same phenomenon that YFB does. The image is quite a complicated one to compare though, since there are so many angles and shapes to consider the effects of projection on. Comparing the single image with the panoramic one, you can see that they were taken from different points, so it is hard to compare apples with apples. The tower appears oval shaped in the panorama but circular in the single image, but this could be because you are looking straight at the sharpest side of the oval whereas the panorama is looking at the transition from sharp to soft curve, resulting in a strange looking tower shape. Google Maps doesn't give you quite enough detail to determine this. There is also a another issue that I think YFB was refering to, which is a slight curve in the vertical walls of the tower in the panorama that doesn't exist in the single image - at least, there are slight curves but these seem mainly inwards due to the perspective, rather than by projection distortion, whereas the dominant curve on the left wall of the tower in the panorama is slightly to the right, then vertical then a strong shift to the left towards the top. It seems as though the initial inwards lean is simply minor perspective distortion but then as you look further up, a curve towards the left occurs. All of this could be simply the result of a slightly warped tower wall, but even though the view is from a different angle, it doesn't have this problem in the single image so I'm not sure what to make of it. The jury is out here too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is simply an effect of the rectilinear projection, similar to the Smithsonian nomination a few weeks ago. The distortion is not visible in the sigle frame, as the towertop is at a lower angular distance from the image center. The single frame is taken at a slightly different angle (maybe 10-20°), but the tilt of the flagpole is more or less tha same. So it is like comparing boskop with granny smith :-). --Dschwen 09:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Right, I see what you are saying, but if the tower was circular and not oval/oblong shaped, with rectilinear projection surely the ring around the top of the tower would have horizontally opposed vanishing points on either side of the tower and therefore would have a horizontal 'line' between them? The only reason I can think of for the two points on either side to not be horizontal is if the tower is not circular. You're the one with a Physics PhD, but I don't see the logic of it with my less advanced geometry knowledge... ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I don't find the lens warping of the tower distracting: I think it helps give some sense of scale. I would PREFER it without the people, but they don't detract too much from this one. --Vaelta 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think the people add to the photo because they give it more life, and also their modern dress contrasts well with the old building. Since this is a photo of how this castle looks today, I think the lamppost and the parked cars are OK to have in the photo. Spebudmak 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow, that guy sure has a lot of armpit hair... erm... I mean the details are fantastic. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support high resolution, good detail, and overall a nice shot. Lorax 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_pano.jpg The Sunshine Man 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

please recount, I count 6 opposes, 12 supports, and 1 conditional support --Dschwen 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose. Yes, it's high resolution...but that's about it. Not especially creative, beautiful or original. Theonlyedge 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry this is just unfair. The voting period is over (it is in the category Ended featured picture nominations) and this nomination should have been closed properly. Had it been, the pic would be FP by now and no more voting would be allowed. --Dschwen 07:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed --Fir0002 10:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_pano.jpg --trialsanderrors 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada Goose

A Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) skimming over ice at the Inglewood Bird Sanctuary in Calgary, Alberta

Reason

Striking picture of a low flying goose (the included shadow underlines the low altitude), high contrast between bird and surrounding environment (ice/snow).

Articles this image appears in

Canada Goose, also on es:Barnacla, zh:加拿大雁 and on 3 wikibooks pages

Creator

Cszmurlo

• Support as nominator — Qyd 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While definitely an interesting shot considering the low flight, I think for this common of a bird, the focus and minimization of artifacts could be improved. --Tewy 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice capture, but technical details are underwhelming. Compare the sharpness to the existing Canada Goose FP: howcheng {chat} 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, but encouragement. I actually much prefer the composition of this image to our current FPC (although it's a bit closely cropped for me), but sadly there's way too much noise on the feathers, etc. Mak (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Visible pixelation at both high-res and in thumb version. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Both images would do well in an article about bird flight. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well, I think this has far more merit in most respects than the current featured picture of a Canada Goose above. Yes, this has some quality issues, but the curve of the wings as it swoops so low to the icy ground is infinitely more interesting. --Vaelta 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Technically only adequate, but compositionally compelling. You can almost feel the rush of air from the wing flap. The not-too-dark shadow connected at the wing tip touching the ground nicely signals, but doesn't overly stress, how close to the ground the bird is. The white, icy background offers no visual distraction, but coupled with the wings in a downstroke, augments this beautiful illustration of the power exerted in flight. --Bagginz 05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

B-52 Bomber

A B-52H Stratofortress from the 96th Bomb Squadron, Barksdale Air Force Base, La., deployed to the 2nd Air Expeditionary Group, Naval Station Diego Garcia, drops away after air refueling.

Reason

eye-catching

Articles this image appears in

B-52 Stratofortress, Swept wing, Aspect ratio (wing), Operation Desert Thunder

Creator

U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Sarah E. Shaw

• Support as nominator — TomStar81 (Talk) 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - horrendous colour noise, tail is cut off, uninspiring. --YFB ¿ 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There are better pics on the B-52 page. Not very interesting or unique. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Low detail. ^8thstar 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Amphy 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per YFB. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Royal College of Music

The front facade of the Royal College of Music in London, England

Reason

Its been a while since the last nomination as I've been both busy and lacking in inspiration of late, but I took this mosaic stitched image of the Royal College of Music recently, and although the lighting was a bit flat, I think the composition is pretty good and the detail available of the impressive architecture makes it worthy of a nomination. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Royal College of Music

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent shot, shows its subject well. You need to teach me how to stitch so well, it always looks terrible when I try. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Living in a time when a mere sketch or the intention of a good work is enough to satisfy many, we have to applaud the care and attention to the details. Good work Dilif, but please take away that white plastic glass at left... Alvesgaspar 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I was wondering when I could at last support a diliff picture :). For information, there are tiny stitching errors on the right tower (edge with the sky) (and no I won't oppose for them). If you have some time, maybe you could fix ? I'm also wondering how you achieve such huge quantity of details, because I'm trying hard to do something similar but certainly with less success... Blieusong 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It has a lot to do with a great camera and top-flight optics. I've only ever seen comparable detail from 5x4 transparencies. Support, of course, despite some (barely noticeable) lighting anomolies. Great enc image. mikaul^talk 22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support Really great image, though I too would like the plastic cup removed and any other small cleanups necessary.--HereToHelp 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks great, even with the cup. Amphy 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, because complaining about the cup, people's head, and woman through the railings is being too picky. Yet, I will mention them to feel better ~_~ --gren グレン 06:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the woman you see through the railings is a statue/fountain. Mak (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Stunning detail and quality in a picture of a very pretty building. --Paul 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great image. Good detail and quality.
• Support. The women's heads can be removed from the image if need be, but the cup isn't distracting at all. I didn't even know it was there until I read the comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support ♠Tom@sBat 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Automatic Support, although is it just me or is there posterisation in the sky? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's there - but very weak, couldn't see it on my calibrated CRT until I upped contrast/lowered brightness - it may be more visible on some flat screens, as well as the largish, blurry dark dots in the sky (no, I won't tell where, you'll have to find them yourself... ;-). No reason not to support, those flaws are minor. --Janke | Talk 09:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Considering the lengths that were gone to make this image, I feel a little extra effort to take the images on a day with better lighting would have been worthwhile. --Vaelta 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, very good picture, Very clear and crisp, centered and takes up most of the picture. Keep up the good work!! Chris H 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Even though the trees are slightly blurred, there's litter near the bottom-left corner, and I can barely read where it says "Royal College of Music" without wearing my glasses. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Royal Colege of Music.jpg The Sunshine Man 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

French Socialist Party Meeting

From left to right: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Bertrand Delanoë and Ségolène Royal sitting in the front row at a meeting held on Feb. 6, 2007 by the French Socialist Party at the Carpentier Hall in Paris.

Reason

Encyclopedic picture in high quality

Articles this image appears in

Ségolène Royal

Creator

User:Jastrow

• Support as nominator — Tomer T 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guy on the left is a little out of focus, and the event and people are not overly important. Clh288 13:14, 24 April 2007
• weak oppose there seem to be some (for lack of a better word) jiggery issues - if you along many of the lines, they are kind of ragged, like there is some scaling or interlacing artifact. Does anyone else see that? Other than that I rather like it, it is an interesting portrait of politicians. Clh: What are you talking about "not overly important?" Which FPC criterion are you referencing, and how is one of two front runners for the presidency of France not an important person?Debivort 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I know she is not very favored to win, I know a 5% difference doesn't sound like much, but in France were the vote is spread out among so many people it is a killer.Chris H 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Which FP criterion says that the subject of an FP must have a high chance of winning? :-) Debivort 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This must be a joke. It doesn't characterize that event and the topic is pointless/unimportant anyway.--Svetovid 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Which FP criterion says that the topic/subject must be important? Debivort 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's nonsense! The topic is very important, it includes notable French politicians and one of them even can become France's leader. Tomer T 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It fails the 3rd, 5th and 7th criterion.--Svetovid 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Which FP criterion says that the topic/subject must be important? Debivort 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, technically, it's not a very good shot. I can see why it was nominated because it is a closeup of three important figures in French politics. I would say it better represents the party (and I added it to that page) than it does Royal. But, I still don't think it's FP material just because it's hard for us without press passes to get photos of the famousies. gren グレン 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support I think we need more pictures of current politicians in general, and this is a good, but not great, picture. Beautiful coloring. There are technical issues, and the focus is soft, but I still vote for it. --Asiir 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Primarily because of the blown skin tone, and that the picture is not very sharp even though it's been down-sampled quite a lot. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• What does blown skin tone mean?Debivort 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Either it's blown red channel in the skin tone or it's posterisation. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Although I like this shot I really wasn't going to actively support it. Despite good lighting, composition, and enc value, it does fail other FP quality criteria (softness, posterisation, compression defects, strange post-processing anomolies) but Asiir's conditional support (and gren's oppose) made me realise it really is among the best Wikipedia has to offer in the way of current affairs shots. In the face of considerable opposition I'd like to encourage people to think again, because until press agency photographers are persuaded to release their work under a CC license (ie a *long* time!) it will remain among the best we have, I think. mikaul^talk 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslim woman in Yemen

Muslim woman in Yemen.

Reason

Encyclopedic picture, in the right size, high quality, and the woman - the picture's highlight - is in focus.

Articles this image appears in

Sartorial hijab, Woman, Women in Muslim societies, Niqāb, United Kingdom debate over veils

Creator

Steve Evans

• Support as nominator — Tomer T 09:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Acceptable size (though I would prefer it larger) and quality. However, the background has some very distracting elements (to my eyes), and the overexposed nose is very annoying. Additionally, it might be nice to have a more contrasting background (though that's not really a concern for me). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, primarily because of the compression artifacts. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, bad composition and overall quality.--Svetovid 13:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Compression artifacts, would be tolerable only at significantly larger size. I'm beginning to see a pattern... --Dschwen 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This picture strikes me as slightly NPOV.. Does anyone agree with this? Jellocube27 02:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You probably mean POV (NPOV = neutral point of view). A slight POV is hard to avoid in a picture where you never can tell the whole story. But please elaborate, which bias do you suspect? --Dschwen 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The picture makes it seem like this kind of outfit is typical for Muslim women or for Muslim women in Yemen for that matter. Since it has more to do with culture than religion (Islam), it may be considered misleading. But the picture is of poor quality anyway.--Svetovid 10:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - We really don't know what was the intention of the nominator (or the photographer) in showing this picture. Maybe they just intended to illustrate which is, in their opinion, the proper clothing for all women... If that is the case, they fell short of the POV sin, because the message is not clear. Also, religion is a quite strong component of culture in many regions of the world, particularly in muslim countries. And this picture would indeed be misleading if christian (or jewish, or bhoudist) women in Yemen used this kind of clothing (which is not the case, I believe). Alvesgaspar 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Papilio aegeus

The Papilio aegeus caterpillar (or Orchard Swallowtail Butterfly)

Reason

Illustrates Papilio aegeus well and has a pleasantly simple composition.

Articles this image appears in

Papilio aegeus

Creator

User:Pengo

• Support as nominator —Pengo 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (self nom)
• Oppose Grainy, subject is small in realtion to frame, angle not very attractive. Got a closer shot with less grain? --Janke | Talk 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per very high grain. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Grain, focus, size issues. --Asiir 12:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The head is blurry...Yzmo ^talk 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There's a good crop hiding in there. You may also want to consider a macro lens if you expect to be taking shots like this on a regular basis. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I got one now. This is a last ditch effort to get a single photo from the old camera to FP status. Oh well. —Pengo 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

KC Stadium at night

The Kingston Communications Stadium, in Kingston-upon-Hull, viewed at night.

A slightly cropped version, with the blown street lamp at the bottom removed.

Reason

I feel that this picture meets all the featured picture criteria. It is a well taken photo that adds to the articles it is used in and, personally, I find it stiring and think it deserves to be featured.

Articles this image appears in

Kingston-Upon-Hull, KC Stadium, Hull FC & Hull City A.F.C.

Creator

Yorkshire Forward

• Support as nominator — ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Can someone confirm the suitability of this image's licence, please? Pstuart84 Talk 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on the user who uploaded it's talk page. I'll look into it though. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be me being mega dim but I can't actually find the picture on the website - the link definitely works but I have no idea what it's used for on the site... ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• No license. http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/www/imagebank.asp has no mention of usage restrictions or otherwise. ed g2s • talk 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• "Copyright: If you want to re-use or reproduce the publications or information provided by Yorkshire Forward from a request under the Freedom of Information Act (for example, commercially or for circulation to third parties) you may need to apply for a copyright licence." [1] Chris H 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dusty, maybe even a stray hair, and the lights are blurred and blown.--HereToHelp 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the blown flood light isn't ideal. Is there anything that can be done about that? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Close nomination due to incorrect license. ed g2s • talk 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I recieved an email from the website operators saying "All images on our Image Bank are copyright and cost free." - I have no idea what licence, specifically, this would transfer to but it sounds like the image is fair game. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's the wrong interpretation of "free". MER-C 12:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, if they are "copyright free" then we can use them. He didn't say "copyrighted but cost free". ed g2s • talk 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an email to clarify that the image is copyright free, and to see if they have a higher resolution version of the picture. Hopefully the copyright issue will be cleared up soon. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep - just had an email confirming all the images in the image bank could be used for comercial purposes and to make derivative works. So that's the copyright issue cleared up I think. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you forward that e-mail to the permissions queu of meta:OTRS? I think it's permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Mak (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission has been approved. Yonatan ^talk 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support: a great picture that really stands out. --TFoxton 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Blown highlights, doesn't even show that much of the stadium. ~ trialsanderrors 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Attractive photograph highlighting one of the most visually impressive stadiums in the UK. The contrast between the stadium's looks, and the unattractive surroundings, impresses me somewhat. NeilSenna 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor, oversharpened scan of a nice enough, high definition pic. Would look miles better either downsampled to 2000px or (ideally) re-scanned. mikaul^talk 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per mikaul. ^8thstar 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bart King

Edit 1 by Fcb981

Reason

This is an image of American cricketer John Barton King. He is arguably the best cricketer in this country's history and his article is nearing the point of Featured Status (finishing up last Peer Review before FAC). The image is high resolution, but the photograph was a little on the old side. Mr Hensley found the previously lost photograph in a book at the CC Morris Library and scanned it for me to add to Wikipedia. It is a unique picture of fairly good quality. This was taken during King's prime around the turn of the last century. Fcb981 seconded my proposal at a peer review and provided a cleaned-up edit of the image.

Articles this image appears in

Bart King and History of United States cricket

Creator

This image was scanned at the CC Morris Cricket Library by Paul Hensley and e-mailed to me for the purpose of uploading to Wikipedia.

• Support as nominator — Eva ^bd 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This picture should be further cleaned up (if it has already been cleaned up). Particularily the big white defect in the lower left and the scratches in the top left. -Midnight Rider 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• The cleaned-up edit can be found here. The points you raise have been addressed by Fcb981.--Eva ^bd 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Bart King was a great player and is very interesting and unusual in being one of the few major American cricketers. As so many Wikipedians may be unaware of the role the USA played in early cricket I think this would be an excellent choice. Eva has done a huge amount of excellent work on this topic and this deserves recognition as well. Nick mallory 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What has any of this to do with the picture? ~ trialsanderrors 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice story about the rare find, but the quality of the scan is still very poor. Also, what's with the discolorization? Oddly enough in the edit half the picture turns brown while the other half stays black-and-white. ~ trialsanderrors 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Another poor scan of a quality image, looks like it was photographed behind glass Just checked, and it wasn't scanned at all, but photographed, so the white corner is a reflection in glass. Really pushing the 'historical relevance' mitigation a bit too far, I think. mikaul^talk 23:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I can see where this is headed. I'll go back to the CC Morris Library and see if I can get a proper scan of the image. In the meantime, can I close this candidacy somehow? Thank you all for your valuable input.--Eva ^bd 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose What's up with the funky colorization? Also, there must be a better scan somewhere. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening of the first parliament

The Big Picture, the opening of the Parliament of Australia on 9 May 1901, painted by Tom Roberts.

Reason

Aesthetically I find it striking and pleasing; the colours are fantastic. It is a high quality scan/photograph of the painting, 2500 × 1571, showing the opening of the Parliament of Australia in 1901. I'm pretty sure it fulfils all the criteria. Hope you enjoy it.

Articles this image appears in

History of Australia

Creator

I can't infer the uploader from the image's page.

• Support as nominator — Rothery 08:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - it was painted by Tom Roberts. Pstuart84 Talk 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, it says that in the caption. I meant I didn't know who uploaded the image to Wikipedia- it is actually from Wikipedia Commons btw. Cheers. Rothery 10:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It appears that Fir0002 was the original uploader. Pstuart84 Talk 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this is a vey important painting in australian history - the most famous representation of Australia's political independence. However, is it possible to get a better scan?? The quality here is quite bad... Witty lama 21:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  In what way? I didn't think it looked bad. Rothery 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nah I kinda agree with Witty, its pretty ordinary quality, and you can see the stitch mark along the middle. It was scanned from a really thick book over a double page spread on a pretty cheap scanner. Ive got a better scanner now and could probably rescan at a higher res (although the print quality of course will limit how much I can get out of it) if people really want it. --Fir0002 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, I thought that was just part of the actual painting or something. If you wouldn't mind then that would be fantastic. I'm currently using it as my desktop background, hehe. Rothery 07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral I'd support a higher quality scan. --Asiir 12:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Panorama of Edo

Panorama of Edo (now Tokyo) showing daimyo residences

edit 1 - colour removed; cropped

Reason

I'm nominating this picture because it is a well done historical Panorama of Edo from 1865 or 1866 done using Five albumen silver prints to form a panorama.

Articles this image appears in

Edo, Felice Beato

Creator

Felice Beato

• Support as nominator — Cat-five - talk 04:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Both Impressive, given the I guess circonstances. Blieusong 09:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with trialsanderrors on the scan errors, but also with Mikaul on the fact it doesn't spoil the picture enough. Blieusong 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Question Could this be restiched with better quality? -Fcb981 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support if we can get a better stitched version. If absolutely impossible then "support". Witty lama 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I understand (and hope I'm not wrong) that the "process which created the pano" itself was from the photograph, and is here part of the picture (as visible technical flaws). So I think this isn't to be "restitched". I'd even say, this is what makes this panorama so valuable. Blieusong 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support As an extrememly early example of panoramic photography, and not least as a historical document, this is outstanding, even if it isn't exactly classically beautiful. The yellowing, stains and slight mis-matching are relevant details and should be left as is, as evidence of the technique employed. mikaul^talk 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In response to those of you above who asked about restitching it can't really because the stitching is really part of the historical work and in terms of quality of the stitching etc you have to remember that this was done using plates some 150+ years ago... not to mention falling under the exemption from many requirements due to it's historical status which I doubt anyone will contest considering it's age and importance. Cat-five - talk 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to note that I have also nominated this for a featured picture up on Commons. Cat-five - talk 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Granted, this isn't the best stitch job. However, considering this panorama was done so long ago, it's actually quite well done. Amphy 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Can anyone identify which ones are stitching errors and which ones are scanning errors? I get the impression the most obvious ones are scanning errors, which should lead to rejection. It's also a very small scan for a 1.32m pano. ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean. These old panoramas weren't stiched as such, AFAIK they were glued together onto a backing sheet. Without modern digital blending methods, this particular example is a fairly remarkable, techinically-speaking, given that there's very little vertical mismatching. See these examples for comparison. I suppose the scan isn't totally brilliant but it's quite detailed; most of the imperfections I can see are probably due to the age of the prints. Finally, 1.03Mb is about right for a 3000x450 jpeg, although I agree it could maybe have been bigger. mikaul^talk 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Bad teminology, sorry. "Stitching errors" = discontinuities in the original pano. "Scanning errors" = discontinuities from scanning the pano. I can accept the stitching errors if that was how panos were assembled in the mid 19th century. But if the discontinuitites are in fact from the scan as it appears, it should be done better. On what we can do with panos in terms of size, check the "Along the River" nomination below. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's an awesome image in many respect, and one hell of a scan to boot. The scan here has certainly had less TLC applied. Now that I've gone looking for them I can see a couple of minor stiching errors in the scan; I see what you mean now, but I'm not sure they detract from the value of the image so much. mikaul^talk 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, scan is too small... gren グレン 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont' see how it could be any larger considering the aspect ratio, for example to make the height over 1k (which is the normal standard for FPC's) you'd have to make the width about 6000 pixels which is both unwieldy and unecessary for use on Wikipedia. Cat-five - talk 08:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhh... ~ trialsanderrors 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hehe.. I still don't think this is a good oppose rationale in this case. 450px is probably less than borderline "too small" for a regular pano shot (I've been hassling for consensus on concrete guidelines for this, 6-800 high would seem a sensible minimum pano height) but this one delivers much more than just technical exactitude. mikaul^talk 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        • An exact number will only be a crutch for people who know nothing about photography. A picture file is big enough if it shows an adequate level of detail. I might even argue that the almost 1000px height of the QingMing pano is at the lower end given the astounding detail in the original. Of course 30,000px width is the limit for Photoshop, so that's what we have to make do with in that case. In this case here, it's clear that the original provides much more detail than the scan. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't argue with you there. Pano shots are (generally) one of those which demand exceptional levels of discernable detail. The issue here is whether the detail you can't make out detracts substantially from the value of the image. There's huge historcial, photographic and encyclopedic value here which, along with it's uniqueness, greatly diminishes the file size / scan quality issue, in my opinion. I'm guessing that the chances of re-scanning what must be a very delicate print are slim to none. mikaul^talk 12:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm still waiting for evidence of this historical value. It's interesting to see a cityscape that doesn't exist anymore, but there are thousands of those images. The panorama exhibit at the Library of Congress goes back to 1851 [2], so age can't be the deciding factor either. I'm also pretty sure that this was scanned larger and downsampled to the current size. Compared to the stuff we can get at the LoC I'm not impressed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit1. Interesting and historically valuable. Cacophony 05:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support interesting shot with much better resolution than the similarly dated Image:Panoramic from Lookout Mountain Tenn., 1864.jpg currently used in panoramic photography. Warofdreams talk 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg MER-C 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Conf dead chancellorsville

Confederate dead behind the stone wall of Marye's Heights, Fredericksburg, Virginia, killed during the Battle of Fredericksburg Dec 13, 1862. Photographed by Capt. Andrew J. Russell.

Alternative

Reason

Informative and impressive photo of a war-struck country, where the dead are all kinsmen.

Articles this image appears in

American Civil War, Battle of Chancellorsville, Pattern 1853 Enfield

Creator

Capt. Andrew J. Russell

• Support as nominator — Communist47 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Historical, but really very bad quality. Hard to call this not knowing the rareity of the shot. -Fcb981 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One must remember, this picture was taken 145 years ago, this is pretty good quality for a photo from then 1860's.Communist47 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the photographic quality avaliable at the time was much better, but this is a very historic photograph, and it is hard to ask for more when this picture illustrates its subject so well even if it is of low quality. J Are you green? 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support original See my above comment. J Are you green? 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support as per Thegreenj. I love the cracked and broken plate at the top; very fortunate that images like this have survived in any form. mikaul^talk 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support original Agree with Fcb981 that I, not an expert in historical photography, find it hard to judge the historicity of the photo. Quality is not too bad, all considered. In any case, I feel the original is better, not only because of the cracked plates but also because the figure in lower left gets cut off in the crop. --Asiir 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The original pic is currently not used in any pages. The alternative pic is the one that appears in all the pages listed. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• oppose alt / weak oppose original. Alt has weird levels - looks posterized. Original is also poor quality, and I can't even make out all that many corpses in it. An image like this one, while also not of FP quality, at least is clear in its portrayal of the slaughter. Debivort 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - very poor quality; while it is of significant historical value, we have technically better shots of similar subjects from the Crimean War of ten years earlier, and much better shots of the Paris Commune dead from a couple of years later. Warofdreams talk
• Support Even though there are probably better quality Civil War images, this one is very interesting. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only. Interesting historical photograph. Mgiganteus1 06:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Conf dead chancellorsville.jpg The Sunshine Man 21:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

White Stork

The White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) is a large wading bird in the stork family Ciconiidae

Reason

A great picture that illustrates the article well.

Articles this image appears in

White Stork

Creator

Aka

• Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Not bad, but some blown whites, and appears a bit over-sharpened. --Janke | Talk 06:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Per Janke. -Fcb981 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Clear picture of the subject, well focused. High enough resolution. Nice colours. I feel it definitely meets the criteria. Jsc83 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Quality picture but not special enough for FP promotion. Background is distracting. Alvesgaspar 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Clear and sharp image.. but a tad oversaturated on the white spotsYzmo ^talk 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Tough trying not to blow out highlights in a bird that is sexually selected for blown-out highlights. As for the background, I'm guessing that's not its actual nest (it looks like we're at ground level), so a selective blur would be defendable. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Glossy Ibis

The Glossy Ibis, Plegadis falcinellus is a wading bird in the ibis family Threskiornithidae.

alt 1: background selectively blurred.

Reason

Very encyclopedic picture .

Articles this image appears in

Glossy Ibis

Creator

Aka

• Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Debivort 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a version with background blurred. Thoughts? Debivort 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose because of the second bird in bg - it totally spoils the thumbnail, and is distracting in full size. Who's gonna photoshop... no, just kidding! --Janke | Talk 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to weak support for alt. 1 - now the bird stands out. --Janke | Talk 08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The other bird is distracting, but it's not too bad.--HereToHelp 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Support edit 1 Clearly superior.--HereToHelp 20:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose the whole background is distracting. Maybe it could be blurred by computer? --jacobolus (t) 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Background is distracting, crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Background looks better now. Alvesgaspar 07:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Excellent focus and color on the main subject, the bird. I agree, however, that the background is very distracting in the thumbnail, though not as bad in the full size. Some photoshop blurring may help, thought it's hard to say. --Asiir 12:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Alt 1 is better, though due to the low contrast between back- and foreground, my vote remains a weak support. --Asiir 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I don't find the background too much of a problem. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit Only problem for me was the distracting background. ShadowHalo 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit Good job with the blurring; it looks much better. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit. It looks a little weird in the thumbnail (probably because it loses a lot of detail), but as a large image it works very well. Great colour on the bird in both images. Amphy 13:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, prefer original. I think the edit looks unreal - have you dulled the colours of the background also? The grass in the foreground is well lit and vibrant, as is the bird, but the background looks like its been bleached. The nearer rock also appears to blend too much into the background, particularly underneath the birds' tail feathers. Sorry to be so picky, but I feel that the original is good and so am predisposed to be tough on any edits. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:02, 6 May 2007 (GMT)
• Support original. There's nothing wrong with a bright background. Theonlyedge 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I think that the background is distraction enough that some of the feather details of the bird is missing ... Kalyan 06:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Plegadis falcinellus (aka) background blurred.jpg --YFB ¿ 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian Chapel, Orkney, Scotland

The exterior of the Italian Chapel, Orkney, Scotland. The chapel was built out of limited materials by Italian prisoners during World War II. The chapel was constructed from two Nissen huts joined end-to-end. Most of the decoration was done by Domenico Chiocchetti, a POW from Moena, who remained on the island to finish the chapel even when his fellow prisoners were released shortly before the end of the war.

Edit 1: reworked version, downsampled to 1280x967

Reason

I believe the image meets all criteria at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Italian Chapel

Creator

Modified version by Interiot of original image by LordHarris. See request at Wikipedia Graphic Lab

• Support as nominator — LordHarris 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Very nice atmosphere but the quality is poor. --Arad 17:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor quality. ^8thstar 18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Care to explain? It's obviously taken with a point and shoot digital camera, but the quality is just fine at sizes up to 1024×768 or higher. --jacobolus (t) 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  That the photograph was taken with a "point and shoot" camera is not an excuse to exempt from the image quality demanded by featured pictures. Furthermore, the photograph that is being considered is not 1024 by 768, and should not be regarded as such. If it were that resolution, I am sure it would suffer from complaints that it barely meets size guidelines. Image quality should not be subject to adjustment based on the quality of the camera. This image happens to exhibit low detail, moderate grain, chromatic abberation, sharpening artifacts, and dull colors, as well as an unipressive composition. Perhaps it would not suffer from some of these problems given a better camera, but then again, it is not a hypothetical image taken witha better camera that has been nominated; it is this image. J Are you green? 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  What do you mean "low detail, moderate grain"? It certainly does have sharpening artifacts and chromatic aberation, as well as moderate noise, characteristically of a point and shoot camera. But there are a very large number of current featured pictures which would display a similar or lower amount of detail if upsampled to the same size as this image. Looking at a digital camera image at 100% to determine level of detail and quality, and then comparing with other images also at 100%, without respect to their total size, is a very bad means of comparison, IMO. --jacobolus (t) 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  We have many many FP which are taken with point and shoot digital cameras. So there is no problem with those cameras. But this photo certainly has sharpening artifacts and low detail. It's not FP (The BEST of Wikipedia). --Arad 01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, well then many FP should be delisted, by that criterion. Most point and shoot images (yes, this includes WP FPs) have a comparable or lower level of detail than this image. That's maybe fine; I don't really have a problem with keeping a high standard. But making the standard based on pixel peeping at 100%, without reference to the overall image dimensions, is silly. --jacobolus (t) 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  (I edited as jacobolus did, so I did not take his response into account while writing this.) What I mean by "low detail" is that this looks like someone ran the photograph through a noise reduction filter, resulting in very little fine detail. The grass is one muddy mess of drab green, and I hardly can make out the features of the building. As for "moderate grain" I mean the chroma noise in the windows and shadowed regions. I highly doubt that there is multi-coloured grain on the actual building. Last, for my supposed comparison of this image at full size to a downsampled image at full size, I did download and downsample the image to 1024 by 796 (I believe that you have the wrong aspect ratio when you said 768). Detail was still low, chroma noise still present, etc. Almost no detail was lost - the pixel for pixel resolution is so low for this image. I would have opposed in every way that I already have opposed, and I would have an extra complaint about it barely reaching the size guideline. You talk about low-resolution featured pictures. Many of these images were promoted to featured picture quite a while ago, and few would pass if nominated today. Yes, they still cut it, if just barely, but for new images, expectations have risen. Furthermore, when compared to the downsampled results of this picture, our low resolution featured pictures are vastly better in composition and technical quality. Also, you seem to have allowed the fact that it was taken with a point and shoot camera to somehow make up for the grain. I do not factor in the type of camera into my vote, only the end product. It is the image, not the camera, being discussed. Oh, and Arad is right. Even if you do lower your standard because this was taken with a point and shoot camera, there are still vastly better images taken with point and shoots. J Are you green? 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support I like the lighting and colors. --jacobolus (t) 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Weak Oppose I've decided that the composition and lighting aren't up to featured picture status. In particular, improved local value contrast would be nice. --jacobolus (t) 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose See my comments in response to jacobolus's comment above. J Are you green? 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose original, weak oppose edit 1 Edit 1 is better, but still is somewhat noisy, retains poor lighting, and is still poorly composed (although the edit did just about everything an edit can do to fix a doomed image). J Are you green? 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Snapshot-esque. Poor lighting, uninspiring composition, sharpening artifacts, noise, lack of actual detail. --YFB ¿ 06:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm honestly not just being obtuse when I say I really like this image and think a lot of the oppose comments above are a bit harsh and even off the mark. I'm thinking more of future submissions when I say we shouldn't, and frequently don't, condemn an image because of the manner in which it was nominated (quite often a successful FP will have been edited by contributors here before it made the grade) and yet this one above made the mistake of being submitted too big, nothing else.

Encouraging - even insisting on - 3MP+ submissions is unfair on images which look perfectly good at 1000x750, as this one does. It looks awful at twice the size but I could care less what it looks like twice the size, it's a really nice image at full-screen resolution. I've been looking in here for about six months and seen some travesties of non-promotions based solely on dimensional image size and pixel-level clarity. 1000px is all that is necessary (a) for appreciation purposes and (b) to allow for reasonably sized print repro. 1000 pixels makes for a good 4-6 inch print in repro and looks great on my monitor.

This is why the minimum size guideline is.. 1000pixels.

At this size I can tell the image above is a fine capture made with equipment better-suited to small repro and screen resolution viewing: why insist on pixel-picking at unreasonable magnification, as if 30x40 is the smallest size human beings can perceive for pictoral evaluation purposes? I can think of some very fine images of which that most certainly isn't true. This rant isn't over, but really do have to go out now.. I'll post this over on the WP:FP? discussion page and would urge you to direct your flames that way ==> mikaul^talk 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Incidentally, assuming this shot has been sharpened etc prior to uploading, I'd be happy to have a go at the original out-of-the-camera file, if you uploaded it. mikaul^talk 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mick, is the above rant directed at my oppose vote? If so, I'm a bit puzzled because I didn't say anything about resolution and I took the time to downsample it to 50% in Photoshop, where all my above comments still apply. For example, look at the edges of the stone detailing - it's got a hard edge to it which makes it look almost like the chapel was pasted onto a blue background. If you look at the original image linked to, it's obvious that this is a not-bad attempt to improve a poor-quality original. It was taken on a gloomy evening with a p&s camera, underexposed and I find it uninteresting an unspectacular. Yes, the edit would probably look OK on 4x6 but I have literally thousands of photos which would look similarly nice at 4x6" and you won't find me submitting them here. I don't mind people disagreeing with me in the slightest, but I'm not keen on being characterised as flaming. We have pretty high standards at FPC, yes, and some good images get rejected for nitpicky reasons (I wince every time I see the words blown highlights) but Wikipedia has thousands of images and promoting those which clearly aren't among the best devalues the Featured Picture title. --YFB ¿ 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies: no, I genuinely had no individual oppose in mind, on the contrary, my undiplomatic outburst was aimed at months of pixel-picking by a wide range of contributors here. I have no interest in personal attacks; the "flame" comment was a way of signalling my awareness that my comments were inflammatory, being "against the flow", as I say. FWIW I respect your comments in general, we seem to see things in a similar way.

I'm conscious of clogging up the nominations page with all this, so I'll move the rest of my reply to the talk page if that's ok.

mikaul^talk 00:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 - it's maybe too late for this pic, but comparing the two submissions, I would hope the merits of downsampling point-and-shoot pics to a reasonable size are obvious. mikaul^talk 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  Downsampling them has no merit, except to mollify the pixel-peepers (who if they compare everything at 100% will think the new image is sharper), or perhaps to reduce file size. It doesn't increase image detail, sharpness, color, or any other attribute, and the difference in file size should not be taken into account for determining FP. --jacobolus (t) 17:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment From the article, it seems this church is encyclopedic for two reasons 1) it was built by Italian POWs in Scotland during WWII and 2)it's made of two Nissen huts. There is no way to communicate point #1 in a picture, but I think this shot improperly ignores point #2. It would have been nice if this shot had been from an angle instead of straight on, showing the curved side of the church, in addition to the completely normal looking front. I'm not going to oppose, because the downsampled version looks pretty good, but I'm questionable about the encyclopedic content. Enuja 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro-cannabis rally, Victoria, British Columbia, 4/20/2007

Marijuana users and pro-cannabis legalisation campaigners gather in Victoria, British Columbia to celebrate "420", the unofficial annual National Pot-Smokers holiday, on April 20th, 2007

Reason

Striking and emphatic photo illustrating the widespread popularity of April 20th as a celebration day. High-quality photograph, high-definition etc. with encyclopaedic use.

Articles this image appears in

420 (cannabis culture)

Creator

User:HighInBC

• Support as nominator — Jdcooper 15:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dude.. Its like.. not interesting and kinda blurry.. ^8thstar 15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Oppose - So many reasons. It's VERY poor quality, bad chromatic aberration, blurry, easily reproducible, ..., low enc,... --Arad 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but as others have mentioned, it has serious image quality issues. All the people have purple auras due to chromatic aberration. Were you using a wide angle adapter lens or something? I've got a Canon S3 IS too and never seen such bad chromatic aberration from it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, sorry, it was wrong of me to nominate this from the looks of things. I know nothing about photography, i didnt take the photo, and iv never seen a featured picture nomination debate before. I just liked the photo. Should have done more research :/ Jdcooper 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's OK. There is no problem with nominating, but something we (the voters) might go harsh on some of them. Better luck with your other FPCs. ;-) --Arad 14:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose – just a snapshot. --jacobolus (t) 23:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose purple haze - I mean fringing. Debivort 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose not clear, purple fringing. Not even close to FP quality, and that is from the photographer. Many of the problems may be due to haze in the air and in my lungs at the time. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)'
• Oppose I have nothing to say that has not already been said, but when the photographer opposes, there is definitely something wrong with the situation. I forgot to sign J Are you green? 03:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd say that when the photographer opposes, it doesn't mean there is something particularly wrong with the situation. They're just honest about their images. I've opposed some of my nominated images on occasion. Not every image we contribute to Wikipedia is destined for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lace Monitor

A Lace Monitor or, more commonly refered to as a goana Varanus varius

Reason

sharp, clear, informative. The detail in the scales is very good and it is a Featured Picture on Commons

Articles this image appears in

Varanus varius

Creator

--Benjamint444 04:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nominator — Benjamint444 04:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject(also known as yellow-throat goana) is cut off, somewhat blurry, and has a significant portion of its leg out of focus. Also, there is some chromatic abberation in tree bark and out of focus areas of leg. It doesn't bother me too much, but I'm not a huge fan of the muddy background either. It is a very nice picture, though, and I do not disagree with your nomination, but I think that its detracting qualities are just a few too many. J Are you green? 15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per thegreenj.--HereToHelp 15:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. Also, the background and tree are distracting to the central area of focus. --Asiir 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NGC 2244

NGC 2244 as imaged by the Spitzer Space Telescope (SIRT) in infrared, is an open cluster of stars inside the Rosette Nebula. These super hot stars generate high velocity winds, which cause the gas to be pushed outwards (green clouds).

original image

Reason

Extremely beautiful image and very educational.

Articles this image appears in

NGC 2244

Creator

NASA/JPL

• Support as nominator — Chris H 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support- Sushant gupta 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Are the halo things edited in? I noticed they weren't on the original in the file history. ^8thstar 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought the exact same thing. The resolution when compared to everything else suggested to me when I first looked at the image that they were added to highlight those 4 stars. I imagine that they are there to show the stars in the clustor (because there is a brighter star which is in proximity to the others in the image, but I imagine is actually closer and not in the cluster). This needs to be cleared up. However, the use of translucent halos, while stylized and reminiscent of nebula gas, actually works to confuse the viewer into thinking it may be part of the image. If we do need to highlight those four stars, we should use something more plain, geometric, and graphical for the highlight (like a white circle), so it is clear that the highlight is not part of the image (a nice caption could also clear up this issue without the use of editing the original image).-Andrew c 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's a link to the original image: [3] I oppose the version with "highlighted danger zones". Mgiganteus1 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the circly things. Debivort 00:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Looks good.--HereToHelp 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only. Mgiganteus1 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original - Halos detract from the image, the original obviously doesn't suffer from this. Supaluminal 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. The cluster highlights are too distracting for the edited image to be an FP. Amphy 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose halos, neutral, original. gren グレン 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Anyone else notice the grain? The distinct lack of sharpness? Astronomical pictures are capable of being much much better than this. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only. While many astronomical pictures are much sharper than this one, you have to remember to consider the source. The Spitzer Space Telescope sees in infrared, not visible, wavelengths. And the reduction in sharpness compared to pictures made with visible light, is from the increased wavelength of the infrared light. Also, the fact that some think this could've been Photoshopped, I feel actually counts towards the support of the (original) image. It's so good and weird looking, it fools some into thinking it's a fake.Calen716 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Calen716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose Too small, grainy, does not stand out among pictures of nebulae, esp. compared to NGC 3372. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Both especially the photoshopped edit. The stars in the former are a little grainy (but what can you expect from pictures taken in deep space?). This is really neat! --Valley2city^₪‽ 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only All good astronomical images should be promoted IMHO. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:NGC 2244.jpg The Sunshine Man 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:NGC 2244c.jpg, many more people voted for the original.Chris H 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aerogel matches

A pack of opened matches on top of an aerogel brick, which displays the substance's insulative properties by preventing the matches (even the ones near the edge of the aerogel) to ignite.

Reason

This picture greatly improves the clarity of the "Properties" section of Aerogel, it has great image quality and basically fulfills all of the FP criteria. (Not to mention was considered as a replacement for Image:Aerogelbrick.jpg as a FP.)

Articles this image appears in

Aerogel, Match

Creator

Ed g2s NASA

• Support as nominator ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Even though I did put it in the delisting nomination for people to compare it with the other one, I still think this one also is not up to FP quality. It's easily reproducible and the quality is some how poor. But the subject is indeed very interesting. --Arad 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment how is the aerogel suspended above the flame? It's a little too hard to figure out for me, it looks a bit too photoshopped, even though I don't think it is. Mak (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• it's not suspended above the flame. The aero gel is the flame. It's made in a way that makes it look like a flame. Right? --Arad 02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the aerogel, it's the, well, gel-looking square. The flame is from the torch below it. But how is the aerogel being held up? Is it the clear plastic circle you can see? What is the circle made of? what is it attached to? I don't like having to ask all these questions about an FP, but maybe I'm being picky. Mak (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another picture from the source displays the stand holding up the aerogel block: [4] Phony Saint 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is more that it is difficult to tell what is going on in the image than that the image is fake or anything like that. Mak (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Answer: The aerogel support is the gray bar that is visible if you look at the top right hemisphere of the image closely. The aerogel is the blurry (and it looks that way because of the way light is refracted in the substance) substance immediately below the circle and above the flame. The clear circle, which I'm fairly certain is just plastic, is there so that the matches do not touch the aerogel directly. Hope that cleared everything up, ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 02:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict... Magnus/Steptrip, I'm afraid you're a bit off) - Hi Makemi. These aerogel images are rather cool, but I don't think this is the best illustration. You have to get matches pretty hot before they spontaneously ignite. The Crayola image here is a better example and also answers your question about what's holding it up. The aerogel is supported on a steel loop stand thingy, which is much more visible in this shot. I don't think they're photoshopped, it's just that the lighting is darker on the matches photo. --YFB ¿ 03:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I understand, I'm just saying that the illustration is not great because it's not immediately clear what's going on. Mak (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(od) Uh, sorry... just spotted that this has already been pointed out above. Oops. Do you have an opinion on the Crayola image as an alternative? --YFB ¿ 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't so small and smudgy it might be, yeah :) Mak (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

739x882... OK, I'll just go to bed now and in the morning, can we pretend I didn't just say any of the above? :/ --YFB ¿ 03:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Mak (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose If even the nominator can't tell what's going on, the average user won't either. The flame blends in too much with the aerogel in this particular picture, and the caption in the Aerogel article isn't very descriptive. There are better alternatives for pictures: one of more than sufficient quality at Image:Aerogelflower.jpg, and another picture of a hand on an aerogel block, if someone can obtain and upload the higher quality version of it (the lower-res version is terrible). Phony Saint 04:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There is a difference between the nominator (who liked the image) and the creator (the person to whom all questions should be directed). Also, the flame is easy to pick out because it contrasts sharply with the black background. I'll take a look at the other aerogel image shortly. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As the nominator, you should be able to explain why the problems are trivial or do not affect its nomination. The creator has nothing to do with this nomination. Phony Saint 16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. In that case, I'll rephrase my answer to the main question: The aerogel support is not the subject of the photo, and as such, it is trivial, but you can see it in the top-right hemisphere of the photo. Also, as you can see, I can answer almost all of the questions asked. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose visually confusing (unlike [5]) —Pengo 22:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks Photoshopped rather than an actual photo and thus fails in its encyclopaedic value. Centy 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fairly low quality, and though it's cool looking, the image is way confusing. Amphy 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Washington DC Metro Map

A geographically accurate map of the Washington DC Metro system.

Reason

A rarely found accurate scale map of the WMATA system, SVG and public domain.

Articles this image appears in

Washington Metro

Creator

User:Noclip

• Support as nominator — Noclip 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, it has no sources to verify its accuracy. The caption is not very good either. gren グレン 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• oppose not particularly attractive, and very little information in the thumbnail. For example, the potomac river runs through there, but is completely unlabeled. Adding it would improve both the attractiveness and encyclopedicity. Debivort 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I live in DC, and ride the metro almost everyday, so between that and google earth, I think the accuracy is good. But thats original research and I don't feel right using that as justification. Also, the caption is misleading. I wouldn't call it geographically accurate if there is no geography in the picture. --Uberlemur 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - A featured picture would show the political boundaries between DC, VA & MD. The captions are too small relative to the overall size of the image. Also, no indication of scale. --dm ^(talk) 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Carpenter

Tennessee Valley Authority carpenter at work during the 1942 construction of East Tennessee's Douglas Dam.

Edit 1 - Removed the dust from image. Down-sampled and sharpened and little crop from bottom. By: Arad

Edit 2 - Same as above, but colors corrected.

Reason

Just what a carpenter should look like. You can even see beads of sweat dripping down his face if you zoom in. This probably needs to be downsampled/edited, but someone more experienced than me should do it.

Articles this image appears in

Carpenter, Brace (tool), Drill, Construction worker, Overall, Hard hat, Tennessee Valley Authority, Manual labour

Creator

FSA photographer Alfred Palmer

• Support as nominator — Calliopejen1 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment – what's with the bogus colors? --jacobolus (t) 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  Not sure exactly what you mean... The image hasn't been altered from the LOC color original. (See http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsac.1a35241) If necessary, the levels could be adjusted. Calliopejen1 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  No no, the contrast is fine. It's just very weird lighting. --jacobolus (t) 23:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 or 2 - It does represent a carpenter well. --Arad 14:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose edit 3 this didn't color correct. It added too much blue (look at the clouds) and green (look at the shirt). I agree the original is a little problematic (the red in the clouds). However, I am still deciding how I feel about an image that looks sort of staged, campy, and cliché, even if it a real period worker at work. I agree with jacobolus that the color is questionable to begin with. For the time being, I'm neutral for 1 and 2.-Andrew c 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This looks staged somehow (especially the lighting and colouration) and for my mind doesn't show "carpentry" that well. It Does show "hard work" but we already have the B&W pic of the Mechaninc for that. Witty Lama 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Looks like a studio photo - Alvesgaspar 08:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on this picture, but this was in all likelihood taken on location. See this comparable picture and click through on "Tennessee Valley Authority" to see all of Palmer's TVA pictures. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good illustration of construction worker. Punctured Bicycle 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anne of Cleves by Holbein

Betrothal portrait of Anne of Cleves, fourth wife of Henry VIII of England, by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543). It was on the basis of this portrait that Henry VIII chose her to be his fourth Queen. Watercolor on parchment. 65 x 48 cm. Museum of Louvre.

A lower resolution reproduction used in other articles.

Reason

A high resolution scan of the portrait which led directly to the subject becoming the King's fourth Queen.

Articles this image appears in

Henry VIII of England

Creator

Hans Holbein the Younger (reproduction by The Yorck Project)

• Support as nominator — Pstuart84 Talk 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Poor quality, both of them. Alvesgaspar 08:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your vote, I thought it had gotten quiet round here! When you say 'poor quality' are you referring to the painting itself, or the scan? Obviously there is a lot of wear and tear owing to its age, which is cropped on the second version. Pstuart84 Talk 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am of course referring to the photographic quality. I don't believe in miracles, how can we put a quality image this size in a file much less than 1 Mb (only Fir0002 is able to do that and I really don't know how...)? The files shouldn't be compressed - Alvesgaspar 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Need a higher resolution image with the same quality as the 2nd image. The subject is historically significant enough to be featured, but it needs more work. Cacophony 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Only problem is who is in a position to create a higher quality scan of the original with a suitable licence? Pstuart84 Talk 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaucho Huaso

Gaucho Huaso in a Chilean wheat field, 1940.

Edit 1: Dust removed.

Edit2: Dust removed and sharpened. by: Arad

Reason

Beautiful, historical value

Articles this image appears in

Gaucho Huaso

Creator

Toni Frissell

• Support as nominator — Calliopejen1 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose until it's cleaned up. Almost all LoC scans need an hour or so of dust removal. ~ trialsanderrors 22:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • LoC?--HereToHelp 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Library of Congress. I just did my best at the dust removal, if anyone else wants to have at it, they're obviously welcome to.Calliopejen1 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The sky is still of oddly low quality, puzzling since the original tiff is 78MB and from 2005. Also, we would need more background on the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 2 Fine job with the dust, but still a bit blurry. Perhaps downsampling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereToHelp (talk • contribs) (Whoops, happens to the best of us. --HereToHelp 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
• Support, I am a fan. gren グレン 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 - It's a nice historic image. --Arad 20:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The photo is very good, but I'm not really sure if the guy pictured is a Gaucho or not. I'm from Chile, and there are no Gauchos here, the Gauchos are from Argentina, Uruguay and part of Brasil. I think that the guy from the photo may be a Chilean Huaso, considering the clothes and where the photograph was taken.--Hodur 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Hmmm.... judging from the wikipedia entries, it looks like you're right. I was just going by the photo caption, but perhaps the photographer was mistaken. Calliopejen1 13:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support either edit. Beautiful image, and definitely something you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia. Amphy 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support either edit. 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops that was me. I was thinking, I could have sworn I voted on this, but didn't see my sig. Heh. howcheng {chat} 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great image Bewareofdog 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Promoted Image:Gauchowheat edit2.jpg --Debivort 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Munsell color system

The Munsell color system, showing: a circle of hues at value 5 chroma 6; the neutral values from 0 to 10; and the chromas of purple-blue (5PB) at value 5.

Reason

I created this diagram a few days ago to illustrate the Munsell color system article. I think it turned out especially well.

Articles this image appears in

Munsell color system, Color theory

Creator

jacobolus

• Support as nominator — jacobolus (t) 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't show enough to enable someone not familiar with this to understand the entire system. You would need a complete slice of one color muted from black to white, not just the middle color sector muted to gray. Hard to do in 2-D! --Janke | Talk 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well, it maybe can't be understood independently from the text of the article. But I'm not sure how achievable that is. Note that there is a complete slice of one color shown a bit further down the wiki page. --jacobolus (t) 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  You could put the numbers on the side and expand the slice vertically...but you would block the puple-ish hues behind it on the ring.--HereToHelp 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  I guess I just think there's value in two separate diagrams. One that shows the whole shape of the color solid, and another that shows what its dimensions are, as this diagram does (and maybe even a third diagram that just shows particular slices through the solid horizontally and vertically). I'm not sure there's much benefit to be gained by combining the two, and I can't see a particularly good way to do that. --jacobolus (t) 04:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  I guess my question then is can every diagram enable someone with no familiarity to understand the entire thing being shown? I thought the point of a diagram was to illustrate an article, not to replace it. Not that your criticism isn't legitimate; maybe there's some way to accomplish all of the above. --jacobolus (t) 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  The chroma, hue, and value are plotted to make a cylinder, a 3D figure. It is therefore very difficult to represent it in 2D. Perhaps an animation could be made? (Not to devalue a 2D but vector image, however).--HereToHelp 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  I think an animation could be made, but it would serve a different purpose from this image. That is, it would show the overall shape of the thing, rather than labeling the parts. I think this diagram still has value independent of that (and is still pretty good, IMO). --jacobolus (t) 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of color systems, I've found no mention of the Ostwald system in WP - only a short note in Wilhelm Ostwald... Anybody? --Janke | Talk 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  It seems that almost all color systems go unmentioned in WP, and in general the articles about color theory are underdeveloped, with a misguided emphasis on the RGB and CYMK models. Wikiproject Color has an absurd focus on making stub articles about large numbers of (arbitrarily) named colors, instead of explaining color theory. It would be good to have a summary of color models in their historical context at Color models or similar, but that is a rather large project to undertake. --jacobolus (t) 00:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment well maybe I should just withdraw the nomination, as only one person is actually willing to offer an opinion. Maybe FPC is just not meant for diagrams? --jacobolus (t) 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a very high quality diagram that quite intuitively shows this color system. While I cannot judge how accurate it is, since I'm not familiar with the system, I can say that this 3d representation does a far and away better job of explanation than the other flat 2d images from the article. That said, I'm willing to be corrected if the image does not accurately describe the color model. But I don't think it should be demoted because it does not represent every aspect of the system. --Asiir 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. It's definitely of good quality, and it's a great illustration in general. However, I know that if I had no background in colour theory I'd be confused looking at it, and there is the problem Janke mentioned with the varying value levels. Maybe putting one near values 2 & 3 for yellow-red (is there a reason this isn't called orange?) or yellow would help. As it stands, this is almost as good as it gets for a diagram. Amphy 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's called yellow-red (or actually YR) because the purpose of the system is to get away from color names, and instead specify things numerically. So the 5 hues aren't supposed to be the colors a person would associate with those names, but are just instead supposed to provide evenly spaced reference points in the hue circle. --jacobolus (t) 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Windmill

Windmill in Sønderho, Fanø, Denmark.

Reason

Wonderful picture. Featured on Commons.

Articles this image appears in

Fanø, Smock mill, Windmill fantail, Danish Wadden Sea Islands

Creator

Cnyborg

• Support as nominator — Tomer T 09:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but can you sharpen it a little?--Svetovid 11:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support good picture! - Sushant gupta 12:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't understand why this was promoted to COM:FP. While colour and exposure are good, I suppose, and composition isn't bad, it has this awful, front-on lighting. Because of this it looks really 'flat', showing us little in the way of form and structure, has poor textural detail and there's almost no discernable fine detail at all, probably due to heavy JPEG compression. Sharpening would only make this lack of detail more obvious, although substantial downsampling might stop the viewer looking for it. mikaul^talk 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurry and oversharpened. ~ trialsanderrors 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks good at first glance, but problems are discovered it examined more closely.--HereToHelp 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yosemite Valley in June 2006

Version 2

Yosemite Valley

A nice panorama of the Yosemite Valley in June 2006.

Appears in Yosemite National Park

• Support Self Nom. --Ba'Gamnan 11:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Breathtaking beauty. This is just how a tourist sees the valley when emerging from the tunnel. There's some slight sharpening artifacts above the trees at left. If the "almost blown" highlights can be adjusted, I might support. --Janke | Talk 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, nice photo, and I don't see any obvious flaws in it (besides that it could be bigger, and the sky is a little grainy). Although it's nice, I don't see it as anything spectacular and worth an FP. gren グレン 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not a photo expert-- could this photo be improved by cropping (especially of the tree on the right?) Spikebrennan 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per gren. ^8thstar 00:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This is almost there. The lighting looks a little harsh ... maybe midday? Early morning light would suit this a lot better I think. howcheng {chat} 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nice place, but it's still not very rich, and I doubt altering it can help. The sky is VERY pixelated/blown (a cloning tool can help with that).-DMCer 06:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Top of the Space Needle

The top of the Space Needle in Seattle, Washington exelempfies Googie architecture.

Alternate

Reason

I really like the angle of the image and how it illustrates the observation deck (with people visible) and revolving restaurant, but because it was taken from very far away at ground level the underside is still visible. I've been waiting for a long time to self-nominate one of the many photographs I have contributed and I think this one is high enough quality. I still have the 4372 x 2906 original RAW file (though it required some straightening) if anyone would like to suggest improvements.

Articles this image appears in

Space Needle, Googie architecture

Creator

Cacophony

• Support as nominator — Cacophony 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is it possible that you do a vertical panorama and have the whole structure in it? Also did you resample the image? There are some moiré pattern near the top which would be correctable if it's caused by improper resampling. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

From this angle (3000 ft. away at ground level zoomed to 400mm) a panorama wouldn't contain much the structure due to obstructions. To get much more than half of the tower you pretty much need to be elevated. I took another photo from a different location that turned out pretty good, but I'm not nearly as fond of that one and the prespective from the north makes the tower appear much larger (in relation to other buildings) than it is. As for the moiré on the solar panels, it seems to be like that on the RAW file and I'm not very skilled at post processing. Thanks for the comment. Cacophony 06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• What lens/camera did you use? --Dschwen 07:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I used a Canon 5D with a 100-400mm, f5.7, 1/800. I will add that to the image discription page. Cacophony 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support What's that's grayish stuff on one of the center windows? Was that part of the subject?--HereToHelp 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think thats the reflection of something... ^8thstar 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose a (diliff style) shot of the entire tower would be more apropriate for FP. also I would prefer the picture taken against blue sky instead of a white cloud that hides the subject. otherwise fine but building shots are quite reproduceable and should have little in the way of flaws. and I personaly like your other full tower picture better -Fcb981 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would be much more encyclopedic and visually appealing if the entire building was in the photograph. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, ten days and three votes. 2-2 tie and it gets rejected? What a crock of shit. Cacophony 09:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, but I do agree that FPC is becoming ever more picky on the non-issues lately. Now the pass rate is like what, less than 1 in 5? But you have to consider that we don't have an article of the top of the Space Needle, and if it became a FP it would be a lot more appropriate for the whole structure to be shown if it's linked to Space Needle --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the reasons for opposition are the exact same reasons that I nominated it. Just because it dosen't contain the entire structure (90% of which is not interesting) is a piss poor reason to oppose it. This, this, this, and this, don't contain the entire animal, this, this, and this picture dosen't contain more than half the body, and this picture doesn't contain the entire atmosphere. The examples are endless. Saying that a Dliff image is just about as useless, we might as well close nominations to everyone that isn't a professional photographer. Cacophony 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think other parts of the structure is also quite interesting, and I would have full supported the alternative version if the photographer opened up the aperture a bit and used a lower ISO (quite a bit of noise and seems diffraction-limited), or even did a vertical panorama if he could; I would have weak supported this nomination if I remembered to vote, but my half vote still wouldn't make too much of a difference. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:27, 28 April 2007 (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.

Glass is Liquide

Illustration of refraction in various materials, made in Dielectric Shader. Three different Dielectric interfaces, demonstrating the use of Dielectric Shaders.

Alternative 1 - You can also vote for this one or both.

This is not a photo. Nor is it for voting. Avert your eyes.

Nothing is real.

Reason

I searched a lot for a better image with free licence, but I couldn't find any. Describes the subject very well.

Articles this image appears in

Dielectric Shader

Creator

Mehran Moghtadai

• Support both as nominator — Arad 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - describes subject well, no technical faults, and is absolutely beautiful. E8T9A10 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Please can you explain where the shadows behind the glasses come from. The shadow behind the blue vessel is shaped like a stemmed wine glass. Pstuart84 Talk 15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that would be due to refraction. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The "shadow" is actually a reflection on the glass of what's in front of the object. This was photographied in a "white box" witch is a standard studio photography technique when it come up to take picture of reflective or semi-reflective objects (glass, metal, etc...). The object is surrounded all in white with a diffused flash on the top and a narrow opening in the front. The openning is actually the black "shadow" on the glass. PYMontpetit 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nice description... but this isn't a photograph. It's a computer-generated image, using the technique of dielectric shading to make it look real. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I thought this wasn't a photograph. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

None of which really answers my question! Whether its real or simulated, there are shadows (or reflections) on both jars which appear to bear no relation to any of the objects depicted. Is that intentional or erroneous? Sorry to persist but it's not clear from the picture, the caption, the article or ‘refraction’. Pstuart84 Talk 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The author is my friend. I'll see him soon and ask him about reflections. But I'm pretty sure he didn't made a mistake. --Arad 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Pstuart84 Talk 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Highly encyclopedic and beautiful! - Alvesgaspar 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• question - many of you view this as highly encyclopedic. How does it illustrate Dielectric shading? For example, I don't know which of the aspects of the image are only possible with this rendering technique, I think a less stylized, but more annotated image would be much more instructive. Perhaps I'm not understanding something though?Debivort 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - This is a nice example of the capabilities of the Dielectric shader but doesn't tell me anything about how it works or what it does. A sequence from wireframe to solid shaded to transparent to dielectric or something might be a good illustration, but as it is this is pretty but not particularly enc. I'm also a little puzzled by the reflection in the blue glass, which seems unrealistic (unless it's a reflection of something else in the scene). Also, isn't the use of the Stella Artois logo a copyright/trademark violation? --YFB ¿ 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Same as on commons : can someone tell if seeing a logo partially enough is violation or not of copyright ? Blieusong 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I checked Fair use and it might be possible that in this case, the picture doesn't violate copyrights. Although the material copied is clearly a copyrighted one, we can safely assume there is no commercial intention behind the picture. The goal of author was probably to make a realistic rendering of a glass of beer, and he had to use a realistic logo to do so. He arranged the scene so only parts of logos are in sight (but maybe more than one third the logo is too much). Also, I think this may only benefit to the brand. Blieusong 11:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Opppose I dont understand it... yeah it looks pretty but thats it --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's dielectric rendering. It's not only pretty, it's encyclopedic too (shows computer generated graphics using dielectric). --Arad 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• To an average person looking at that it just looks like ornate coloured glass... also the article itself isnt helpful in its explanation to the average person. It is rightly labeled with the {{context}} tag. So overall, unhelpful picture and unhelpful article so the image has no value --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Whichever way you look at this (top pic) it's a clear FP promotion. Ok, encyclopedically it may be a liitle weak but I really don't think there is a better way of illustrating the technique than by finished example, which this verifiably is. The reflections of these ray-trace illustrations infuriate me, they're so accurate; I can see nothing there which wouldn't feasibly appear in an equally high-res studio shot. It's even got some 'real' flaws - the graduated background is exactly like a (not very well-done) single-toplight white bg shot. Very clever, very nice. mikaul^talk 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • hmm.. looking again, those bubbles are wrong in a differnt way; they look metallic, like mercury rather than air. I'd expect real-world air bubbles to show more colour. This is probably down to some limitation in the software, so I'll not change my vote. mikaul^talk 09:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• weak oppose pretty but unencyclopedic. Kind of like using one of Dschwen's new images to illustrate "Canon 5D".Debivort 00:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I can Assure you that it is encyclopedic. How can you demonstrate Dielectric shader better? --Arad 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• With frames illustrating the process - as YFB suggested above. Or close up views of examples of each of those dilectric interfaces (I still don't know what they refer to, despite that phrase appearing in the caption). Debivort 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per YFB and Debivort, even though I like these images (the fourth is my current wallpaper). howcheng {chat} 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. No satsifactory explanation for the origin of the shadows behing the glasses. Pstuart84 Talk 12:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Those are shadows of "Window like" objects in the scene (or behind the scene)! The author tried to make it realistic. --Arad 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I still don't know what dielectric shader is or does. Calliopejen1 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Kaziranga National Park

Map of the Kaziranga National Park in Assam, India

Reason

The image uses the colours recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps for consistency. It is drawn to scale and is an example of a good looking, functional map.

Articles this image appears in

Kaziranga National Park

Creator

User:Nichalp, modifications by User:Pradiptaray

• Support as nominator — =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Strongly - a very good map. Although there are no official colours yet specified by WP:MAPS, the list on the talk page is near enough completion, and this conforms. The detail is superb, with no jagged edges/sharp corners or faults as far as I can see. Well done, this is an exemplary candidate for a map nom. And by the way, the current Best. Map. EVAR. is Holy Roman Empire 1648.svg - incredibly detailed, large, and the description page is the best I've ever see for any image. Well done. E8T10A9 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Sorry, but I don't agree. Although the map pleases the eye, its technical quality is far from enough to reach FP status. Here are some drawbacks: i) No idea where the place is. The "framing" is quite tight and there is no insert to help locating the park inside India (such insert exists in the original map); ii) The density of information is very poor: only some roads, tracks and villages are shown. No information on the surface relief or land cover; iii) The orientation of the labels in the map is not the best: almost all are horizontal. Question - What are the red dots? - Alvesgaspar 11:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  Could I modify it in someway? 1. For example, an inset map is not a requirement of a map at all, the criteria says that it should be pertinent to the article it is in. The article already has a locator map, so having one in would be redundant, and bloated. 2. I can make the necessary adjustments to reduce the tight crop. Is that what you are looking for? 3. What sort of density information are you looking for? The map is of a forest, and specific named locations in it. There are no villages in the forest, so nothing else to add. Major lakes, and rivers are depicted in the map. 4. Surface relief and land cover would be physical map. The elevation hardly varies by 20 metres, so I'm not convinced that this would be a helpful addition. 5. Are you looking for any other sort of orientation in the map? Labels are usually always horizontal in maps. 6. Those red dots are locations. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Well, you could try to put a little more detail. The level of generalization is excessive even at thumbnail size. Note that this topographic map of the area, whose scale is only 1:250 000, has more detail per unit area, especially hydrography and relief information. For example, the mountains which exist south of the park and the lakes inside. Also, I think the area depicted should be much larger, to better contextualize the park in its geographic region. Of course, no improvement can guarantee that the final product will be good enough to be featured, even if the final result is technically impeccable. After all there are regions “cartographically” more interesting than others and the “wow” factor is really relevant here. Alvesgaspar 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what detail I could put in. I feel having the relief information would be excessive, and the two other comments for this FPC seem to be supporting on the basis of its simplicity. If more people can comment on this issue, I could accede to this suggestion. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support informative and clean --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Although I do agree with Alvesgaspar's point 1, the picture could use an insert, also it should be pretty easy to acheie that. Good luck! --Spundun 08:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've changed my vote to Strong oppose because it is hard for me to accept that this map will soon be taken as an example of an exceptional cartographic work. Which is not, for the reasons explained above. It is clean and good looking, but quite far from excelence in cartographic terms. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd prefer to see the map incorporate a locator insert, but that's not essential. The big problem for me is with the labels. Many appear badly aligned; some are difficult to read, and in some cases it's not immediately clear what they refer to. While it is common on maps for most labels to be horizontal, river names are often placed to fit the feature, and that would be of real benefit here. Also - where is the "Panbari Reserve Forest", which is mentioned in the bottom right of the picture? It should either be shown as a point if it is small, or as an area if it is larger. Warofdreams talk 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with Alvesgaspar on this one. Lycaon 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. See the Falkands map for an example of featured quality. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm offline at the moment, without access to my PC. Please allow me some more time to respond. Regards, Nichalp 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll move this down for the time being. MER-C 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please add an inlay to specify the area being covered. other than that, pic looks good. Kalyan 06:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is the inlay really required? Doesn't the lat and longs suffice? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Anwar 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  Anwar do you have a statement to make? You oppose every single India-related FAC and FPC when you check it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Large Brown Mantid Close-Up

Alien Face - Extreme macro on an adult Large Brown Mantid

alt1 dust cloned out.

My younger brother found this amazing praying mantis - measured at least 11cm no including the reach it could get out of it's front legs (I guess it's not called a Large Brown mantid for nothing!). Shot in studio the background was not made in PS but a result of the background I chose for dramatic effect. Yes a focus bracket would have been nice, but this thing was live and moving!

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Guesome but amazing, especially the eye. Two questions though, is the white mark in the eye a reflection from a flash/lighting? Second, is the v-shaped hair between the attenae part of the animal or something on the lens? Pstuart84 Talk 13:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm almost certain that it is a hair - odd isn't it? --Fir0002 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry Fir, are you saying it's the animal's hair or that it was a human hair (dust) on the lens? Pstuart84 Talk 23:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I think Fir was playing with it and that the hair is his. Or maybe the Mantid lives in fir's hair. :-D --Arad 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Umm, no that is just sick. The hair is almost certainly from the mantid since it is evident in all other photos of the mantid I took, and that if it were on the lens it would appear as a very OOF line --Fir0002 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
          • That was a joke. No offence. lol. If you find playing with this insects sick, then how do take all these good close up pics from them? I can't stand many of them, but you take studio picture of them. Good job on that. --Arad 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
            • The "V" is almost certainly a piece of non-mantid dust. Insect bristles grow from bilaterally symmetrical base points, and this one has no counterpart on the right side.Debivort 07:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• support alt 1 I'm pretty sure the V-thing is a hair. So here is an edit with it cloned out. Fir - would you please please resume indicating what articles are being illustrated by the photos? Also, how did you get that nice dark gradient background? Debivort 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I used a white piece of paper flat on the surface, and got my sister to hold up a black paper a little above the surface of the white paper. Since this is way OOF due to the extreme macro, it makes a pleasing gradient. --Fir0002 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nice trick. Debivort 07:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support alt1 in my opinion this is an excellent image which really stands out. I especially like the gradient on the background. --Newton2 12:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support eitherOh eww. Excellent picture though- I'll support whichever one according to whether the black 'hair' belongs to the mantis or not :) Ishaana 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support either Per Ishaana, whichever one is accurate.--HereToHelp 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support either Interesting. ^8thstar 02:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support either it looks good to me --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support alt1 Yet another great shot from Fir.Pedro |  Chat  13:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support either - nice shot. -- Avenue 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - They've landed. I can just imagine this being a POTD - well done, Fir0002. Mrug² 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support amazing, excellent job! --Ouro (blah blah) 07:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support What a looker. I like how the background fades to grey on the out of focus part. Interesting subject, and slick presentation. bobanny 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support alt1 As an Entomologist, I have to support this one... :) But on a more serious note, They're both great pictures that capture the life and quasi-intelligence of one of the most interesting orders of insects. Great pics! --Entoaggie09 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Large brown mantid close up nohair.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Broadway Tower, Cotswolds.

Broadway Tower is a folly located at one of the highest points (1,024 feet above sea level) of the Cotswolds, England. On a day of clear weather, thirteen counties of England can be seen from the top of the tower.

Edit 1 by Arad - Removed the red dot on the window and also those white distracting spots

Edit 2 by Yummifruitbat - The edit that this image actually needed, cropped the bloke wandering off the edge of the frame

Edit 3 - Also removed one of the tourist and the flags and red light.

File:Broadway tower Edit4.jpg

Edit 4 - people edited off but kept width, and removed dead grass to right.

Reason

I feel that the image is quite striking and is an accurate and detailed depiction of the tower.

Articles this image appears in

Broadway_Tower

Creator

Newton2 (Myself)

• Support as nominator — Newton2 10:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support woa. Everything is nice to me on this picture. The people to the left help to have an idea of the size. Perhaps I would have loved to have a very bit more sky above, but this is just me. Blieusong 10:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit2 the crop does it. I added this to the nominations for FP candidate on commons (next to arad's edit nomination). Blieusong 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support In this cases, the two tourists in the pic actually adds to the pic. I like how the tower seems to stick out of nowhere. Very sharp and imposing. Encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here are some photoshopping ideas: remove both the tourists, the red light in the window, the "flag", the dead grass, and while you're at it...the entire tower itself. The resulting pic will be a good illustration of a grassy field on a clear day. ;) I'm actually wondering if someone can actually convincingly pull that off...since the tourists, red light, and "flag" were all removed without any tell-tale signs. It'll be a good example on the photo editing page. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Better yet, replace the tower with the Tower Bridge. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Excellent colours, sharpness etc. Really good pic --Fir0002 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 Edit 2 or 3 Nice. ^8thstar 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. Beautiful, and wonderful composition. I also think it has an excellent caption. Pstuart84 Talk 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • and strong oppose edit 1 per Dschwen on the grounds that manipulation should affect the capturing of the image, not the subject Pstuart84 Talk 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And I don't think the subject is changed in anyway. --Arad 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Info Edit 1 - I took the freedom to upload the thit and the original on Commons for more access to all projects. Also, about the edit 1, I removed the red dot and white spots from the castle which I found distracting on this beautiful image. --Arad 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 or 3 - Per all above. --Arad 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Edit 2 - It's too tight the crop for me. And the white and red spots are distracting --Arad 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Too tight? Cropping the man only reduced the total width of the image by 3.5%, on the opposite side from the actual subject. That seems a strange basis for an oppose. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 or 3; normally, the tourists would be distracting, but in this they add useful scale and a sense of wonder. Also, generally beautiful pic. --Golbez 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• What's the point of removing the flag and the light in the window? --Dschwen 13:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think I said it before. They are very distracting IMO. --Arad 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so. What does a complete white flag add to the image or a blown out light? I did what I thought would help the image, If it didn't help, then there is always an original to vote for. I wanted the image to be perfect (it's already good) for FP. ;-) --Arad 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is probably semantics, but it looks to me that you edited the subject not the picture. It is ok to compensate for technical shortcomings, but (and I know, we had that discussion, sorry) manipulating the subject, because it is not to your liking I finds questionable for encyclopedic illustrations... --Dschwen 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• IDK how i changed the subject? Those white flags didn't add anything informative to the image. Did they? --Arad 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, they're not white flags, they're guttering. Secondly, however unpleasant you might find them, they are a material part of the subject, not an incidental element in the surrounding scenery. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't post up anything which isn't materially and verifiably acurate. FWIW, I would personally crop out the figure in the left to up the drama a little more, but Support the original version as is. (changed support to edit 2 below) mikaul^talk 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note I do have a version of the image without any people in at all but I think that having the people adds to the image as it gives you a sense of scale. --Newton2 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No! It's just great the way it is! Maybe have a look at cropping out that person doing an 'exit stage left', but as it is it's a great 'chance' shot, I love it mikaul^talk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your support! Yes I know what you mean about the person exiting the shot. Still if needs be they can always be cropped out as you say. --Newton2 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No way. The humans must stay! :-) I just have a question from Newton2. What do you think about the edit? --Arad 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind either way really. I agree that the bright white object is quite noticeable but on the other hand I can also accept the point which others have made about only editing to correct technical faults etc. Again, although the white object is fairly obvious I don't think it detracts from the overall photo too much. --Newton2 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the cloning out of the guttering and interior light is unnecessary and reduces the enc. There's another, less obvious gutter spout on the opposite tower so removing the right-hand one falsely implies asymmetry. The interior light indicates (albeit subtly) that the Tower is in use. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it does improve the enc. Because as it seems, people may believe that someone is living in there. But it's only for tourism. --Arad 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. You appear to have equated "in use" with "lived in" in my comment - the presence of an electric light in no way implies inhabitation, but it does show that the building isn't derelict or permanently locked up. How can removing something which was present when the photograph was taken and an integral part of the subject improve the enc? The logic of that statement is seriously flawed. --YFB ¿ 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's better that you try be a bit more civil and comment on the photo not the person who comments. And AGF. In any way, those are distracting and I like it without them. You can do whatever you want, but that's how it is. --Arad 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please point out where I have been uncivil, made a comment about a contributor or failed to assume good faith. I resent being accused of any of those things just because I have disagreed with your edits. --YFB ¿ 22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 01 - amazing pic. Well done. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 only - Lovely shot. I've uploaded the edit that it was crying out for, removing the bloke wandering off to the left. I think this improves the composition immeasurably without diminishing the enc provided by the other person as a scale reference. I also took the liberty of moving the edit to the Commons - Newton2, if you're happy to licence your contributions under CC licences as you have here, then your work can benefit all Wikimedia projects if you put it on Commons instead of uploading direct to Wikipedia. --YFB ¿ 18:49, 14 April 007 (UTC)

• No I don't mind the image being uploaded to commons with CC licence. --Newton2 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• support edit2 / strong oppose versions with gutter 'shopped out. Debivort 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original, although if the consensus goes against me, then I'll support Edit 2. My problem with Edit 2 is that the woman isn't actually a good comparison for scale, as she's standing on the other side of the hill, down the slope a foot or two, so she's taller than she appears in the picture. You can actually see the guy's legs. Admittedly, this is a pretty minor quibble, but I also kinda like the "exit stage right" composition with the guy walking off. My first reaction when seeing this picture was "Oh, that can't be real"; but it is, so it's fantastic! Enuja 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it's pretty easy to visually interpolate the height of the woman without needing to see her feet. The difference to the proportion that results from the lower 8 inches or so of her being obscured is negligible when the comparison is this stark. Nonetheless you're perfectly entitled to hold a different opinion. Thanks for noting that you'd support an alternative consensus, that's a helpful attitude to take and makes closure decisions easier. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 2 only (for reasons stated above) although I'd support the original if it came to it, but oppose all other edits for enc reasons (also stated above) mikaul^talk 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2, Super strong oppose Edits 1,3, and 4. See above. --Dschwen 08:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I want a tower like that. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose all The subject has a sense of scale built in, the windows and doors. The people serve no purpose and deminish the ENC composition. If I wanted to sell this picture I might leave them in for atristic value but they dont belong in the artical. also, there seems to be some tilt that isn't from perspective distortion. Edit out all the people for some support. -Fcb981 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're opposing because there are people in the shot? Apart from pure aesthetics there is clearly a need for some scale reference; doors and windows come in a huge range of sizes and the building's imposing presence is clearly illustrated by the figure in the frame. I don't think the image as it is needs any more support than it already has. mikaul^talk 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• you know what else come in a wide range of sizes... People. To a much greater extent than doors and windows. The people are not needed as a sense of scale. end of story. Also, if the image has enough support as is, why do you care how I vote? -Fcb981 02:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You can vote how you like, but I don't think the incentive of your support is enough to edit out all of the people in the shot, that's all. No need to get personal. Thanks entirely to the figure(s) in the frame, I can tell that the windows in this shot vary between one and twelve feet in height. You must know some really weird people ;o) mikaul^talk 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 3 Perhaps, however, can someone make a version without the man or the light but with the flag/guttering?--HereToHelp 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

- this is getting silly... mikaul^talk 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• • It shouldn't have to be silly, its not one of the best pictures, why spend so much 'sillyness' fixing it. -Fcb981 02:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have added yet another edit (sorry) so that people can see what it is like without the people in it. I myself am not sure about the people, having the woman does give some perspective but then without any of them there is less distraction. I also edited off the dead grass on the right, below the tower. Chris_huh^talk 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already mentioned that I do have another capture without the people in. However, the general consensus seems to be that the people are not detriment to the overall composition. --Newton2 17:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 2 or 3. Entheta 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 everything in the photo is great, clouds looks ace the building itself is nice as is the sade cast upon it --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original The original is already good enough in my opinion. Furthermore, I've said numerous times before that I think some people are too fast with editing minor things out, but of course everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and should make edits if he/she likes to. I still disagree though. -Wutschwlllm 21:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Edit 4; neutral to all others Who needs red lights, tourists, or dead grass in this stunning picture? Great quality. Removing everything else focuses your attention on the building itself. Edit 4 definitely should be promoted. However, I would be happy if any of them were promoted. -Powerfulmind ^please_talk^to_me! ^look_at^all_of^my_edits! 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 25% comment, 75% signature, tsts. --Dschwen 09:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support edits 2 and 3 and support others. The people need to be in there for scale; looking at edit four the Tower doesn't seem so grand. However, I particularly like that edit four removed the dead grass in the corner. Amphy 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think having the woman in helps with scale, but the half cut-off, walking out-of-frame guy could be cut off (or cloned out). The bit of white guttering and the red light are not really a problem (although i see nothing wrong with taking out the red light) but the most distracting thing is the dead grass, so removing the dead grass and the man would be best, i think. Chris_huh^talk 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I like the "half cut-off, walking out-of-frame guy". I like the "dead grass" too. All that gives the picture much more "depth". -Wutschwlllm 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: we desperately need to get a policy on digital manipulation. I find this whole nomination with three manipulated edits rather troublesome. And it worries me even more that people are just discussing what else to remove or retouch instead of realizing that this project is about creating an encyclopedia and not a tourist brochure or pretty fantasy world scrap book! --Dschwen 11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more. -Wutschwlllm 21:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Loooong discussion on the subject at FPC talk. Hyper-cloning is certialy worth a mention there. mikaul^talk 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2, Strong Oppose other edits. The light, guttering, and dead grass are part of the subject. Punctured Bicycle 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Broadway tower edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A young female Blackbird (Turdus merula)

A young fluffed up female Blackbird (Turdus merula) in a residential area hedge in north-west Germany.

Edit 1: Contrast boost, background blur

Edit 2: Less insane contrast boost, background blur (more work to finetune the mask)

Edit 3: edit 2 with yellow grass cloned out.

Reason

High resolution shot, made with a Maksutov 300mm telescope. Shows the female Blackbird appearence in contrast to the male specimen appearing in the taxobox.

Articles this image appears in

Blackbird

Creator

User:Dschwen

• Support Edit 2 as nominator — Dschwen 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Lack of contrast. Try the Photoshop command Image/Adjust/Autolevels for a major improvement in contrast - Adrian Pingstone 12:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The OOF items in the foreground are mighty distracting. --Bridgecross 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, what can you expect from a 150 EUR russian mirror telescope? Circular bokeh! :-) Anyway, I tried to adress both points with an edit. --Dschwen 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Tech question: Are you using the telescope as a prime lens, or in front of a prime? --Janke | Talk 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Prime lens on a 5D. I have an adapter from T2 to EOS mount. --Dschwen 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Wow 5D! Your own? --Fir0002 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I've been contemplating that investment for quite some time, and I made it a combined ph.D. and wedding present to myself :-) --Dschwen 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Contrats on that mate. Getting the Camera that is ; ) -Fcb981 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the fuzzy object in front of the bird. — The Storm Surfer 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3 A little better. ^8thstar 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh, so I fix one thing and people come up with another reason? Come on, it's not like that straw is in front of the birds head. What is it obscuring? --Dschwen 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. To my eyes the photo looks a hundred times better at full size than in thumbnail. The straw in the foreground is basically transparent. Otherwise it looks great, with lovely detail. Pstuart84 Talk 09:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support (edit 2, edit 3 is also OK with me) per above. A natural habitat is bound to have some obscuring stuff... --Janke | Talk 09:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd support this - it's a very natural shot, well resolved etc - but you've overcooked the contrast on your revision and blown some subtle detail. It just needed a *small* adjustment to counteract the lack of contrast in your cheapo lens ;) mikaul^talk 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are completely right. Edit1 was over the top. I redid it with moderation and additionally put a lot more work into finetuning the mask separating the foreground from the blurred bg. --Dschwen 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• proposal I would support this with the yellow obstructing blade of grass cloned out. But I would only bother to spend the time to clone it out if people wouldn't vote against it because of that cloning. Anyone think that modification is a particularly good or bad idea?Debivort 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I love the picture but that yellow straw kills me. Leave the rest of the blurred foreground, though. Enuja 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, doctoring the picture like that seems a little dirty to me. The Storm Surfer 23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 2, for reasons stated above. I will also would probably support a decently cloned version, if it came to it, edit 3 but I really don't have a problem with the OOF grasses; they seem perfectly appropriate to the subject to me. mikaul^talk 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit2 or Edit3 - It was harder to do than I expected, but here is a version in which the most annoying grass blade has been cloned out. Debivort 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support edit 3 I do like this image with the alterations as noted --Newton2 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3. I'm a huge fan. The bird looks like she is staring at you, the feathers are fantastically clear, and the remaining blurry stems and background give context. Enuja 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, I just now looked at the page. You are absolutely and completely sure that this is Turdus merula, right? Enuja 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• A request for an opinion was placed at WP:BIRD. I have to say it looks like a young Blackbird to me. Sexual dimorphism in plumage is fairly common in birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• The ID has been confirmed in triplicate, btw. Debivort 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support original, edit2, edit3. Foreground grass is fine, adds to sense of depth, obscures nothing --AGoon 13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment caption should be Turdus merula not Turdus Merula. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, changed. --Dschwen 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support all but edit1. Very nice one I think ! Blieusong 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3 --Arad 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Great quality and clarity. What else can I say? -Powerfulmind ^please_talk^to_me! ^look_at^all_of^my_edits! 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 3. Love the shot, the only thing is the bird looks like it has one leg because it has one tucked up into its feathers... Calliopejen1 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose – uninteresting composition, blurry grass gets in the way. Could use a closer crop. --jacobolus (t) 05:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 The pic looks much better with the blurry grass blade removed. Encyclopedic and unique. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it unique? — The Storm Surfer 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I previously believed that all blackbirds were black...but this pic proves otherwise. Most pics are of the male blackbird, which are indeed black. There aren't that many pics of female blackbirds, which are not black. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If this were the only blackbird that isn't black, then the photo might be unique, but in fact many (I'd even say most, since juvenile males are also apparently not black) blackbirds are not black. — The Storm Surfer 00:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 Per all above.--HereToHelp 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Distracting objects in front of the subject. ShadowHalo 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 The focus is centered on the wing of the bird, rather than the head (which I personally like better). However, this isn't a good enough reason to oppose, because it's not as if the head was fuzzy or anything major... · AndonicO ^Talk 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Compared to the numerous other shots of animals we have this is too busy. The blurred grass in the foreground in not pleasing to the eye and distracting. Centy 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Amsel_Weibchen_aufgeplustert_edit2_clone.jpg --YFB ¿ 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Goats

A pair of week old kids

Edit 1: cropped, color enhanced

Imperfections: Goats are askew, ...

Imperfections: ...and so is the horizon!

Floppy ears and knobby knees

Beautiful image of two baby goats about a week old. Despite their very different appearance but were born of the same pure white mother, and AFAIK, the same pure white father.

Appears in Domestic goat

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose lighting is very cold, right animal has poor contrast with background, white of the right animal's coat is a bit harsh (due to the lighting, more than a poor exposure) foreground grass a bit distracting. -Fcb981 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I also don't like the way the white goat blends in with the grass. I'm thinking that a bright green grass background would be great to get both goats, but, this being fall in the southern hemisphere, I guess the goats will be older and not as cute by the time you could get a bright contrast. Maybe they live in a red barn that could be used as a contrasting background? I love they way they are both posed, looking at the camera, but the background just kills it. Also, to be encyclopedic, this should illustrate an article about coat genetics. Enuja 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I wholeheartedly wish it was a green background too - it hasn't rained well in months! No red barns, this is Australian not Kansas! However I take issue with saying it has to appear in an article on coat genetics to be enc, it's an interesting side fact but by no means detracts from the illustration of a kid --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support It's not bad, and it's encyclopedic, but I think the goat on the top of the article page is of higher quality.-DMCer 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but needs to be cropped on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree, the composition is great the way it is. The goats heads capture the attention, and they are balanced within the frame. --Dschwen 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The bulk of the bodies is what needs to be balanced, also there is a stretch of darker grass on the right border. In any case, I added an edit that's both cropped and increases the contrast between white goat and the background. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Oppose Edit. For the compositon the elements that attract attention are important. Weak support original because of bg contrast problems. --Dschwen 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: another thing is bugging me about the edit. I find it rather presumptuous to state colors enhanced in the caption. Who is to say that it really is an enhancement? If anybody than it should be an eyewitness, i.e. Fir. --Dschwen 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Color enhancement is the summary term for increasing saturation, contrast, luminosity, etc., in order to create a better separation of objects from the background. This has nothing to do with the fidelity to the original, this common imaging lingo. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support- encyclopedic and good --Penubag 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)penubag
• Weak support - Lovely picture. It is a shame the background is not different to make a better contrast with the white goat. Alvesgaspar 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Surely tilted (or do goats stand like that?) - Adrian Pingstone 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • They seem to be on sloped ground. There is something like a fence in the background, and the lines between the boards seem to be vertical, although it's hard to make out since it's quite blurry. But it's noticeable that their heads tilt the other way. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the pic is probably not tilted. Nevertheless the apparent tilt spoils it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Picture was taken on a hill. --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The tilt barely distracts me from the subject, which is photographed wonderfully. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Background distracts. --Janke | Talk 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It was a fine shot without the crop, just a bit over-exposed. Some selective tonal correction - or shooting with a polarizer, perhaps - would help the white kid stand out from the bg, but equally a -0.5 gamma shift would do the job. I'd support a darker version & will reserve my vote pending that. I'm not sure the 'slant' is a real, FP-obstructing problem, FWIW. mikaul^talk 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original -- I nominated it a bit late though. :-D --Arad 14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, poor background. -- Avenue 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original only. Edit washes out the blacks a bit. I don't have a problem with the background. Good quality image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original. Until the day comes when Fir can get a dozen healthy goats (two of each sex aged exactly 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 fortnight, 1 month, and 1 year), lined up with equal distance between each other, standing a freshly mowed field of green grass, all facing the camera and smiling... this picture will do just fine. Chicago god 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That of course being two-dozen goats, ;) Pstuart84 Talk 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The goats are great, but the background almost eats them up. bobanny 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned over at the commons, why would the animals have a contrasting coloration to their background? It is in their best interests to blend in with their surroundings! Particularly at this early stage when they are very vulnerable, as their mothers often leave them by themselves for a period of time and graze. --Fir0002 07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point generally, but it's not a strong enough consideration in this case for me. What I see here is a portrait of the animals themselves, not camouflage. They're engaging with the photographer and us by extension, standing in what could be a studio pose contrived to illustrate what two wobbly kids with different markings look like. (Your praying mantis was probably trying to blend in with his surroundings when he was nabbed, but nonetheless turns out to be quite photogenic in the studio). If this was illustrating camouflage, that characteristic should make a more immediate impact on the viewer (like the "Lace Monitor" FPC above and some other FPs I've seen). The interesting juxtaposition here is between the 2 animals, not the animals and their environment, and that's what the background takes away from. I also think the one on the right's coat is too whited-out, making the photo look a little flat. bobanny 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that they are not in a studio pose - they are not at all familiar with humans at that age and won't allow people to get near them. Hence the use of the 200mm lens. As to the white of the baby - that's what it looks like! It's a fluffy bundle of pure white! --Fir0002 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that it was a studio pose, just that if a photographer were to (somehow) get them to pose, this would be a good one (especially with the up and down ears). bobanny 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, if Featured Pictures won't take them, I'm sure that Cute Overload will. :) --TotoBaggins 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose – background and white goat have too little contrast. It's a good photo, but not FP-worthy --jacobolus (t) 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Tomer T 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the colour variation is supposed to be the theme of this image, "as far as I know" is not very good information as to the identity of the father. Goats are not at all monogamous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK it was a pure white father as we only have white billies. Aside from that I can't see any validity in your vote as the image is not meant to illustrate colour variation - it's not even in an article on that! --Fir0002 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No reason to be so defensive, but okay, if it's not about colour variation, why does it have two differently coloured kids in it? This is an encyclopaedia, I wouldn't want children thinking goats pop out in uneven pairs because that's what you chose to take a picture of. This is not your private photography contest, Fir. If you want credit for taking beautiful pics, for heaven's sake take it to Commons! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find comments like that immensely irritating and not very productive. It seems because I have a number of FP's people think they can use the "it's not your private photo show etc etc etc" to oppose an image. Where exactly is it stipulated that "Thou shalt not address comments on thy photos"? You accuse me of being defensive, but seems to me you're clutch on straws to hang on to your oppose vote. Why shouldn't they be different colored? Do you think all goats are white? Because it's an encyclopaedia is all the more reason to have variation, giving a better representation of the species. Please confine yourself to judging a photo based on the guidelines here!! --Fir0002 06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let him who cast the first stone - oh, no, the original is different... Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm sorry... not really sure what you mean by that! --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, we also don't want children thinking that all goats are the same color. And I think it is perfectly appropriate for the photographer to try to address the opposers' concerns. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if he manages to do so without being dismissive. It's just about possible that I made the comments for a reason, but if you don't want to know, fine! Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are unwilling to provide appropriate reasons to oppose this image then I suggest you reconsider or strike out your vote... --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's tilted anyway, so what's the point in arguing? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't possibly determine tilt without any valid reference points. The background cannot be used because it appears to be tilted through perspective and/or the slight incline of a hill. In any case, such an image does not rely on such precise horizontal accuracy. I suppose the point of arguing was to produce a valid reason for opposing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The dark lines of the fence are quite clearly visible, and they're vertical. The rest is hogwash. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And we all know that gravity is measured in fence units. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While I still wouldn't put too much faith on the fence posts as absolute vertical since from my experience they can start to lean over time, they're clearly the most reliable source in this image. There is no horizon, perspective can greatly affect what would otherwise horizontal lines, and animals don't always stand straight, particularly on a hill. I would say the fence posts and the fact that both animals have their heads vertical in the photo suggests it is near enough untilted. This is not a defense of Fir0002's ego, this is just my opinion on the matter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Diliff, even if animals on a hill won't always stand straight, then in this case they are certainly leaning the wrong way. Please guys, let the laws of physics and common sense prevail here! Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that they are leaning the correct way. From the perspective, it appears that the hill gets higher towards the right side of the frame and the goats are leaning towards that hill. This is normal. Would you expect them to lean away from the hill? I agree, let common sense prevail. Its just that I think common sense is on my side in this example. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not normal. It requires that both goats have two short legs on the hill side. How likely is that? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...you can't lean away from a hill. Well, you can for a second, but then you roll down it. The goats probably have their knees bent a little on the higher side. That's how I would stand on a hill. 67.86.86.217 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support If Terrence Malick made movies about goats, they'd probably look like this. --Bagginz 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support The white goat's back is a bit overexposed, and it's tail is slightly blurry, but a lovely image overall. On my desktop already. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fcb981 above. The constrast between the white goat and the background is a problem. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• neutral - cold lighting, low background contrast. Debivort 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg --The Sunshine Man 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Qing Ming Shang He Tu (Along the River During Qingming Festival)

Along the River During Qingming Festival; this panorama painting is an 18th century Qing Dynasty reproduction of the famous original by Chinese artist Zhang Zeduan (1085–1145 AD) of the Song Dynasty. This elaborately detailed handscroll painting, supposedly depicting the old medieval city of Kaifeng, is among China's greatest visual masterpieces.

Original

Edit 1

Reason

See also original nomination, which has already dropped below the "attention horizon" before we figured out how to retrieve the higher quality version. The version by antilived is the original, mine the brushed-up version, to see the difference between the two you can check the version comparison on the right.

Articles this image appears in

Along the River During Qingming Festival

Creator

Zhang Zeduan

• Support as nominator — trialsanderrors 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Unless someone finds a stitching error or compression artifacts. Good job on the new nomination. ;-) --Arad 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Nice improvement. If any picture on this page deserves FA staus, this one definately does!-DMCer 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, well done. gren グレン 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Great improvements; the original is a B&W thumbnail by comparison. One problem: how is this going to fit on the Main Page?--HereToHelp 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Check Along the River During Qingming Festival . (Also see both versions on the talk page.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay. I should add that I opposed the original below for reasons cited there; I support only the edit.--HereToHelp 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Although it would be great if we can smooth out the luminance variation. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if that's not in the original. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Either version. Congrats on finding this, Ishaana 13:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Both with a little preference for Edit1. Blieusong 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose edit and Support original. The edit just ups the contrast for no reason. The image is centuries old, we should expect some fading, and who says the contrast was even that great when it was first created? All I can say is this edit added extraneous 'pop' that isn't necessarily, and probably not representitive. Furthermore, the edit was sloppy. It lost some subtle color information by 'blowing' the blacks (blown shadows). -Andrew c 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are, from my estimate, about 20 different versions of this image online. You can see some in the Along the River During Qingming Festival article and some doing a Google image search. Very few have the low contrast of the National Palace Museum, so unless anyone actually saw the original at the museum we have no information about the actual contrast level, but likely it is higher than the NPM version. On "blowing out the blacks", can you actually point to an area of digital black? ~ trialsanderrors 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Any Been a long time since a picture on this page has made me go 'Wow!' Centy 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support either. Is there a translation of the text all the way on the right? howcheng {chat} 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Normandy Supply

Landing supplies at Normandy shortly after D-Day, 1944. Thus began the push which was to mark the turn of the Second World War for the Allies.

Edit 1: a rough rotate and crop for comparison

Edit 2: dust and scratches removed, slight tonal tweak, tiny crop for residual print border

Reason

Iconic, Irreplicable, Represents one of the biggest military actions in history, large image size.

Articles this image appears in

World War II, 1944, Battle of Normandy, Barrage balloon, Chronology of World War II

Creator

US Navy

• Support as nominator — Witty lama 07:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, the technical problems are obvious, but I really like this... later at the beach landing when they are unloading equipment (and the barrage balloons are pretty cool). I think it could use a nicer summary. gren グレン 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Support original and edit 2 Very historic, capturing the moment in an truly irriplacible irreplaceable way. Thegreenj 02:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I really ought to check my spelling more carefully! Thegreenj 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per above.--Uberlemur 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support both (With preference for the edit) - I wish that the picture was more clean and clear and it also has a bad tilt. But it's obviously huge (the army)! Amazing shot. --Arad 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support- Does a rather good job at showing the scale of the operation. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - is there some guideline advising against retouching of historical images which I might be unaware of? This one, like a number of others I've seen, has an inordinate amount of dust and scratches which I'd be happy to clean up.. I've heard arguments in the past warning against the potential for lost 'siginifcant detail' if the retouch was less than respectful, that's all. For example, there might be a temptation to correct the skewed horizon, but the crop would lose detail at the margins. Just wondered; offer stands. mikaul^talk 12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• You can always give it a try. Why not. Make your edit, and we vote on it. --Arad 15:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • I've added a rough rotate and crop for comparison. If people prefer it someone might make a better attempt! Pstuart84 Talk 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'm personally against the editing of historical photos (beyond cleaning up the image) - and this includes rotation and colour adjustment. There are arguments that this could lose elements, or that it changes the copyright status, but I say that it simply doesn't feel as "true" a picture anymore. It becomes reconstruction rather than just restoration. Witty lama 06:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree. This crop loses quite a bit of detail around the edges and on an image with so mcuh detail, we simply have to live with some idiosyncrasies. I've downloaded it to retouch, which I hope to get done today sometime. mikaul^talk 06:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Here it is (Edit 2) I've been super-sensitive to what *might* be original detail and have left most stuff which (I believe) was on the original print, like chemical burns etc. mikaul^talk 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2, reasons above. mikaul^talk 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, your edit (Edit 2) looks pretty damn good! I Support no.2 as nominator. Witty lama 14:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great picture, very encyclopedic. The second edit is one fine job!201.253.94.206 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:NormandySupply_edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

US Capitol Full View

The entire front of the United States Capitol Building in Washington DC.

File:Capitol Building Full View err.jpg

Showing stitching error.

Edit 1

Edit 2 by Fir0002

Edit 3 trying to address overexposition issue here

Reason

High resolution stitch, shows the entire front of the building.

Articles this image appears in

United States Capitol

Creator

User:Noclip

• Support as nominator — Noclip 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sky is screwed up by the stitch. --Dschwen 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original 1, Oppose reshoot and Edit2. The sky is still a bit uneven (rivet counting), but otherwise its a great pic. --Dschwen 14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is a very nice image, and is very encyclopedic. Much better than the other Capitol image nominee. 76.189.28.183 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice... except for the sky part. ^8thstar 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice, though I would like to see the sky fixed a bit if possible. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support I'm supprised that nobody mentioned it, considering that its been brought up too often, but the front surfaces of the capital are pretty blown. lighting is good elsewhere . otherwise good. -Fcb981 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The Statue of Freedom has a very slight tilt if you look carefully and the dome does look slightly blown. However, none of these slight technical problems are distracting and are hardly noticeable. Oh...and very good stitching job. Very encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1, 2 and 3 They frankly all look about the same to me. The original has an extra tree blocking the view, so I prefer the edit versions. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the sky is fixed. Also, it needs more meta info: when were the shots taken, with what kind of camera, etc.--ragesoss 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now). Per above about the sky, mostly. --Tewy 05:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original only. There are still some stitching errors, but they're very minor in the scope of the image. Great shot. --Tewy 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Edits based off of edit 1 are too bright, and the people in the foreground are more distracting than in the original. --Tewy 01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I love this photo - the detail is so crisp that you can see inside the windows. But the sky has broad vertical stripes. How should this balance out? Pstuart84 Talk 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This really looks like a Diliff picture at first glance (and I find them outstanding), but there are too many stitching errors which should prevent it from being featured. I have spotted some and show them here Image:Capitol_Building_Full_View_err.jpg. Blieusong 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'll have a go at re-stitching this if you want, no-clip. Just send me an email and we can arrange something. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per above comments about the sky and the fact that this may seem a bit biased to our friends in the UK.  ~Steptrip 02:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me?! So it is ok to feature The houses of parliament and Tower bridge, but the capitol is suddenly bias? --Dschwen 08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Eh? I'm British... why would I have a problem with the Capitol being featured? I'm not going to claim US bias, firstly because there are plenty of British pictures featured, and secondly - who gets angry over whether a picture involving their country is featured or not? That ludicrous... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm British too, and I don't have a problem with it, so i support--Hadz^Talk 13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry: I'm new around this project, so I don't know which pictures have been featured. I've struck it out.  ~Steptrip 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Am I the only one who noticed that it's tilted? -- Sturgeonman 20:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Statue of Freedom has a very slight tilt, but barely noticeable. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The image has been re-stitched to address the sky and errors have been greatly minimized. The changes are reflected in the original image above as the edit is an objective improvement. Noclip 19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: You may need to purge the cache. --Tewy 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Problems with stitching now gone (to my eyes anyway). Sky is slightly noisy and easily fixable but I don't think its worth uploading an edit over. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, I keep opposing this to be featured. Most of the stitching errors remain and there are even some new ones. I think the main reason for supporting this picture is its top notch quality (shaaaaarp) and therefore I think we can't let the stitch errors spoils it all. You should use horizontal control points especially to the left and right borders of the picture where horizontal lines lose their property. Also, I believe this should be easy to stitch since you are far away from the subject and parallax errors should me minimal. As Diliff proposed before, I can try to help if you want to, in which case you could email me (but I think emailing him would be better choice, he has proven his skills). Blieusong 22:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's better but there are some new stitching errors in the edit. I still oppose until someone does an adequate stitch.--ragesoss 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Now hold on, the biggest stitching error in this image is 2.8 pixels and there's opposition all over the place. This image by Diliff on the other hand slid right by with nary a mention of the much larger stitching errors (at the very top in the center, looks to be ~10 pixels). What's with the double standards? Noclip 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer I am newbie here. I also noticed some errors on some pictures from Diliff (the manhattan panorama Image:Lower_Manhattan_from_Staten_Island_Ferry_Corrected_Jan_2006.jpg which is featured has tons of them). Had I been around here by that time, I would have opposed. Some people are more forgiving about this, I am not, especially given that the main reason for supporting Diliff's pic are their top notch technical quality. I really like your picture and, again, I'm sure the errors can be corrected without too too much efforts (and also again still offer to stitch it). Blieusong 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original or edit 1 and no others - I know Noclip isn't a newbie, but opposing on the basis of stitching errors of a pixel or two on an image like this is frankly biting. I'd say exactly the same in the case of Diliff's Staten Island Ferry shot - is anyone here seriously suggesting that either of these images aren't among the best we have at Wikipedia? Because of a stitching error of a few pixels out of thousands (and in Diliff's case, in a photo taken from a moving platform on water - moving water being one of the most difficult things to stitch properly)? I have no problem with opposing for glaring errors which hurt the enc, but people who are spending time actively searching out 1-2px errors are wasting their own and everybody else's time. We will end up losing valuable contributors with this sort of nitpicking. --YFB ¿ 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't take more than a few seconds for a trained eye to notice errors like this. Here we have one in the middle of the picture. Hard to miss. This picture could have been made from a single shot, instead, author chose to take several pictures to stitch them and (I guess) scale the result down so it has tons of details and looks sharper per pixel. It is therefore meant to be pixel peeped, and that's why stitching errors, even a few pixels wide or something are to me unforgivable. Blieusong 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think you're right in saying that stitched images are automatically meant to be pixel peeped by-design. The idea of a stitched image is primarily to provide a higher resolution and more detailed image than could be captured in a single frame. Standards are already set by the community and if an image exceeds that standard, I don't think that means that they should be automatically scrutinised to an even higher standard. Stitched images will always have the tendency to exhibit slight stitching errors, although we do our best to minimise them and for the most part they do not misrepresent the scene. Single frame images will always have the tendency to be softer or lower resolution. It is a trade off. Would you reject images on the basis of lesser detail (but above the minimum standards)? Some stitching errors are so minor that they would be completely obscured by a significant downsampling to the equivalent resolution of that single frame. As for the Lower Manhattan image, I can only see two obvious stitching errors - one on the waterline in the middle and one two-thirds of the way across on a building roofline. I don't really see tons of them, but I'd be interested if you could point out others. Some of them along the water appear to be stitching errors but I'm fairly sure they are just deviations of the geography. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I believe one cannot spend time to make such a detailed pic and not expect it to be looked at pixel size. if you want detail, you expect them to be looked at real size, so you shouldn't present the viewer stich errors. I agree that minor stitch errors go away with downscaling, but here (before edit1) they were still there after. I also agree that some errors are in some place they are likely not to be seen easily so they are more acceptable. I wouldn't reject image which have less details but I reject image which want to produce more details and are spoiled especially if I know it can be corrected. Of course, my opinion is only one amongst (?) many other, so if others like it, they just can say it. About the manhattan image, I spotted most of the errors here. (I think this should be asked for deletion once you see it !). Blieusong 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I updated my vote. I don't see any benefit in either of the images except the introduction of artifacts. Saturation was fine in the first two version and Edit 3 is definitely a step for the worse. Blieusong, you're entitled to your opinion but I think you're wrong about some of the stitching errors you've identified in Diliff's image. --YFB ¿ 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose – Boring angle. Much more interesting pictures could be taken of such a complex piece of architecture. This is just straight on, on a day with a (boring) clear sky. --jacobolus (t) 04:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I hate to muddy the waters of this nomination even further but I wasn't too happy with the sharpness at full size so I went out and re-shot this from a closer position. Edit 1 is the result and I believe it does the "Diliff process" much more justice. Noclip 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to say, but I'm afraid the lighting is better in the original. --Tewy 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Edit 2 only High quality pic --Fir0002 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Agree with tewy, the reshot and especially Fir's edit look glaringly overexposed. --Dschwen 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming that building is actually supposed to be white right? I mean making it a dull underexposed gray just so there are no white pixels is not very helpful, for enc or aesthetics. As you can see it's not over exposed because there is only a couple of 255,255,255 pixels. I find people ridiculously adverse to having any pixels white, white is part of a good image's spectrum! --Fir0002 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure, and in fact exposure metering in cameras always allows for a certain percentage of blown pixels (otherwise the highlights would force an underexposure of most pictures). But the issue is not whether white is allowed, but if that certain exposure shows as much detail as the first shot, which showed the same white building just with more detail, so there should be no dispute about enc. --Dschwen 06:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, there still are... OK this isn't funny :) a really great stitching job here, I wish a "blieusong" process gives something similar... so I weak support Edit1 and Edit2 (weak because of overexposition, which is something which can be easy fixed anyways). Blieusong 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3 I tried to address overexposition issue on that edit. Blieusong 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Overexposure can not be fixed easily. The bright areas lack contrast. Just darkening the whole image does not help. Plus the edit accentuates the noise in the sky. --Dschwen 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. I've just uploaded a second version of my edit (replacing the old one). It took me much more than expected to achieve it (I haven't simply darkened the whole picture). Now we can see slightly more details on the bright areas. Noise in the sky isn't that big an issue here (and maybe one over here has some software which can get rid of it). Overall, I believe it's the closest to the original, without the errors. Blieusong 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Edits 2 and 3 go too far, I can understand darkening the image but there is no reason to jack up the saturation in the harsh manner of these edits. Aside from the unnatural sky and grass, the saturation boost accentuates noise and produces weird green and orange discoloration on the building itself. Noclip 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edits 1, 2, and 3: These fixed everything.  ~Steptrip 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The caption isn't quite correct. This appears to be the west side of the building which technically is the back, not the front. Note that the statue is facing away from the camera. Also, out of curiosity, why is there a flag on the north (Senate side) flagpole but not on the south (House side)? --dm ^(talk) 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I have to oppose all versions. I would care less about niggly stitching errors, even alleged over-exposure (although edits 2 onwards do look like they have too bright a mid-tone) but the plain fact is this view of the building suffers more from being shot at an unfortunate time of day (with the sun full-on) which all but destroys detail and hence has the appearance of being overexposed. Whereas the original submission is ok for people but obscured by trees, the second shot reverses the problem, ie. too many people, neatly deforested. For this kind of subject, half the battle is to capture it at an opportune moment, if it's not to be judged as a high-resolution snapshot, as I am. mikaul^talk 09:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Although this is a very good picture, it would probably be much better if taken at another day time. -Wutschwlllm 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 - Looks good to me, and best version, IMO. -Bluedog423^Talk 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Capitol Building Full View.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Falkland Islands map

The Falkland Islands are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, located 300 miles off the coast of Argentina. They consist of two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, together with about 700 smaller islands. Stanley, on East Falkland, is the capital and largest city. The islands are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, but have been the subject of a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since the British invasion of 1833.

Reason

A good quality svg map that contains a lot of information in a clean, well presented way. Couldn't be done better, IMO.

Articles this image appears in

Falkland Islands / List of Falkland Islands placenames

Creator

Eric Gaba (commons:User:Sting)

• Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 12:52, Saturday, 31 March 2007
• Comment It's a shame that the population data is so old - 1982 puts the data probably before the Falklands War, before the change from wool to fishing and tourism as the primary industries, and before very substantial population changes including a 40% decline in population outside Stanley[6]. Could more recent data be obtained? TSP 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The legend at left should read Elevation and depth, not elevation (note that the reference level is not necessarily the same for both). In the legend at right, should read date instead of data. - Alvesgaspar 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded the map with the corrections requested. Yes, it's a pity that the population data is so old (they're taken from the CIA map), unfortunately I haven't got other ones (if you have a link…). By the way, I'm preparing for the next days a new map more precise based on NASA data, with real UTM projection and maybe also with shaded relief. Sting-fr 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks like a great map. I await the NASA data and perhaps newer population info; I will support a version that incorporates this data over the current one.--HereToHelp 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support If additional/ newer data is added, I'll support the newer version.Enuja 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - For data, cartographers could try this series of links, or email the government directly at registry.fig@horizon.co.fk to obtain the local census. I'd love to do it myself, but something tells me they won't respond to a hotmail address — Jack · talk · 02:13, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

New version

Here is the new map created with digital elevation models, more detailed and with shaded relief. I hope you like it. Sting-fr 05:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. : The census is still of 1982. I will write them in the next days, with the hope they will reply.

• Support new version - High quality map. Alvesgaspar 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Out of date. Pstuart84 Talk 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support but I'd keep it from the front page until newer census data is found. Did you try to contact any Wikiprojects? ~ trialsanderrors 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Tried at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America — Jack · talk · 02:41, Monday, 9 April 2007
• Comment Very nice, but most maps show both British names and Argentinian names, at least for the islands themselves. Perhaps this could be added for the name of the islands (Malvinas) and for any settlements that have other names, I think most maps have one set in italics following or underneath the other. Otherwise there is quite a significant British bias. |→ Spaully°τ 14:10, 9 April 2007 (GMT)

Humm ! Well… I didn't find so many maps with the two names. I don't think putting only the British names gives this map a British bias : this version is in English and displays the names used in that language. For a map with the Spanish names, it sounds logical to me to look for a Spanish translated version. In the same way, for the map in French I used the names in French when they exist, the only concession I made is about the name of the archipelago which is pretty different from the French but also well known in France. But it's also true that the Falklands are a specific case… I'll wait other opinions before doing something on the map. Sting-fr 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that editors who want to create a local version can get in touch with Eric at Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I would support if I knew this was right--even time bounded. If the map properly represents the Falkland islands in 1971 that's fine by me but we just need to label them as such so we don't fool people into thinking it represents the present day if it doesn't. Can anyone give clearer information about this? gren グレン 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I compared them to a couple of other maps, notably this one and this one, and the nominated one seems accurate, or even more detailed. I'm not sure if "administered by" is proper wording though, maybe this should be changed to "Overseas territory of". ~ trialsanderrors 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The map is as accurate as the USGov allow us to do (the topography and the shorelines come from the NASA). It could be a little more precise using a width of about 6,000 pixels (the maximum the software allows) or 3,900 for a ratio 1:1, but this would mean a heavy file weight due to the size and all the small details I've bypassed because almost invisible. All this for finally no more real information.

About « Administered by », I used the expression of the CIA WFB map. Sting-fr 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. : The mail address registry.fig@… doesn't seem to exist anymore, so I wrote to the Gov and still wait the reply. What I propose, if there's no reply, is to delete this kind of information from the map.

I'd support a version with no population data to take away from the geography over outdated population data. New pop data is still preferable if it can be obtained; have you tried googling it?--HereToHelp 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes and the only results concern Stanley and the islands E/W. The other information give sometimes approximations for some settlements, but nothing on official sites. Sting-fr 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - is there any news on the census figures from the FI government? We should use the latest figures available; if they are rather outdated, there is little we can do about it other than make the age of the statistics clear. Will support if no newer data is available. Warofdreams talk 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've received no answer from the FI Gov, so I uploaded a modified version without the demographic data. Sting-fr 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I will support. The map's clarity is excellent, and the main area of concern has now been addressed. Warofdreams talk 13:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Falkland Islands topographic map-en.svg

Older nominations requiring additional input from voters

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.

Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

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

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

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

When promoted, perform the following:

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

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

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

   Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG

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

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

   Don't forget to update the count too.

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

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

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

Nomination for delisting

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. Please leave a note on the original uploader and/or nominator's talk page to let him know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. Please use the tool below to nominate for delisting.

Note: Please use Delist or Keep as your vote.

• If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.

{{*If consensus is to remove status then replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag }}with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|discussion page}} (replace "discussion page" with the name of the discussion page), also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section. Also remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Don't forget to decrement the count at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures too.

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

Archived removal requests

Baltimore Washington Monument

Reason

Featured nearly 2 years ago and more than likely wouldn't pass now. It's not compelling, poor image quality, not particluarly large and odd composition (given that the fountain is not part of the monument).

Nominator

Witty lama

• Delist — Witty lama 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep more on principle than anything else that by that logic pretty much every nomination over x days months or years old should be delisted. Cat-five - talk 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Because nobody has given a satisfactory reason why this should be delisted and thus it should stay. Cat-five - talk 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposing on principle because you disagree with Witty lama's multiple delist nominations is WP:POINT - please consider the image against today's WP:FP? criteria. --YFB ¿ 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did Not list it here because it was featured a long time ago. I listed it here, along with the others, becasue it would not, IMHO, stand up to the FPnomination process as it currently stands. All the FPs that I've listed here have achieved "consensus delist" so far, I'm not "out to get" old FPs. Witty Lama 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your entirely right it is WP:POINT so I'll change my reasoning given. Cat-five - talk 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it still sounds like WP:POINT except you're using a more plausible reason as a front for your previously expressed beliefs. I think Witty lama did provide a perfectly reasonable reason for delisting though. Not that it should be reason alone to delist but the image is also poorly named and is saved with an inappropriate format for a photo. It just compounds the already mentioned issues to me. Nothing about it shouts FP so why should it remain FP? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delist - Strange composition, tilt, lack of detail, noise, poor lighting, easily replaceable with a better image. --YFB ¿ 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. As per comments above. Poor overall quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, I hope this reason will be good enough for Cat-five. It's an object still standing so this image doesn't represent any scarcity. The quality is decent but if you look at current nominations you will see that this is very blurred, showing little detail compared to what better cameras can do. gren グレン 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Deleist per Witty Diliff. --Dschwen 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Image meets all FP criteria and adds considerably to article. As per Yummi's concerns, see discussion from when picture was originally selected. The tilt is right on at 90 degrees the lighting was perfect, and you can't get much more detail of this monument. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the illusion of tilt is caused by the slightly off-centre composition combined with the upward viewing angle; the base of the monument is clearly tilted and I think the column just happens to line up due to the perspective effect of having the camera slightly off-centre. The apparent tilt was only one of the many reasons why this picture is nowhere near the best of Wikipedia's images. The lighting is dull (the original image was underexposed on an apparently dull day), there's severe over-use of post-processing which has brought out 'haloed' edges, there's motion blur on the trees, there's loads of colour noise (exacerbated by the processing) and, seen alongside many of our other architectural FPs (particularly those by Diliff) the assertion that you "can't get much more detail of this monument" is... well, I'll be polite and say "highly dubious". You can't even see the inscription on the base. --YFB ¿ 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted --YFB ¿ 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Starlette

Photographers crowd around a starlet at the Cannes Film Festival.

Reason

Another one that probably wouldn't make it these days IMO - nominated 2 years ago. Low quality pic, the girl's face is blurry, no longer appears at photojournalism (it's "core" article).

Nominator

Witty lama

• Delist — Witty lama 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist the subject is (unfortunately) cut off ; ) -Fcb981 23:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Great composition, still appears in (and contributes to!) three articles. Blurry face is irrelevant, the starlet is nameless and the focus is on the photographers. Puzzles me how this shot could be considered low quality. --Dschwen 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By "low quality" I didn't mean aesthetically, I meant that it is not particularly high res/clear shot - the film quality is low, probably due to the fact that it was taken before digital cameras (assumption based on the other cameras in the shot) and has been scanned and blown-up later. Witty Lama 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The film is Kodachrome 25 the best of the time. It was scanned from transparency. I have a 24 megapixels scan if you want. Ericd 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Striking enough to be featured in my opinion. Technically it looks like most pictures in the 70s looked like, but that's no major problem in my opinion. -Wutschwlllm 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Wutschwlllm. The majority of the model is in focus — Jack · talk · 03:08, Wednesday, 25 April 2007

The majority of the model that is actually visible. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. By the way, the removal of this image from photojournalism was not discussed. It was removed with the following edit summary: "removed "starlet" photo; dubious relevance". --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "dubious relevance"? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this summary? What's so dubious about it? I'm going to add it again. -Wutschwlllm 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "Photojournalism is a particular form of journalism...that creates images in order to tell a news story." I don't see anything in this photo that is remotely involved with "telling a news story." Rdikeman 02:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Whether you like it or not, whether you deem it newsworthy or not, this stuff is what fills thousands of print pages in periodicals every day. It is not our job to cast judgement on this sad fact. --Dschwen 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I uploaded this shot to illustrate Cannes film festival not photojournalism and I think most (but not all) of the photographers here are amateurs. Ericd 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
          • BTW (sadly ?) there's is no more starlets posing at the Festival. Ericd 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this shot is pretty unique.... If it were a still object instead of a scene I would want to delist it, but it's a scene and I'm not sure how you'd duplicate it. gren グレン 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. The image suffers from fuzziness and the composition suffers too as the woman at the bottom is cut off. It doesn't have enough historical significance to ignore its technical faults. Besides, it is reproduceable (though not with the same unnamed starlette). If someone visits a movie premiere, they could easily shoot an equivalent pic to illustrate photojournalism. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Historically significant (dig those strides, dude!) compelling and generally exempt from nit-picking technical gripes. Great composition and opportune capture to boot. Absence of effective time-travel machine makes reproducability rather moot. mikaul^talk 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Reproducable, fuzzy, and bottom is cut off. Doesn't meet standards anymore. Reywas92^Talk 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Just for reference, it was previously nominated for delisting. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Shows the 70s. It's not reproducible as some people think. You can't go back in 70s and take the pic again. I like the dudes in the back and how they are dressed. And I don't think you see a model like this in movie premiers. You might see in festivals but not premiers. My keep is weak, because the quality is not the best of Wikipedia. --Arad 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • Detail at 4800dpi (around 24mpixels for the whole picture)at the edge where resolution is not optimal for a wide angle. Notice she didn't shave her legs. Ericd 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Click to see full detail.

• Strong Keep Like I said in another delist, until you can come up with a better photograph, I suggest keeping. And this is a rather special image, made more so by the fact that it is quite an old image... in fact, I think I saved this to my hard drive some time ago. --Vaelta 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 10:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wolf spider attack position

A wolf spider defending her egg sac.

Reason

Fails resolution "guideline", out of focus or blurry in places (motion?), flash reflection off eyes. Sorry, Fir, but you've had better pics (I still love the focus bracket one). --HereToHelp 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

HereToHelp

• Delist — HereToHelp 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Per nom. ^8thstar 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist very muddy for some reason. -Fcb981 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Technical flaws are trivial, and are trumped by composition and interesting subject matter. --Bagginz 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I hate to say I cant tell if this is a hole in the ground a notch in a vertical clif or the roof of a cave. -Fcb981 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's a hole in the ground because of the position of the egg sac (I don't think mommy is holding it up with a her rear against gravity). And technical flaws are only trivial if the subject is irreplaceable; there are more wolf spiders out there.--HereToHelp 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all of User:Bagginz's contributions consist of voting Keep in delist nominations. --YFB ¿ 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bagginz still has a good point. Not every image is going to be used at high resolution so why delist images solely on that ground? It's still encyclopedic, interesting and composed. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Eeeeeeeeyup, and don't feel you have to whisper it. I suppose as a long time reader of this page, I jump in to vote Keep because I get mildly annoyed with technical nitpicking on worthy and deservedly recognized contributions.

Still, since we're in the mood to check up on what people have been up to, I have a question for HereToHelp. Given that the creator of the photo in question, Fir0002, is easily one the most respected and honored contributors to this forum, don't you think that he deserves the courtesy, and you the obligation, of your mention on his talk page that you've nominated his picture for delisting? --Bagginz 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I seem to remember someone saying something about nitpicking -Fcb981 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• As for the the talk page note (no, I don't dispute the quality of Fir's contributions), I suspected that he would browse the page enough to find this (or does he browse this section as often?). If you like, seeing as he has not commented here, and I can still post a note.--HereToHelp 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delist - Poor image quality (soft, artifacts), low resolution, harsh lighting, plenty of better images. --YFB ¿ 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it's impossible to shut off the sun, so the lighting isn't his fault. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Might want to read up on this then ;-). --Dschwen 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delist, sorry fir but the nom is right. Witty Lama 11:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Albert Harris - Coconut shy B

A traditional coconut shy, established in 1936 by Mrs E. Harris, is still being run by her son today.

True vertical and horizantals are in green. lines that should be such are pink. measures of the deviations apear in pink. Average tilt is about 3.6 degrees. that isn't minor.

Reason

Poor composition. no sence of size of tent and location. Distracting lights, blown red in places. subject blends in with background. Tilted to the right. Not particularly ENC.

Nominator

Fcb981

• Strong Delist — Fcb981 14:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I remember perfectly when it was nominated. The support was so overwhelming I was afraid to oppose. I think it's now the time for it to go. The resolution is not very high also. --23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep high quality, size of the tent is easily inferable based on the person there. tilt is admittedly hard to assess. The rest of the technical problems are minor. Debivort 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• the height maybe but not the portion behind the camera, for all the reader knows the tent is 300 meters in length with the game at the end!! -Fcb981 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hahaha good one :-)Debivort 19:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral but someone should fix the color balance if possible. --jacobolus (t) 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any of the problems. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • its tilted 3.6 degrees. -Fcb981 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • • You might want to not measure plumb lines on flexible surfaces, like open tent corners. A pole that has to ballance a coconut might be more appropriate as a necessarily vertical element in a photo. Debivort 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Those lines are complete bullshit. ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Clearly you didn't actually look at the image and I wonder why you think they are bullshit. I respect that there are trialsanderrors but try to get a few more correct. This is the most un-ENC picture ever to be featured. -Fcb981 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I looked at it long enough to have a good laugh at the lines you drew in. I don't even know what the 4.0° line is supposed to follow. The tent pole? Certainly not, and it also ignores the coconut poles right next it (which need to be vertical since they balance the coconuts). The 3.6° line is perspective distortion: the eyeline, roughly at the level of his hairline, is horizontal as it should be, all lines above it slope upwards just like it happens under normal perspective. The 3.4° might be distortion, but it might also be that the sign is slanted like the one to the left. Those lines show absolutely nothing. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • chuckle per Trialsanderrors. Debivort 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist. This stretches the definition of encyclopedicity - the coconut shies are hardly visible, the signage is totally inappropriate and irrelevant to the game, the tent is cut off on all sides. Incidentally, there is terrible overexposure of most of the light bulbs. Pstuart84 Talk 15:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Light sources are overexposed? How do you properly expose white light without turning it white? ~ trialsanderrors 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As I say, that's incidental to my opposition. There are plenty other reasons to oppose keeping this picture as an FPC. Pstuart84 Talk 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - doesn't really show the game ^8thstar 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. One of the more interesting FP's I've seen.--Bagginz 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all of User:Bagginz's contributions consist of voting Keep in delist nominations. --YFB ¿ 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Film at 11. --Bagginz 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Still falls within the FPC guidelines and is still one of the great FPC's from awhile ago. Cat-five - talk 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keepDelist - It's not an especially good illustration of a coconut shy (not bad to illustrate fairground stalls in general though), but I find Fcb's complaints about tilt and tent size pretty bizarre - there's no proper reference to measure the tilt and it's quite likely the tent isn't even put up straight. If we were going to delist every image where you couldn't see what was behind the camera then we'd be restricted to 360º panoramas. I also agree with trialsanderrors about the lightbulbs - to expose this so that the lightbulbs weren't blown, you'd have to either use HDR to make one of the most unrealistic-looking images ever, or have nice unblown lightbulbs floating in a sea of almost-black. People seem to throw around blown highlights with no understanding of basic photographic principles. --YFB ¿ 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You say "It's not an especially good illustration of a coconut shy...". Is that not a prerequisite of this photo being featured? Pstuart84 Talk 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's why I voted weakly. I think it's mildly worth keeping as an illustration of Funfair, in which it also resides. --YFB ¿ 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed my vote, prompted by further thought along the lines of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Criteria For Delisting. I don't think this would be promoted today and I don't think I'd vote support if it was nominated, therefore I should vote to delist. --YFB ¿ 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Because I don't think there was at the time any serious error of judgement in promoting the picture, which is IMO the only valid reason for delisting. Alvesgaspar 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist - The colours and general composition is quite ugly. There is little encyclopaedic value as the coconuts can hardly been seen. Also why are parts of the tent cut off? It's not up to the standard of some of our Features pictures. Centy 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This a a great, unique, moody picture that technically meets the requirements; it wouldn't pass FPC today, but I don't see a compelling reason to delist it.--ragesoss 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, this is a great scene that I am not fully sure how we could replicate it... but I'm not 100% sure it's the best for the article. gren グレン 04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a wonderful picture, and illustrates fun fair well. (Changed my vote now that I see it isn't just being used to illustrate "coconut shy," which it does an admittedly lousy job at.) Calliopejen1 08:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Ignoring the question of whether the verticals are accurate or not, this isn't a good illustration of a coconut shy. The subject of the photo is clearly the man, and the coconuts themselves are partially obscured and hidden in a sea of distracting "other stuff." -- Moondigger 14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, the red channel is blown in several areas -- I'm not referring to the lightbulbs, either.
• Delist Is it just me or is the white balance severely off? Not used in any articles and after looking at it for a few minutes I still have no idea what the tent is about or what the man is supposed to do. Tilt is not a major problem as the tent may not be straight in the first place, but otherwise it's not of great quality. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• The edit isn't used in any articles, but the original is. Let's be careful here...Debivort 16:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Oppos looking at the wrong version.... --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Not terribly encyclopedic, parts cut off, overexposure, and tilted. Reywas92^Talk 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)I
• Keep Excellent picture ! Light bulbs are blown out is the worse argument I ever heard.... Ericd 19:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This photo has a lot of character. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree about the blown red highlights and the sad fact that the subject blends in so well with his surroundings, but it is still a very interesting photo. I don't see any reason to delist it. And if you've got nothing better to do than work out the "tilt" factor of this image, then... --Vaelta 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO many comments about tilted pictures rely on the false hypothesis that something shoud be vertical in the picture. I noticed it with some picture of an old monastery. There was something that looked "wrong" in the picture but the floor was horizontal. I made a another visit to the monastery. (It's close to my workplace. In fact the wall on the right was both tilted and twisted ! Ericd 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In fact this picture is not that good I tried to hack it a bit to get a cooler color balance. Its better with more blue but then JPEG artifacts jumps to your face ! Ericd 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I see no good reason to delist -- Spebudmak 18:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a great picture, meets the criteria of FPCs and illustrates the subject well. The lines are also meaningless so I oppose those. Cumulus Clouds 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I doubt the lines would be promoted anyway. -Fcb981 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

11.5 Keep, 9 Delist, 1 Neutral, 1 Chuckle, 0 Consensus → Kept --YFB ¿ 18:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

American Eskimo Dog

An American Eskimo Dog

Reason

Blown headlights, high noise, low detail, blur, strange blue dot to the left of the dog's ear, what may be some hot pixels scattered throughout the image, and some sharpening artifacts all detract from this low quality snapshot. Furthermore, if you are interested in reading a discussion on whether the dog's pose is representative, see the previous delist nomination. J Are you green? 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

J Are you green?

• Delist — J Are you green? 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why have you not mentioned on the nominator's and/or uploader's talk page that you've nominated this for delisting? --Bagginz 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I had not believed it necessary. It is now done. J Are you green? 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Not necessary? It's clearly in the guidelines for delisting and it also was discussed at length in the discussion you linked to above. --Bagginz 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist This picture is not nearly good enough quality. -Fcb981 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Bad quality. ^8thstar 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No vote Bad quality? Not. Aesthetics and appeal of the picture easily trump its minor technical flaws. --Bagginz 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • After all this, I've decided to withdraw my vote because after reflecting on it, I feel that I've gotten wrapped up on too many levels in this. Under those conditions, my vote may not be fair to the process. The closer need not come to a decision as to whether my vote should count or not, because I'm not voting. I'd still like to see this remain FP, and I leave my arguments for this picture on the table. --Bagginz 18:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please clarify. I do not see anything "minor" about the technical flaws of this photograph, and aesthetics are relatively poor (see the latest picture of a mammal promoted to FP and compare it to this one). Appeal has little to do with becoming a featured picture and is merely a subjective claim. Of course, if you can back your statement, I would be happy to adress it more thoroughly. J Are you green? 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all of User:Bagginz's contributions consist of voting Keep in delist nominations. --YFB ¿ 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does YFB keep following me around like he's my little brother? --Bagginz 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's a very nice picture of a prairie dog you've linked to. If I were a golden eagle, I'd fly into my computer screen to get to it. But since you asked me to clarify my thoughts about another doggie picture...
  
  The blown highlights are white on a very white dog and doesn't detract from the overall effect. The noise is not "high" and, again, really doesn't detract. The detail is good. That "strange blue dot" is No Big Deal, and is something that can be easily Photoshopped out. That it can be trivially removed is a nice example of why it is and should be incumbent on nominators to leave a message on the uploader's talk page so that they "may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture."
  
  Your assertion that "[a]ppeal has little to do with becoming a featured picture and is merely a subjective claim," runs smack against one of the big ideas of featured pictures in that they can be "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." How can deciding what is eye-catching -- in other words what is appealing -- be anything but a somewhat subjective judgment? Subjective judgments on what's appealing has lots to do what does and doesn't get featured picture status.
  
  But why stop at my subjectivity? The eye-catchiness of this photo can be attested to by (a) its use and re-use on Wikipedia and (b) how it's been shamelessly copied on many outside websites (including those that are not verbatim ripoffs of Wikipedia text). Count them! This photo got its featured picture status, and kept it, fair and square. You may dismiss it as a "bad quality snapshot." I won't. --Bagginz 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have marked your Keep votes because your contributions give the impression that you are a single-purpose account. It is normal practice at FPC to disregard the votes of users who have very few edits, whose only contributions are consistently voting in the same way, or whose votes do not take into account the current FP criteria (see User:NegativeNed). It appears that you are attempting to disrupt the delisting of featured pictures by voting Keep on principle because you disagree that delisting should be permitted. This is WP:POINT. --YFB ¿ 14:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, here's another page: WP:AGF. I can assure you that I'm not trying to disrupt the voting process by, uh, voting. That said, I don't disagree that sometimes a featured picture should lose its FP status. But if I vote Keep, it's because I sincerely believe that that particular picture should keep its status. When challenged, I have explained my vote. If I thought a picture should be delisted, the voting has usually gone so exorbitantly far in that direction that my vote would feel, to me, superfluous. Furthermore, I'm quite cognizant of the FP criteria, but not as an inflexible series of hypertechnical check off boxes used to summarily dismiss otherwise deserving contributions. I try to see the picture through the pixels. --Bagginz 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am fully aware of WP:AGF, thank you. I am drawing the attention of the closer to your contribution history because it lacks any evidence that you are a genuine contributer to Wikipedia, which is considered a requirement for your votes to be counted. Looking back over your history, you made 5 edits in May 2005, 4 of which were supporting the original promotion of this image or arguing with those who opposed it. Then you were entirely absent for exactly 14 months until you popped back up to oppose the first attempt to delist this very same image. You then made successive edits for one week, 25 out of 28 of which were either voting Keep, arguing with those who voted Delist, or complaining that the proper delisting process was not being adhered to. Then you disappeared again for another 9 months until, surprise surprise, the Eskimo dog photo was once again nominated for delisting. Since then you haven't made a single edit besides voting Keep at delisting nominations. WP:AGF requires that good faith is assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Well, I think the above represents sufficient evidence to at least allow the closer to be notified that your voting history is somewhat suspect. --YFB ¿ 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Drat! I've been sooooooooo busted by the Wikipolice! Your detective work must have found the trail of Eskie paw prints from the scene of the crime leading back to my IP address! I plead Guilty With An Explanation to the charge of Contributing To Wikipedia When I Actually Have Something To Contribute. But may it please the court, and before Hir Honor The Closer pronounces a verdict on whether I'm to be Persona Non Votea, can I make a few words in my defense?
  
  Most of my contributions have involved this forum, but not all. This is because areas of fact on which I am not a complete dilettante, namely ozone research, were already written well enough for Wikipedia that there was only a small, but scientifically key edit I thought necessary (Defense Exhibit A). That and another clarification on an amusement park ride (Exhibit B) are the sum total of my edits on things having nothing to do with FP's. Not much, but not zero, so your claim that my history "lacks any evidence that [I am] a genuine contributer to Wikipedia" is demonstrably false. Voluminous? No. Genuine? I think so, but I'm happy to let other people decide for themselves about that.
  
  I read this page on a fairly regular basis, and I'll cheerfully admit that the appearance of the Eskie picture above (Exhibit C) acts a catalyst for me to jump in feet first. (It's usually being challenged on those votes that gets my mouth wide open.) Taking photos of adoptable Eskies on behalf of a dog rescue agency taught me how genuinely difficult it is to get the pose, expression and lighting right for that whiter-than-white breed, even for the modest purposes of Petfinder.com. This photo nailed it on many levels, and appears to have become of the most widely used dog pictures on Wikipedia. I was glad it got FP status, and I still think it deserves it when I compare it to all the other mammal pictures and not just the one that Thegreenj linked to. I've already discussed why I voted the way I did for other pictures.
  
  My complaints about the "proper delisting process" were exclusively about delisting nominators failing to leave messages for uploaders or the original nominators. Leaving a note really is the fair thing to do, and contrary to what Fcb981 hinted at, it's not merely a technical nitpick. This is about as hard a rule as there is for delisting, but it is often ignored. Pointing this out was a valid complaint then, and it's a valid complaint now no matter who does the pointing.
  
  Your background check of me has paid close attention and indeed nicely describes the evidence of where and when I've said stuff, but skips the details of what I've said and the explanations of why I said them. That's ok but have I disabused you of your suggestion that I "disagree that delisting should be permitted?" I'm mildly offended by your implication that I'm here in less than good faith, and by your little Scarlet Letter notes, but I'll eventually stop crying in my martini. In the meantime, I'm happy to throw myself on The Mercy of the Closer and accept hir verdict on whether I'm disenfranchised or not. I stand by what I wrote. Court adjourned?--Bagginz 05:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I find your sarcastic tone, as encountered in several of your previous posts, rather unhelpful. I'm sorry that I didn't draw closer attention to your other edits but there is precedent at FPC for voters with such a limited contribution history (and particularly one which otherwise shows such a strong pattern as yours here) to have their votes disregarded. The accepted method of informing the closer of such concerns is to append a small-text note after each of the user's votes. I should also point out that your "explanations" for your votes at other pictures have all taken the same form, namely that "aesthetics/interest/etc. outweighs minor technical flaws". Unfortunately technical considerations are very important among the FP criteria and have become more so as the overall quality of Wikipedia's images has improved (not to mention the improvements in affordable camera technology over the past couple of years). That is one reason why we have a delisting process. I have not disagreed with your complaint about notifying the original creator/nominator - that is an important part of the delisting process. Nevertheless, despite your lengthy explanation I would be very surprised if whoever closes this nomination allows your votes to affect the outcome. If you wish to become involved in the Featured Pictures process, there are a great many nominations at which you could voice your opinion. You should also try to contribute to other aspects of Wikipedia, however, as few of our articles are perfect. --YFB ¿ 06:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is some I would agree with in what you've written, and some I would dispute, but I'll hold my tongue and ("surprise, surprise") minimize the sarcasm. That said, I truly do appreciate the invitation. Thanks.--Bagginz 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say, that is pretty convincing. : / -Fcb981 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not get in between you and YFB, but I think that you should reconsider yoour position on this particular vote, since that is what you argue for in response to YFB's first inquiry. If you scroll up to the top of this page, you will find a B-52 bomber nomination, which I conservatively estimate to have a 0% chance of passing as a featured picture. That photograph is much higher quality than this one - a better angle, no detail lost from overexposure, no destracting and unnatural background... Perhaps your 9 months away from Wikipedia mean that you need to get reaquainted with the expectations of standards here, but in any case, I think that it would help to realise: 1 - that not every nice picture is a featured picture and 2 - that you need to support subective claims with objective proofs. Featured pictures are exceptional images. Maybe this is not a "low quality snapshot" to you, but there is a difference between that nice snapshot you found and set as your computer's wallpaper and the amazing photographs that become featured pictures. J Are you green? 00:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• You asked me to clarify, so I did. I discussed why I think the Eskie picture should remain FP, and you discussed a picture of an airplane. I congratulate you for your remarkable evolution from a self-described "absolute cluelessness about good photography" a scant two weeks ago to where you're nominating pictures for delisting (which is ok), and condescendingly suggesting my aesthetic and technical judgment doesn't go much beyond cutesy pictures. Dude, you don't know a thing about me. People can have honest disagreements, and I respect that, but picture me unimpressed right now - with blown highlights and a strange blue dot next to my ear.--Bagginz 05:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry. I had no right to be nor did I mean to be rude or condescending. As for my qualifications in photography, I think that my general knowledge of photography plays a very small role in this particular argument. Each of my reasons can be shown to exist no matter how good or bad a photographer I am. J Are you green? 02:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Taking the nominator's reasons one at a time:

1. I don't see any blown highlights.
2. I can see individual hairs and grass leafs, how is that low detail?
3. Blue dot can be removed.

The only thing that can be held against the picture is its blur, but calling it a low quality snap shot is out of order. If it was, it would never have been promoted as recent as it was in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here is how I see it:

1. The blown headlights is the completely white part of the dog that covers all but its underside that contains no detail. That is not to say that the dog is not white in true life, but that part of picture is exposed just so that it eliminates all texture and detail from the dog.
2. The blades of grass go up to 15 pixels wide; I had better be able to see them or else the picture would be completely devoid of detail.
3. True, but the other detracting qualities are still well over enough, in my opinion, to delist the picture. J Are you green? 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I took this. Dismissing it as a snapshot is unfair: it was composed for Wikipedia's benefit, and is the end result of several dozen takes. It has good composition with nice contrasting colors. It shows the dog's personality rather well, which to me is as representative of the breed as any details of stance would be. The technical quality is not perfect, but overall, when I compare it to all the other mammal FPs, I think it holds up okay. Robert Southworth 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I did not in any way mean to dismiss your photograph as a poor contribution to Wikipedia. It serves its purpose well; if I were trying to identify a dog, this picture would be worth a thousand words. I appreciate your effort; this, which I rashly nominated for FP earlier, was the only of 33 consecutive pictures that came out well, but all that is really important is the final output. I am sorry if my previous comments implied that you put little effort into shooting the picture. J Are you green? 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - It's not a bad photo, but it really doesn't strike me as anything special. It seems as though it was shot handheld, as there's motion blur both on the dog and the background - a tripod might have helped. There's also quite a bit of noise which probably couldn't be avoided with the point-and-shoot camera used (possibly with better lighting?), but since there's nothing to stop someone taking a photo of this not-especially-unusual dog with a decent camera that's not really an excuse. I'm also at a loss to figure out how a photo of a sitting dog can tell the viewer anything at all about its personality - that's not a criticism of the pose, although standing would have been more enc, but I think equating "smiling dog" with "illustrative of personality" is stretching dog psychology a bit. Overall there is in my opinion almost no chance at all that this photo would be promoted if nominated today, so we should delist it. It's no longer among the best Wikipedia has to offer. --YFB ¿ 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ya know, after I withdrew my vote (and it's still withdrawn), you'd think I'd have the tact to STFU. (I have no tact.) But part of the reason I withdrew from voting was that I getting worried about being too passionate about this picture, and not being altogether sure why. Since YFB mentions it, I think this picture does have a lot to do with dog personality and psychology -- specifically the dog-owner relationship. There's a subtlety to this photo that is a real grabber for me and perhaps others.
    
    I won't comment on YFB's technical criticisms (not that I agree with them), but I'll note that many of the featured mammal pictures communicate something about that animal's personality. The lynx kitten is curious. The koala is slow. The otters are playful. The sheep like being herded like, uh, sheep. The prairie dog is alert. The squirrel is industrious. The tiger is proud. The American Eskimo Dog is ... loyal.
    
    Let's look at the compositional elements of this picture. What is the location? There's clipped grass and ivy - so it's something domestic and since the dog is not leashed, it's likely a backyard. Look at how the dog's head is positioned. He's looking up and slightly to his side, so he's looking at something instead of just staring off into space. From the angle, it's likely a person: probably his owner because the dog is in a backyard, totally relaxed and in the moment. The dog's not thinking or anticipating anything, otherwise his mouth would be closed. He's just happy and smiling at its master.
    
    Now here's where the picture hits it out of the park: We're close enough to be drawn in as observers to this quiet bonding between a dog and owner. Our attention remains on the dog, but because of the camera position, the dog's expression and the direction of his gaze, we're cued that we're next to somebody making the dog happy. We're pulled in not because the dog is ostentatiously smiling at us, but because we're sharing in a lovely moment! So it's not just about the dog, it's also about the loyalty and affection between dogs and people. The photo is compositionally subtle in execution, powerful in effect, and still perfectly encyclopedic. No wonder this picture has been lifted by so many sites!
    
    You might think I'm reading too much into this, and it might not have the same effect on everybody, but I've taken pleasure from this "snapshot." I imagine many others of the Kodak lumpenproletariat have too. I say this is among the best that Wikipedia has to offer, but deconstructed or not, it looks like this photo is going to be delisted. Bummer. --Bagginz 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist not "best work" of WP. more like a snapshot - even if it was taken especially for WP. Witty Lama 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, not the best, grainy (and not too large), replicable. gren グレン 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm shas 06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per previous delist comments. The amount of work that went into creation of a photo is not one of the FP criteria. -- Moondigger 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

8 delist, 3 keep, 1 non-vote: delisted --YFB ¿ 03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.jpg

No matter how hard you look, you may not be able to convince yourself that the two squares are the identical shade of grey.

PNG version for replacement

SVG version

Reason

Tiny image, that really should be in svg (or at least png), rather than jpg.

Nominator

Jack · talk

• Replace with PNG — Jack · talk · 00:39, Monday, 9 April 2007
• Delist per nom. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• replace with PNG / very strong oppose SVG - how much larger does this really need to be? Debivort 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - SVG version has wonky geometry and the sharp shadow reduces the illusion. Debivort 04:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point — Jack · talk · 02:26, Monday, 9 April 2007
• Replace with PNG, almost delist. It's not necessary for many diagram type images to be SVG or as large as they are for computer monintors. But, it does allow them to be printed as posters or look better from projectors. It's important to take into account non-monitor applications and some day I plan on pasting this on the side of the Empire State Building and an SVG would help. gren グレン 05:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Leave original – the PNG looks identical (the jpeg version has no noticeable artifacts), and takes up 5 times as much space (~70k vs. ~15k). This type of image, with a blur, is not particularly suited to a png. So there is no reason to change its format. A larger sized jpeg (the jpeg could be 200% as big as now and still be of a smaller file size than the png) would be preferable. Additionally, the jpeg uses better colors (more contrast) to illustrate the effect. --jacobolus (t) 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  When I found this image, the first thing I did (in understandable disbelief at its content) was to copy the image into paint and play with the colours. When I realised the JPG version made this very hard, I tracked down the source image, found it to be a PNG and uploaded that to supersede the original. The JPG is smaller because it's lower quality, and you shouldn't let worries about performance affect your decisions — Jack · talk · 17:59, Tuesday, 10 April 2007

  Delist. I've decided that this image is really not interesting enough to be featured anyway. But anyway, the jpeg is smaller because it is a better format for an image with such color gradients. PNG has no advantage for an image like this. It just takes up more space. Also, as I said before, the jpg has higher contrast, which helps demonstrate the effect. Incidentally, you would have little trouble playing with either format image if you were using a program more powerful than Paint. If you want, put up a jpeg at 200% the size, and it will be of comparable or smaller file size to the png, and much higher quality. --jacobolus (t) 08:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Replace with PNG, the gradient on the JPG is not as good, I notice artifact in it as well--at least more fuzziness. Viewing in thumbnail the difference is 4kB vs. 14kB and I think that is how many people will be viewing it, which minimizes any worry I had about the (startling) size difference. gren グレン 09:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with PNG, the PNG is better quality than the jpg. Less fuzzy. Flubeca 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've added an SVG version created by myself from scratch. Noclip 21:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nifty. There are some problems... the board doesn't look straight since something is wrong with the angles. I also think some margins after the end of the board would be beneficial. I'm not sure how to fix it, but the SVG would be better than the PNG if they were fixed. gren グレン 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think we may have a second optical illusion on our hands! I can however, tolerate the SVG, and I'm voting anything but JPEG — Jack · talk · 16:53, Friday, 20 April 2007
• Replace with SVG I have added borders around the whole image, per gren. -Andrew c 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the SVG file has worse colors than the jpeg, and wacky geometry to boot! I still say the jpeg is the best of the three images for illustrating the point (based on color and geometry), but reiterate my suggestion to delist this, as not worth being a featured image. --jacobolus (t) 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The SVG is an orthographic projection (no vanishing point). It's not "wacky geometry" it's just a different way of representing three dimensional objects. Noclip 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't understand why any of these is better than the real original image at [7] which is plenty large!! --jacobolus (t) 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  did the people commenting after me read this comment? ↑ (maybe if I make it red…) --jacobolus (t) 05:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Size is only one factor. The JPEG has artifacts due to lossy compression. Punctured Bicycle 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with PNG - This is probably the best example of optical illusions on Wikipedia, and the PNG version does seem cleaner and is within the size requirements. Centy 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with PNG - The SVG version may be larger but the shadow doesn't look like a shadow should. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Does SVG have technical limitations that prevent the original drawing from being reproduced satisfactorily? Or is it just that no one has been able to draw it correctly in that format? Punctured Bicycle 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with PNG per centy. Amphy 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with PNG version. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Madrid Metro

Map of the Madrid Metro

This map is currently used in the article

Reason

This image is no longer used in an article. It formerly appeared at Madrid Metro but has been superseded by Image:Red de metro de Madrid.svg.

Nominator

KFP (talk | contribs)

• Delist — KFP (talk | contribs) 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an unusual situation because it had a special en bloc nomination with all of my metro maps. If I had to be absolutely honest, I prefer my version to the one currently in the article. - Montréalais 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now I also prefer this version to the new SVG, maybe have a SVG version of this and replace the currently used one? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Replace and Q, is this a replacement nomination/ And if yes, shouldn't it be among the normal promotion nominations? ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't intend this to be a replacement nom as the SVG has some problems that would have to be fixed first. One such problem is that the background color for the lower left corner is different from the background for the rest of image. The SVG version includes some information that is not in the PNG, the "La Elipa" station on line 2 for example. There is also a third map, Image:Madrid Metro 2003-2006.svg, that includes planned extensions (thumbnail and preview versions of this image are currently not working, it seems). --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If someone would tell me how to create an SVG version from a Photoshop vector image, I'd be happy to do so, or to send my version to someone who can do so for me. - Montréalais 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I have updated my version (Arganzuela, La Peseta, La Elipa, Alameda de Osuna, Aviación Española). - Montréalais 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And line 1 to Chamartín. - Montréalais 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • And Pinar de Chamartín. God, if only we could build metro anywhere near this fast.
    • OK, then let's get the svg version up to speed and replace this one. Otoh, if this was part of a specual en-bloc nomination maybe it belongs to a "featured set" under the new proposed definition? ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, Madrid Metro 2003-2006.svg appears to be based on a ripped-off official map. - Montréalais 06:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep – original is much better than newer map (though the garish blue and red “Metro de Madrid” lettering at the bottom is pretty awful). --jacobolus (t) 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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

Map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1648AD

A map of the extent of the Holy Roman Empire in the year 1648 AD, showing the cities, regions and ecclesiastical lands in Central Europe at the time.

PNG Version.

Reason

I think it is technically brilliant, incredibly comprehensive, very professional looking and has encyclopedic value beyond belief. E10T10A9

Articles this image appears in

Holy Roman Empire, Peace of Westphalia, although many more should use it.

Creator

User:Astrokey44

• Support as nominator —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - southernmost tip cut off!!! --Janke | Talk 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support Per Janke, I'd like the southern tip added. As it's an SVG, it shouldn't be too hard.--HereToHelp 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been added :) --Astrokey44 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Can someone with expert knowedge of the topic confirm that this is factually correct? Can someone email an academic they know who's into this area of history to confirm it? Witty lama 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Probably e-mail the PNG facsimile... unless you know they can view SVG images) gren グレン 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Or create a PDF, retains the detail, and is even safer (compatibilitywise). --Dschwen 07:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, sometimes labels overlap each other.... which, is bad, right? I am not sure if you can avoid it on such a detailed map... which is why I just want others to weigh in on this and maybe help me decide. gren グレン 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the text overlapping is mostly due to Firefox's SVG generation I think, because the PNG version looks perfect, so I'm guessing wikimedia's SVG handler is better? --Golbez 12:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes some of the text layers which are supposed to be transparent come out looking opaque --Astrokey44 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The main reason for opposing is the "tight framing" of the map. In my opinion, a larger part of Europe should be shown to give the necessary geographic (and historical) context. Also, the lettering is too big, resulting in a cluttered map. Finally, I don't like the strong colours. Alvesgaspar 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the size of some of the text and changed the colours to a lighter scheme from colour brewer. Not sure about a europe inset as there is already a separate map of this. --Astrokey44 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support per all. Another thing though, im not being funny but that picture nearly crashed my pc... and i have a decent pc, so god only knows what it would do to an average computer (or have a got a dodgy setting that made it freeze?) --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably should leave a warning that it is a huge file and to view as png instead. --Astrokey44 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• strong support despite svg format. Debivort 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could the "Holy Roman Empire" faded text in the background be removed? I find it distracting and it would seem superflous if the picture is well captioned. The O in Roman lands in the middle and at first I thought it was a smudged copyright logo. Unless this is my issue as I am viewing it on a flat panel in svg.Pedro |  Chat  13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the reason why this is an svg. It's unreadable in image page resolution, it's ginormous, and I can't open it to look at the details. Unrelated, the font color is too light and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE is distracting. ~ trialsanderrors 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One reason is so that you can hide different layers and make things like locator maps. removed HRE text and darkened labels now --Astrokey44 02:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's useful as a master map to create all those submaps. For display purposes it's not useful. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm with the two last users, for cartographic reasons. But my fight against svg maps didn't have any success till now. On the contrary, most users oppose any map which isn't svg (mainly in Commons). Alvesgaspar 19:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Contains factual errors. The Old Swiss Confederacy did include neither the Valais nor the Grisons nor the full territory of the modern Canton of Geneva at that time. The city of Basel is shown at the wrong location, it is on the Rhine knee. The blueish blot labelled "BASEL" between the "Swiss Confederation" and the Franche Compté is actually the "Prince-Bishopric of Basel". The borders shown in that area are highly approximative and of sketch quality only. Compare with Image:Historische Karte CH 18 Jh.png, which is much more accurate. Lupo 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that is a much increased scale. Most other maps of Europe I have seen show the Swiss confederation in this area as Valais, Grisons and Geneva are 'allied and protected districts' [8] or associates [9]. There wasnt much room to write the full title - Ive added "B. of" to Basel. Sorry I had the city of Basel mixed up with Rheinfelden - removed it as it is not in the empire --Astrokey44 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to have a scale in kilometers too, next too the scale in miles, and perhaps some extra tickmarks on the scale would be helpful. Berteun 11:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Is this accurate? I'd hate to see this go to waste. Also, it'll be a good idea to create a high-res rasterized version, for those whose computers balk at the large vector image. Perhaps we could feature that instead? Moving it down. MER-C 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The map is technically quite an achievement, however I too feel that it shouldn't be SVG. At high resolutions, the text is hard to read and the map is too resource consuming on most computers. Scrolling is too laggy and it's annoying to use. Maybe there should be a medium size version which is say 50-75% of the base size? Centy 12:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the format change will be enough. I've heard that PNG is faster than JPEG when loading, and is certainly much faster than SVG. MER-C 04:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, there already is a PNG version. Support PNG Version. Centy 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Emblem of the Papacy

The crossed keys symbolize the keys of Simon Peter. The keys are gold and silver to represent the power of binding and loosing given to the Church. The triple crown (the tiara) represents the pope's three functions as "supreme pastor", "supreme teacher" and "supreme priest". The gold cross surmounting the triple crowns symbolizes the crucifixion of Jesus.

File:Holysee-arms.png

(Not nominated) For comparison: The coat of arms of the Holy See.

Reason

It has a good caption, it's pleasing to the eye, and it's of high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Papal regalia and insignia

Creator

F l a n k e r

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Support — Bewareofdog 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• support per nom. Debivort 04:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Basar 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like the shadowing. ShadowHalo 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, great use of SVG. --Golbez 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support E8T10A8 Looks better than the one on the Vatican webpage. Now the caption only needs wikilinks and we're done. (PS Any chance we get a version on the red shield too?) ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Suspending my support for the moment, there are a number of differences between the one on the Vatican website and this one, and I'd like to see non-Wiki sourcing that establishes the accuracy of this version. ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I see what you mean this one might not be accurate.Bewareofdog 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I requested expert input from the Heraldry WikiProject. ~ trialsanderrors 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Per nom and trialsanderrors 'WiiWillieWiki^(talk) 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - great example of the proper use of SVG. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Amazing. Just so much detail. This is what I call proper use of vector graphics. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Per above Bernalj90 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose until I can figure out what exactly this is representing. It's brilliantly done... but all of the source images are for different emblems. Nothing tells me that this SVG represents an emblem officially used by the Vatican. If it is it will have a strong strong support. I should note that I don't think it's supposed to represent any of its three sources or the image trialanderror linked to... but, is this a specific pope's emblem? We just need more info. gren グレン 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's this one, scroll down to "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City". There are some differences, but I can't tell if they're relevant in Heraldry. Artists have a certain amount of license when creating their versions of coats of arms. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is license in this regard... this is not just differences in proportions.... this is differences in colors, etc. and they really need to be explained. It looks nice and they did a great job on it but it needs to represent something in reality to be used in an encyclopedic article.... we can't just go around changing heraldry emblems. gren グレン 12:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, if only to piss off people who hate SVG logos. One question, should the hanging tassel in the center be in front of the one going side to side? It is in the vatican's version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The one without the red shield has one, the one on the red shield has two. ~ trialsanderrors 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Partial support. The papal emblem looks fine and is well done. However, it does not belong on the page Coat of arms of the Holy See since it is not the coat (missing important elements required by heraldry conventions & Vatican law; see my note below). Maybe use it on the Pope page? Perhaps also use it to explain the differences between the two? Pmadrid 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support as it is now. Very well done. Pmadrid 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• So, is this accurate? Moving to "suspended nominations" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would love to support, but I think it's not accurate and it can be done a bit better (maybe a matter of taste). --Arad 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In heraldry a large amount of flexibility is allowed for the artist's imagination - it's accurate if it corresponds to the blazon, which is "two keys in saltire or and argent, interlaced in the rings or, beneath a tiara argent, crowned or." How the lappets are curled, or whether the ropes pass in front or behind, doesn't matter. How specifically is this considered inaccurate? Gimmetrow 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The crown looks way different. It's like putting Pahlavi Crown on head of Elizabeth II. And I think the ropes can be done better. Otherwise a very good image. --Arad 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It's still recognizable as a "tiara argent, crowned or." If it's the jewels, they can be found on the personal arms of quite a few popes, and Image:John_XXIII_coa.png, Image:Paul VI coa.png, Image:JohnPaulICOA.jpg and Image:John paul 2 coa.svg show a wide variation. If you find the image artistically deficient, that's fine, but this image seems within the range of artistic license allowed in heraldry. Gimmetrow 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's pretty much the answer I expected. I know there is limited freedom in rendering heraldic symbols, I just wasn't sure how much. Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• This image was removed from the article Coat of arms of the Holy See with the following edit summary: "the emblem was not a coat of arms and was incorrectly blazoned" (diff). --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked the editor to comment here. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The "coat of arms" displays the symbol on a red shield ("gules" in the blazon). Gimmetrow 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I reinstated it then, since the press office website shows both versions. ~ trialsanderrors 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The papal emblem is indeed used on the Holy See's coat of arms, but with two important differences. (1) It is displayed on a red shield, as gimmetrow properly acknowledged. (2) It's interlaced cord is changed to gold (interlaced in the rings or in blazon) in order to comply with heraldry rules. If you note, the papal emblem (not the coat) is displayed on the Vatican flag with the red cord, so I really have no problem with the image as displayed here. I just don't think it goes on Coat of arms of the Holy See since the blazon in the fundamental law requires a red field and a gold cord, and this image omits both. It could be used somewhere else, though, as it's a fine rendition of the papal insignia despite it failing as the coat of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City. Pmadrid 21:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sounds more like the article should be expanded or merged than that the nomination withdrawn, especially since the website uses them in conjunction (similarly, the Coat of arms of Germany shows the Bundesadler both on golden shield and neutral background). I don't have access to the actual codex (which I just added as reference), so I don't know how reliable the Vatican website is in that regard. I'd say the best solution would be to also create a version on red shield, but sadly the creator hasn't respondend to a request to comment here. ~ trialsanderrors 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Although the Vatican site shows both the emblem and the coat together, this isn't necessarily something to follow. The Vatican site does not distinguish the Vatican arms from the arms of the Holy See, although other authors do. Also the Vatican site shows the "coat of arms" with a red cord on a red shield, and the ropes untied. The coat of arms is sufficiently confusing that the emblem just adds to the confusion, unless it were contrasted and explained very well. Gimmetrow 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Trialsanderrors, your solution (creating a version on a red shield) would work; however, the cord would need to be changed from red to gold. Otherwise, you'd not only have a coat of arms violating a fundamental heraldry rule (no color on color) but also not conforming to the blazon prescribed by law (interlaced in the rings or). While heraldry gives artists considerable license in rendering the arms, it does not give them licence to ignore prescribed charges or tinctures.
    • Besides, this is a fine rendition of the papal insignia as it appears on the Vatican flag, and I don't think it should be defeated merely because it is not a proper rendition of the Holy See's coat of arms, which is not on the Vatican flag. I think a solution for the time being might be to place the picture on Papal regalia and insignia, remove the emblem from Coat of arms of the Holy See, and start working on an svg version of properly rendered arms. This would also allow the nomination to continue. Pmadrid 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree, I don't see a problem with this as the emblem. (Was it taken from a svg version of the flag to begin with?) Determining the accuracy of both Image:Coa Vatican.svg and Image:Holysee-arms.png is a separate issue. The Vatican site says in text that the rope can be red. Also the personal coats of arms of popes usually have the rope untied, so this may be significant on the corporate arms. Gimmetrow 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Hi, I'm the author of the image (Trialsanderrors call me in my Italian thalk page). I've done it from this image and this one. If you need some corrections, please ask me and I manage to satisfy your requests. Cheers, F l a n k e r 09:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I think we figured it out, but if you're able to create an svg of the coat of arms that would be much appreciated. Thanks for stopping by. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• (De-indent) If the Vatican was concerned about little things like this, they'd publish an official version (probably raster) that we could faithfully vectorize. If they don't publish an official copy of the emblem, who's to say this isn't accurate?--HereToHelp 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is of course an official text: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Supplement, 01.02.2001, Attachment B. I don't think the good people at the Vatican are quite as web-savvy as the average Wikipedian though. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the onus is on us not to commit original research. My opinion in brief: I feel very wary about creating any emblem/logo that we don't have an example to copy from because, it may be in the guidelines, it may not be. Maybe someone should e-mail the Vatican PR and say "is this a proper version of your emblem" --gren グレン 09:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There is not "a proper way" because is a very old emblem-coat of arms, so it is been represented on portals, documents, monuments, flags, and many more things, in many different shapings (like many others coats in Italy...). That's all. And it is not a big deal. --F l a n k e r 12:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Checking into what the Acta says would not be original research. It would simply be going to the primary source (legislation) and checking as to how far it specifies the design, whether by color picture, blazon, or whatever. If you object to going to primary sources and are insisting on reliance on secondary sources, then there is at least one herald, the late Archbishop Heim (the personal herald of Pope John XXIII), who distinguishes between the Papal emblem (tiara, crossed keys, red cord, not on a shield but could be on a lot of stuff like the flag of the Vatican City) and the Coat of Arms of the Holy See (red shield, tiara, crossed keys, gold cord). See his book Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origins, Customs, and Laws. So at least one heraldry scholar of repute denounces a red shield-red cord or a no shield-red cord version of the Holy See's coat of arms and supports the idea of a red-cord Papal emblem, and thus supports the proposition that this picture is an accurate depiction of the Papal tiara/crossed keys emblem.
      • Other secondary sources are extraordinarily ambiguous. The text of the blazon from the Holy See's own website supports a differentiation, since for the coat of arms it uses a blazon which specifically says interlaced in the rings or (put a gold cord between the rings) and has examples that are not the Holy See's coat of arms (such as the Vatican flag and John Paul II's personal arms) using a red cord version. Despite this differentiation, right above the blazon it displays a red cord red shield version. What is up with that??? Later on the same page says the cord can be red or blue. Both of these contradict the explicit text of the blazon provided on the page. So, either both the provided blazon and Archbishop Heim are wrong or the website is wrong. This is why simply using secondary sources in this case is unacceptable. There's too many ambiguities, and going to the Acta, the primary source on what is the coat of arms and what is the emblem, would be useful to resolve the discrepancy.
      • Let's not forget though, as Gimmetrow has accurately pointed out, that this page's debate should not be about whether this picture is an accurate depiction of the coat of arms of the holy see. It should instead be whether this depiction of the tiara and keys, a traditional emblem of the Papacy used in many contexts other than the principal charge on a corporate coat of arms (flags, behind Papal personal arms, etc), is proper. I think it is. Pmadrid 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • F l a n k e r, I'm not saying that there is a proper way and I (have come to) realize that there are many ways to represent the old, non-standardized emblems. I believe we could use any version that has previously been used in history and it would be fine. My worry is that--even if it may be a possible proper representation of the papacy--the first time this version has ever been used is on Wikipedia which makes me uncomfortable with its usage. I am not disputing anything of what you have said about it being proper heraldry, I am just worried that without this version having been used before it (while accurate) is still creating new work. That being said, if I am the only one still very wary about this do not let me keep this nomination held up. gren グレン 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I can see the problem, but I can't see the solution. If someone can find a good image (good for all of you), I can try to make a new emblem. --F l a n k e r 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do one like this.Bewareofdog 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you like this one

Mhm, this image is already present in Commons, so I don't need to make another. You can use it instead of the one mine. --F l a n k e r 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I've always liked seals and coats of arms. This is crisp and clean and I love that you did it in SVG. --Valley2city^₪‽ 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Looking at the official coat of arms, is the SVG not incorrect because the gold key points right instead of left, and vice versa for the silver key? Pstuart84 Talk 09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• The gold key must points to the right in the Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City, the same for the flag. In the Coat of Arms of the popes I've noticed the different disposition but I can't explain why (www.vatican.va). --F l a n k e r 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer my own question: "The coat of arms of the Holy See. That of the State of Vatican City is the same except that the positions of the gold and silver keys are interchanged." [10] - Pstuart84 Talk 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the line thicknesses seem to vary, which looks a little off to me. —Pengo 09:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This one's still here? What are we waiting for? vlad§inger ^tlk 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Very easy to see and not complicated. --Hirohisat ^Talk 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The accuracy issue is what is preventing this nomination from passing. IS there a solid conclusions yet?!? Jumping cheese 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not promoted Several issues and no consensus. Please feel free to nominate this image again in future after considering the feedback. --—Pengo 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)