Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hadseys (talk | contribs)
2,409 edits
Line 6: Line 6:
[[Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nomination_Procedure]]
[[Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nomination_Procedure]]
Place new nominations at the TOP of the group-->
Place new nominations at the TOP of the group-->
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cassowary head frontal}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Top of the Victoria Memorial}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Top of the Victoria Memorial}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fish Cleaning Station}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fish Cleaning Station}}

Revision as of 01:18, 22 September 2007

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

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

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

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

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

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

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

Delisting an image

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

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.
Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

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

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

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

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

Current nominations

Cassowary head frontal

Original
Reason
I am nominating this picture because cassowarys melt faces.
Proposed caption
The head of an unidentified species of cassowary.
Articles this image appears in
Cassowary
Creator
IJsendoorn Note: via Flickr; uploaded to Wikipedia by Sandstein

Not promoted MER-C 08:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Top of the Victoria Monument

Original
Reason
very high quality picture of the top of the Victoria Memorial (London)
Proposed caption
The Victoria Memorial is a sculpture in London, placed at the centre of Queen's Gardens in front of Buckingham Palace. It has a large statue of Queen Victoria facing north-eastwards towards The Mall. The other sides of the monument feature dark patinated bronze statues of the Angel of Justice (facing north-westwards toward Green Park), the Angel of Truth (facing south-eastwards) and Charity facing Buckingham Palace. On the pinnacle, is Victory with two seated figures. The subsidiary figures were gifted given by the people of New Zealand.
Articles this image appears in
Victoria Memorial (London)
Creator
Aldaron
  • Support as nominator Hadseys 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate oppose; the image quality is good, and the focus is there, but the lighting is rubbish and dictates the accuracy of the picture. Example: even at full size, it's difficult to see what kind of eyes the statue has, and when you try to imagine what kind of eyes the statue has, you might get conjunctivitis from trying to figure it out. Perhaps a better picture could be taken if it was under clear, sunny weather. Look at this, for instance. This might be the best kind of weather to take a picture. It was taken from the rear of the statue, but look how radiant it is! If this candidate was taken again under good weather conditions, I believe it will look much better. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support In contrast to above, I think the lighting is the strongest aspect of this picture. Sharpness is marginal, crop doesn't show enough bottom, but I love the lighting. Fairly soft directional, with an overcast? how? both the statue and the overcast sky are nicely exposed. It looks like the photographer used 3 3200 watt second strobe heads from camera left to give some very nice fill flash. obviously they didn't but it does have that effect. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The image doesn't seem that sharp when opened fully, also there are very bright parts on the monument which are distracting. However I do like the background contrast --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sharpness is simply lacking. thegreen J Are you green? 00:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per above, image quality isn't good enough. Given there's nothing unusual about what's depicted, it shouldn't be a problem to get a better image of the subject. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fish Cleaning Station

Original
Not an edit of the first image,but original image taken before the nominated one
Cropped of the second image
Reason
Fascinating, underwater image taken in a wild and showing a really interesting, rarely photographed behavior. The image is very educational.
Proposed caption
A Dragon Wrasse, Novaculichthys taeniourus being cleaned by Rainbow Cleaner Wrasses, Labroides phthirophagus on a reef in Kona, Hawaii.You could see the both cleaners inside the gill of the dragon Wrasse.
Articles this image appears in
cleaning station,Wrasse
Creator
Mbz1
  • Support as nominator Mbz1 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nice shot, educational as you say. However, unfortunately - the main subject is too small, the composition is lopsided (the fish at left spoil it). Cropping probably won't help, even at this size we see a slightly fuzzy Wrasse. --Janke | Talk 06:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please notice that in my opinion the subject of the image is not only a cleaning action, but also a cleaning station itself. I've seen a cleaning action with only one fish being cleaned, but this one was really a cleaning station with many fishes lined up to get cleaned. So, cut fishes in the left (convict tangs) and a fish behind the corals, as well as the corals themselves are part of the subject. Maybe it will be a good idea to add that image as the other version of the cleaning station?--Mbz1 13:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Support. Composition is slightly off, but quality is good, especially given the shooting conditions - quality underwater shots aren't easy to get. As Janke says, the main subject is a little small in the image, but overall the value to me outweighs the concerns. Species identification of Novaculichthys taeniourus appears to be correct; a species ID on the cleaners would be good, too, I suspect Labroides dimidiatus, though they're a little fuzzy. BTW it's a great photo of Novaculichthys taeniourus as well, just a shame there's no article on it. --jjron 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. It's a nice photo certainly, and I like that the two wrasse are picking the gills, a behaviour that is remarkable given how vulnerable a fish's gills are to damage. So it shows the degree of trust involved quite well. But the image isn't as sharp as it might be, and oddly having two cleaner wrasse in identical but mirrored poses makes them look much less obvious. It takes a second to understand the image. If there's a similar picture with one wrasse or the two wrasse spread out more unevenly, I think I'd prefer that image. Neale Monks 13:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't look right. 8thstar 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish I knew what does not look right and how many fish cleaning stations user 8thstar have seen before he saw the nominated image. Maybe I should have asked user 8thstar to be a litlle bit more specific and explain what does not look right? Well, I guess I just let go on it. The only thing I'd like to add: I do consider user Janke oppose a valid one (I disagree with it, but I understand the user concern). I consider the user 8thstar oppose invalid one. --Mbz1 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • Support, I thought it was just a regular picture of a fish at first, I didn't read the nom lol 8thstar 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel an appropriate crop of the second image would be more likely to succeed. I feel this scene is not rare enough for us to lower our standards. 82.71.48.158 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did the crop of the second image, still the picture was taken underwater (strong currents) with 2 megapixels point and shot camera and the quality of the crop could be not enough for FP picture. It is for you to decide, but I'm glad that the image evoke some interest. I'm not very good with photo shop, so, if somebody wants to work on the images, please, go ahead.Thanks.--Mbz1 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Oppose It's certainly very illustrative of a cleaning station, but I don't think it's technically impressive enough. I'd also like to mention that imagery of cleaning stations is not uncommon. As an undergraduate, I took some Super8 video of cleaning stations, and was dissapointed that my images weren't nearly as good as the fantastic stills the dive shop had posted on their walls. Any scuba diving tourist in a tropical coral reef with an excellent underwater camera (an oddly common occurance, as people who have money like to do things like dive in the tropics) can, and often does, take an images of cleaning stations. I LOVE that we can actually see the gills in both of these images, but it doesn't override the technical considerations, and it is certainly a repeatable shot. Enuja (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Enuja. Cacophony 07:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The quality isnt good enough of a subject/ scence that isnt exactly rare --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still insist that 2 cleaners (even one cleaner) photographed inside a fish's gill is relatively rare picture (it probably not a rare scene, but very few people ever seen it and even fewer took a picture of it and the only one uploaded it to Wikipedia with a free licence) lol. Still I'd like to thank everybody for their votes no matter "support" or "oppose" ones.--Mbz1 12:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Support any, preference for the third image as the cropping makes it the easiest to see what's going on. Spikebrennan 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose original, oppose image 2: Content is pretty good, but the first image is technically not good enough. The second one isn't apparently isn't that unique, and given the poor quality, not good enough for FP status. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your vote,Snowolfd4, and for adding the word "apparently" in the discraibing the uniqueness of the image. The nominated images are not unique, but they are rare and they are underwater. In my opinion very few people ever heard about fish cleaning station leave alone ever seen it. After all how many people are diving in tropical oceans? I'm sure, some of the ones, who did see it, had no idea what they were looking at. That's why in my opinion the image should get FP status for educational purposes, if for nothing else. Still I understand opposers concern about the quality of the image. Thank you all for your votes.--Mbz1 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Liverpool Waterfront By Night

Original
Reason
A stunning picture, high resolution, great detail, and covers the whole of the waterfront - certaintly the best example of a photo of the waterfront I've ever seen (be that night or day).
Proposed caption
Liverpool waterfront by night. A World Heritage site featuring the "Three Graces" which includes the Liver Building, the waterfront at Liverpool is one of the most famous and recognisable maritime landmarks in the world.
Articles this image appears in
Liverpool
Creator
User:Chowells

Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ivaylovgrad reservoir

Original
Reason
it's a really interesting creation of nature... even though i think it's actually artificial since that's the bed of an artificial lake... appealing to the eye, no doubt
Proposed caption
The dried lakebed of the Ivaylovgrad reservoir near the town of Ivaylovgrad in the Haskovo province of Bulgaria.
Articles this image appears in
Ivaylovgrad
Creator
it's a wikicommons picture uploaded by user Sandstein but its creator is a Flickr user from Bulgaria, see image for more details
Let's not exaggerate. 200 pixels too short at its longest is not that much. Besides, I don't see how a higher resolution would improve this image or possible reuse. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ring-billed Gull

Original
Edit 1 Color corrected the original, was too yellow and warm in general
Edit 2 Color corrected, properly this time ;-).
Color example - Not for voting
Reason
Yes, I know, we have several other FPs of Gulls. We do not, however have one of a Ring-billed gull and I think this is as good a picture as any. Sharpness, detail, size, informative angle. I know that the light could have been a little better and the composition can be seen as a bit bland but I think overall it is FP quality.
Proposed caption
A Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) at Nantasket Beach, Massachusetts. Clearly visible is the dark ring on the bill of the Gull from which its name is derived.
Articles this image appears in
Ring-billed Gull
Creator
User:Fcb981
Fullsize please :( --frotht 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better if the photographer does this from the raw file. That's why I left my example small. --Janke | Talk 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, Janke. Here is an edit. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Computer-generated kilogram

Shown above is a computer-generated image of the International Prototype Kilogram (“IPK”). The IPK is the kilogram. It sits next to an inch-based ruler for scale. The IPK is made of a platinum-iridium alloy and is stored in a vault at the BIPM in Sèvres, France. For other kilogram-related images, see Links to photographs, below.
Reason
I was recently looking up information on the metric system, which I've never used in real life, and found the Kilogram article to be very well written. The first thing that catches your eye when the article opens up in front of you is this amazing image of the International Prototype kilogram, which was created by our very own User:Greg L.
Proposed caption
A computer-generated image of the International Prototype kilogram, which is made from an alloy of 90% platinum and 10% iridium (by weight) and machined into a right-circular cylinder (height = diameter) of 39.17 mm. It sits next to an inch-based ruler for scale. The IPK is kept at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) in Sèvres, on the outskirts of Paris. The geometry of this computer model was based on the actual specifications being used for experiments in new manufacturing techniques to produce new kilogram mass standards. (Struck as it caused confusion after the actual caption was added below the photograph.) Greg L (my talk) 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
Kilogram
Creator
User:Greg L
1. the IPK is stored in a vault nearly all the time,
2. there is no general public access to the BIPM (and certainly none to the vault),
3. and working copies of the IPK are used at the BIPM for routine calibrations for years on-end.
  • …and the basic reason underlying those three explanations is this one: Copyright restrictions. Pictures from the BIPM are copyrighted. Same with the NIST. It’s not like you can go take your own picture of the Leaning Tower of Pisa; you gotta use what these organizations provide. They're copyrighted and Wikipedia’s policy is not to use anything but free content. The really artful, attractive picture of K20 sitting on egg crate fluorescent light fixture panel is also copyrighted. It was briefly used on Wikipedia but was yanked. I would have expected that people could advance a good fair-use rational and use it anyway. I wasn't involved with the decision to yank the picture but assume the issue of fair-use had been raised. I was never quite satisfied with K20 picture anyway because—unless you’re damn familiar with fluorescent egg crate panels—you have little sense of scale. So I spent an evening and made an image of the IPK alogn with the much-needed ruler. Greg L (my talk) 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not very informative. A photograph would be nice, but a computer gen just doesn't tell me how much a kg is any more than a description. And - if computer generated it must be, jpeg probably isn't the best format. thegreen J Are you green? 02:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If there are really no free photos of this thing, then very good idea to make a computer-generated image. Very valuable contribution to wikipedia, and I'd fight tooth and nail against someone who wanted to remove it from the article on the basis that it's only computer generated. But I just don't see any reason to nominate it for FP.. it's a good representation of a plain metal cylinder with a ruler. Perfect for the article, but not impressive for FP sorry! --frotht 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Question The ruler in the background is a yardstick, right? Shouldn't this rather be a metric ruler? I'm inclined to support this, but the reflection of the marbled countertop makes it look like it's corroding, and I don't see that the marbling adds anything to the picture. If these two things can be corrected I'd certainly support. I think it's very illustrative, helps the article, and replaces a fair use picture with a free one. ~ trialsanderrors 04:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the textured table helps give life to the image.. otherwise the whole cylinder would just be a gray shape like the top. I don't know if the ruler needs to be metric (it's just for scale) but it certainly makes sense since the image is of a kilogram --frotht 04:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the texture doesn't have to be brownish marbling. Anything that doesn't create the impression of corrosion would do. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ruler is a solid model I had left over from a work project. I did that project (a medical device) in all-metric units. And the ruler I based it off of had a metric side to it too! Still, I chose not to use the metric side. Why? I chose to model the inch-based side for scale with the medical device because the American audience that would be viewing those medical images is better accustomed to inch-based rulers. In other words, it wasn't about the logic of a metric ruler for a metric medical device, it was about the intuition of the eye. Of course, it’s less intuitive for non-American audiences, but that’s what I had laying around in the computer. Greg L (my talk) 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Because American will understand better" or "Because Europeans will understand better" aren't good reasons to select one unit rather than the other. Wikipedia is made to be used by people worldwide (that's especially true for the English one) so either way, some people won't be happy with the choice. However, your picture has a scientific value and meter is the fundamental unit of length in the SI. That's why i think you should use a meter-based ruler. Ksempac 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like the image both in style and quality, and I think your rationale about the use of the yardstick as opposed to a metric ruler is good. But I think it should be pointed out in the caption that it is a yardstick. I guess almost all metric-Europeans have never seen a yardstick and would mistake the ruler on this image for a metric ruler very easily, especially in the thumbnail. My visual intuition as a European tells me this kilogram prototype is about 2cm in diameter, a completely insane suggestion in my experience. :-) – sgeureka t•c 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Well, it’s a moot point because the nomination is clearly going down in flames. But I’m confused. The caption says it “sits next to an inch-based ruler”. Is a caption that says “yard stick” clearer terminology for Europeans than “inch-based ruler”? To split hairs, it is a foot-long ruler with a well-recognized profile to Americans; no yard stick has this distinctive profile. Greg L (my talk) 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would leave it as "inch-based ruler". I don't think a yard stick means anything to most Europeans - except as a colloquial term, but I could be wrong. I'm Australian (a non-European metric-based country). :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it just means that I was blind when I read the proposed caption. :-) And I just copied the word "yardstick" from above; I have never seen such a ruler in my home country (until I spend some time in the US), and I guess we don't even have a proper name for it here. – sgeureka t•c 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would love to support this, but 1) the ruler/yardstick is stuck in the shadow making reading it harder than it needs to be. 2) is the top supposed to be blue? not according to my newspaper who recently reported about the standard kilo losing weight. 3) the jpg choice means there's a lot of compression artifacts. - Mgm|(talk) 08:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The image itself is just a little bland and under-descriptive. I know its hard to present a measurement of weight visually, and I'm not sure this really adds enough to the article. Better than nothing in the article, but not a stand out for FP imho. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well, I see that the vote is certainly not going well, but it would be wrong of me to let Agüeybaná’s vote hang out there all by itself. So… WOW, what a cool-looking CG image! When you visit Kilogram article and you first lay eyes upon that article, one’s initial impression is that Wikipedia sure is one first-class online encyclopedia. Kudos the the techno-stud (whomever he may be) for the contribution! ;-) Greg L (my talk) 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'll throw my vote in there as well. It's a very striking and informative CG image. I can't imagine a better illustration of the subject. Kaldari 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I know this is a computer-generated image, not a graphic, but would it work in SVG format? I'm certainly defering to the graphics types around here on this, but it needs to be in the format that graphics folks agree is best for me to vote for it. Also, the length metric needs to be in SI units and you need to be able to see the ruler at least on both sides of the IPK. I think the bit of the inch-based ruler to the left of the IPK doesn't have any numbers on it; to give scale, I need to know the demarcations on the ruler. Also, it does look as if the top of the IPK is blue. Maybe an off-center blue spot-light would be better? This image has greatly improved the kilogram article, because other images (like the ones of all the bell jars linked on the kilogram page) just don't clearly show what the IPK looks like (even on the "artistic one" of K20 I can't tell if the edges are rounded or not) and I agree that it's really unrealistic to expect a free image of the IPK to ever be available. To summarize, I'd support if this image was 1)in format graphics folks recommend 2)SI unit length to compare and 3) not all blue on top. Enuja (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top of the IPK is blue because a blue light is above and behind reflecting into it. This is similar to the Robert Rathe picture of K20 (except he used orange). That same blue light is what causes the blue cast projecting towards the viewer along both sides of the IPK. Typically, JPEG compression results in visual artifacts because a significant level of compression is used. In this particular case, the original, double-size image from the CG engine was saved as a TIFF file (lossless compression). I then reduced the image in size by a factor of two in Photoshop to further smooth the image and then saved it at a quality level of 12 (very highest quality level). At this compression level, there are zero detectable visual artifacts; the image is indistinguishable from its lossless original. Uploading the same image in another format would be trivial. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to change their vote based only on this issue. This picture is a contribution and there necessarily have to be limits to the amount of time I’m willing to invest into it. As I stated above, the ruler was already a solid model left over from previous projects. Creating new graduations and legends on the ruler would take hours, which I am not willing to do. You can't tell from the image, but this is a true 3D solid modeling program and the “ink” of the graduations are actually a thousandth of an inch thick. It takes time to make all that “ink.” The program also has a bug in it so I can't use the “4” “6”, “8”, “9”, and “0” digits because they hide the wood texture in their closed loops; that’s why numerals aren’t on the ruler past “3” (hidden behind the IPK). I never self-nominated this image because I knew this detail would come up. No one notices when it’s simply in the Kilogram article but when it’s a candidate for FP status, flaws like this take on new significance. The vast majority of the roughly six hours I spent making this image was in lighting the scene. And even then, I combined lighting from two different prior projects to expidite the process. If there are any who feel that having the full-size original being stored in another format besides JPEG is enough by itself to change their vote, post your answer. I'd be pleased to upload the file in another format. I chose (perhaps wrongly) JPEG under the theory it was most compact and would function faster on Wikipedia. Greg L (my talk) 06:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeI understand the use of CG-imagery to convey meaning or to present art and there can be crossover between the two. This image is art lurking under the auspice of mathematic and science. Real images obviously exist of the IPK and although they may not be as aesthetically pleasing as other FPs they convey much more meaning than this image. If the image were a diagram of dimensions, protection mechanisms, etc. it would be a better candidate FP material than a shiny CG-image with lighting/shading effects. The ruler really does nothing more than provide a simple reference for the vague scale of the object. When one looks at the image it conveys that the IPK is ~2inch metallic cylinder...that's all. From an artistic perspective, the images lighting effects are nice but overall composition could be better with the ruler hidden behind and the blue light choice of the composer. Buphoff 06:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good for the article, but since this is a synthetic picture, it's not worthy of FP status IMO, since it lacks the "wow" factor that other featured CG images have. (PS: Why use an inch ruler? The kilogram is metric, at least to my knowledge... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, lets not be bitter :) We're all trying to compliment you as much as possible while politely opposing --frotht 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being bitter whatsover. I saw Janke’s smiley face, understood the humor he intended, and responded in kind. I do take note of the seeming hubris in your assumption that I need to be counseled by a college-age youngster. No offense taken though. Greg L (my talk) 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


360 panoramic view of London from St Paul's Cathedral

Original
File:London 360 crop1.jpg
Stitching error 1
File:London 360 crop2.jpg
Stitching error 2
File:London 360 crop3.jpg
Stitching error 3
Reason
I had been meaning to take this panorama ever since a previous version was nominated and failed but had been waiting until nice weather and a some free time on my lunch break at work corresponded! This one isn't perfect either (there are minor stitching errors if you pixel-peep closely) but I am pretty confident that it is impossible to completely avoid stitching errors, as parallax gets in the way of a 360 (you're forced to walk around what is probably a 5 or 6 metre diameter viewing platform), as well as movement between frames. I think that this is pretty close to the best 360 you're likely to get from this position - the weather was lovely, the sun was out of the frame (just) and I managed to avoid any blown highlights in the clouds and it is extremely high res (downsampled from 200 megapixels to 50 megapixels - 3 x 17 segments!). Oh, and damnit, it cost me 9.50 quid to get in! It better be worth it!! ;-)
Proposed caption
Blank for the time being - any takers?
Proposal by Chick Bowen:
Panorama of London taken from the dome of St Paul's Cathedral. Built from 1675 to 1708, the Cathedral is still one of the highest buildings in western London.
Articles this image appears in
London, Architecture in London and History of London
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Amazing. My (admittedly inexperienced) eye could not catch the stitching errors. There are some very slight artifacts, but no biggie. All-around wowness. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless someone finds a glaring stitching error. Otherwise, another great pic.--HereToHelp 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no doubt about it. Cacophony 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hoooooo ly crap. --frotht 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No no no, don't crash my browser...! Ah, better. Strong support; I admit that it is a bit too large for a computer image, but that aside, the panorama is brilliant! I doubt there's a better time to take this panorama than when you took it. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm terrible at captions, but here's my (useless) advice: you could try using the filename. "Panoramic view of London from St. Paul's Cathedral" might be good for starters, in my opinion. Now I'd better leave, before I get too carried away by this destructively awesome picture. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not wild about how the sky came out, but that is compensated by the wow-ness of the rest of the picture. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean how the sky came out? Whats wrong with the sky? I thought it came out pretty well actually. Its very difficult to get a 360 panorama without a part of the sky blowing out from the sunlight and I managed to avoid that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The... detail. You're going to settle personality rights with everyone in this picture, yes? — Ben pcc 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wanted to show that there are some substantial stitching errors. I have no idea how to correct them appropriately, but maybe the photographer can fix them? Puddyglum 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I already mentioned, the stitching errors are due to the effect of parallax shift. In other words, I had to move slightly with each segment in order to circle the viewing platform, and as a result, there are inherently minor perspective shifts across the image that cannot be corrected for. With much smaller panoramas, it is sometimes possible to be selective about the control points to minimise the parallax error, but this photo has 50 overlapping segments and it is virtually impossible to correct for every stiching error. So yes, I am aware that minor errors exist, but they are relatively minor considering the detail level. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support regardless of stitching errors, as it's an amazingly detailed view of the city. Puddyglum 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Diliff, your pictures never cease to amaze me. NauticaShades 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In regards to the stitching errors. First they aren't that big of a deal...obviously the overall composition of the photo is not detracted from by the minuscule errors. I see that you reference PTgui and smart blend on your user page as the software that you use to stitch your images together. Myself and some of my colleagues have used this software in the past but have switched to Autopano Pro because we have found the overall blending and stitching to be much much better. Autopano does not have quite as many customizable features but overall it is simple to use allowing for fine tuning after the initial assembly of the images. Since you clearly enjoy working on panoramic I thought I would pass along the knowledge. Buphoff 07:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the advice. I did investigate Autopano Pro a while ago (6 months or so?) and from memory didn't find it to be as good as PTGui but I will have another look at it. The blending with Smartblend is excellent as it does its best to 'hide' parallax errors. Obviously where it isn't possible to hide the seam line it is forced to just split an object or person down the middle, but 9 times out of 10 it will create the seam line along the edge of an object so it appears to be stitched perfectly. I don't know if Autopano Pro does this - I know the built in blender in PTGui and Enblend aren't nearly as intelligent about where to place the seam lines but I'm more than willing to be converted. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off I'll admit that compared with you I'm very much a novice at pano stitching and I never really got to grips with PTGui. However, despite being an el-cheapo completely auto program I've found Panorama Maker 4 pretty good with stitching. Also CS3 now comes with a pretty good stitcher. If you don't have these, perhaps you could upload/email me some images to have a shot at stitching? --Fir0002 08:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fir, I recently got CS3 (the price is unreal) and tried a brief test with the photo-merge or whatever its called, problem was, it gave bad horizontals and has no way that I saw to set vertical and horizontal line control points. I was using an equirectangular projection so I dont think thats it. Is there some way to adjust the settings for it so that some control points are editable? just wondering. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're welcome to try but I suspect with that software you won't have much luck bettering the stitching, but maybe I'm being unduely pessimistic. The other issue is the question of file size. Do you really want me to email 51 x 8mb jpeg files to you? Are you still on dialup? ;-) Send me an email and I'll see what I can do about putting the files up on a web server. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pano Maker does do a good job, especially if the originals are well taken with plenty of overlap, but unless I'm very much mistaken, it won't handle stacked photos like this (i.e., 3 rows of 17). It just does single rows of horizontal, vertical, or 360°. In fact, I'm not even sure it will handle the 17 alone - there's some limit that I hit on with one pano I was trying to do a while back, I think it was either 16 or 18 original images. --jjron 10:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, what a great free image.--Svetovid 09:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impressive, amazing to see my girlfriends house! --Central Powers 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great! Wow factor = 100% --LucaG 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprise Wikibreak-interrupting Support - An astounding bit of photography. I think the odd stitching error is going to be unavoidable in a scene as complex as this. £9.50? Bargain! --YFB ¿ 11:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a really well done picture. I only wish the constuction had been completed, but it doesn't take away from the picture really. Captain Phoebus 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I look at every FPC but rarely vote. But WOW! This is amazing! Mahahahaneapneap 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well i nominated the first one, thanks to diliff for retaking this image. Looks brilliant --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all of the above. Spikebrennan 13:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The only thing I don't like here is that it's 360°, because I actually don't like 360° panos. I would have preferred say two 200° panos instead, one looking north, one looking south (or whatever would work best in London), and I would have supported both - then you would really have got your 9½ quid's worth! It may also have avoided those minor stitching errors. --jjron 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice! --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:London 360 from St Paul's Cathedral - Sept 2007.jpg MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Terrace rice fields in Yunnan Province, China

Original
Edit 1 - attempted noise reduction, slight histogram adjustment
Reason
A wonderful picture with many contrasting and complementing pictures; also a very good reference for the articles it is linked to.
Proposed caption
Terrace rice fields in Yunnan Province, China. Rice is a staple food in many parts of the world.
Articles this image appears in
Rice; Yunnan; Terrace (agriculture); Paddy field; Agriculture in China
Creator
User:JialiangGao
  • Oppose All The only drawback with it, after the edit, is with the detail. I think it's encyclopedic, and adds something that the other pictures in that article cannot. It's wonderful to look at, even though it's not as sharp as it could be. However, it's lacking so much detail that it really only looks good as a thumbnail. Puddyglum 18:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The smoke from burning moss generated by the advancing lava flow

Original
Reason
An interesting image, which shows yet another cause of wildfire, which was not represented in the article before. The image also shows lava flow.
Proposed caption
Pāhoehoe lava flow on the coastal plain of Kīlauea, The Big Island of Hawai generated wildfire. The new lava is moving across the old surface ,which is covered with a layer of moss about an inch thick. This moss is burning generating the smoke visible in the image. This kind of fire cannot be easily prevented or suppressed. The update that was written by USGS for the same day the image was taken - 09/04/07 says :"Lava flows advancing through vegetation are hazardous and can produce fire and methane explosions that propel chunks of lava and rock several feet into the air. "The picture was taken from a helicopter.
Articles this image appears in
Wildfire
Creator
Mbz1
  • Support as nominator Mbz1 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • query - is this really a wildfire? It sort of seems like smoke being generated by the direct heating of the lava on soil and other rocks, rather than a fire. It seems more likely to illustrate something like lava or Kilauea. I think the statement that the fire cannot be prevented or suppressed is misleading because lava floes can be diverted, which is similar enough. Other than that, I like the image and am ready to support. Debivort 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your questions.Here is the quote from the report by USGS that was written for the same day the image was taken - 09/04/07 :"Lava flows advancing through vegetation are hazardous and can produce fire and methane explosions that propel chunks of lava and rock several feet into the air. "The important word here is vegetation. It is what is burning in the image - vegetation. I do not think this kind of smoke could be generated by the lava flow itself (at least I've never seen one). I did see and photographed smoke,when the lava entered Pacific , but it was because a hot lava met relatively cold ocean. Otherwise as you could see from my other image no any smoke was generated from the lava flow.
      I'm not sure about your second statement that lava floes can be diverted. I know only about one such case, which happened if Iceland. The lava flow was about to close a harbor, which was used for fishing ships. Desperate people used the water from icy ocean over the lava flow for 24 hours a day. The water was getting right from the ocean by special ships and the water was really, really cold. Eventually the lava stopped and solidified, but remember they had unlimited quantity of very cold, icy water. The only other case of a stopped lava I know of was never proved. It happened on Etna. The lava flow was about to cover a small town. The local people went to churches to pray, while military shot missiles at the lava. Eventually the lava changed direction and the town was saved, yet nobody knows exactly what helped. The believers believe that the God helped them, military is sure their missiles did, while I think that Etna just changed her mind as it often happens with volcanoes. Whatever it was , I do not think somebody ever has been able to divert lava flow at Hawaii. They did try and they failed.--Mbz1 03:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • The iceland example is the one I was thinking about, but the two you have given prove that the caption above is technically false - these fires can in fact be suppressed, under the conditions you have described. Best to say something like "this kind of fire cannot be easily prevented or suppressed." Debivort 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Debivort 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Cacophony 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very encyclopedic image indeed. Managing to get a freely licensed shot of wildfire over Hawaii from a helicopter can hardly be easy. -- Chris B • talk 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose.. it looks like lava flowing 1 foot across gravel- impossible to tell the scale. Are those little pebbles supposed to be rocks? Also very blurry.. understandable since it's from a helicopter but too blurry --frotht 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you came up with "lava flowing 1 foot across gravel"? Do you see lava flow all across the smoke line, (which is clearly seen in full resolution), or you are talking only about lava river, which is seen at the top of the lava flow? I agree there's no scale, yet it is much, much, much wider than 1 foot. Blurry you said? It looks fine to me even the highest resolution.--Mbz1 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Oppose not quite beautiful enough, and I don't really see the "wildfire" connection. It illustrates lava, but wildfire? Whether or not that lava actually caused a fire or not, the image just doesn't show that: it shows lava advancing over rocks, and producing smoke. So it's not really showing what it purports to show, and it's not beautiful. Stevage 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is said: "There's no smoke without fire". The advancing lava by itself does not produce smoke. Something is burning at the ground and that's why the smoke is seen. So, in your opinion the picture is not beautiful? Well, in my opinion the picture is not just beatiful, it is spectacular. --Mbz1 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I see no vegetation anywhere... --frotht 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the image to U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory.
Here's their response:
"Hi Mila,
What you can't see from the air is that the old surface that the new lava is moving across is covered with a layer of moss about an inch thick. It's this moss burning that made the smoke visible in your photograph.
Aloha,
Tim.
Tim R. Orr
U.S. Geological Survey
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory."
So as you could from see Tim's response the moss(vegetation) is burning, which means that the image does show a wildfire.--Mbz1 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Right. But the image doesn't clearly show that, so as an "encyclopaedic" image, it's a bit of a failure. That's all. We're judging the image itself, not the event. Stevage 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added Tim's response to the caption of the image to clarify what is burning.--Mbz1 13:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Support based on image. I also have concerns about whether the use of the word "wildfire" in the caption is unnecessarily confusing-- why not simply say that the smoke comes from burning moss?> Spikebrennan 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand the concern about "wildfire" in the caption. I just added to the caption the update of USGS, which was written for the same day and also talks about fire. Maybe this new addition makes the caption more satisfactory? The thing is that in my opinion it is important to show the hazard, which associated with the lava flow advancing over vegetation and specify in particular that it could generate a rather dangerous wildfire.--Mbz1 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • Well, the name of the image still refers to "wildfire", which is just misleading. It's like showing a photo of a bird, and saying "Bird feeding its young", with the explanation that birds have young, and that the baby birds might be just out of shot. It's an interesting photo of lava advancing, burning moss as it goes...but the connection with wildfire is tenuous. And hence its use in wildfire is marginal. Stevage 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to thank you for all your comment, Stevage. They forced me to e-mail to U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaiian Volcano observatory and to learn from their response what really is burning in the image. Your comments also helped me to write much better caption, which in my opinion explains nicely what is going on. In my opinion to compare the image with image of a bird with no chicks is not exactly fair, just because you still could see not only lava, but also the smoke in my image. Remember "There's no smoke without fire" and there are many birds with no chiks. Anyway I've changed the title of the image like user Spikebrennan suggested. I hope that the using image in wildfire article could save somebody's life. Many people hike to see the lava flow at Hawaii. They do not see the danger because the lava usually advances slowly there one could easily run away from it. The picture shows one more hazard associated with the lava moving through vegetation. In my opinion it is important to keep the picture in wildfire article. Once again I'd like to thank everybody for the comments and votes.--Mbz1 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You are very kind, Mbz1, but we're not nominating this image for deletion here; quite the opposite. In fact, given that this image is in the public domain, that's highly unlikely. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lava wildfire.JPG MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Barkley at Buchenwald

Reason
I find this image to be deeply moving, and particularly significant for its historical symbolism (e.g. US-Israeli relations, worldwide grief and shock at Nazi practices, the final days of Nazi power, juxtaposition of American might and American powerlessness, et al.) Also, the date of the photo, April 24 1945, is significant.
Proposed caption
Alben Barkley, U.S. Senator of Kentucky, looks on at Buchenwald as part of a congressional committee investigating Nazi atrocities. Barkley would later serve as Vice President of the United States under Truman. This photo was taken on April 24, 1945, six days before Adolf Hitler committed suicide.
Articles this image appears in
Nazi Germany Buchenwald concentration camp Alben W. Barkley Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV
Creator
US Army

Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 06:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris)

File:Frogy - close look.JPG
Original
Reason
quality pic of a Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris)
Proposed caption
Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris) in the Tur river near Călineşti-Oaş Lake in Romania
Articles this image appears in
Bufo, Toad, True toad
Creator
Mario1987

Not promoted MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


John Abizaid

Original
Reason
Pretty striking image. Captures the intensity and focus of military men. Not much of a propaganda question with it because Abizaid is no longer in active service. If people like it, there are likely to be other possible noms from this type of image.
Proposed caption
General John Abizaid was commander of the U.S. Central Command with responsibility over U.S. military action in the Middle East and North Africa from 2003-2007 during the beginning of the War on Terrorism. He is shown wearing the now obsolete Desert Camouflage Uniform.
Articles this image appears in
John Abizaid
Creator
US Army

Not promoted MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Vibrating glass beam

Original
Reason
A flash photo freezes in time the extent of vibrations of a cantilever beam, exposure beyond flash reveals the whole path of the beam and creates an interesting effect with the lighting (which consists exclusively of a carefully positioned 1 watt LED flashlight). The vibrations rendered in white against the black background lend to a very diagrammatic appearance which works well for the article it's in. Post processing involved only resize and slight sharpening. The beam was melted from a capillary tube and that took about 20 tries to get right. I need to go buy some more tubes.
Proposed caption
The vibration of a beam, such as this cantilever made of borosilicate glass, can be described with the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation alongside a loading function which includes inertia, gravity, and possibly drag, and functions describing the variable section modulus and linear density. The traces of the exposure show decaying oscillations and motion that is not simple harmonic.
Articles this image appears in
Euler-Bernoulli beam equation
Creator
Ben_pcc (also the shameless nominator)

Promoted Image:VibratingGlassBeam.jpg MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pisaura mirabilis

File:Pisauramirabilis.JPG
Original
Reason
a quality pic of a Pisaura mirabilis in its natural enviroment
Proposed caption
Pisaura mirabilis near Călineşti-Oaş Lake in Romania
Articles this image appears in
Pisauridae, Pisaura mirabilis
Creator
Mario1987

Not promoted MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Javier Solana

Original
Edit 1 by Fir0002, noise reduction + mild sharpen
Reason
Scraped off of COM:FPC where voting is at 9/0/0.
Proposed caption
Javier Solana Madariaga (born July 14 1942 in Madrid, Spain) is the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Secretary-General of both the Council of the European Union (EU) and the Western European Union (WEU). He was named Secretary General of the 10 permanent member Western European Union in November, 1999. (plagerised from his article)
Articles this image appears in
European Union, Javier Solana, Reform Treaty
Creator
א

Support Edit 1. Nice shot - complaining about the OOF fist is a bit silly IMO --Fir0002 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Javier Solana (2007).JPG --Hadseys 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Red-veined darter

File:Dragonfly23.JPG
Original
Reason
It is a quality close up showing clearly the head and the body of the dragonfly
Proposed caption
A Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii) pic taken near Călineşti-Oaş Lake in Romania
Articles this image appears in
Dragonfly, Insect, Epiprocta
Creator
Mario1987

Not promoted MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Iapetus mountains

Original
High-res Version
Reason
This picture gives an amazingly three-dimensional view of the terrain on the bizarre moon Iapetus. Unlike most space probe images taken from above, it gives a sense of the view you might get from the object's surface.
Proposed caption
Mountains on Saturn's moon Iapetus, photographed by Cassini-Huygens. Original NASA caption reads "This stunning close-up view shows mountainous terrain that reaches about 10 kilometers (6 miles) high along the unique equatorial ridge of Iapetus. The view was acquired during Cassini's only close flyby of the two-toned Saturn moon. Above the middle of the image can be seen a place where an impact has exposed the bright ice beneath the dark overlying material. The image was taken on Sept. 10, 2007, with the Cassini spacecraft narrow-angle camera at a distance of approximately 3,870 kilometers (2,400 miles) from Iapetus. Image scale is 23 meters (75 feet) per pixel."
Articles this image appears in
Iapetus (moon)
Creator
NASA

Promoted Image:Iapetus mountains Larger.jpg MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



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.

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.

Solitary bee collecting nectar(Abthidium florentinum)

Original
Edit 1 (bk noise reduced)
Edit 2 by Fir0002 - further reduction of bg noise
Reason
It is a high resolution and encyclopaedic depiction of the species.
Proposed caption
A male solitary bee of the Megachilidae family (Anthidium florentinum) collecting nectar from a Lantana camara flower. The long tongue and part of the head are sunk inside one of the florets. It is also known as a leafcutter bee, for it uses hair plucked from leaves to build the nest. Flies all summer and nests in holes in the ground, trees or walls. Males are noticeably larger than females.
Articles this image appears in
Bees, Megachilidae
Creator
Joaquim Alves Gaspar

Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WTC (23 September 2001)

Original
Edit 1 by Dhartung
Edit 2/Alternative Cropped version
Reason
HUGE, detailed and clear image. Shows the medium-term aftermath of the tower's destruction. Slightly grainy, but overridden by historic and encyclopaedic value.
Proposed caption
An aerial photo of the World Trade Center complex, 12 days after its destruction. This image, as taken by a NOAA Cessna Citation from an altitude of one kilometer, shows NYC firefighters and construction equipment surrounding the debris created by the attack. Also noticeable is how the shrapnel caused further structural damage on the surrounding buildings.
Articles this image appears in
crops of the WTC buildings are used in their respective articles
Creator
NOAA/U.S. Army JPSD
Support edit 1 Much more accessible. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to Support original per comments by User:SG below. CillaИ ♦ XC 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvas size cut in half
  • JPEG compression at 90%
  • File size at 7MB (half of original)
I was able to open and manipulate (scroll) this version in my browser, though it was still sluggish and thrashy. Probably someone with a gamer's machine (lots of memory) will have zero problems, but I believe I have a pretty "average" PC. There is of course less detail in this one, but it's still closer in than most online aerial photograph (e.g. Google Maps). I skipped a sharpen step as most of what I objected to was really haze (I assume). It's sharp in some places, gauzy in others. I also tweaked the caption (American English, etc.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit, support original — The edit does not do anything except increase JPEG artifacts and reduce the image size. The original should be the FP, and a smaller version (~3-4MP) is always created for images of this magnitude for front page use (from where a link is supplied to the full image). ♠ SG →Talk 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can either replace the non-bordered version with the nominated version, or we can promote the non-bordered version as per my comment below. MER-C 13:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you don't mind if I promoted the non-bordered one instead, as to sidestep the concerns about "not being in any articles"? MER-C 10:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble uploading my cropped version. I'll try uploading one more time. Regardless, making this original file the FP is fine with me, so long as we can use a cropped version in articles. --Aude (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wtc-photo.jpg MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/image_name), and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image. If the alternatives were on Commons, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  9. If an 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

Shortcut

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.

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

Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.

  • Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Cyclone Catarina from the ISS

Cyclone Catarina
Original version
Reason
This is not featured quality. There is too much color reduction over the clouds. Here is what the untouched version looks like [2] The full-sized version is available on request.
Nominator
Good kitty

Delisted MER-C 07:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhabrot

Buddhabrot fractal
Reason
Unacceptable resolution for a computer-generated fractal. These images can be produced to arbitrary detail, there's no reason one this blurry and lo-res should be featured.
Nominator
frotht
I tried to regenerate it, but it's not as simple as changing the height and width in the code, since there's some kind of balance between the number of samples, the color curve, and the resolution that I couldn't understand. (Also, at high resolutions it takes hours to run, so it is difficult to do this by trial and error.) I agree, though, that someone who understands the code and the settings used to produce this image could produce a high-resolution version easily. — brighterorange (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on Evercat's talk page if he ever checks by. NauticaShades 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a very strong random element in what the final outcome looks like. THat one worked out particularly well. Plus I barely remember how the code works and what good settings would be. :-) Evercat 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search throws up this promising Sourceforge project (Windoze only, so don't look at me). Regeneration shouldn't be that hard... MER-C 06:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Delisted . --Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended nominations

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

The Taj Mahal from the river side. (Samuel Bourne 1865).

Photograph of the Taj Mahal from the Yamuna river in Agra, taken by Samuel Bourne in 1865. Albumen print from wet collodion-on-glass negative. Original scanned version with blemishes.
Photograph of the Taj Mahal from the Yamuna river in Agra, taken by Samuel Bourne in 1865. Albumen print from wet collodion-on-glass negative. Cleaned up version, but compressed further.
Compare the river today (taken from another angle) and notice the "park" between the Taj and the river.
Edit 02. removed artifacts, converted to greyscale and saved with as least compression as possible.
Reason
Historic photograph of the Taj Mahal from an unusual angle. Samuel Bourne, one of the earliest photographers of British India, lived and photographed widely in India from 1863 to 1869. Along with Charles Shepherd, one of the pioneers of albumin printing, he founded the Bourne and Shephard studios in Simla, Calcutta, and Bombay. The studios continues to operate in Calcutta (Kolkata) today. Note that the river today does not flow as close to the Taj; from this angle today all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." (See third photo, for comparison.) (See: Sampson, Gary D. 2000. "Photographer of the Picturesque: Samuel Bourne," in Vidya Deheja (ed.), India through the Lens. Photography 1840-1911. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 163-197. Also, Gordon, Sophie. 2000. The Imperial Gaze. The Photography of Samuel Bourne (1863-1870). New York, Sepia International.)
Articles this image appears in
potentially India and Taj Mahal
Creator
Samuel Bourne
  • Support as nominator — Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak Support One of the precious and historical photographs. Low Resolution should not be considered as factor due to historical significance as per Point 2 of Featured pictures criteria. I will prefer copyright issues to be resolved without any ambiguity. Collect Britain web page give hints that it could be copyrighted--Indianstar 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may need to be sorted out at the Wikipedia Powers-that-be Level. See discussion here for similar problems at Getty Museum I don't know if the Morven there is the Morven of Wikipedia, but I'll ask him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awful photograph! But they say it is copyrighted. Bad that a photo 147 years old should still be copyrighted. How did you remove that copyright tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.39 (talk • contribs). at 03:04, 4 June 2007
I downloaded it in November 2005, when there was no British Library tag on it! I don't think they are copyrighted. All they have done is to scan a Bourne image. In 2006, I wrote to BL asking them if I could put the picture on Wikipedia, but they never replied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I can't imagine it could be copyrighted, since there were many prints made and sold by Bourne and Shephard Studios in the 19th century, and the British Library has only one of those prints (from which it made the scans). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize that in cleaning up the picture, I compressed it further. I have now included the original scanned version with the orginal marks and blemishes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong SUPPORT: It is an excellent detailed picture of the historical Taj Mahal (one of the seven wonders of the world). Also, instead of the usual front view of the architectural structure, it shows a different yet equally amazing view of the marvelous building. Also, in terms of imagery, it has a good resolution and everything else. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What wonders would that be?--Svetovid 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by your comment? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He probably was noting that the Taj Mahal is not one of the definitive seven wonders of the ancient world: the Pyramid of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus, tomb of Mausolus, Colossus of Rhodes, and Lighthouse of Alexandria. J Are you green? 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not one of the seven ancient wonders (and it can't be one either because it was built around the sixteenth century, which is way after what ancient is), but it is one of the seven tourist travel wonders of the world. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard that one, but I doubt a difinitive list of ultimate tourist destinations exists, and if it does, my guess is that it's a gimmick. J Are you green? 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - cant see anything special in this photograph except that its claimed to be very old. And the 'historic' pitch is moot because this photo doesnt show anything about the Taj that we cant see today. Sarvagnya 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is special about this picture is that it shows a different yet equally beautiful view of the Taj, one that is different from the normal cliched one. Also, in this view, the picture is taken from a distance which also reveals the beauty of the nature (e.g. the river, soil, etc.) around the Taj while still succeeding in maintaining the focus on the Taj. Also, its historical value should be appreciated. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose *weak supportprobably a low quality digitization of the original, and actual building hasn't been destroyed, damaged or changed much since this photograph was taken Bleh999 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to weak support of edit .02 in light of the information about the river, also I removed the color image of the taj mahal, because it's not a fair comparisonBleh999 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The river doesn't flow as close to the Taj any more. From this angle today, all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." See third photograph above for comparison. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An unnecessarily poor version of a beautiful photograph. At first I thought the worst of it was the fogged upper half of the original print, but the scan is just too small to proprly appreciate the image in almost any respect. You get an idea of the exquisite detail of the original print here, where the "zoom" facility lets you see a small portion at a time of what appears to be the print at 100%. Stunning. The below-par submission here should not be promoted without a proper attempt to acquire a better scan. mikaultalk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until a better version is uploaded. I'd be happy to attempt to contact the source and get hold of it, assuming no-one has recently done so of course. mikaultalk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent, fingers crossed, chances fat :/ mikaultalk 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just received a reply promising a decision by next Tuesday. mikaultalk 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Have my fingers crossed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So...did you hear back? Jumping cheese 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mick Stephenson did hear from them. He is currently talking to the BL people to work some kind of an arrangement for the image. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of arrangement? Mike is not gonna have to pay for them to scan a high res copy is he? The license seems alright, so I'm assuming you don't need permission to use a high res version. Jumping cheese 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Neutral about the candidacy, but the OR about the changing distance between Yamuna and the Taj Mahal doesn't make much sense given the overwhelming temporal non-uniformness of precipitation in the Indian subcontinent -- On an average 90-odd days of flood and practically no rain for the remaining 275 days in the year. If you go there often in different seasons, you'll know that the "distance" depends upon the time of the year. A good rain for a couple of days, that the river comes all the way on the Taj. deeptrivia (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The quality of the picture (both the photograph and this version) is just not good enough. Sure it's old, and what can you expect, but I don't think this should be featured. Althepal 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose low res scan of old picture does not make a featured picture. Stefan 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are waiting for the high res version. See Mick Stephenson's (Mikaul) post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In all fairness, I think we've waited long enough and I think this nom ought to be closed. Mikaul should re-nom it if and whewhen he is able to get permission for the hi res version. Sarvagnya 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that, assuming the original nominator is too. I had hoped to have a result by now, but these things seem to take time :o/ mikaultalk 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not OK with it. Mick Stephenson (Mikaul), a professional photographer, has made a big effort to talk to the people at British Library. There is no reason why we can't wait, since Mick's chances of success are quite good, and his effort promises other bounties for Wikipedia. Besides the wait doesn't involve any active effort on anyone else's part. Mick can certainly take over as the nominator when the high res image arrives, but I'd prefer to have the history of the nomination in one place rather than two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be closed, anyway we have this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sambourneagra1860s.jpg on commons, which is a much higher resolution and better photo of the Taj Mahal by Samuel Bourne even if it doesn't show the river, the related problem is that this image doesn't even appear in any articles Bleh999 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: The reason why it hadn't been added to the Taj Mahal page and the Samuel Bourne page is that I was waiting for the better version from Mick. I have now added the image to both pages. As for the other image, the reason why we are waiting for Mick to get the high-res version is that it is much better (both in composition and resolution) than the image you mention above. I wonder if Mick has any comments. Did you hear anything else from BL, Mick? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to prejudice anything, but the British Library have made noises to the effect that they might be "interested in working with Wikipedia" with regard to some of their photographic collection(s). Release of a high-res version of the Bourne image, which was my original line of inquiry, is kind of tied up in these negotiations, which in turn have been hampered somewhat by the BL's need to do things by conventional mail. I'm still on the case, as it were, and optimistic though I am, it will probably take a while longer before I can shed any light on the Bourne image. If/when we get a suitable license, I'm hopeful it will open up access to more quality historical images, so it's kind of worth being patient a little while longer. mikaultalk 09:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digital images and snail mail! Now there's a new one, but par for the course for libraries, who (it seems) have been dragged kicking and screaming into internet age. Thanks for pursuing this, Mick. I know it is slow and frustrating work, but as you said yourself somewhere, the payoff could be substantial. As for this nomination, I'm happy to wait; if, however, at any time in the future, you feel that the nomination is "stuck" and it is time to pull the plug, please let us know. You are pretty much calling the shots on this. Thanks again, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In short: this is not WP's best. Puddyglum 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why are we using an old black and white from the 1800s? Isn't the Taj Mahal still standing? --ffroth 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the nom, and the additional image uploaded to illustrate. The river no longer runs alongside. I actually think it has wider enc value, but it looks as if it'll have to wait until a future nomination anyway. I'm still hopeful of a high res version but if nothing transpires by the end of next week I'm going to suggest a close on this one, it's been around way too long. --mikaultalk 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the nomination Since I heard from Mick Stephenson that the British Library is not coming through on this, in spite of his more than a dozen attempts (see here), I am now formally withdrawing the nomination. I am sure other lovers of the Bourne image will agree that Mick has done a stalwart job and deserves our collective thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four-seam fastball by Chris Young

Four seam fastball delivery by Chris Young during pregame bullpen warmup.
Edit 1 - adjusted levels so that it's less washed-out; downsampled to reduce artifacts; slight rotate
Edit 3 by jjron - tilt adjustment, crop, sharpen, colour balance, noise reduction (note: replaced low res Edit2 sample version with this)
Reason
This shot captures a four-seam fastball with enough detail to see the seams on the baseball and the fingers during an action shot of a pitcher's delivery. It is rare level quality and detail on wikipedia to have such clarity of the seams and the fingers in an action shot of a top flight pitcher. Chris Young is an interesting subject because he is an up and coming pitcher who is the first Princeton University baseball player to start a Major League Baseball game since 1961. Since Wrigley Field is on the short list of favorite baseball stadiums (with Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park) the backdrop of the old fashioned scoreboard (note the scoreboard only has room for 24 teams even though baseball has expanded 3 times to 30 teams since the scoreboard was added) adds interesting context to the picture. Its old fashioned layout with open bullpens in foul territory (instead of enclosed as is more common) allowed me and the viewer to look on along with the bullpen coach.
Articles this image appears in
Chris Young (baseball pitcher)
Bullpen
Fastball
Starting pitcher
Pitcher
All-Star Final Vote
Four-seam fastball
Creator
User:TonyTheTiger

A lengthy discussion on various contract issues regarding this photo (hidden by noinclude) has suggested that this photo is, indeed, OK for inclusion. Restarting candidacy. MER-C 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support With the copyright issues out of the way, this one's a no-brainer for me. SingCal 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 Great detailed view of the delivery. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Detail on the fingers is excellent, relatively rare, and very illustrative. Chick Bowen 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Appears tilted. The composition is really the biggest problem in my eyes. There is too little space in the direction of dynamic movement (in front of chris young, the direction he is throwing) I'm not sure if a portrait orientation is best for this picture. The pitching coach in the background is distracting. A tighter crop would be nice. Also, although this could be overlooked if the other aspects were addressed, I'd prefer to have the picture taken during the game. Maybe that prevents use b/c of copyright but it'd be nice. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose, the cropping helped but unfortunately the aspect ratio is too tall and skinny for this type of shot. I didn't suggest cropping or add my own edit because I thought (and still think) there isn't enough space on the left. Its a good shot by all means, I the composition just isn't there for my. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd need a heck of a lens to get that much detail during the game. A bullpen shot is actually better for this purpose (showing the grip on the ball). Chick Bowen 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a low-res edit (Edit 2) with a tilt correction (based on the flagpole being vertical, but I may have gone just a little too far) and a crop (agree with Fcb981's comments re the composition, coach, etc, so have tried to fix this with the crop). This is for discussion only rather than voting. --jjron 12:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit3 uploaded; I have removed the low-res Edit2 and replaced it with a full-res Edit3. Link to Edit2 here.

  • Oppose I was just going to abstain here, but I've read over the original objections and I'm not really happy on a couple of points. The original image always seemed to me to be beyond redemption on composition, sharpness and enc grounds. I like jjron's edit but it's really only addressed one of those issues. I also don't understand how the copyright issue is suddenly "out of the way". Did I miss the part where permission was granted, or have we just decided to "publish and be damned"? All told, I can't help thinking it's a lot of struggle for a rather flawed image of doubtful legality, so I have to oppose. --mikaultalk 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment glad to see debate resume. I am also grateful that this was cropped in a way that does not affect any of the linked articles. Since this was a 12:05 game the clock is important for starting pitcher and the bullpen is obviously important for bullpen. I would just remind you that this is the best unposed picture of a Four seam fastball on WP. Bases on the first sentence at WP:FPC ("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."), this is a great shot for its instructive value. I am not a photographer and appreciate all the editorial assistance in making corrections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Original & Edit 1, Weak Neutral Edit 3. Bad tilt and composition issues on opposed versions. Even with my edit that helps with these problems, I just can't really support Edit 3 on quality grounds. Re encyclopaedic value, I think it's best use is for the Chris Young article and probably 'pitcher' - a fair bit of discussion has gone on re the Four seam fastball value, but to me that's not that great as you can only see the fingers at full size (which not that many users do), and then it's all pretty fuzzy. So it does have value and is a fine image, but just not quite there for me. --jjron 08:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg MER-C 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=159512556"