Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia. Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. Promoting an image If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well. Delisting an image A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance. Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December. Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).

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

Step 1: Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.

Step 2: Create a subpage For Nominations To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button. For Delists (or Delist & Replace) To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.

Step 3: Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list ().

How to comment for Candidate Images Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional. Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly. You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case. Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. How to comment for Delist Images Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture. Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture. Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture. You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}. Editing candidates If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. Is my monitor adjusted correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate. Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.

To see recent changes, .

Current nominations

US Supreme Court Building

Original - The United States Supreme Court Building at dusk.

Not for voting - Alternate

Reason

Have at it.

Articles this image appears in

United States

Creator

User:Noclip

• Support as nominator --Noclip (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Opose. It does not illustrate the subject in a particularly compelling way, doesn't make me want to know more. It's too dark, and doesn't stand out as being Wikipedia's best work. An other image from the article it's in would be better suited to be featured.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User has <10 edits, almost all of which are on FPC all within 1 hr timespan --Fir0002 09:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Huh, what's up with that 'reason' for nominating? Can we get a real reason here that actually makes sense? --jjron (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I dislike the frame ratio and the sky is quite dark. It also fails to properly illustrate the subject, cutting off the wings on either side. Capital photographer (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose aspect ratio - feels too cropped left and right. Also it seems like there is a lamp out behind the pillars on camera left. Should be retaken with that working. Mfield (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The lamp comment really irritates me. I think just about any other reason (up to and including something like "it sucks") would have been better than blaming the photographer for illustrating reality. To ask that a photograph look like a movie set flies in the face of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Noclip (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment It's an easily retakeable shot, as a photographer I would go back the following week and reshoot it as it would annoy me to have an image with a lamp missing as much as it probably offends the maintenance staff of the SCOTUS. The building probably doesn't have a lamp missing very often, and as such the image is atypical of the building at night and thus less enc. Mfield (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there is a lamp, there is a basement window bottom lit up left, and a small stack of scaffolding partly hidden behind the pillar. Difficult to catch an institutional building with absolutely no clutter. ProfDEH (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I am talking the facade behind the columns. The right side is illuminated by a large floodlight but the left side is not. I am fairly certain its not generally that way Mfield (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The crop annoys me. It's a good photo, but I believe more of the building should be shown. ¢rassic! (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think ¢rassic makes an excellent point. This is made even more visible by the comparison of the other picture. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Willie Wagtail

Original - An adult Willie Wagtail, taken in the Melbourne Botanical Gardens

Reason

High quality image of a Willie Wagtail. Seems to fit all the criteria IMO

Articles this image appears in

Willie Wagtail

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent technically. Definitely adds to an otherwise uninteresting article.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • — seems to have joined to support this picture and badmouth a well written article (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If the article is that uninteresting why would I want the picture to be seen on the front page, which would then link it to a second rate article? You've given me one good reason not to support the image. --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• the picture looks great, and meets the criteria to be a featured picture. That has nothing to do with the quality of the article it appears on. It's nominated to be a featured picture, not featured article. I don't think that the article is a bad one, it's just that I find the subject of the article uninteresting/boring. Articles don't have to be written in an exciting way. Most of the articles that go with featured pictures are pretty boring. I'd bet that most of the folks commenting on these featured picture candidates don't care much about the articles, but like pictures. Besides It's only my opinion. And the point is that the picture adds value to the article, so I support it being featured. If you believe it should not be featured because of the quality of the associated article, then you're welcome to !vote oppose. In that case who ever makes the decision to promote or not is sure to see a reason for opposing that's not supported.Dwayne Reed (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This is a very high quality image, and adds significantly to the article and to Wikipedia.--Polymath618 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Perhaps a bit too bright and plumage detail is quite soft, but overall nice DOF and clarity Capital photographer (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support A very nice image, but I wish that the background branches were in lesser focus. (The Branch the bird is on is fine. The branches seem to be in better focus than other FP's I've seen, like this or this. Also, if someone could slightly blur the branches like this, I'd fully support. Spencer^T♦C 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support It's a really nice picture, but it looks a little funny with half of the branch in focus and the other half blurry.116135 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No offense but welcome to DOF --Fir0002 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support in spite of the supporter above badmouthing the article as if the picture shouldn't see light of day because of an inferior article--the article's fine. --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - good image of a useful subject. Well taken and composed. His tail has suffered the ravages of time though - Peripitus (Talk) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support good picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Willy wag tail.jpg MER-C 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the most natural looking image with its high resolution quality

Original - Cherry

Reason

It just looks very natural and to me it meets 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8th of W:FPC.

Articles this image appears in

Cherry

Creator

Gulmammad

• Support as nominator --Gülməmməd ^Talk 16:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - low technical quality.--Svetovid (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• A question: I am curios to know the low technical quality corresponds to which subsection of #1 in W:FPC. For the technical quality the camera should be fine as can be seen from the metadata of the image. Thanks in advance! Gülməmməd ^Talk 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture is quite noisy, unsharp and has depth of focus issues at full size. Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I quite like the composition of the picture it is framed perfectly and the colors are first rate. On technical ground the picture does have a lot of noise and areas are blown out(pure white). Next time you take a closeup picture you should mount the camera on a tripod and use the manual mode on you G9 to close the aperture and get a larger Depth of Field. Recently a nomination made it through here by showing the development cycle of fruits. If you can do that by having a good technical quality pictures it's very likely your picture would succeed. victorrocha (talk) 7:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - a picture of 3 cherries doesn't do it for me, on both technical and appealing grounds. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adds nothing to the cherry article. Not a good picture. Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the picture is very good, but there is quite a lot of noise, as others have remarked. If someone could improve the focus of the image then I would support it.--Polymath618 (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose poor exposure Capital photographer (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't look good visually or technically.116135 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The moment of birth

Original - A team of obstetricians perform a caesarean section in a modern hospital. The image shows the very first moment the mother glimpses her new-born child.

Edit 2 by Diliff. Same idea as Victorrocha but kept original resolution and slightly cleaner noise reduction (compare background, eg clock)

File:Cesarian the moment of birth4.jpg

Diff version.

Reason

As another user commented, the WOW factor is incredible (this definitely makes you want to read accompanying article). The focal point of the picture is really well highlighted. I find the edit cleans the picture up to the degree that it meets the FP requirements. Was originally posted to WP:PPR and seconded here Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Cesarian

Articles this image appears in

Caesarean_section

Creator

Salimfadhley

• Support as nominator --smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per my comment on Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Cesarian. Imperfect, but awesome image. Fletcher (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment where's the model permission? Durova^Charge! 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not see why one is required, especially since no one is this photo is identifiable, as the woman is lying down and the doctors are covered. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's call this a matter of perspective. I am a woman. If anyone ever shows up in a delivery room where I am giving birth and attempts to use "she's lying down" as a pretext to take photographs without my permission, I will leap from the gurney, tackle the SOB, and eat the camera. Durova^Charge! 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The presence of this picture here implies nobody "tackled the SOB" and ate the camera. Muhammad(talk) 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Correct, it would be very hard to sneak into that particular surgery and start taking snapshots of strangers. All images were taken with the full knowledge and consent of all present (except for the baby). --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • A bit harder to do during a c-section than a regular birth: general anesthesia. How do we know she was any more willing to permit photography of the delivery than she would have been of the conception? Durova^Charge! 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • On the other hand, no one in the photo is identifiable, with the doctors masked, the new mother facing away, and, while the baby is uncovered, all newborns pretty much look alike. The lack of clearly identifiable individuals would seem to cut against the argument their personality or privacy rights are being infringed. Nevertheless, I can't pretend to offer a legal opinion; perhaps someone else knows more. Fletcher (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I do not know British law. If it is anything like the U.S., a standard hospital consent form would grant permission for limited photography purposes (patient care, scientific research and medical training). Anything beyond that use would require additional specific consent, and presence in Wikipedia (let alone the main page) goes far beyond those limited purposes. That standard applies to all medical procedures, not just childbirth. Durova^Charge! 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
            • This photo was taken in a private hospital, therefore the only consent required was that of the surgeons and the mother. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Do we know British law applies rather than Florida law? Wikipedia is not in the London hospital, taking the pictures. We are hosting the image from Florida. And I doubt Florida law covers people in London hospitals. Fletcher (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
                • The image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, where site policy is to respect the law of both the home country and the United States. Another editor notes below that this photograph may be in violation of the European convention on human rights. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• oppose I agree with Durovas questioning of the image having appropriate approvals, the medical team would obviously not have given permission for their image to used commercially, I also note that in Australia a doctor can be deregistered for such actions, that while I'm not sure of the UK position commonalities between UK and Aust are in the majority. Gnangarra 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean that a doctor can be deregistered for such actions...? What actions exactly? Allowing a photographer to take a photo of them during a procedure? I have no idea whether you're right or not, but it sounds a bit over the top. I'm sure I've seen photos taken before. How many families have photos, or even video, of a childbirth? Is that something for a doctor to be deregistered for? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Allowing a photo to be taken by a person for a private record isnt an issue, allowing an image to be taken for commercial purposes violates ethical standards and such violations can see the doctor de-registered. Gnangarra 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah sorry, I didn't see that you meant commercial photography. OK, but what about documentaries filmed in a hospital.. you sometimes see footage of an actual operation, and a documentary is commercial. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Such things would have obtained the necessary approvals as seen in the credits, my oppose is based on the image licensing and whether the necessary approval has been granted from the medical team for unrestricted commercial use. Gnangarra 08:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Surely the privacy/personality issue has come up before? Hopefully I didn't miss something, but I didn't see anything pertinent in Image Use Policy or featured picture criteria. Does the apparent lack of policy indicate it's only an issue between photographer and subject? Or does Wikipedia experience "second hand" liability if a freely licensed photograph is found to infringe the rights of the subject? Hmmm. Fletcher (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If we are going on this, Photography_and_the_law (see UK section), then I quote "in general there is no right to privacy under UK law, and photograph of individuals may be used for any purposes." Unless someone presents something more definitive, I think it is jumping the gun to vote oppose (based on the permission doubts), similiar to our friend Gnan. In addition, I do not believe that any permission is required when no one is identifiable, but I will look up definitive info if I can. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I did see under the General Disclaimer that Wikipedia explicitly disavows responsibility for photographs that infringe on personality rights. Thus, it should be a matter between the photographer and subject. I presume if a lawsuit developed Wikipedia could conceivably have to remove the offending photo, but I don't see why we would have to preemptively suppress photos we have explicitly denied responsibility for. Furthermore, as the subjects are not identifiable, it's rather unlikely there will be any issue with it down the road.Fletcher (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Allow me to be explicit then. Although I don't perceive any deliberate bias and all of the participants to this discussion are probably decent people, there is also an undercurrent which is--to say the least--disturbing. Some women allow their childbirths to be photographed and distributed; others, most vehemently, do not. Some women allow their copulations to be photographed and distributed; others, most vehemently, do not. We have no idea which view this woman holds. I doubt very much we would even consider a photograph of comparable quality of two human beings copulating with equivalent proportions of their bodies, faces, and the surrounding room visible unless their permission had been explicitly granted, because this is sufficient detail for the people who already know the individuals well to recognize them. And if this subject happens to be of the opinion that childbirth is as private as lovemaking, then this discussion is downright dehumanizing. It reduces one of the most important moments in her life to the level of the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet: look at the female mammal generating offspring, as expressed by a group of males who can never themselves be humiliated in this particular manner. The nearest parallel I can think of would be a photograph of a vasectomy with the patient's face partially visible, the medical team's faces partially visible, and the operating room in such good depth of focus that it's easily recognizable to anyone who knows the department and the hospital. Camera metadata are a strong hint to the rest. If a man who is having a vasectomy consents to such a photograph I will support it, and if this woman likes the idea of her childbirth running on Wikipedia's main page I will support it. But until and unless she grants that permission my opinion here has to be very strong oppose. Call that WP:IAR if necessary: this is just plain wrong. Durova^Charge! 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see the relation between childbirth and porn. I do not know what undercurrent you see, but I nominated this picture because I thought it was an amazing picture highlighting the first moment of life, not to mention its encyclopedic nature. The Free Arts license attached to it is concerned with respect. The nomination is in a great respect to childbirth and to the author of the photograph and a nod to its rarity. This is the 21st century and many women choose C-sections as a preference, and I think this photograph is a tremendous illustration of that. It does not demean the moment in that woman's life whatsoever (who I remind is unidentifiable). Please do not take offense to that. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Whether you see it is irrelevant; ask whether she sees it. Or upload a photograph of yourself giving birth. Durova^Charge! 18:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know about the copyright laws but I see that this image successfully passed as an FP without any model permission. Muhammad(talk) 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• British law and the Wikipedia misquote above from Wikipedia. The full sentence says,

"Photography without consent of someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, could be considered to be against the European convention on human rights, however in general there is no right to privacy under UK law, and photograph of individuals may be used for any purposes. In addition persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment. In general, schools disallow photography and video recording of people due to privacy concerns. "

• It's always interesting to me what people choose to omit to prove their points. Now, Wikipedia isn't the authority on British photography law, but since if it were taken "without consent of someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, it could be considered to be against the European convention on human rights."
• You omitted that it might be a violation of her human rights. But, hell, she's a woman, what's another woman's human rights violated?
• I think this photograph should come with a permission of the models. With the models' permissions, its a wonderful image, without it's just more exploitation. But again, what's a human rights violation when a Wikipedia FP is at stake? Please, just ask the photographer to get the model's permission. It's simple. Don't guess, just get the permission. --Blechnic (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, be civil. You're the second person in this review to assume sexism. Fletcher (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • There was no release form, this is just a family snapshot of which we are particularly proud - if you are concerned then rather than imagine what my wife must be thinking then one of you can meet her, verify that she is the same person and then ask her yourself. Contact me directly if you are interested. Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a statistically sound assumption when it comes to human rights violations and women. I'm concerned about privacy issues, identification issues, release issues. So is Durova. Her concerns are being dismissed. These issues were dismissed with a misquote from a Wikipedia article. This raises questions to me, and statistically, in the world, brick or web, the human rights of women are not of great concern. That is a far greater incivility than mentioning it or suspecting it can ever be. -Blechnic (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Statistically sound or not, you are assuming bad faith if you say someone is motivated out of sexism and disregard for women. Legal matters can get very complex; the mere fact that someone makes an interpretation that might be adverse to a woman hardly implies it is done out of sexism. Quite possibly it is the British interpretation of privacy that will be practically relevant, even if there is some potential appeal to the EU, which could explain why he quoted it that way. In addition, why do you interpret disagreement with Durova as dismissal of her concerns? This isn't some old boys' club; it's a wiki. No one gets to dismiss her, but we can disagree, if we want. Fletcher (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify for my own part: I assume the best of intentions and basic decency on the part of all parties. Certain scenes are just much easier or harder to relate to from a given perspective. If someone were to nominate a photograph of a circumcision being performed on an adult, my predominant reaction would be a clinical curiosity about what the operation looks like supplemented with an interest in public health issues as the procedure relates to HIV transmission. Most men would react very differently. It becomes a little harder to maintain good faith after having set forth the substance and reasoning of my misgivings in an articulate and (I hope) nonconfrontational manner, but I am maintaining it: I trust that the obstacle is an alien perspective, very hard to imagine effectively when one's anatomy is fundamentally different, and that everyone in this discussion is a well-meaning person. Durova^Charge! 01:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Fletcher for pointing out that the sexism claims are misdirected. If I did misquote, its not a failure on my part to recognize women's rights, I was taking the relevant part about UK, not some broad claim about the EU that has no source. The source for that Wiki page is this about Photographer's rights, unfortunately, it does not cover this particular situation and I haven't been able to find anything else on the matter (yet). I would also like to reiterate that I do not think it matters if I am male or female, I look at this picture from an objective third party perspective and I think it is an amazing photograph. Also Durova, with all due respect, you keep mentioning anatomy, but isn't that the case with medical related pictures? If there was a photograph nominated of a vasectomy or circumcision then I would judge that photograph exactly how you expressed, with a clinical perspective coupled with an encyclopedic view, as I am doing here. I personally believe that most people seeing this picture for the first time will be thoroughly surprised on seeing a picture like this one. I can understand if you feel differently however and do not mean to disregard your opinion. My point is that it seems to me that none of us know if a model release is required in this case. A reliable source would certainly end this discussion, although I am surprised this matter has never arisen before. In the meantime, I will ask Salimfadhley to get a model release, despite the fact that none of us are sure on the law. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, I didn't realize you already did. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it over carefully and decided that even if model release isn't legally required, context and common sense demand it. Wikimedia projects often handle images more conservatively than the bare minimum statutory requirement: consider Wikipedia's fair use parameters and Commons's decision to not host material based upon inapplicable local law even though United States copyright is the only restriction it is required to observe. The shared element is courtesy--we endeavor to refrain from exploitation. This woman was unconscious when the photograph was taken. We have no assurance that she permitted it or that she even knows it exists, yet we are seriously contemplating displaying it on Wikipedia's main page where it will be seen by approximately seven million people. This is why I invoked WP:IAR: it may be that no one anticipated such a discussion, and I will be very grateful if she does consent, but we must not presume. A consent to publish the actual birth of one's child is the most personal decision in the world. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious: What makes you think that the mother was unconscious when the photograph was taken? In my experience general anaesthesia during caesarean section is rare and there is no evidence in the photograph that it was used in this case. Also, I count six adults present in the image, none of whom could fairly be described as the subject. 66.240.20.113 (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My wife was fully conscious throughout the entire procedure - that is why there is a surgical screen, to prevent the mother from seeing and becoming disturbed by the procedure. At the end of the procedure (and after baby is checked by the midwife), baby is given to the mother to hold for the first time. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A very standard procedure; I see no reason to suspect that the Mother, obstetricians or other medial staff were unaware that the photograph was being taken. Support 66.240.20.113 (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

<=Wikipedia's image policies are structured to promote free content, which doesn't seem to be the issue here. Wikipedia is not censored, so we do not suppress images as a courtesy to people who don't want them shown. I haven't seen any policy against exploitation, and I'm not even sure what that term is supposed to mean. I do think we should figure out if the photographer infringed the subject's rights. If he did, we should not compound the damages done even if Wikipedia is not liable (as we are not, per the General Disclaimer). If he didn't -- either she consented or her consent was not required -- I don't see the harm in featuring the image. It's a wonderful image, and the benefit to Wikipedia's readers will far exceed any harm done to the subject. Indeed I don't really understand what harm is done to the subject: she is not identifiable, nor is the baby, in my opinion, nor are the doctors, so the image does not expose anything about her particular life, because nothing in particular is known about her. Her head faces away, with her body covered in blankets. The newborn looks like any newborn; it could be any of us, as its mother could be any of our mothers. In that way the image has artistic value complementing its encyclopedic value. I continue to support, if the image is legal. Fletcher (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am the person who took this photo. The "model" is my wife and the baby is my baby. This is a photo from my family album taken and uploaded with consent of all present (except the baby who could not have any say in the matter. He's now 2 years old. I asked him if he minds Wikipedia using this image and he ran off to do something more interesting. This image has been used all over the world - I think it's been on the cover of at least one obstetrics journal (in Mexico) and it's been on Flickr for over 2 years now. Nobody objects to it being on Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec - now mostly redundant)Strong Support if the model's permission can be obtained per a striking and moving image. If the model can't be found then still I think Support per Fletcher (assuming the image is legal - agree with Fletcher we should check). As the woman and doctors are unrecognisable I don't see any great need to remove the image to protect their privacy. Since the question has been raised, I am a man, but I don't think my support is due to my "anatomy [being] fundamentally different": I can't speak for most men, but I'd be acting exactly the same (and exactly the same as Durova describes herself acting) if the picture were of a circumcision or vasectomy. If the image were good and the subject anonymous, as I believe they are here, I'd be supporting just the same. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support despite being a bit grainy in the shadows. Had we but asked the uploader first, all those electrons used in the discussion above could have been left unbothered... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Electrons like to be excited. ;-) In fact I made 10^45 electrons happy by unnecessarily replying to you! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support although could be less grainy in some areas. If there is more reason than conjecture that this might violate privacy (it has bee freely released) then you should attempt to have this image deleted. But I don't really see that there is beyond guessing. gren グレン 11:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral the original photo is released under a "CC Non-commerical by attribution" license on Flickr - that means if somebody feels the photo would be better with the mother's face blurred out then they are free to do so as attribution is preseved. I honestly do not mind as long as the CC rules are followed. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just realized - this is my baby daughter (not my son). They all look the same when they were newborns. The original photo is here: http://flickr.com/photos/salimfadhley/2141742390/in/set-72157603567517647/ --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please ask your wife to grant her permission in writing. That's the only barrier here, but it's quite a serious one. Durova^Charge! 16:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what benefit is gained by a written release when all we have is his word that the person giving his release is actually his wife, as opposed to him giving his word that this wife consents. Mangostar (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound redundant, but based on the points raised by Fletcher and Olaf, and from the author's comments, I do not think it is a "barrier" to being a FP, although I don't see how a release would hurt. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Are you aware that the license you released the image on at Wikipedia is not non-commercial? The fine print of the Free Art License states "it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions than those required by the respect of the other compatibility criteria;". This conflicts with the license you released it with on Flickr... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The more permissive license wins. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's right - just take your pick licence-wise. Remember, I did the releasing so that means I'm OK with both licenses. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I don't believe a model permission is necessary in this case. Worst to the worst, Wikipedia would get a cease and desist letter, the photograph would be taken down, and that would be that. NauticaShades 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• SupportStrong Oppose But I would like a model release, also. The graininess can't be helped with the lighting situation, so this doesn't matter. It's a very generic childbirth, too, because of the limited view of the mother, and the timing. Yes, Salim, son/daughter, the whole human race looks pretty much the same at the moment of birth. It would be a good picture to see on the main page. --Blechnic (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not going to be a model-release. Like I said, this is a family snapshot. The "model" is not a model but my wife. The baby is not a model either - she is my baby. She can dribble, puke and cry really well. She's learning to crawl but she's not going to be signing any legal documents for another 2 years at least. As I said before, these images have been CC licensed on Flickr for at least 6 months - that alone makes it fair-game for Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the issue that everyone has been crowing about is the fact that your wife, however unidentifiable she is, might not approve of the image being released or worse, file a lawsuit down the track. She might be your wife but she is still entitled to own opinion, obviously. I don't see how she could possibly implicate Wikipedia though, as you have released the image under a specific license, and Wikipedia will respect the license. I guess the point remains that you might not, in theory, have the right to release an image of another person in a very intimate time and location, and I think that Durova's concern is that while permission might not be required, it would be discourteous to not attempt to get it. I see that point and respect it, but on the other hand she is quite unidentifiable, and I'm inclined to think that if she is not happy with the image being published, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. For the time being, lets assume good faith and that the benefit of a good quality, encyclopaedic image outweighs the potential distress/embarassment/shame/etc on the part of those in the image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to be snappy to me, Salimfadhley. I supported the image, but stated I would like a model release. Guess what? You don't get to sign your wife's model release. You don't own her release rights. Changed to strong oppose--this attitude and answer about the model release does not bode well for the situation of using this image. The model is a model, and she's a human being first, and apparently an adult, with her own legal rights, that you don't get to, in the laws of many lands, sign away with only your say-so. --Blechnic (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that such a release is required. His attitude is irrelevant, as we are judging the picture, not the photographer. Besides, if he seemed "snappy" it may be in reaction to the implication that he is untrustworthy, which I think is uncalled for. Fletcher (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Diliff. Again, I note the general disclaimer absolves Wikipedia of responsibility in the hypothetical event Salim is doing something improper. That covers us legally. Ethically speaking, I think to assume good faith is to defer to Salim's good judgment about his wife's expectations. Fletcher (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide evidence he owns the wife and her legal rights, he's the one giving her permission, seems photographer thinks it needs permission he gives. Heck, snappy for assuming bad faith? I supported the image, and then said I would like a model release, not I demanded one, and then I praised the picture, for that I get snapped at? Forget it. This picture will be problems. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Salim was trying to be snappy. Perhaps he misunderstood the model permission requirement and was explaining that his wifeis not a model:-) Muhammad(talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please understand the European Convention on Human Rights. In the third millenium, a wife speaks for herself. Until and unless she agrees, we must oppose on principle, and in the strongest terms. Durova^Charge! 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But does the European Convention of Human Rights apply to a situation in which the person concerned is unidentifiable? You cite law, but your argument is about moral principles (and I agree with your argument, except to say I think it would be nice but not absolutely necessary). It doesn't sound like the author is going to be swayed into providing 'proof of authorisation' by opposition out of principle. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova, you said "Until and unless she agrees, we must oppose". Salim has said above that his wife has given permission. I really don't see why we should oppose on principle unless we have any reason to doubt Salim's truthfulness about his wife having consented (which we don't). After all, he's not saying "I hereby give my wife's permission" as Durova and Blechnic seem to be implying - he's just telling us that she has consented herself. What's wrong with that? And what will convince you that she has consented, if Salim's word is for some reason not enough? Olaf Davis | Talk 14:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In Durova's defense, I don't think Salim ever did actually say his wife gave permission, he just said no written permission would be forthcoming. It was only somewhat implied that his wife approved - certainly it wasn't explicitly stated that his wife gave permission. Again though, I don't think it is absolutely necessary anyway, if she isn't identifiable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement of Salim's I was referring to is "This is a photo from my family album taken and uploaded with consent of all present". Assuming that "uploaded" means "uploaded to Wikipedia" that seems fairly explicit to me - do you disagree with my interpretation? Olaf Davis | Talk 16:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're absolutely right. I thought I had read everything thoroughly (I even searched for every instance of Salim's name to confirm that I had), but somehow I missed that statement. Fair enough, I think thats about as much proof as you can really expect. As has been mentioned, a written document is no more proof unless we can confirm his wife's signature anyway, and that is just getting a bit ridiculous over someone who is unidentifiable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The hostility from Durova and Blechnic is puzzling. "Provide evidence he owns the wife and her legal rights". I never suggested anything of the kind, and I don't see any evidence that portraying the issue as some kind of gender war is justified. I look at it as deferring to the mutual respect and understanding that ought to exist between people in a committed relationship. A woman photographing her husband undergoing some procedure would be no different. Fletcher (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not impute hostility onto me. This is a matter of international human rights convention. This woman is an adult; we do not have her explicit consent; she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Nobody else can grant consent for her, unless that person can also produce power of attorney. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You ignored my question about whether the issue of human rights applies to this situation. I would argue it doesn't simply because she is unidentifiable. There is nothing about this image that could violate her rights as far as I can see. As I said above, I feel like you're taking a moral issue (and a tenuous one, given she is unidentifiable) and trying to make it a legal one to support your case. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your assurance that you're not being hostile; if that was hostility on my own part, I apologize (as well to Blechnic). Please explain which human rights convention, specifically, you are referring to -- which law states or implies a person must have written consent to take a photo of his or her spouse in a private situation and post it to the web. In addition, your claim that we are saying Salim consents on his wife's behalf is a bit of a strawman (or strawperson, if you prefer); as you can see from Olaf Davis' comments above, and the quote to which he refers, Salim did explicitly claim he is publishing this photo with his wife's consent [1]. So it is not a question of him consenting on her behalf, but a question of believing what he has told us, versus forcing him to produce documentation of what he has told us. On Wikipedia we try to assume good faith, so I don't understand why this wouldn't suffice, particularly given the fact that she is not even identifiable in the photo. Fletcher (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a responsibility to host images with clear and unobstructed rights, particularly when we feature them and run them on the main page. Salim asserts his wife consented; she has not submitted her own consent. She could generate an OTRS ticket quite easily herself, but she hasn't. Now I wish to express these important and delicate points sensitively: suppose for a moment that she does not consent; that she is a very private person. There is enough information in this shot and the photo description and metadata for people who already know this woman to confirm that it is her. Have you ever had someone misunderstand you in a really big way? This is a human rights issue; twelve to twenty million people will see this if it runs on the main page. Of course we can't be cavalier. Durova^Charge! 08:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason that we'd trust an OTRS claiming to be from Salim's wife more than him claiming to have her permission? If I didn't trust Salim not to lie about having asked his wife (though trust him I do), I'm not sure I'd trust him not to fake his wife's name when creating a ticket. I really can't see any way of being more sure about this than we already are.

It doesn't look as though either side in this disagreement is about to change its mind, so unless anything new comes up I will probably leave this to the closer's judgement of our consensus. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think victorrocha's edited version really helped the image noise, though at the cost of some sharpness. Fletcher (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to edit an image, I have .NEF (Nikon Raw) versions of all of these images (somewhere). --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The infant seems too small in the frame of the image. Can we see how it would looked cropped slightly?Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Commenting comment - this isn't about the infant, it's about the process. It's actually good that we see all the doctors, the mother, the operating room. Newborn kids are thirteen to a dozen, but a picture of a team doing a Caesarean are scarce. Keep as is. --Janke | Talk 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose. If this image is about the process of Cesarian section then it doesn't seem to have enough emphasis on that. The creator User:Salimfadhley writes "The focal point of the picture is really well highlighted." which is clearly the infant. The image would be more appropriate if the infant weren't highlighted, and the team of physicians were less dark and less grainy. At first glance this image could be of a cesarian section or vaginal birth. You have to look closely to tell that which it is. This doesn't add much to the encyclopedic content of the article. It definitely has the "wow" factor, but this doesn't meet the criteria to be a featured picture.Dwayne Reed (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Excellent point, until you completely enlarge the image, and look carefully and analyze, you can't tell whether it is a c-section or vaginal delivery. --Blechnic (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This is a C-Section. They would never put up a surgical screen during a normal delivery. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
          • If a birth took place in a hospital it is likely that a sheet very similar in appearance would be placed over the patient.Dwayne Reed (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think that point is as important as you make it out to be. Most of us might not even know what the two deliveries would look like until we'd been through them or we were a medical professional. People would likely see this image because they visited the article, so they would already be aware of what it is depicting. In this case, I think it might be an ambiguous image, but one which is appropriately explained by the article and by the caption, so the fact that it isn't self descriptive isn't important IMO. What it does do well is show the medical environment of a caesarian birth, the baby being delivered, etc. It is still a very useful image for the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I follow. Wouldn't people see the image because it appears on the front page? Anyway, I was attempting to comment on the ability of the picture to add to the encyclopedic value of the article. The article and caption certain explain what's going on, but I thought the photo should be able to illustrate the article and not the other way around.Dwayne Reed (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support with preference for Edit 2. Great capture of the atmosphere of a common but not well documented event. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, prefer Edit 2 Encyclopaedic, excellent, keeps from too much information about the mother. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose until proof woman consented provided. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do we need to obtain consent for every image containing a visible human being in a situation that may be considered sensitive to someone (whether it be the person in the image, or a viewer of the image)? How do we judge what is acceptable and what is not? I don't feel we can. I don't think Wikipedia should be censored based on what individuals personally feel are morally ambiguous. We're supposed to be judging the image and its significance in the article, not basing it on our own moral agenda. Morality rests on the shoulders of the original contributor IMO - not us. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Feel free to contact me directly and I can put you in touch with the woman in the photo - that is if you really care that much. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Excuse me; have you examined this discussion's references to the European Convention on Human Rights? Durova^Charge! 07:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
        • But excuse me, have you replied to my two previous requests for you to tell me exactly how the European Convention apllies to this situation? Since you ask though, I have looked at it, and I cannot see, to the best of my ability, anything in there that would be an issue. The closest match I can find is Section I, Article 8:

        1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

        2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

        • Is this what you are refering to? I don't think it really applies to this situation. If you're refering to something else, please cite it specifically so we can discuss it. As it stands, the European Convention on Human Rights is far to big (and vague for that matter) to wave around without being far more specific about what you mean exactly. Diliff | (Talk)
          • Yes, this is very silly: The convention on human rights is a cumbersome document that serves a similar role as the US Constitution - it guides lawmakers and not citizens. It's simply not relevant to this discussion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(Contribs) 10:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Edit 2 Withdrawing Edit 1 in favor of Diliff's. Good job at making it better BTW. victorrocha (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 Very nice, quality is good, composition is good. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support either enyclopedic and interesting. Muhammad(talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 - Given the identity of the photgrapher and the subjects I agree with some comments above that a release is not required. Love the shot especially the focus the lighting brings - Peripitus (Talk) 04:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per ethical issues raised above. Potential legal issues resulting from putting this on the mainpage. If not legality, moral issues resulting from putting this on the mainpage and never knowing what the mother thinks. Remember that Dilbert cartoon? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Its been done many times before though, without consent from those in an image. This is an encyclopaedia. We provide information about all subjects and we don't censor on the whims of moral paranoia (usually). She is clearly quite unidentifiable, her husband has said she doesn't mind the photo being published, and he has released the image on Flickr for 6 months already. If this were scrutiny applied to all FP images, we'd have to track down everyone vaguely identifiable and ask for their permission to be made famous on the front page of Wikipedia. That is ridiculous. Oooh, what if someone was caught in a photo of a random landmark? What if they were supposed to be on a business trip that day, but really they were having an affair and their wife caught them with another woman? What if Wikipedia was sued? Oooh! Censor! Censor! Get rid of them all!!! *screams for dramatic effect!* Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not moral paranoia; I admit it's a principled decision on my part, though. Take it or leave it. But before I go: The concern here is that this is a woman giving birth, not evidence of someone cheating on their spouse. If you understand my distinction, then you understand my oppose given the circumstances. Again, it's principled. OTOH, I'm willing to concede that perhaps whomever was giving birth wouldn't mind at all that that image of theirs is on the front page of one of the largest websites in the world... but be that as it may, I'm rather cautious. <shrugs> I'll never know, and there's the rub. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I realise you're being light-hearted and not trying to offend anyone Diliff, but given how strongly several people seem to feel on this maybe that's a dangerous route to take. After all, it won't help any of us if someone gets offended over a perceived attack in your 'dramatic scream'! Olaf Davis | Talk 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I think people often see attacks where attacks don't exist, though - it was ridicule of the argument, perhaps, but not an attack on the person. I happen to feel strongly about the issue too - I feel that if we have to go to the lengths requested to satisfy the minority here, we're setting a rather extreme precedent. I've not been against the idea of getting Salim's wife's permission, but I am against the idea that people are opposing because he has not provided it. Good faith has flown out the window in the hysteria of this nomination and it was my dramatic scream that was intended to show how silly it could be if applied to all nominations. I agree with jjron - a sensible closer should and would ignore moral issues and stick to the opposition addressing the criteria. It either is or isn't a FP based on that. Everything else is just forcing morals onto the process where they don't belong, IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• I suggest we suspend the nomination and kindly ask Salim to ask his wife to give evidence of her acceptance. Muhammad(talk) 10:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say from reading the above we could stand Salim's wife up in court and get her to swear her approval for the use of this photo, and that still wouldn't satisfy some voters. In other words it would just be a hiding to nothing. Obviously 'votes' that do not address Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria will be ignored by the closer. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Any concerned Wikipedian is free to contact me directly and then directly speak to my wife, of course you will have to meet her in person to verify that she is the woman in the photo and not a female impostor. Other than that you will have to take my word for the fact that she has no objection to these pictures being published. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Edit 2 great shot. A pervasive argument seems to be that if this image gets featured it will automatically appear on the main page. FP != POTD. None of the people are distinguishable in the picture so I see absolutly no need for permission even if it wasn't explicitly given by the creator. I see no reason not to trust the creators word or why a photo of childbirth should be treated differently than other pictures of people. Cacophony (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Image is large enough, and striking enough and certainly encyclopedic enough. Even the rules of commons, which are more strict than WP rules, says that as long as there is a reasonable assurance that attempts were made to get permission, the picture is ok. Commons did not require a statement in writing from the wife, and thus neither do we. The author of work has commented here, and permission has been given. Having made a reasonable effort, there is no reason to fear legal prosecution, and no reason to object to this being featured on those grounds. Its an awesome picture. Let's feature it. pschemp | talk 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speaking as the photographer and the husband and father of the subjects of this image, I think the request for written documentation is silly - not because you genuinely want to respect their rights (that is sensible and good), but because there is no way for you to verify that the person claiming to file the documents is in fact the model. As I have stated previously, if you really are concerned and you would like to visit us in North London to confirm all is in order then kindly contact me privately otherwise please do not assume malice or wrongdoing! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not true, I've released copyrighted images to Wikipedia. I send an e-mail to foundation, they have a special e-mail address just for this, with a low-res of the image attached, give my full name, state that I am the sole copyright holder and hold all rights to the image and release it to Foundation with whatever copyright is appropriate (usually what an editor has requested). It's simple. I send them from work, under my name, but I've also released them on my home account (not a gmail/yahoo/hotmail type, but my ISP's account). Have your wife send a release from her non-flightly e-mail account to foundation. If Wikipedia already has a policy on model releases, follow that policy. Your response to this is strange, and it is making it seem far more important to get a model release before allowing this image to remain on Wikipedia for one more second. Think of the time this is taking when so little was required. That suggests that the little required is undoable for some reason. What reason? --Blechnic (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me explain - you have no way of knowing the identity of the woman in the picture other than the information I have provided. If you distrust the information I have provided about this photo then why should you believe my claims about the identity of the subject? The release proves nothing. If you truly cared about ensuring that the "model" in this image was happy with this iamge then we could work out a way for an independent person to verify that we are who we claim to be and that we have no issues with our own family photos. Unless somebody is prepared to do this then all you really have is my word as a Wikipedia contributor in good standing... and you already have that! I've already offered that somebody who has genuine concerns is welcome to contact me directly. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. You apparently will do or say anything but provide the model release, giving your wife her own voice in an image of her.
    • It is more than a little strange, now, all of your arguments, and protestations, and I sincerely hope that other Wikipedia editors will look at this and let it gnaw at them for a minute: how much time would it have taken his wife to write an e-mail versus how much time he and others have protested this model release. Demands that people trust him, personal accusations about whether or not I "care" about strangers on the internet.
    • This is a danger signal. If you were dealing with this person in brick and mortar world, your flight signal would be going off loudly. Pause for a moment and ask yourself, what is so hard about his wife signing a release, sending an e-mail? Why is this photographer discussing "trust" issues with perfect strangers on Wikipedia? --Blechnic (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The point has never been that Salim couldn't provide a model release. It is that he felt it wasn't necessary and he refused out of principle. An analogous scenario is if you asked him to squawk like a chicken to prove that his wife is happy with this image being released - he could in theory do what you ask him, but it would be logically irrelevent and prove nothing so he would refuse because it was silly and unnecessary. I don't see his refusal as being a danger signal at all. I'd probably do the same out of principle if someone tried to push me to do something I thought was silly. For the record, I mean the fact that nobody has the ability to prove it is his wife providing the release is what makes it silly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So if this unidentifiable person sends an email from an essentially anonymous email account saying that it is ok to use a picture of her then everything is ok with you? But if the creator of the image, a Wikipedia contributor in good standing, gives his word that isn't good enough? I'm not understanding your reasoning. Why are you fighting this nom so vigorously when there are many, many other instances of images of someone that is actually identifiable being used. This is truly bizarre. Cacophony (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I concur with Cacophony. You've gone beyond the bounds of reason and logic and are bordering on harassing the creator of the photo now. Salim, just ignore him, you've proved your case sufficiently. pschemp | talk 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic's concern for my wife's privacy is good admirable as is the desire to follow Wikipedia's rules, however I feel (he/she) is confused about how this release is supposed to protect our anybody's privacy. I would like to see a happy consensus on this (including Blenchnic), so I have set up a means of contacting my wife directly that would allow a very good verification of her identity which will not require international travel - you will need to contact me directly because I am not going to post her private details on this forum. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think these bully responses are sufficient to establish the point I made needed made and has been validated. Salim, I've stated my position. That's all. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent photo, and Salim's explanation is good enough for me. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative versions of the picture

• I've re-edited this photo to get rid of the grain and correct the colours which were all wrong in the original version, it's here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/salimfadhley/2622277879/ - if somebody else wants to have a go at this contact me and I wills end the original raw files. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thank you for the diff. version. I have uploaded the new version above for voting as well. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice one! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Still Support, with preference for the diff. version. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support any Amazing photograph and per Salim's comments, thanks for uploading it. I've never read such ridiculous arguments then what is above. Epson291 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Edit 2 great image, very high encyclopedic value. --Krm500 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support any undoubtably adds value to the article and could probably be added to other articles, size and quality are good enough. Maybe there needs to be a guideline for using pictures of living people on the main page (if there isn't already) but as it is I think the image satisfies all the criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cesarian the moment of birth3.jpg MER-C 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Flower spider with moth

Original - A flower spider, Diaea evanida with it's prey on a jonquil flower.

Alt 1 - you can see the scales of the moth on the spiders head pretty well in this one

Reason

Technically high quality and plenty of EV with the spider clearly shown along with it's prey.

Articles this image appears in

Crab spider and Diaea

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Support Poor exposure and DOF, slight skew to green with regards to WB Capital photographer (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Lol - I can't help thinking that your monitor might be at fault :P --Fir0002 08:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking at the histograms, I'd say that if it is skewed, it's skewed towards red! --Janke | Talk 15:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks pretty natural in terms of WB to me. You can't look at a histogram of a scene like this to determine the white balance anyway, though, as there is nothing obviously neutral in the image to get a reading off. It only works well if the entire frame is lit with the same light AND there is a natural balance of colours in the scene to begin with. Capital Photographer's inability to see issues with colour balance and subtle detail has been demonstrated before. Not to single him out, but it does seem to be a recurring thing and I suspect his monitor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that I said if... ;-) Seriously, the whitest whites lean towards red, not green. I agree it looks natural, so don't change anything. --Janke | Talk 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Note that this is nature, and the moth, underside of jonquil and the spider abdomen were all creamy whites, not white white. So a lean towards reds in the "whitest whites" is to be expected. And yeah I obviously agree that the WB is natural :) --Fir0002 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Have now checked it using 5 displays, 3LCD and 2 CRT, slight green skew in the wings. I should add that one of the most important things when judging colour integrity is your environment, the room and your computer desktop. If you have strong colours around you, it can desensitise you to those colours when viewing an image. Hence, many photographers and graphic artists have neutral grey desktops and subdued office colour schemes... as I do. Just saying, there is more to colour bias than the calibration of a display. I should also point out my main display is SWOT certified and calibrated monthly, so I feel it is as accurate on a technical level as possible. Given the colour fault seems to be visible only on certain high end devices, I will change my vote to support. It is a fine image in any case. I would like to see more images from fir like his photo that is today's feature image of a bird in flight. Capital photographer (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Hmm that's interesting what you say about graphic artists and subdued environments, because I'd have thought creating an image which looks good in a typical environment would be of more value then one which only looks correct in a grey environment? Because it's not likely that the target audience will be viewing the product in such a controlled environment... Anyway glad you like the flycatcher shot, you might also like this --Fir0002 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Completely honestly though, it may be Capital Photographer's eyes at fault rather than his many calibrated monitors. Again, I'm not trying to publicly crucify him, just raising the issue. One example was the Trevi Fountain image, where he could not see the blue tinge in his edit, even when it was pointed out to him. In this case, it wasn't a matter of which monitor was more accurately calibrated - using an eye dropper on the plaque proved that there was a blue tinge, because there was more B luminance than R and G. It could be argued that a well calibrated monitor muted the blues, but they should still have been visible, I think. Anyway, just food for thought really. Colour accuracy is such a complex thing and I'm sure we pixel peep far more than we need to at times. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support original EV Muhammad(talk) 08:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Either. The DOF is great enough to allow for significant detail. NauticaShades 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original. The original makes it much easier to tell what is going on.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Orogina Cacophony (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support original. Very good macro, could do with more DOF but so could just about every macro shot in existance. You've done well to keep everything important in the plane of focus though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Flower spider with moth02.jpg --Mww113 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Narcissus pseudonarcissus

Original

Alternative downsample, sharp, ND

Reason

High quality image of Narcissus pseudonarcissus.

Articles this image appears in

Narcissus pseudonarcissus, Narcissus (genus)

Creator

Martin Hirtreiter

• Support as nominator Laitche (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support-Very nice, would be niucer if background weren't so blurry. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Elegant. The blurry background prevents it from distracting from the foreground subject. Dhatfield (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support edit Dhatfield (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - lighting is off, blown highlights, harsh edges. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-23 13:41Z
• Support Capital photographer (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit for its softer edges on the flower, mostly. Neutral original.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit beautifully composed. Durova^Charge! 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm kinda with Brian, but I love the elegant composition. --Blechnic (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very pretty. But for Narcissus pseudonarcissus it does not show enough detail, specifically to illustrate the appearance of this species as opposed to others in the same genus. Nice to look at, high artistic value, low encyclopedic value.Dwayne Reed (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit. A very good, high quality image that perfectly illustrates the article.--Polymath618 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dwayne Reed. The artsy composition seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia (but wonderful for just about anything else). Cacophony (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Highlights are slightly blown I think but in this case it doesn't actually look too bad. Great, simple composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good Picture. User:The Emperor561 | User talk:The Emperor561 12:46, 29 June EST
• Oppose Its a good picture certainly, but I don't think it adds to the article at or all, nor does it have a good caption. Seeing as it fails 1/4th of the FP criteria, I vote no. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the composition but i find the detail on the flower itself lacking. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a good photo, but when trying to demonstrate the article, there's no real need for 75% of the photo to be just empty grass. ¢rassic! (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose It'll do great on Commons, but for Wikipedia, it's too wide a crop. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support A fantastic image, both enc. and artistic. I don't know, there's something I really like about this image. The flower seems lonely. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Has value and aesthetics. victorrocha (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Desperately needs a heavy crop (will support if one is made). Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit Looks good, if you have an edit with the subject on the right, I would support a desktop POTD as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amckern (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Juvenile barn swallow being fed

Original - The barn swallow is able to feed its young while remaining in midair. The parent delivers the insect directly into to juvenile's throat.

Reason

This pictures illustrates a behavioural trait of the bird. The parent swoops down and delivers an insect to the juvenile in a split second. This picture captures the moment where the delivery takes place.

Articles this image appears in

Barn swallow

Creator

Magnus Kjaergaard

• Support as nominator --Kjaergaard (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose DOF is much too narrow: Nowhere in focus, blurred (especially at full resolution). —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Action is too small in frame, subjects are not in correct focus Capital photographer (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the others: the subject is too small in the frame, and a crop would probably be too unfocused.--Polymath618 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Close-Up of a Blow-fly Head

Original - A macro close-up of the head of a Blow-fly, the common term for the Calliphoridae family. The compound eye, arista, and antennae of the fly can all be seen.

Edit 1 Auto-leveled as per Janke's comment. In my opinion, it looks slightly better.

Reason

I saw this on COM:FPC and thought it was a rather incredible image. The detail is amazing.

Articles this image appears in

Blow-fly

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support (Edit 1) as nominator --NauticaShades 12:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is amazing! This takes insect shots to another level. I was already bored/annoyed with all the macro shots and the attention they get, but this just blows my mind. How was done? The lighting and color are great! The detail... sigh. Making-of please! --Dschwen 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's done using automontage microscopy. Focus stacking basically. The colors are a bit atypical for the calliphorids though, which are iconically iridescent green. BTW - Calliphora is a genus, Calliphoridae is the family. Fixed that for you. de Bivort 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Wow! --Janke | Talk 16:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support creepy. Muhammad(talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice, but I'm not big with the funny shading in the background. Spencer^T♦C 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Would also like to know how it was done. It has great, eerie lighting and impressive DOF. Whatever the technique that was used, it would be nice to see it replicated on other macros. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think he used this lens, if according to this discussion. Other than that, however, I don't know. NauticaShades 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I already assumed he used that lens. Apart from in conjunction with extreme length extension tubes, there isn't a lens out there capable of that sort of magnification. That lens usually has a tiny DOF at 5x magnification. I would have expected only a few hairs to be in focus ;-). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It was a focus stack - apparently he was trying to recreate these images. The remarkable thing is he managed to stick the lens so close to the bug for so long with it moving! --Fir0002 08:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Wow - those are even more impressive than this, color & compositionwise... --Janke | Talk 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support It's the most disgusting picture of a bug I've seen in ages. --Blechnic (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great macro shot! But is it just me or is the WB skewed to the yellows? --Fir0002 08:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Again with the white balance. Given your comment on WB on so many shots you comment on, me thinks it's your screen. Capital photographer (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Fir has something there - just look at the histograms for R, G and B... Slightly clipped in R & G, no full B to speak of. Try "Auto Level" just for fun... --Janke | Talk 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I noticed that too. Looks like somewhat monochromatic light was used (incandescent?), but I'm only guessing. Perhaps it was bounce-flashed off a coloured surface. I think the result is more artistic as a result, but possibly at the expense of colour accuracy. For an image like this, the detail and magnification is the focus (no pun intended), but it would have been nice if the colour was balanced too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, the color is off. On one of my monitors it looks worse than on the others, though. Still, it doesn't bother me as far as the image, because of the detail of the bug's horrific little face. --Blechnic (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support-It is truly amazing what people can do nowadays. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support　w（ﾟOﾟ）w 　Laitche (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Brilliant work Capital photographer (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wow...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support That is absolutely amazing. The detail is astounding and it is truly what an FP should be. Elephantissimo (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The edit is 2 blue/cold and desaturated IMO - the background was actual green and the scene was tinted with a golden reflector, so it should be olive-green (original) to display the real conditions and my idea of warm/positive lighting. --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Why use a gold reflector for a "scientific" subject, where a "true" (neutral) color would be more enc? --Janke | Talk 14:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I dont work under a scientific approach -i just like critters and science fiction <3 . This picture was nominated on commons first where enc does not really matter, sorry :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What doesn't mean that I'am not curious too peek in this small worlds and the result is ok for an photographic amateur, or ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course, I did vote support, above... ;o) --Janke | Talk 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support. Gorgeous. I mean hideous. Where's my flyswatter? Durova^Charge! 17:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question. Was the fly actually alive when you took this? As Fir0002 asked, if so, how did you keep it still long enough to focus bracket? Also, does the lens you used telescope during focusing at all? (In other words, does the focus mechanism also affect distance to subject and therefore magnification?) Just curious. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This lens has no focus mechanism so a macro rail is required - where 3-4 shots are just enough to cover most of the depth for a sideview. At a frontal view it's quiet hard and the luck destines how deep you can drive the optic over the animal before it escapes --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't realise you needed to use a macro rail - that is pretty extreme.. Doesn't that mean that when you focus bracket, you're going to get parallax errors? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No parallax errors when adjusting the camera straight oriented on the rail & moving exactly on the Z axis. There is a technique (same like cylindical pano) 2 double or triple the camera's resolution where a rotate on the optical pivot point is indispensable -or- use the cross rail by moving on the X axis (parallel pano) --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that I understand why there is no parallax - Any time you move the location of the camera/focal point relative to the subject, you introduce parallax. This is even more important when the distances between camera and subject are small. For example, when you look at the moon in front of the sun, you get an eclipse because the moon looks the same size as the sun. But if you moved further back than the earth is, you would see a ring of the sun around the moon because the sun appears bigger as you move further back. The same thing would happen when photographing a fly, surely? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • IMO - parallax has more to do with a change of a angular position. With a macro rail, moving on the z axis (depth) you dont change the angle - you change only the distance on a straight line. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I tried to draw it here - whereby i dont know if a enlargement counts as an parallax --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I see what you're saying, but the problem with your diagram is that you essentially only have one object in the camera's view. This example is even more simple: Put your hand in front of you and hold it there. Now move your eyes closer and further away from you, and you will see that objects appear from behind your hand when you move further back, and disappear when you move closer. This is parallax too, because the angle from your eyes to the edges of your hand increases when you get closer to it. The same thing would be happening with a fly. It is hard for me to explain better than this in simple english and without complicated diagrams. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Understand - fortunately this effect doesn't become very important in 1:1 or >:1 macro photography because objects behind are lost in blur :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
                • That is true, but even the parts that you are trying to focus on would be subject to parallax if you focus bracket with a macro rail. To what extent, I don't know, but I can imagine it being a factor in some shots. Anyway, it doesn't look like it affected this image, or maybe you did a good job of masking the errors. ;-) That is always important in panoramic photography... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Edit 1 Brilliant picture -- mcshadypl ^TC 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Edit 1 An amazing image.--Polymath618 (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support This image is clearly a high quality, and a beautiful image. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 good macro Thisglad (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Calliphora head 2.jpg MER-C 03:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

South Beach

Original - A view of South Beach in Miami Beach, Florida with its art deco buildings and restaurants.

Reason

It is a high quality image which gives a good impression of South Beach. There are not many good pictures available to date on Wikipedia of South Beach.

Articles this image appears in

No articles to date use this picture, but this should change. A couple of articles could use this photograph such as South Beach, Ocean Drive and Miami Beach.

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Commment A Featured Picture is required to add value to an article--if it's not in an article, it can't do tihs. ("5. Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." Bold in the original.) Please add it with appropriate captions to the appropriate articles before continuing with this FPC. --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose No “wow”; nothing special, even technically not perfect, and no encyclopedic value as not in any article. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Please hold your horses. First put a picture in an article, then wait if it stays in there. And then maybe nominate it (not this picture though, per αἰτίας). --Dschwen 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Commment It is now present in multiple articles. I would like to know what the faulty technical aspects are. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you're not actually nominating it, but just putting it up for peer review ("I would like to know what the faulty technical aspects"), the place for that is picture peer review, not FPC. This if for images you think meet all the FP criteria. You can withdraw and go to picture peer review, get the feedback you need, correct the image as necessary, and come back here. --Blechnic (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tilt, unappealing composition - cars cover the restaurant (which is an important feature according to caption), not very encyclopedic - a view rather similar to this could be shot in many other places. This snapshot-type image is certainly OK for the articles - one of them has lots of other photos, but this one doesn't stand out there, so no "wow" - thus not FP, IMHO. --Janke | Talk 16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Encyclopedic for the location and architecture, but needs more for FP. Appears to have been taken in early afternoon, possibly for the lovely vintage automobile. Unfortunately this yields flat lighting and places the facades in the shade. There's an FP-quality shot in this scene, probably from a different angle shortly after dawn. Which is the shot? The car? A hotel? Of the four facades in this image two are cut off, two are obscured by palm trees, and all are affected by angle distortion. Decide what this photograph is really about and capture that. Durova^Charge! 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 02:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaf epidermis

Original - Scanning electron microscope image of Nicotiana alata leaf's epidermis, showing trichomes (hair-like appendages) and stomata (eye-shaped slits, visible at full resolution)

Reason

A very interesting SEM image that takes something very ordinary (the surface of a tobacco leaf) and reveals it to be some sort of crazy alien world. Trichomes and stomata are visible, adding to its encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Leaf, Epidermis (botany), perhaps could be added to trichome or stoma

Creator

Louisa Howard (Dartmouth electron microscope facility)

• Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

After nominating, I've noticed that there are other equally good (better?) images in various leaf galleries linked from here. If others want to click around and see if there are better ones, I would gladly consider alternates. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong objection This leaf appears not to have been cleaned prior to fixation for the SEM, chemically fixing a lot of crap onto the surface of the leaf. The cells were also not dried well, as the guard cells and the cells in between appear wrinkled, shrunken, and distorted, the opposite of what should be achieved by fixation. Here's a link to what properly fixed plant cells look like.[2] They're not collapsed, wrinkled, and shrunken. The focus is poor, the depth of field limited, it's hard to figure out what was focused on. Focusing at 200X on an SEM is not hard enough to allow for this micrograph to be out of focus throughout. There is nothing featurable about this. I will look at the page and see fi there are usable ones on that page. --Blechnic (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that you might have learnt in school that desiccated cells shrink, wrinkle, and close their stomata. Maybe you just forgot what you learnt... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • They don't do that much if they're properly fixed for the SEM, which is the entire purpose of the fixation process, i.e., gaining images like the one I linked to above, which maybe you didn't learn about. In order to view a biological organism under the SEM, such as a leaf, the surface must first be cleaned with biologically suitable buffer, which wasn't done for this image, then the leaf is sliced while still in the buffer to preserve the tissue as best as possible, then fixed in a buffered fixer, then secondarily fixed, then dehydrated, then, usually for SEM, put in a critical point dryer, the purpose of which is to prevent as much of this dessication, shrinking, wrinkling and closing of the stomata as possible. That is why it only took a two second search to find a suitable SEM example of a leaf and its stomata, because the protocols are fairly routine by now, 2008, and accomplished with very little equipment that every biological SEM lab has available. So, a guick search on google, and one of the first image returns is an SEM of cells that didn's "shrink, wrinkl,e and close their stomata," is this magic? No, it's phosphate buffer, buffered glut, osmium textroxide, buffer, ethanol/alcohol, etc., as needed, and CPD. --Blechnic (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • PS Be brave, click on the link above, see what an excellent, featured image of leaf epidermal cells under an SEM should look like. --Blechnic (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, with the stomata fully open. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, so it appears what you learned in school was wrong. But the difference between this image with the stomata fully open and the poorly preserved one, as any plant electron microscopist will tell you, and as is obvious to even the amateur, is that you can see the plump juicy guard cells inside the open stomate in the one I linked to. Now that's a secondary electron micrograph of a leaf! It's not necessary to be an expert in electron microscopy to be able to see excellence or its lack. Just the dirt and crap all over this micrograph that wouldn't be allowed if it were a photograph should have been enough to say no.
        • Yup, open stomata and visible guard cells, not-dessicated. --Blechnic (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • So what, in your opinion, does a desiccated plant cell look like under SEM? :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
            • It depends upon how and when it was dessicated, and to what degree, what the plant is, a lot of things. This image just looks like someone picked it far too early before getting it in fixative--its looks like a dessicated plant under SEM, so I don't know what you're asking after I've said that's a problem with this image. That's not the only problem with this image, though, so again, I'm not sure what your point is. --Blechnic (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is an informative and attractive image that, to me as someone with very limited technical experience with SEM, seems of comparable quality to other good SEM images I've seen. It may be, as Blechnic says, that there are technical flaws relative to what is possible with SEM. However, we are not yet blessed with an overabundance of attractive, high-resolution electron microscopy.--ragesoss (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The first part of FPC is "Is of a high technical standard." This is of not just low, but very low technical quality. We actually do have some excellent SEMs, and adding low quality SEMs to Wikipedia isn't going to be a magnet for better quality ones. This image is not of publishable quality. It has charging artifacts due to poor coating, the specimen was not properly fixed, the image was shot at probably the wrong working distance, and it's not in focus anywhere. So, how is it that we have to accept an out of focus micrograph, just because we don't have many? Did you even bother to look at the one I linked to? That's what a micrograph of leaf epidermal cells should look like. --Blechnic (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The one you linked to is a very small image, probably created at a very different magnification level. This image is far more valuable for the encyclopedia than the one you link to. It's one thing to create a nice crop section, and another to create a high-resolution image than encompasses many interesting features. The focus is also actually very good throughout, I thought...it's comparable to the SEM pollen FP we have (which comes from the same Dartmouth collection). It may no longer represent the cutting edge in SEM (I wouldn't know), but I think it's the best or one of the best of the leaf images on the Dartmouth site and, on a basic aesthetic and informative level, meets the FP criteria. (Some of the images of other leaf types have somewhat plumper features, so I'm not convinced that the "dessication" isn't in part a difference between the kind of leaf here and the one in your link.)--ragesoss (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Blechnic has offered a very detailed technical criticism, and unless someone with comparable technical knowledge can refute it, we should not accept the image. I don't think an image should be accepted on the grounds that it looks cool and laymen won't be able to identify its flaws. As a layman myself, I would want any scientific image I see to accurately reflect the subject and to be of the same quality scientists would use in the lab. Fletcher (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • On the other hand, this image is hosted by the Dartmouth electron microscopy facility and was created by a scientist who created at least one other SEM image that we decided (and I don't think anyone has disputed) meets our FP criteria. I wouldn't characterize Blechnic's comments as detailed technical criticism; it seems more like speculation (possibly well-informed) about the technical features of the image. In any case, we accept flawed images all the time when, as a whole, they meet the FP criterion. We certainly don't require normal photography to meet the highest possible technical standards, just high technical standards. The idea that there is one way that a micrograph of leaf epidermal cells should look like seems very fishy to me as well, considering the wide range of possible methods for preparing samples, which scientists use variously for different purposes. The Dartmouth facility is showing off these images...why would we assume that these are not "of the same quality scientists would use in the lab?" I think we have strong evidence of just the opposite.--ragesoss (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not speculation, I've worked as a biological electron microscopist, and the classes I took to get the work, for Papa's information, don't say that cells are dessicated and ugly, they teach you methods to minimize the dessication and change. It's not "detailed technical criticism" because most of you don't have the background for the detailed technical criticism, but I would be glad to go into all the details. It's simply a very bad micrograph. The one of pollen is in another league, an excellent, well-done SEM of pollen. I have no idea why Dartmouth is showing off these rather bad micrographs, but I would be glad to e-mail the facility director and discuss the quality of this micrograph with him/her, or ask at the microscopy list serve for details from other microscopists just why Dartmouth displays these, or what they'd think if Wikipedia put one on their main page. This is a really crappy micrograph, and no one at Dartmouth is going to say its equivalent quality to the pollen one.
          • The point is not to offer up the other image as an alternative FPC, but to show how cells can look, and how a micrograph can and should look. This Dartmouth one is t-ball in comparison to it and to the pollen one's major league ball park. --Blechnic (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
          • PS, Yes, it could be a less plumped up species in generally, or it could have been gathered poorly, rather than the issue during sample preparation, none of this removes the dirt, the charging (not too bad, but bad enough to require photoshop), or the poor depth of field. Also, look at the upper right: plump, unwrinkled cells. This is how I can tell what they were supposed to look like, because they look like that in part of the image. --Blechnic (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
            • What do you think of the other Nicotiana images at [3]? To my eye the stomata do appear less "wrinkled" (indicative of not being dessicated?) than in this FP candidate. And the FP candidate does seem out of focus in places (two trichomes emerging from the left side). I agree there appears to be some debris on the cells, more noticeable when you zoom in. What is 'charging'? Fletcher (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Charging is a build up of electrons on the surface due to an inability for the excess electrons to go to ground due to a poorly done conductive coating. It gives big blank white spots on the micrograph. Almost all biological samples will have some charging, particularly if they have as much topography as this, because of the difficulties of coating all the nooks and crannies, even though the specimen coaters are designed to spin at an angle to get most areas. I will look at the other leaves later on. --Blechnic (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Crotalus cerastes (Horned Rattlesnake) at Mesquite Springs, CA (Mojave Desert)

Original - Crotalus cerastes at Mesquite Springs, CA (Mojave Desert)

Nominated Edit (1) - Crotalus cerastes (Horned Rattlesnake) at Mesquite Springs, CA (Mojave Desert)

Reason

Unique pose of a Crotalus cerastes, good image quality with various important features of the snake clearly visible, making the image of encyclopedic quality.

Articles this image appears in

Crotalus_cerastes

Creator

Original by tigerhawkvok, nominated edit by victorrocha.

• Support as nominator --Tigerhawkvok (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- For some reason, the FPC tag won't take. I suspect it may hve to do with the recent change from the original to the edit being represented in an article; when it is editable, can someone add the FPC tag? Tigerhawkvok (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I just added them now. NauticaShades 22:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The lighting's not that good, and, especially in the back, some of the snake is blurry. Spencer^T♦C 19:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 Good composition and framing for a point and shoot camera. Highly encyclopedic for the article it is currently in (only snake picture in the article). The sharpness is acceptable considering the size of the picture. It can be downsized a lot more if anyone wishes to make it any sharper. victorrocha (talk) 2:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, lets try using this image in an article before we nominate it to FP. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Used in an article.....? Smooth I think you should pay a bit more attention because according to the nomination line "Articles this image appears in" this picture is in an article and is the main image of that article. Here's a link if you need it Crotalus_cerastes. victorrocha (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • See above, there was an issue with the FPC tag, so another version was put up. Spencer^T♦C 22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • He makes a fair point. Neither the original or edit nominated here are in articles. The version in the article is Image:Crotalus cerastes mesquite springs CA-2.jpg. Presumably the same as the nominated Edit Image:Crotalus cerastes mesquite springs CA-2.jpg (notice the uppercase vs lowercase jpg), but someone would need to confirm this. In short the error really lies with the uploader/nominator being a bit careless with filenaming :-). --jjron (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Jjron is correct. Link fixed. The original is here soley to provide a source for further editing, rather than doing sucessive edits-to-edits to avoid any compression artifacts that may turn up from multiple jpg saves. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Common Frogs Mating

Original - Two European Common Frogs, or Rana temporaria, mating.

Reason

This is a high quality and relatively well-composed photograph of two frogs engaging in one of the seven conventional characteristics of life.

Articles this image appears in

Common Frog

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --NauticaShades 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support The focus is kind of odd, but a well-taken picture nonetheless. It has a lot of encyclopedic value. Elephantissimo (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Depth of field is too shallow to show the subjects in clear focus, and somewhat harsh flash lighting Thisglad (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There was no usage of flash on this picture, look at the eyes - there is no flashlight reflection. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Depth of focus is much too shallow. Mangostar (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. DOFDwayne Reed (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A common squirrel

Original - A squirrel is small or medium-sized rodents in the family Sciuridae. They are generally clever and persistent animals. In residential neighborhoods, they are notorious for eating out of bird feeders, digging in planting pots and flower beds to pull out bulbs which they chew on or to either bury or recover seeds and nuts and for inhabiting sheltered areas including attics and basements. Despite periodic complaints about the animal as a pest, general public opinion towards the animal is favorable, thanks to its agreeable appearance, intelligence and its eating styles and habits.

Reason

nice pose, good quality.

Articles this image appears in

Squirrel, Eastern Gray Squirrel

Creator

Nickomargolies

• Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support This image is encyclopedic, educational, and above all, cute. --Jetblue1717 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose It's a nice image, but the background is a bit messy and it isn't very sharp. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral technically weak (background is messy and it's blurred), but —as Jetblue1717 said above— a nice, cute and encyclopedic image. => Neutral. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Comment I've seen squirrels pose like that many times and yet... I'm getting the strangest vibe that this is a stuffed animal. Just me? The pic is not quite up to FP quality for tech reasons in any case. Matt Deres (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mhh... It doesn’t seem to have many toes on the ground, only the heels, indeed seems to be a bit of an unnatural (not so alive) balancing technique for a sitting position like that. --Van helsing (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support- A very well done image. But, I'm not completely sure its one of the best out there. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. For comparison, our current FP of this species. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I can see its nuts! - Anyway, oppose per above, slightly un-natural looking, busy backdrop. I think it could be reproduced with a clearer backdrop? ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose A nice image, but I think the previous FP that Spikebrennan pointed out is slightly better. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Lacks the wow of the current FP. Mangostar (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current is much better.Dwayne Reed (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. FWIW the current FP has been totally removed from the Eastern Gray Squirrel article; the current taxobox image seems inferior. Seems to have been a mixup following a dodgy edit by an anonymous IP - see here; the next editor replaced the image redlink with a different image here. The next editor after that tried to revert to Diliff's image, got it wrong again, so went for the current taxobox image instead. It could be worth switching it back to the FP version. --jjron (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh, done it. --jjron (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Quite unsharp in full size. --Janke | Talk 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Drosophila compound eye

Original - The compound eye of a fruit fly in the Drosophilidae, which are the most popular biological model organisms.

Reason

Great electron micrograph, considerable resolution, rare encyclopaedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Drosophilidae

Creator

Louisa Howard, Dartmouth College (public domain)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Could you possibly clean up the image, remove the odd scratch and blip there is. Could you also fix the distortion that runs horizontally towards the top of the picture and also clean the faint horizontal line at the bottom of the picture and se if you can sharpen the picture up. Sorry if that was a long list but I really wanna support this image because it really caught my eye when i was on the page and i think this could be a really good FP but just needs those points i brought up fixed. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 12:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm working on it. It will take a while, and I won't be able to do everything today. In fact, I may not be able to do everything during the course of this nomination due to my work schedule. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If you wish i could attempt it myself. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 13:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll upload what I've done so far. Maybe it will be a useful starting point for you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. While the scale indicator is useful, it is quite hard to see in a small thumbnail. Could it possibly be made larger? NauticaShades 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've passed it on to Seddon for editing. If he doesn't have time for it, I can do it at some point, but it may be a few days. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Support- Very encyclopedic, good but not great quality. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The SEM is known for its depth of field, this image was shot without taking advantage of the capabilities of the instrument. This is clearly an amateur electron micrograph and there is not, in any way, anything about it that should be featured on Wikipedia or anywhere else. It's technical quality is zero, due to charging artifacts, no focus, no depth of field, it is not even in the same ballpark as the excellent krill eye micrograph, much less "among Wikipedia's best work," and it should be replaced as soon as possible in the Drosophilidae article. Not even the region that's "in focus" is in focus. Clearly the work of an amateur who does not know the instrument and its capabilities and has minimalized all the potential of the SEM to produce one second rate micrograph that should not even have been published, much less promoted to FP on Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not all that informative (the same feature repeated over and over, no color, without putting into wider context as macros do and without going down to the level of sub-cellular detail that some other electron microscopy images do). Plus, there is the horizontal blip where it looks like the sample got bumped during the scan.--ragesoss (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support this wider scan instead: [4]. Despite lower magnification, it has hardly any less detail, with a lot more context. And because the composition isn't based on symmetry and uniformity, the flaws (posterized background, blown highlights) don't detract as much as from the nominated image. There are a number of probably FP-worthy shots on the Dartmouth site (all public domain), but I don't think this is one.--ragesoss (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The wider scan is worse, simply one of the worst micrographs I've ever seen. It looks like the text micrographs we're given to see how many things wrong with it we can find, and then define how to correct it. --Blechnic (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

Original - The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was once thought to be extinct, but was re-listed as critically endangered after reported sightings in Arkansas in 2004 and 2005. Prior to these sightings, the last confirmed survivor had disappeared by 1944.

Reason

This image has both historical and encyclopedic interest, being an Audubon engraving and also an excellent representation of the rare Ivory-Bill.

Articles this image appears in

Ivory-billed Woodpecker, John James Audubon

Creator

Cotinis

• Support as nominator --Fleagle 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support for inclusion in John James Audubon; all original detail seems to be preserved in this colour restoration (I assume that's what it is). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. High-quality scan of an exceptionally rare bird. NauticaShades 14:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Highly enc. I'm sure that it wouldn't be as rare had Audubon not killed so many of them himself. I think the History Channel said he'd shot a hundred birds a day, every day, for many years. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-21 16:21Z
• Support Nice image, high quality. Spencer^T♦C 16:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The image description page does not say why the birds look different (male/female? differing witness accounts? just allelic variation?), could you add that info? Narayanese (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • They are indeed male and female. The male has the red while the female is merely black and white. Fleagle 04:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support High quality and extremely aesthetically pleasing. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Eye candy, as the editor above me notes. --Blechnic (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice find. Kaldari (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious encyclopedic value, and virtually irreplaceable. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent quality and it really adds to the article.116135 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding! Cacophony (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Campephilus principalisAWP066AA2.jpg MER-C 03:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wheat close-up

Original - Wheat grain is a staple food used to make flour for leavened, flat and steamed breads; cookies, cakes, pasta, noodles and couscous; and for fermentation to make beer, alcohol, vodka or biofuel. Wheat is planted to a limited extent as a forage crop for livestock, and the straw can be used as fodder for livestock or as a construction material for roofing thatch.

Reason

Very clear image, with good colors, and good encyclopediac content.

Articles this image appears in

Monocotyledon, Agriculture in Canada

Creator

Bluemoose

• Support as nominator --Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Nice picture but it seems cluttered and not really eye-catching. Not sure if that's enough for an oppose. Fleagle 05:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose No attempt at all to diffuse background, busy and not very rich colour Capital photographer (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support and Comment A noisy background in a wheat field? What will they do next, edit the soil out of the farm? Cluttered? Do we want Wikipedia readers to see sterile single fronds of wheat blowing in the wind under an azure sky? What the heck is it about this, edit nature so it looks like it's in a photo studio with a fake background, and photoshop enhanced? What is encyclopedic about artifice? Please, Bluemoose, don't destroy this picture by making it look like a single sterile piece of wheat shot in a photo studio. Velvet Elvises turn over in their graves! And, please, don't change the color to something it's not, because then no one will ever get to see the color of real wheat in the sun. --Blechnic (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support The picture is interesting, eye catching and the focus is good. Muhammad(talk) 09:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Capital photographer, - DOF is too big. Overall nothing special. —αἰτίας •discussion• 10:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subject is not really sharp and detailed, and I think it's because of jpeg compression. Camera is a compact, so the scope for remedy is very limited. DOF is not the major problem per se, but a shallower DOF could have helped the compression maintain the relevant details. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - not based on photographic criteria but the fundamental encyclopedic ones. It adds nothing useful to the two articles it's listed in. No flowers so the presence in Monocotyledon is not greatly illustrative and nothing about the image says "Canada" - Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, there are no flowers because it's gone to fruit. I think that's what a grain is. Although there is nothing that says Canada strikingly, it could be "Eastern Washington," "Ukraine," wherever wheat--good point. Why isn't it in the wheat article? --Blechnic (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Flower structure, internals of the seed and leaf structure are all important identifiers of Monocots - none of this are well displayed. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, because it's gone to fruit. The fruit of monocots are distinctive important identifiers also, and the fruits are what contain the seeds, not the flowers. The fruit of grasses are a snapshot of their evolutionary impact on the ecosystems they dominate--Wikipedia might be lame in the grass department, I don't know, but the Miocene isn't. Stick your finger down the top of a banana some day--then ask, monocot, dicot/eudicot, or basal angiosperm? The seeds are technically part of the fruit, you know. This image isn't in the article illustrating the parts of a grass. Grasses are a major component of the monocots, and showing them in their form as they grow in agriculture is a legitimate and important way, of many, to illustrate them. This picture won't replace the image of a diagram of a grass or vice versa. It won't replace the image of a cut fruit, and the image of a dissected grass floret won't replace the image of wheat growing in a field. They're different images. --Blechnic (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The picture is rather fuzzy. Fix the fuziness and I'd support.I'd like to comment that foreground, middleground, and background are clearly identified. DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lava meets the ocean

Original - Three Waikupanaha and one Ki lava ocean entries as well as surface lava flow are seen at the image. You could see red lava entering the ocean at the first Waikupanaha ocean entry and a glow at Ki ocean entry.At Hawaii the lava usually moves inside lava tubes.The surface flow is rare. The meeting of lava and the ocean is so violent that one could often see Steam explosions, which spray fragments of hot lava into the air. The image was taken at The Big Island of Hawaii.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 edit 1

Reason

encyclopedic image of the interesting natural phenomena

Articles this image appears in

lava;volcano;Kīlauea Hawaii (island)

Creator

mbz1 edit by jjron

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose nowhere in focus. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Alternative 1 is not in any article now, but would be placed instead of Original, if it is to pass.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose original. Much too blurry, even at full resolution. Fleagle 06:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose alt 1 edit 1. Oversharpened, colours distorted. Neutral others. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Holy crap! It's been de-noised to death! Looks like plastic... TheOtherSiguy (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support original. Not technically perfect, but a captivating image of significant value; there's a lot happening there. --jjron (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose alts, Neutral original Though the original is encyclopedic, low technical quality prevents me from supporting. Spencer^T♦C 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Eichmann trial news story

Original - Briefly summarizes the end of the Adolf Eichmann trial, noting that the Israeli court found him guilty and that he was to be hanged.

Reason

Briefly summarizes the end of the Adolf Eichmann trial, noting that the Israeli court found him guilty and that he was to be hanged. Eichmann, the "architect of the Holocaust", was kidnapped by Israeli agents from Argentina in 1960 and flown to Israel to stand trail for his role in the Holocaust. The resulting fallout from the kidnapping provoked international controversy, while the trial itself was an international media sensation, and is widely credited for having brought the Holocaust out from the shadow of WWII and establishing it as an independent event that occurred concurrently with WWII.

Articles this image appears in

Adolf Eichmann

Creator

Universal International News

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support very good quality, interesting too Capital photographer (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment obviously important but the original was much higher quality than this and it would be nice to get a better rip if possible. gren グレン 08:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The video is informative and quite good quality. NauticaShades 02:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Eichmann trial news story.ogg MER-C 03:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lunar transit of the sun

Original - A lunar transit of the sun captured during calibration of Stereo B's Ultra Violet imaging camera's.

Alternative 1 - Original at 1024 x 768

Reason

The image captured during and for a calibration of the STEREO B satellites camera's is one that is rare and diffcult to take. The satellite had to wait 3 months following an orbital adjustment to be in the right position for this image. The static in the image is unavoidable by satellites imaging the sun due to the ionic particles, carried by solar winds, colliding with the camera. This is a truely spectacular image in a class of its own and unlike any other of the sun.

Articles this image appears in

STEREO

Creator

Capture by: Stereo B satellite, NASA; Uploaded by: User:Seddon

• Support as nominator --Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support either The changes on the surface are as interesting as the lunar transit itself. Dhatfield (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support any --Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Although when in raw format it looks much better at full size, the cortado player seems to be struggling with the full size, which is why i used the medium sized image. This could be my computer or prehaps the conversion wasn't clean but the smaller version does play better for me at least. Let me know what it is like for other people. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support large. Looks much better large; technical deficiencies in Cortado should not be a factor in the decision. Large should obviously be chosen over small. .froth. (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• It may also be a factor to do with the transcoding. I would download and play off your computer to check this. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support big version - should the small one even be here? Isn't is a duplicate? BTW, I uploaded the big one at Commons. diego_pmc (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• The small one was the original file i uploaded. I tested several versions, and settled for the smaller one due to conversion problems but if the larger one is better im morethan happy to do with that. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Moon transit of sun large.ogv MER-C 04:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sleeping koala

Original - Koalas have a slow metabolism and sleep for most of the day.

Existing FP - for comparison.

Reason

High resolution encyclopedic image. Supplements existing koala FP Image:Koala climbing tree.jpg by showing the species at sleep in a well-composed shot.

Articles this image appears in

koala

Creator

Sanjay ach

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Excellent image! This is highly focused and highly encyclopedic. I just love the detail in the fur. Elephantissimo (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support: per Commons:Aww, aint it cute...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support large, technically sound image which is is a good illustration of what the animal spends most of its time doing. Slightly blown areas (or is it my monitor?) on the arm don't detract. Guest9999 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support Very nice, catchy image, with lots of details of the koala, fur, claws, varying textures, depth, in a typical activity. Did you pay it for the pose? --Blechnic (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Was going to compensate it in eucalyptus leaves, but then I docked its pay for sleeping on the job. ;) Durova^Charge! 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Everyone seems to be rather overlooking this almost identical existing FP. Now there's no rule about not having two FPs of the same topic, but when they're this similar? Can I suggest this should have been done as a "Delist and Replace", especially given the existing one seems to have been dumped from all articles? --jjron (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I like them both. Why was the other one, which shows more of the face, dumped from all articles? --Blechnic (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Who knows? You'd have to go back through the histories, and maybe find a reason. I notice Durova replaced another picture with her nomination in the article here just before nominating, and quite likely someone else replaced the existing FP with the one Durova replaced. Incidentally, the one Durova replaced was put up for FPC last July - see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Koala sleeping. --jjron (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This image is better than the one it replaced in the article, which is appropriate, but that's kinda sideways to the question of why the other FP, so similar to this one, is still a FP, but has been removed from articles. Koals are, imo, just too damn cute. And these pictures take the cake. But, they are similar enough that there should only be one or the other, and while the one is right now a FP, this second should not be nominated, or the nomination should be a choice of which one. --Blechnic (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, I did notice the one this replaced was a previous FPC. IMO this has better composition and color, as well as very good file size. Hadn't noticed the other sleeping koala that passed (why are koalas so darn cute?) Should I nom that for delist? Durova^Charge! 07:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not just koalas, all Australians are that cute ;-). Anyway, as I said above, this whole nom should probably be a "Delist and Replace". --jjron (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
            • The cute factor is because they sleep so much. Are Australians sleepy people :)? Muhammad(talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Or are you suggesting we're only cute when asleep? :-) --jjron (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't this be a replace nomination? I don't see how one of these two possibly has any additional EV over the other, as they're exactly the same pose, against the same background. And in reply to jjron, yes there is a rule. A picture must add value to an article. If two pictures are the same, one of them doesn't add value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally I agree with this, the pictures are just too close for both to be in an article, and for both to be FP is not possible. I like the claws in the current nomination, but like the face in the current FP. I don't care which one is it, but there has to be just one. Durova, I think this needs withdrawn, then decide how to handle it. I vote support for whichever cute as hell sleeping koala is nominated. --Blechnic (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should keep in mind that one of them is already an FP and doesn't need to be renominated. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • That'a correct, that's why i think Durova needs to simply withdraw this one to start with. If he/she then wants to nominate the second one that can be done, along with withdrawing the existing one, but this FPC should be stopped, until some decision is made. --Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
        • As I pointed out originally there's no rule to not have two FPs of the same topic (or in this case three, given the Diliff one that Durova originally linked to), but these two are rather too similar and should not both be featured. That being said they are not both illustrating the same article (one is illustrating no articles), but it is possible they could both be featured if they both successfully illustrated different articles. --jjron (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Replacement - the background of the nomination is more natural. Cacophony (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Well, it looks like the lesson of this nomination is to let sleeping koalas lie! If I'd realized we already had a sleeping koala FP I would have started this differently. Apologies there. The proposed version is about ten times the file size of the current FP. So I'll follow whatever is the most advisable course: move this to delist/replace? Suspend this nom for a delist vote? To any bold admin who wanders by, here's your chance to be bold. I pre-approve any reasonable solution you think of. :) Durova^Charge! 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I also hereby pre-approve any workable solution that makes the issue more clear cut, and hereby cast my support vote for whichever cute little koala gets FP status. --Blechnic (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Promote and Replace. The image currently undergoing FPC of higher quality and composition than the current FP. NauticaShades 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Promote and replace. Probably the best way forward for this nom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Replace The candidate has better background and resolution than the current featured picture. Narayanese (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with Image:Sa-sleeping-koala.JPG . MER-C 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Komodo dragons video

Original - The Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) is a species of lizard that inhabits the islands of Komodo, Rinca, Flores, Gili Motang, and Gili Dasami, in central Indonesia. They are capable of running rapidly in brief sprints up to 20 kilometres per hour (12.4 mph), diving up to 4.5 metres (15 ft), and climbing trees proficiently when young through use of their strong claws. They are known to attack and kill humans.

Edit 1 the audio removed

Edit 2, Part 2 - Please see discussion of edits below (Dhatfield)

Edit 2, Part 1 - Please see discussion of edits below (Dhatfield). Note: Thumb display creates rendering artifacts and should be 400px wide in context.

Edit 3, Part 1 - Please see discussion of edits below (Dhatfield). Note: This video at the default 29.97 fps.

.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason

The only video on Wikipedia of a wild and active Komodo Dragon - a rare not well known fascinatingg beast.

Articles this image appears in

Komodo dragon;Komodo (island)

Creator

Mbz1

• Support any as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Weak Support. It's quite an awesome beast, but unfortunately the camera is shaky and there is never a good angled encyclopedic shot of the dragon. We see it from the front (so not all aspects of the lizard are seen) and we only a see a full body near the end of the clip. The close zoom in the first half is not necessary, in my opinion. NauticaShades 00:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That being said, I could understand why you weren't worrying about such trivialities when a live Komodo dragon was rapidly approaching you. It is definitely a difficult shot to capture. For that reason, I'll change my vote to weak support. NauticaShades 00:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I guess I need to explain what is going on in that video. The two of us and a ranger were looking at 10 feet long Komodo Dragon at the island of Komodo. The Dragon was peacefully asleep and we got to him closer than we should have. Suddenly the beast woke up, found and eatten something, and started moving toward us. It was mesmerizing because usually wild animals move away from people. You could hear the voice of the ranger "come on, come on" and then us running. We were lucky to find a ranger station close by. Komodo arrived at that station too in no time, but we were safe there.The last you could hear me asking "How we're going to get out of here?" I've decided to keep the sound on that video because IMO it helps to understand what is going on, but of course it could be removed.(The thumb does not work, but the video does)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would suggest losing the sound (it's not like the animal is making sounds such that the silent video would be less encyclopedic), and I would suggest editing out the shaky part in the middle when you were probably moving the camera. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support the Dhatfield edit. Marvelous source video, marvelous edit. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This can't be promoted until bug 14524 is fixed. MER-C 07:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why can it not be promoted? The thumb doesn't show up, but the video certainly plays. NauticaShades 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I can close the nomination as usual. However if I do all the other stuff, it looks like a deleted/corrupt image in the various FP galleries, which is very... not good (and could lead to meddling hands removing it). MER-C 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I probably should withdraw the nomination until the error is fixed? If it is the case, may I please ask you, MER-C to close it for now? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessary. MER-C 04:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with MER-C re not promoting until the bug is fixed. Perhaps would be worth suspending the nomination though, as I personally feel the thumb not working is, if nothing else, discouraging to potential voters. --jjron (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever community disides is fine with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nomination suspended. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug fixed, we're good to go. Thanks Tim! MER-C 10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• It shows up, but I still can't get it to play. The audio moves forward, but the video freezes on the first frame. Clegs (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• It might be your broweser. Works fine with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like it renominated as soon as the bug is fixed, whatever is going on. I think the sound should be removed, and I think it could be edited a bit, show the dragon eating, show him walking, this last part excellent. Also, as with the leopard seal, he blends into his background a bit too much, can you reshoot in a studio? (Just kidding.) Ten foot long lizard? The world is scary. --Blechnic (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• CommentThank you all for your comments and vote. I removed the audio and I am afraid it is all edits I could do in a studio without going back to Komodo Island ;-) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we find someone to edit it just a bit, a few parts, a few seconds here and there? Again, whatever the bug is, I don't quite follow, this film is excellent, and could be used in a few other articles, particularly about its mode of locomotion. I hope you've learned your lesson about waking the dragon! --Blechnic (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The bug is there no more.It was fixed.The video is up for voting--Mbz1 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

*Support But, please, can you just remove seconds 44 and 45, where it's all jerk and no vision, it will really make it a much better video. Komodo dragon video! --Blechnic (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am afraid I cannot. I do not have the cable anymore to re-rerecord from the original and I have no idea how to edit videos on my computer. I posted a message to the person, who knows how to deal with videos amd maybe he'll be kind enough to help.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Co-nominate and support Edit 2. List of edits:

1. Separated into two videos
2. Applied motion compensation (reduced wobble) using an algorithm I've developed
3. Smoothed out chroma artifacts in dark areas, also custom made. I intend to free license these tools and make them available to all Wikipeople - any advice on how this could be done would be appreciated
4. Virtualdub (www.virtualdub.org) edits follow - Increased saturation and changed levels, sharpened, rotated Part 1 clockwise
5. Cropped to subject (20x20 px adaptive for motion compensation and 10x10 px for rotation)
6. Reduced resolution by 20% to improve download rate with negligible effect on appearance - also reduces compression & sharpening artifacts
7. Created a gallery of 'things to look to for' in the video now available here
8. Changed the frame rate in Part 1 to increase encyclopedic value.

I propose that the order of the parts should be as shown here because Part 2 while chronologically second, has good establishing shots of the whole lizard and a chilling finish while Part 1 has good educational detail on scales, eating, the tongue used for smell and how to hunt Mila :) Dhatfield (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't quite understand the reason for making it two, reordering them because of the ability to establish the entire physique is fine. Well, maybe the article on animal locomotion can use Edit 2. Still, for Komodo Dragon article, one video is the way to go. Good job removing the couple of problematic sections, it played well on my current low res system. --Blechnic (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Oppose editing of rate of motion of animal as unencyclopedic. (I don't think I voted above, if I did, let me know.) Excellent video of the locomotion and foraging of a Komodo dragon in the wild. Please don't try this at home folks. --Blechnic (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support any with preference to Dhatfield's edits This would have been even greater with the sound, but it spooky enough. Muhammad(talk) 05:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Object to changing frame rate in edit. Perhaps this is acceptable if it is clearly labeled as slow motion, but it is misleading and less encyclopedic even if not misleading to show an animal in slow motion. It's not as though it is moving too fast for the viewer to see what is going on. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Info Ask, and you will receive Edit 3. Dhatfield (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't understand this, you changed the frame rate to make the motion of the animal other than what it is in real time? You can't do this! --Blechnic (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• <rant> Blechnic, what can't happen is you can't edit a video to FP quality. Until you learn a little humility and that right is not, and never will be, a substitute for polite, you have been blocked from editing my opinion regarding FPs. </rant> See Edit 3. Dhatfield (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why can't Dhatfield slow down the clip? I see the slow motion in many of National Geographic's documentaries. Mentioning the slowing down of the clip on the description page should be enough. Muhammad(talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• But it's not mentioned on the video, where it needs to be. Dhatfield, don't even understand what you're saying, doesn't matter, science comes first, and is part of the requirements of FP candidates: it has to be accurate. --Blechnic (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• For "doesn't matter, science comes first", you have earned a block from my entire consciousness. Anybody who grants themselves free license to offend does not deserve my eyeball time. Dhatfield (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently I didn't even earn the first block, so I'll take this one about as seriously, and not bother to remember it, either. It's much more likely someone will take comments of this nature if you don't issue them. Issuing them ruins them. Not what this is about, though: accuracy is a FP requirement. Yup, science first. Change the requirements if you want, until then that's all. --Blechnic (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Adult Assassin Bug

Original - An Adult Assasin bug in the sub-family Harpactocorinae on a white background

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - cloned out the OOF leg

Alt 1

Reason

High quality image with a great deal of enc value thanks to the composition which clearly shows its curved rostrum - the hollow tube with which it stabs its prey and which curves under its head when not in use.

Articles this image appears in

Reduviidae and Rostrum (anatomy)

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - is that an out-of-focus foot behind the snout? Looks so in full size. Would it be sacrilege to retouch it out? ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not in my book! Uploaded an edit --Fir0002 10:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1, Weak Oppose others Around half the body is out of focus, particularly the legs and face. I think a multi-layer shot would have been better. Capital photographer (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks to me like it was taken in a natural setting, cut out, and a fake shadow added. Even if that's not how it was taken, the fact that that's the impression it elicits makes it an untrustworthy/unreliable picture in my book. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out that it wasn't cut out - imagine cutting out all the hairs!! Your reason seems quite odd, as even if it were cut out and had a shadow added, then how does this make it an unreliable/untrustworthy image for the purposes of illustrating an assassin bug? If I'd added an extra antennae or something I could understand an oppose based on lack of enc. As it is your vote is of questionable value against WP:WIAFP --Fir0002 11:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I think as the nominator, you're about the last person that can declare my opinion invalid, just for the record. Other editors are well aware of this. It's not like the rest of us comb through the support votes in the same way you try to discredit the opposes, so we know which way the bias lies. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • • • As someone who has also had a disagreement with your reasoning in other noms, I don't think you can say that just because he's the nominator, he can't discredit/disprove your reasoning against objective criteria. Whether he's considered right or wrong is left up to the closer, but discussion is allowed. In addition to being the nominator, he's also a pretty experienced contributor and well aware of the FPC process, as am I. Perhaps we just both share the trait of being unable to bite our tongues when we see reasoning we strongly disagree with. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Not surprising that you would speak up, given that you're another member of the not-so-silent pact of mutual support. I think I made it pretty clear that it's my opinion. It should be possible for you to accept that fact exactly as given, unless you have some ability to read my mind better than I can. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I must disagree with Lima Whisky, doesn't appear to be cut out. I think the reflection in the eye of the flash also confirms that. However, I feel some strong unsharp mask has been used which could give that impression. The mask has created a quite synthetic look. Capital photographer (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support I don't see anything wrong with the shadows. Muhammad(talk) 13:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong objection to editing out leg If you submitted an image to a science journal where you edited out a limb could cause you not to be published in the future should it be found out. Don't edit out body parts for aesthetic reasons: it's fakery. --Blechnic (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original. Leg just doesn't need to be cloned out IMO. I think it would have been preferable to have a more side on view, or slightly head on, but if this is the best you have, I still support. BTW, I'm assuming it wasn't actually taken in August 2008. Australia is ahead of GMT, but not that far ahead. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hehe good point :) --Fir0002 05:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The composition is weak. Also the editing of foot seems unnecessary and inappropriate, it was ok before.Swimmtastic (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User has <30 edits --Fir0002 05:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Removed inappropriate 'biter' quote added to this nomination here by Swimmtastic. Fir0002's comment re new editors is common practice at FPC, it is not aimed at you as a person, and is not "biting". You are entitled to make a comment, but Fir is also entitled to point out that you are a new user, as long as it is done in an appropriate manner, which is certainly the case here. It is also unnecessary to add the text itself which I assume is copied from an article somewhere and spoils the flow of the nomination; using a link would be more appropriate. --jjron (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original Encyclopedic and to the point. victorrocha (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose edit 1 Inappropriate digital manipulation. Narayanese (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support original. Oppose edit 1 (The foot should stay), not too keen on alt1. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original, Oppose Edit 1. The good quality of the image is such that it outweighs the shallow DOF (which is always hard to get right on macros). The leg, however, should not be cloned out. NauticaShades 02:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Assassin bug aug08 02.jpg MER-C 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Tour of Gippsland

Original - The final stage in the tour of Gippsland - the gruelling climb up "The Gap" to Omeo.

Alternative 1 - Mini pano showing more of the surrounding landscape

Alternative 2 - crop suggested by Pengo. (Note: crop may have been lossy).

Alternative 3 - edit by Canberra photographer. removed glare and over-brightness, sharpened

Edit 1 of Alt 2 by Fir0002, an edit doing what I believe capital/canberra photographer was attempting

Reason

High quality image of bicycle racing. Good enc value. Alternative panoramic view: Image:Tour of gippsland final stage pano.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Bicycle racing and Road bicycle racing

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Not bad but nothing special, a bit soft too Capital photographer (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It is clear from the expression on the riders' faces that this is an arduous climb, as you say in the description. This is not shown well in the image however. The panoramic version does a better job of showing this. Could a crop between the two in terms of length (and perhaps with the detail of the original) be made? NauticaShades 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As per request consider Alternative 1 --Fir0002 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made another crop (Alt 2). I like the landscape, but the nearest reflector is distracting. —Pengo 05:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The crops are even worse. The mountains in the distance don't say much about what they have just done, there isn't enough of a link between them in the image. The riders are to small and to far to the side of the frame. I do wonder why the image doesn't show more of what was to the right of the riders, where they are riding from. Capital photographer (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • To the right is an uninteresting rock face. It is totally useless in showing where they have come from, whereas the LHS does show this by demonstrating the terrain. --Fir0002 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Insert discussion subpage: The rest of this discussion can be found here - was becoming somewhat ungainly and irrelevant to say the least! :) --Fir0002 13:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe just once if Fir were to post a full size photo... This picture would probably only pass if that is the case (or at least a larger one). At the size the pictures are at you're not going to get the hills and the detail needed for the picture to pass. IMO at least. victorrocha (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A truly unfair comment given the 1000px minimum guideline. Huge resolution is not a prerequisite for a Wikipedia FP. --Fir0002 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not trying to be harsh but I would have to say that this picture at a larger size would benefit from a great landscape and the detail of the riders. The current candidate and the alternatives have one but not the other. It is not a requirement for the photograph to be huge but I believe this particular example would benefit from a higher res. The alternatives are definitely pictures that would grab someone's attention in the main page. victorrocha (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah bigger is always better, but IMO this is plenty enough to appreciate the scene. And since you yourself have said this would be eye catching on the main page, I think it's worth of FP. --Fir0002 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I also agree that its slightly on the small size, especially when you've released the original image at much higher res. Whats the purpose of the low res of the panorama? Its not really something you could sell on a stock site as you'd need releases from the riders, so restricting commercial use shouldn't be a reason. My symbolic support is for your edit of Alt 2, but at a higher res. Even without reading the comments, I felt like it was just a bit small. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
          • The original is only higher res because it is wider - the alternative "mini pano" does not have any less detail. This being a local event I can sell prints of it, so by providing a high res version I still would be at a potential commercial loss. And anyway, aside from "bigger is better" what exactly would a higher res version provide that this version is lacking? The only thing I can think of are the riders faces, but as you can see from the original image I nominated (close to a 1:1 crop), you can't really make out their faces anyway. --Fir0002 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe someone could actually write an article about this event. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question: What's with the clouds in the Panoramas? They seem painted, especially looking at edit 1 of alt 2. Spencer^T♦C 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. If an alternative with the same crop as Alt 2 and the detail of the original is uploaded, I'll support. The current quality of the detail of Edit 1 is not superb, and it could only be offset in my opinion by a higher resolution version. NauticaShades 22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Just to make MER-C's life easier I'll just say now that I won't be uploading this image at any higher res. Sorry guys --Fir0002 01:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all except for Alt 3 and maybe Alt 2 Edit 1 - Original for me doesn't show enough of the background. To me it just looks like hills surround the road, not the road is actually on an hill. While the others do, only Alt 3 shows the bikers (insignificantly)large enough for myself to establish themselves as the subject. I also have the same arguement for Alt 2 Edit 1, but its rather oversharp. DA PIE EATER (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users

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

AV8B Harrier

Original - McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is a family of second-generation vertical/short takeoff and landing or V/STOL jet multirole aircraft of the late 20th century.

Edit 3 Change in WB, blur crop and some sharpening. (victorrocha)

Edit 4 as edit 3, but reduced saturation.

Edit 5 by Fir0002. Sharpened, contrast, WB, Noise/artefact reduction

Reason

Superb quality of an aircraft.

Articles this image appears in

AV-8B Harrier II, VMA-231, Supermaneuverability

Creator

Paulmaz (talk · contribs)

• Support as nominator Latics (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The picture is definitely FP material however, I would like to see the harrier lightened and given a bit more contrast. --victorrocha (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - an impressive sight, and very encyclopedic. I do agree with the above comment that it could perhaps do with the contrast slightly improved. Bob talk 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Edit uploaded It's better contrast, but likely not the best. Latics (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edit 2 uploaded Very nice pic. I'm no raster expert, but here's a different take on the contrast enhancement. Looks overdone in thumb, but that's opinion - there's still some space at the edges of the histogram. I also smoothed out the sky to get rid of some .jpg artifacts and cropped out the blurry grass. Dhatfield (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, my edit was a quick job, so I'm looking for feedback. As for edit 2, there are a lot of artifacts. Could you re-save it at a higher quality? Latics (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wish I could - those artifacts are from the original jpg and they only come out when you up the contrast. I saved at 100% quality from GIMP and the file size is about 4x as large as the original so I think that it did it. Bummer. Score another one for the Joint Photographic Experts Group. Dhatfield (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edit 2 withdrawn. Good idea on the WB shift, victorrocha. Dhatfield (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, further to my earlier vote, I support either the original or edit 3. At a push, I would say edit three is the more striking. Bob talk 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 A very fine image with plenty of "wow" factor. I prefer edit 3 because it has the best contrast. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Edit 1 withdrawn Latics (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• weak support focus is a bit soft, but not prohibitively for me. de Bivort 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 5. Edit 5 is the best of the edits IMO (biased by still!) however it can't fix the underlying lack of sharpness in this picture. Must say I'm looking forward to the 2009 air show! :) --Fir0002 12:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support any. Very cool! Look at all the heat wash! Clegs (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral The original isn't good enough, and to me, the edits make it look borderline fake (especially the front landing tire). smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly because for me the grassy foreground that is blurred is very distracting. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce a cropped version of edit 5 please. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

cropped version - personally I prefer it uncropped --Fir0002 07:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit 3 or edit 5? MER-C 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with edit 5. Too much compression artifacts in edit 3. Latics (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:BAE-McDonnell-Douglas AV8B edit5.jpg MER-C 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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

JFK motorcade

John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 22, 1963. Photograph shows a close-up view of President and Mrs. Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally and his wife. Simple crop of the archival scan, approx. 9 megapixels

Reason

Only free image found so far that depicts the motorcade moments prior to the JFK assassination. I feel that the encyclopedic value of this photograph far outweighs any concerns over its artistic merit or technical quality. Originally uploaded to the commons as Image:John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas.jpg. The original archival scan is now available at Image:John F. Kennedy motorcade, Dallas.png or in .tiff format at [5]. Current image processing software employed in MediaWiki prohibits posting a thumbnail of the original scan as it exceeds 12.5 megapixels. The crop is just a preliminary suggestion, I'd love to see some FPC regulars take a crack at cleaning up the scan.

Articles this image appears in

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

Creator

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

• Support as nominator --ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Taken from a unique vantage point to all others I have seen of Kennedy's motorcade through Dallas. The quality of the original is quite poor though understandable for an image from that era. Capital photographer (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There are definitely better quality shots of the motorcade, unfortunately they are all protected by copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose After the Brandeis portrait, this is rather poorly restored. I'm willing to pardon composition and detail but the dust, speckles, etc. are inexcusable given the excellent restoration abilities of some Wikipedians.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not that confident in my restoration abilities :) I apologize as this nomination now appears to be a bit premature, since the cropped scan exhibits a number of fixable blemishes. I'd appreciate it if Durova, or any other FPC regular, take some time to see what could be done to improve the quality of this photo. Perhaps in the meantime it is best to move this nomination to a more appropriate forum, like WP:GL or WP:PPR. Nonetheless, I believe that this photo is a substantial asset of our free content community. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Although this image is about half as old as the Brandeis image, technical and circumstantial factors are quite different. The Brandeis image is a formal portrait taken under studio conditions, and that had extensive damage that took roughly 20 hours to restore. This is a snapshot taken on the day of President Kennedy's assassination, and the photographer has released it to the public domain. On a technical level these two images are not very comparable. I might be able to do something with the image file (no promises), but really suggest weighing the special historical nature of this photograph. Better portraits of Kennedy may be available, but would they carry such meaning? Durova^Charge! 07:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but this image is still inferior to what it (not some other picture) could be. I will gladly revise my vote if a well-restored version is presented, and I won't judge how well is "well-restored" based on Brandeis.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Temporarily withdrawn pending request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#JFK_motorcade ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Please don't simply remove a nom from the FPC page. In a case like this where holding off for a bit might produce a better picture, the nomination can be moved to the suspended list. Removing the nom from the FPC page completely is just asking for it to go missing. Also, I was giving the cleanup a go myself and then thought I was going nuts when I couldn't find the nomination anywhere (here or on PPR, I wasn't 100% sure where I saw it). Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was not aware of the proper procedure for suspending noms. I can assure you that this one will not go missing, it's too good of a learning experience for me for things to avoid should I ever nominate a picture again :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support/Comment despite suspended status...I don't really understand why the image needs to be revamped...if the goal is to promote an image that makes you want to "read its accompanying article," (which I think this image certainly does), isn't that enough? This photo really encapsulates recent American history (in my opinion), and I think photoshop work to an original image would detract from it. I make this statement keeping in mind the fact that this picture was from the 1960s, when photography wasn't what it is today. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I wish I could give a better answer or one that didn't come so close to an npa violation but the truth is that voters (and despite the wording saying that it isn't a vote that's what they are) on FPC by and large and with little exception are shallow. They'll oppose for the silliest and most inconsequential reasons, they will demand that an image be redone and/or digitally corrected and then find something else to complaina about or complain that the image isn't real because it was digitally corrected. I won't rant any more on the topic because this is not the place but I honestly blame this attitude for the fact that we don't have many long term high quality contributors anymore. Cat-five - talk 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• OpposeComment - Unfortunately. Its certainly unique, but the quality is not very good at all. I see it is being revamped, will re-evaluate my vote once this happens. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 14:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've done a partial restoration (not ready for prime time) with some but not all of the artifacts removed. Image:Kennedyb.jpg. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Ok are we going to make a decision? Holtville (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Give it some more time, the restoration process still has a little ways to go. I'd like to thank Durova for her efforts in restoring the image. As for listing, I see no hurry, this nomination could just as easily be transcluded to the July 2008 list :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'd suggest that these votes given during the time the nomination has been suspended until it is un-suspended be treated as comments unless the commentor comes in after the nomination is started again and affirms their vote since otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of suspending the nomination since we have gotten two votes (1 support 1 oppose) since the suspension as far as I can tell. Cat-five - talk 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. One of those votes was me, I have struck my opposition, now just a comment. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 10:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • How about we just renominate it when the restoration is complete? NauticaShades 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • We usually remove nominations from this area if they're taking too long [6] - what's different about this one? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Especially seeing as it's been marked "stale" at the graphics lab, I think this should be closed—for now. Thegreenj 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Agree. I'll close it tomorrow if no one can come up with a compelling reason to leave it here any longer (or unless someone else closes it first). --jjron (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing procedure

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

   {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~

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

2. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.

When promoted, perform the following:

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

   {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~

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

   Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG

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

2. Add the image to:
   • Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
   • Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
   • Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.

   The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.

4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

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

Nominations for delisting

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.

Delist closing procedure

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

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~

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

3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

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

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

   {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~

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

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

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

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

   {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
   • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.

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

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

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