Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
-4
Reverted 1 edit by Wadester16; Removing pictures without consensus. (TW)
Line 15: Line 15:
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Homeless on bench.jpg}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Homeless on bench.jpg}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clara Morgane}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clara Morgane}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pastel drawing of Vincent van Gogh}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Wandering Glider Pantala flavescens.jpg}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lophyra sp Tiger beetle.jpg}}
{{-}}
{{-}}
<!-- Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. -->
<!-- Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. -->

Revision as of 20:28, 31 May 2009

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

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

Promoting an image

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

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

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

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

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

Delisting an image

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

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

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

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

How to comment for Delist Images

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

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

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

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

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

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

Current nominations

Kobe Beef

Original - Kobe Beef in Japan. There are four filets pictured, the one in front is the highest grade of Kobe Beef.
Reason
Technically it is a good picture, the subject is in focus, crisp colors, etc. The image has a large resolution that well exceeds Wikipedia's required minimum for a featured picture. The image is the best example in Wikipedia regarding Kobe Beef. It can therefore be argued that it is an exemplar graphical representation of Japanese food culture, The high detail on the marbelling of the beef gives a valuable representation of what high grade kobe beef looks like. The image has no artistic characteristics, it is a straight forward picture of real Kobe beef. It is therefore informative and adds encyclopedic value to the articles it links to.
Articles this image appears in
Kobe beef, Wagyu
Creator
iamorlando
  • Support as nominator --iamorlando 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but the angle and lighting is poor. The background isn't pleasant and the image overall seems to be too soft (not sharpened). The illustration isn't bad, but it isn't FP material. ZooFari 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ZooFari. I have heard of Kobe Beef before via Iron Chef though. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for composition and lighting. Good EV, though. Take a look through the galleries for FP-quality photographs of food. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Thiodina puerpera female

Original - Thiodina puerpera (adult female)
Reason
I managed to get two good shots of this little jumping spider which I then focus stacked. Although the far legs are not in focus, the DOF is pretty good for the subject (8mm at the most). The image is high res and sharp, the only white pixels are a couple small specular highlights in the eyes, the EV is high, the composition is good, the background, although not ideal, isn't distracting.
Articles this image appears in
Thiodina puerpera, Thiodina
Creator
Kaldari
  • Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would've liked to have seen the front pair of eyes a bit more, but that would eat depth of field. You should probably go up to about the sub-family with article placements. Noodle snacks (talk)
  • Support - This is an example of an astonishing quality image. Congratulations for the photographer. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . --  00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. ZooFari 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good quality. Lighting is good on the subject, shadow slightly distracting but the details makes up for it. --Muhammad(talk) 07:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Very good quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow! Great EV, quality. What is that white line thing about halfway down on the right side? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the spider's dragline. Jumping spiders don't spin webs but they do leave a strand of silk behind wherever they go, so that in case they jump somewhere they don't want to be (in pursuit of prey) they can get back to their original spot. Kaldari (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thiodina puerpera female 02.jpg --wadester16 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Dendrocygna bicolor (Fulvous whistling duck)

Original - A swimming Fulvous whistling duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), one of eight species of the Dendrocygna genus. As the name implies, the ducks are known for their distinctive "whistling" calls.
Reason
Good size, good quality, clear illustration of the species
Articles this image appears in
Fulvous whistling duck
Creator
Branko Kannenberg
  • Very Weak Oppose Support. I really like this image, but per Muhammad the EV is limited by the camera angle. I keep coming back to it, but just find I can't support due to that. Would surely be a shoe-in on Commons (where I note it's already featured). --jjron (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC) On further reflection I figure that we have portrait style FPs of other animals, which for the most part is what this is achieving - yes full body is usually preferred especially for smaller animals, and while we see most of the full body here it's essentially a portrait. Quibbles here, quibbles there over that this and that, so I'll go for a weak support instead. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it was a shoe-in there. I can accept that the EV would be considered limited, but I'm glad you find it otherwise irresistable, too, :-) Maedin\talk 09:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further reflection changed my vote (see above). --jjron (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We already have a side view of the species in the article (taken by me actually!) so not seeing the side of the bird is not a problem, we've got it covered. This image instead shows what the bird looks like while swimming, so what does it matter that it is taken at the angle it is? We have one from the front and one from the side and both show different things and the one from the front is the technically superior one, and speaking as a bird editor I think the encyclopaedic value of this image is just fine. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Before I opened this, I was sure it was an oppose since the angle limits the EV. But it's a spectacular shot! The detail on its head surely makes up for the missing body. I think that adds up to a weak support. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dendrocygna bicolor wilhelma.jpg --wadester16 04:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Rock formations in Joshua Tree National Park

Original -The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface. Groundwater is responsible for the weathering that created the spheres from rectangular blocks. You could read more about the rock formations here
Reason
Great EV, high quality
Articles this image appears in
Joshua Tree National Park
Creator
Mbz1
  • Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Few of my latest nominations went with no oppose, with no support and with no comments at all. With this one I would really like try to figure out what is going on. It might help me to safe my and yours time in the feature, and not nominate such images anymore. May I please ask you to tell me what is wrong with the nominated image
    1. Too good to oppose,
    2. Too bad to support,
    3. Too boring to comment and/or to vote.
    Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Compared to one other image in the article, this one IMO has better EV. If you upload a compressed version, then I can vote as this one is too large for me. --Muhammad(talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Muhammad. It is very kind of you! I believe you are right about EV. This image shouws sphere and nice connection between other rocks. Here is the other version (the size is the same, but the quality is worse for you to be able to see without loosing the time) File:Giant Marbles in Joshua Tree National Park compressed.jpg or maybe you ment you wanted me to downsample the image rather than reduce the quality?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant a downsample. SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Spencer. I've overwritten my compressed image with down sampled one--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any major technical issues with the image, colours look good. However, I sorta disagree with Muhammad. I recently visited Joshua Tree NP, and I think both images have good EV. SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That caption needs to be added to the article however, its unclear what you are looking at there. Someone needs to remove about half the images from the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion, Noodle snacks. I added geology section to the article. I'd rather somebody else, but me removed some images from the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I further did some image movement and cleanup. SpencerT♦Nominate! 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Muhammad(talk) 07:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets all the criteria. Very good EV. — Jake Wartenberg 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not sold on EV. Are these unique to this park? Are they the major feature of the park? I get no sense of scale from the picture. Are they huge? Small? I'd consider supporting if the caption or article were improved to give a better sense of what we're looking at. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No scale? There are not just one, but two persons at the rocks to see the scale!--Mbz1 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the caption, may I please ask you, if you read the article I linked the caption to? I believe I did my best with the caption, but I am not a native speaker of English. I'm opened for suggestions, if you be so kind to advise me what else from this article should be included in the caption. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just visited the park about 2 months ago. After seeing it, I'd say the rocks are a major feature of the park (I have a similar picture, but the quality is crap). SpencerT♦Nominate! 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't see the people. Changing my vote to Weak Oppose. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lovely image, superb lighting, excellent EV. The human figures add a helpful sense of scale. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with conditional support Speaking as a geologist, the caption is very poor. Here is a suggested version with grammar and text alterations to make it clearer and more accurate:
The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface. Groundwater is responsible for the weathering that created the spheres from rectangular blocks. You could read more about the rock formations here
If the above or similar change is made then this image recieves my support. Seddσn talk 05:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caption was changed. Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Giant Marbles in Joshua Tree National Park.jpg --wadester16 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Silver Gull

Original - Silver Gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae)
Reason
Good quality, nice lighting. All important plumage shown, legs shown.
Articles this image appears in
Silver Gull, Chroicocephalus
Creator
Noodle snacks
  • Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support EV is good but DOF is quite shallow, slight motion blur in the legs and plumage seems noisy. --Muhammad(talk) 05:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "EV" or "DOF"? I have seen that abbreviations have been used repeatedly in this page. I think you should avoid making abbreviations, or at least put the respective link to the page or section which the abbreviation means. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well these are very common terms used at FPC, (Featured picture candidates). EV stands for encyclopedic value and DOF for Depth of Field --Muhammad(talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about "IMO"? - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . --  00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.acronymfinder.com/ is often useful. It stands for in my opinion. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. IMO a poor pose for maximum enc. The head retracted posture is, while not uncommon, let's say atypical. Also the location, a pine fence railing, is not ideal. These suckers spend most of their time on the ground or water - as can be seen by their feet they're not well adapted for perching. Finally I'd like to congratulate you on blitzing an existing FP from not just both articles infoboxes but the articles themselves in order to put this in (come on Noodle, you know better than that). --jjron (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad on the "blitz". The other image didn't exactly look FP quality to me, but I should have checked. I feel it fair to point out that I ditched a number of images from that article. A shot in water would not show feet, and neither would most surfaces on the ground. Even the previous FP could be used to argue that perching is not entirely atypical. My bird book mentions that they may be found "many miles" from the sea too, which I'd consider empirically true. The name doesn't do me any favours though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have to convince me that they're found far from the sea (BTW how old or trite is your bird book? Miles?). And of course they don't always land on the ground - maybe something like a picnic table would be more enc though ;-). But a shot on the ground, perhaps ideally sand, would show the feet perfectly well with sufficient contrast in colours. Not commenting on quality per se as I haven't compared closely, but compositionally I do prefer the other image. --jjron (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Picnic table beside the sea stealing fish and chips would be most realistic. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - another very nice NS picture....but.....for such a common species a shot closer to perfection is needed. I don't like the pose, ISO has made some noticible noise and I think that camera shake (?) is evident in the legs. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per jjron --Fir0002 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current one is more interesting IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 04:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Black Swan

Original - Black Swan (Cygnus atratus)
Reason
I'm not boycotting anything, thanks to a new french student the internet here has been shaped for some time. I think this is detailed where it matters. As swans are usually found in the water more is shown than usual. I don't know about the white mute swans, but these are amazingly aggressive.
Articles this image appears in
Black Swan
Creator
Noodle snacks
  • Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very good aesthetics but little EV IMO as many parts of the body are blurred. Perhaps a side view? --Muhammad(talk) 06:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Everything, except for the neck and head, is blurred due to low DOF - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurred parts kind of show motion effect that I like.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the best angle for good EV. Is beak blown? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 04:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Urban poverty

Original - Homeless man on a bench, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico
Reason
I think this picture illustrates strong and beautifully the abstract concept of poverty, without having to personalize the human subject
Articles this image appears in
Poverty
Creator
Tomas Castelazo
  • Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Powerful image with lots of relevant EV. Lycaon (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyone else reminded of this picture? With regard to the present nom, I point out that the image was just added to the health section of the Poverty article today-- I'd recommend waiting a bit to see whether the image is stable where it's been placed, and whether there is consensus about its EV. Out of curiosity, was there image manipulation (the concrete looks lighter near the right leg than anywhere else) or was that the actual lighting? Spikebrennan (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that a requirement similar to the one in VPC should be in force here. But that is not the case right now. As for possible manipulation I very much doubt as I can't see the purpose of it Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't show enough for strong EV. Just an apparently homeless pair of legs. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Noodle Snacks. ZooFari 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Have to agree with the above. Additionally looks to have a clockwise tilt. Sorry. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Who wants to look at just a homeless persons legs? BUC (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not really particularly encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I think this image is very exceptional in resolution and standard qualities. I also think that it has some enciclopedic value (maybe not much, but some), I was going to give a support vote, but I gave a weak support because I may not be enough objective in this case. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . --  00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose EV is diminished by only showing the legs. Cacophony (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Its not a homeless person, it's a homeless person's legs - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I guess the people who opposed this picture don't think art should be allowed on Wikipedia. I like how there is no caption necessary to know exactly what this picture is about. Tennis_52 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are determining if it meets the featured picture criteria not judging it on its artistic merit. It could be the most beautiful shot in the world, but unless it provides a significant contribution to the encyclopedia article, it should not be a featured picture. Cacophony (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Low EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This does not give a striking and identifiable illustration of homelessness-it's a pair of legs.Without the caption,it's not even obviously a homeless person-it could be a miner or a poor person resting on a bench Lemon martini (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Clara Morgane

Original - Clara Morgane
Reason
Nice picture
Articles this image appears in
Clara Morgane
Creator
A photographer
  • Support as nominator --ClausX (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unappealing background and confusing pose of subject. Also, identity of photographer and legitimacy of the license for the photo ought to be clearer. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Nothing exceptional here. Even the nominator can't say better than "nice picture". Clearly not enough for FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see what makes this picture notable. Can ClausX please explain why this should be a featured picture. Just because it "looks nice" doesn't make it automatically comply with featured picture criteria. Did the user even review it when nominating? AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this nomination was made 7 minutes after the user's account was created, and this is the only edit he has made except for one each to his user and talk pages (ClausX (talk · contribs · logs)). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he's user Claus on Commons and he doesn't speak English.--Paris 16 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creator is "A Photographer" That narrows it down! Source is the model's web site. Any copyright issues? Oh, and Oppose --Bridgecross (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that the use of this image has been cleared at OTRS. --jjron (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a work for hire situation. MER-C 03:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose due to background. Decent image, but not quite featured picture material. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support decent quality and if not perfect in all aspects in my opinion it is certainly among the very best images of living people on Wikipedia and a good illustration of the subject that adds significantly to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree with Guest9999. Certainly one of the best living persons images we have on this site and illustrates the subject quite well. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Guest9999.--Paris 16 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Distracting background --Muhammad(talk) 09:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like an extended caption, particularly where and what she's doing. brandt 09:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Have been a little undecided on this one. Was iffy on the creator/licensing at first, but it seems valid enough. Image quality is pretty good and as some of the others have said, for a Wiki photo of a living person/celebrity it is quite good (despite her being of perhaps slightly questionable notability). Not that impressed with the messy background, but on the other hand it's clearly intentional. Overall leads me to a weak support. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose No compelling reason to support this. But it's not terrible. Distracting background is biggest problem. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Awkward pose, distracting background, and looks heavily airbrushed. Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Pastel drawing of Vincent van Gogh

Original - Pastel drawing of painter Vincent van Gogh, made in 1887 by Post-Impressionist painter and illustrator Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. The painting is in the collection of the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Reason
High resolution image; beautiful drawing using many strong colors; portrait of Vincent van Gogh that is not a self portrait.
Articles this image appears in
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Vincent van Gogh
Creator
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
  • That's a really good idea; enc. would be much improved then. However, is there a relationship worth an article creation? SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Spencer. Should probably be removed from van gogh article to free up room for artwork by van gogh. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No quorum. --wadester16 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Wandering Glider

Original - A 5cm long Wandering Glider Pantala flavescens dragonfly. Pictured in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Reason
Good quality, Ev and aesthetics
Articles this image appears in
Libellulidae, Pantala flavescens
Creator
Muhammad
  • Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support really nice work. — Jake Wartenberg 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not the best position of the critter and quality is not good enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lighting is good and this is one of the sharpest dragonfly images on wikipedia. I am not sure I follow regarding the "not good quality". Re the position, the dragonfly was in this position. Can you explain?--Muhammad(talk) 13:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this small size it ought to be pin sharp, which it isn't, especially the head. The position is poor because the wings are really not shown and spoil the composition. The point is the insect bar is quite high. Though I do not expect every bug FP to reach Richard Bartz's level, they should at least be technically excellent: well lit, detailed, sharp and with a good composition. Every FP's is supposed to be part of la crème de la crème (the cream of the cream), not just another nice picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its 2mp, much larger than the required 1000px on largest side. Compared to this dragonfly FP of yours, the sharpness on mine is a lot greater and apart from the wings the rest of the body is in perfect focus. This dragonfly perches in such a position, that when I had a rotated version shown to an expert, he was doubtful of the position right away. There was only one other alternative for the composition, to take from opp the wings. That version was less dynamic and eye catching. We can't apply the same rule of composition for all dragonflies. Oh, the head in this is also much sharper than in your darter. Sorry, if I have pinpointed to your example but I feel you have personally made the macro criteria very high recently --Muhammad(talk) 16:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem pointing to my darter except that the picture was taken almost two years ago ... and was donwsampled by Fir. (anyway, I beileve it has a great composition) Yes, my macro criteria have raised because the overall quality of the nominations raised too! That is a good thing IMO though I'm also affected by it! Notice that I almost stopped nominating insect pictures. In your case, my opinion is that you can easily reach the present bar (you already did, with some picturs) if you pay more attention to composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had to take a leap of faith with this one, because the wings are almost completely blurred out, and somewhat obstructing. However, in every other respect, it's an outstanding picture, and it would be unrealistic to expect such brilliant color and sharpness on a retake. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Several spaces are really blurry, like the white spot at the top, the top of the branch, and the wings. (GeForce3 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • User has only 2 edits at FPC and a total of 70 edits --Muhammad(talk) 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • White spot at the top is the sky. You can't seriously expect that to be sharp in a macro shot! In macro pictures the DOF is very shallow and I request you to familiarize yourself with some macro pictures before opposing. --Muhammad(talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per PLW. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Quality is very good - I have no complaints there, although I would agree with Alvesgaspar that the composition isn't ideal. I think if you took it so that one wing was clearly to the right of the body and one wing was clearly to the left, the wings (even if they were very blurry) would be more defined. In this image, the near wing is jumbled up along the body which confuses the viewer a little. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry that I have to oppose an image with a fairly good technical quality. Because of the missing of the clearly recognizable wings there is a lacking three-dimensionality here, which isn't unsustainable for an excellent encyclopedical picture. The in a 90 degree angle splayed out wings, which are very important for this order are peculatet through an awkward angle. Nearly lateral plan view which is the easiest strategy to get a fairly good DOF result doesn't work on every insect species. Insects whose wings are laid out backwards are fine for lateral plan view shots. Take a christian cross as example, do you think it's a good idea to make a excellent picture with a nearly lateral plan view ? ... an exeption - if someone would hanging on it ;-) . --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: (Supporting instead). Ok, it's hard to disagree with you guys who "know" what you're talking about, so even though I don't personally think the wing issue is that important, it's enough to stop me supporting. But Muhammad, that light! This creature has taken an ethereal, surreal quality; the colours are so smooth and creamy and the hairs on his thorax look like silk. And every square millimetre of his body looks in focus. I'm sorry if that was all a little too effusive, but I really really like it. Maedin\talk 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then, you should support and disregard the opinion of the wise guys... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely agree. Different people place different importance on different things, and your opinion is as valid as ours when it comes to things like this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Diliff, and I would like a support after all the wonderful praise :-) --Muhammad(talk) 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok then, I happily support. Thanks for the encouragement, ;-) Maedin\talk 12:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The wings issue is my only complaint, but it's an interesting, useful and elegant shot.--ragesoss (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wings don't bother me too much, only really give a sense of movement. Looking at the eyes I'm guessing this was a combination of ambient and flash? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, fill flash used as well to get better contrast --Muhammad(talk) 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fill usually decreases contrast on the subject actually. You might be referring to the background though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is either the wings or the body. As per Alvesgaspar, is he supposed to cut the wings off to fill in your needs? If you take the image looking up, the composition will bring down EV. If he takes the image looking down, the wings will come into focus rather than the body. Nothing is perfect, and I like the fact that this one has clear quality on the abdomen/head. If there was another chance of taking the image again exactly with the dragon at this position, how would you have taken it? ZooFari 22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose From what I've been told from entomologists regarding my own images, the wing structure is an important identifier so this loses out on EV. And you yourself have taken several dragonflies with better poses than this recently and it's not impossible. Just an unfortunate angle just IMO --Fir0002 14:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, wing structure is important but there are several keys for identification and wing structure is used for very specific identification, of species for instance. This dragonfly was identified due to its vibrant orange colors and the wing structure was not even required by the entomologist. How does it then lose out on EV? A different angle loses out on the body pattern and some of the fine details such as the hairs. FWIW, I have an alternative with the wings in focus but it is not as eye catching as this and has some other faults I previously mentioned. --Muhammad(talk) 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No consensus. --wadester16 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Bahá'í Gardens Nomination

Original - This is Bahá'í gardens in Haifa, Israel.
File:Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone edit 1.jpg
Edit 1 - This is the edit to Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone.jpg. It addresses issues with color, saturation, and sharpness. The perspective issue is so small, I couldn't change it.
File:Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone edit 2.jpg
Edit 2 - Adjusted the saturation
Reason
Good Color, focus, and contrast. It also follows the rule of thirds and is beautiful.
Articles this image appears in
Bahá'í Faith, Shrine of the Báb
Creator
David Shankbone
  • Support as nominator --AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice image. --Carioca (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Issues with perspective and sharpness. SpencerT♦Nominate! 18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose edit 1, too. It's way too blue, and there are still sharpness issues. SpencerT♦Nominate! 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose edit 2. The colors are better, but after a direct comparison with the original, the image quality is severely degraded. SpencerT♦Nominate! 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An excellent panoramic view angle of choice (for the photographer). - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . --  20:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose certainly issues with the perspective. — Jake Wartenberg 22:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I wish the image had been taken from a centered spot, but it clearly wasn't. Otherwise, a touch-up to make the colors more vibrant would be helpful, IMO. -- mcshadypl TC 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 Much better. Looks great. -- mcshadypl TC 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit 1 A tad too blue, and a tad too saturated imho. Asphalt should be grayer, for instance. Suspect the real colors are somewhere in the middle. Large resolution makes up for a few shortcomings, though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support whichever version is agreed to be most accurate. A great shot, slight off-center-ness notwithstanding.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Slightly off centre but otherwise great view. EV makes up for slight compositional faux pas. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The perspective issue seems minor in the thumbnail, but it's uncomfortable to view large; the softness is also a bit of an issue, although not major. For what it's worth, I think a new edit with saturation midway between the original and the first edit would be better than either the original or the edit.--ragesoss (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit 2 has the best colors (although I still oppose).--ragesoss (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened at request of nominator. More input on newest edit, please. wadester16 21:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose sorry but feels too tightly framed at the bottom and the sides for the subject. Mfield 01:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 07:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Lophyra sp Tiger beetle

Original - Lophyra sp Tiger beetle pictured in Kibaha, Tanzania
Edit 1 Scale made thinner and retouched minor blown out ares
Reason
Good quality, EV, lighting and aesthetics. Probably one of the most frightening beetles I have seen. It killed small 1-2mm long ants and did not even feed on them. Like a battlefield as seen through my lens.
Articles this image appears in
Beetle, Tiger beetle, Ground beetle, Lophyra
Creator
Muhammad
  • Support as nominator (edited version) --Muhammad(talk) 09:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wow, excellent macro - one of your best, I think. Good DOF and it really stands out in its environment. LOL at your description of it. Sounds like it kills just for the fun of it - Reminds me of a robotic tripod from computer game like Half Life 2 or something. I don't think I've ever seen a beetle with long legs like that before. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Very good Muhammad, but please add some more space in front and on top of the warrior. Also, the scale is a bit intrusive. A thin non-divided line is enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can not add more space as this is not a crop. I can make the scale thinner but will it be seen as clearly in thumbnails as viewed in the articles? --Muhammad(talk) 13:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't entirely disagree with Alvesgaspar, but I think Muhammad should be given plenty of credit for including a scale at all. Well done! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppport edit 1 although probably the optimum prominence of the scale would be somewhere in between the two edits. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Perhaps a little closer to the original than the edit - I'd rather overdo it than underdo it, and remember some people have older eyes than we do.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Is he walking on a slanted surface or did you rotate it?HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Superb. One of your best. And thank goodness it's atop something more pleasant than some of the surfaces your insects have perched upon. DurovaCharge! 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit Picture is excellent. Scale is a bit ugly imo. I'd prefer something similar to the scale on that tick of Richard's. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded edit 1 scale made thinner per request and some minor blown out ares retouched. --Muhammad(talk) 05:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit1 - Excellent picture but, again, poor framing should be punished... Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. And mad props for adding the size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit only Fits right and tight. Great picture. Richard Bartz (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support really like it. — Jake Wartenberg 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 original consensus version per opinions expressed above and below. Although I think you should have just thinned down the scale, not changed it completely. The 'ruler' type scale was better and it shouldn't be in a fancy font; original font choice was better. Would support an Edit 2 addressing those things more :-). Again regrets on no species ID. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Change of version supported. On second thoughts the scale in the edit is really botched - the original is much better, but would prefer it not being so heavy. --jjron (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feedback I can upload an edited version over edit 1 tomorrow but a few things to be figured out. It seems consensus is in favour of a slightly thicker scale. Can I please have feedback on the font and 'ruler' type scale? jjron in favour of ruler like and Noodle and Alves against it. Anybody else? --Muhammad(talk) 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't mind ruler or not, but a thickness somewhere in between I think would be ideal. Re font these things should be in a plain, usually sans serif font, and really should be zeroed, that's probably the main thing. --jjron (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uploaded edit over edit1. 2px thicker scale and changed font --Muhammad(talk) 07:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No zero? Otherwise better, and maybe you don't want to edit and upload again on the slow link, so probably not a big issue. Though I believe these scales should always be zeroed. --jjron (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good EV and quality. Scale doesn't matter to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work - prefer edit 1 --Fir0002 14:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lophyra sp Tiger beetle edit1.jpg --wadester16 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]




Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

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

Suttungr and the dwarves

Original - The giant, Suttungr, threatens the dwarves Fjalar and Galar, along with some of their kinfolk, with drowning on a rock submerged by the tides, in punishment for them killing his parents. They eventually bargain for their lives by offering the mead of poetry, made out of the blood of Kvasir, an exceptionally wise man who they had killed, and save their lives. Odin will eventual steals the mead from Suttungr.
Not for voting: Original scan.
Reason
Another fine illustration of Norse mythology. It illustrates part of the story of the mead of poetry. Huard's art is particularly good - note the realism of the hands, which are usually considered the most difficult parts of anatomy to draw. The story itself is particularly violent, with a chain of deaths and cannibalism.
Articles this image appears in
Suttungr, Fjalar and Galar, mead of poetry
Creator
Louis Huard
  • Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems similar like the one I voted for last week. Good restoration. ZooFari 02:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's from the same series. I'm trying to space these out a bit, but, honestly, I have a tendency to forget about things if I delay too long. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Noodle snacks (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it looks as though it could do with rotation clockwise in the order of a couple of degrees. Seegoon (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like most Victorian engravings, it's not perfectly square. This is the best fit I could find. If you look closely, the upper-right corner's border is "caved in" a little, the other three corners align quite well with the eges of the image. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Maedin\talk 12:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To me there seems to have been a slight blurring (or similar effect) applied when restoring this. When viewed at full extent, it is most noticeable. A fantastic restoration but I do find this blurring a distraction at full resolution. Seddσn talk 04:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No blurring was applied. By the way, it's been 15 days. Is this ever going to close? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted FILE:Louis Huard - Giant Suttung and the Dwarfs.jpg --ZooFari 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Older nominations requiring additional input from users

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

Suspended nominations

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

The "Baker" shot of Operation Crossroads, at the Bikini Atoll, 1946

Original - The "Baker" shot of Operation Crossroads, at the Bikini Atoll, 1946
Restored version - Edit removes dust, scratches, smudges and crops the left and right white borders.
Reason
An amazing shot from the nuclear testing era, might need a little Photoshop magic to remove dust/defects but otherwise I think it's an amazing photograph demonstrating the absolute power of nuclear weapons.
Articles this image appears in
Operation Crossroads
Creator
US Government
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=293577708"