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 common saying 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.
If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the New nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the Nomination for removal section.
For listing, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations.
Copy the following content into the new blank subpage:
Do not change this portion of text at all: {{subst:PAGENAME}}
===[[Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAME}}| ExampleName ]]===
[[ Image: Example.jpg |thumb| Caption goes here ]]
Add your reasons for nominating it here;
say what article it appears in, and who created the image.
*Nominate and '''support'''. - ~~~~
*
<!-- additional votes go above this line -->
{{breakafterimages}}
Add {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName}} to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
Add {{FPC}} to the nominated image's page. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.
If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish to simply add your nomination to this page without creating the subpage, that is OK as someone else will create the subpage. The important piece of information is the pointer to the image, and the reason for the nomination.
Please be aware that there is a bot which currently helps to maintain this page. Please also be aware that the first date on the subpage should always be the date when it was placed on this page. See the notes section on the bot's userpage.
Supporting and opposing
If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.
To change your vote, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Evaluating dark images
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 above 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.
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.
The Featured picture list is quite lacking in invertebrates. I love this photo, nice and colourful and accurate.;
Appears in Mictyris, and will appear in its own species article as I get to it. Created by me. --liquidGhoul00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Liquidghoul, are you aware that Brian0918 has made a change to your image again (replaced original, not uploaded as a different file)? I've compared both and there really isn't a big difference though. I do wish he would see the logic of the situation (and what seems to be the majority consensus) and just upload a copy, rather than overwrite the original. On that note, do you have a larger sized image or is that as big as it gets? It already looks rather overprocessed (massive sharpening lines around the legs) but in this case, the image is unique enough for me to support it in its current form. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUnfortunately, this is as big as it gets. Although there were thousands of these guys, they will bury themselves as soon as I get ready to shoot. This one was further away than I would have liked, and the crop took quite some size. Can you give me which legs look overprocessed, I personally cannot see it. I have sharpened a bit, but have layered a mask over it, and gotten rid of most of the sharpening as I did not like it. Thanks for your comments. --liquidGhoul11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add on comment I have zoomed in around the legs and see what you are talking about. I have lost the PSD file (stupid) so it is hard to do it again. I can only see it on the very occasional spot at actual size (mainly two left legs), so if anyone has a big problem with it, I will fix it when I have ample time. But I have learnt to always keep the PSDs and check sharpening with zoom. Thanks :) --liquidGhoul12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it to some extent on all of the legs that have bright, illuminated edges contrasting against the background, but as I said before, I don't think it detracts enough to not support. It was more of a comment than a withdrawal of support. :) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, majority != consensus. Second, as you pointed out yourself, the change was very minor. That's why I didn't upload it to a new file. Voting over something so minor would have been a waste of everyone's time. But feel free to keep me under a magnifying glass. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-5 16:39
I'm not keeping you under a magnifying glass, I just happened to view the image and notice that once again you had made a change, in this case without actually mentioning so on this page. You are right that majority does not equal consensus, but I don't think that one person (you) who advocates doing things a different way is a lack of consensus in supporting the status quo either. If one dissenting opinion destroyed status quo, it would be chaos! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)20:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion minor changes such as the one Brian0918 made should be uploaded over the original. I don't think anyone would say that the modification wasn't an improvement, and if there happens to be dissent, it's easy to revert. ~MDD469623:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and it applies well in this case. But don't you agree that any change, however small, to a FP should always be announced on this page? --Janke | Talk07:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chaos?!?! Oh no! You must've won the argument, because your statement sounds so frightening... Anyways, I thought I announced the change on this page, as I normally do, but I guess not. In the future I will do so. In your original statement, however, you were not concerned with my announcing the change, just with my right to make that change. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-12 17:54
Weak oppose, I like the picture, and have no problems with it technically (size/whatever) but I don't find it engaging enough for Featured status. The camera is too high up and looks down on the poor crab. Pengo17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is about 5-10cm wide, and in incredibly wet sand. I was not going to kill my camera, by putting it in wet sand just to get a shot. Secondly, a low angle wouldn't suit this subject. The front is so large, that a low angle would take out most of the rest of the rest of the body, which would be less encyclopaedic.--liquidGhoul23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give him a break, he's in middle school (per user page). Of course he finds a picture of a police car more engaging. Sheesh! Rklawton19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I said that Image:Aus soldier Crab.jpg wasn't "engaging" enough, I suppose I worded it wrong. It seems as though the viewer is looking down on a poor crustacean. Also, though the background is natural and a image like this can be fairly tough to grab, the wet soil I guess made my decision to a weak oppose. AlvinruneTALK21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's an ugly little critter! How quickly can these guys plunge beneath the sand when you approach? I can't help but smirk at the idea of you trying to get this shot — surrounded by dozens except in whichever direction you happen to shove your camera :-) ~ Veledan • Talk11:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugly? They are quite cute. Takes them about 3 or 4 seconds to bury themselves. I have quite a few photos where they are half underground :-) --liquidGhoul13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job. Shame the background is a dull brown, but if that is their natural habitat its just what we want. -- Solipsist09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice of this lil' guy. The only thing I would even change would be putting him on dry sand, rather than wet, so we see the ends of his legs. Staxringold19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be very encyclopedic. Its habitat is wet sand. I shouldn't think you would ever find one of these on dry sand. ~ Veledan • Talk23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Beige Power Macintosh G3 Desktop, with optional zip drive in the lower 3.5" expansion bay.
Well, this is hardly the most exciting of subjects - but it illustrates Power Macintosh G3 in the only way possible. The image is deceivingly simple, but it's hard to get the background, lighting, angle and color so well as to rival Apple's own promotional photographs, the replacement of which with free alternatives has been a pastime of mine for a while now. Along comes Danamania, and uploads some very well done shots to Commons, licensed under CC-BY-SA (don't worry, I'll only nominate this one). It's perhaps not the highest of resolutions, but quite sufficient for print.
Oppose, I don't feel it is one of WPs best works or is pleasing to the eye. I also feel that knowing what a G3 looks like compared to other computers is not essential for the article, even a well photographed one like this. |→ Spaully°τ 21:00, 4 March 2006
Support Very professionally photographed and the best photo of the Beige Desktop Power Macintosh G3 on Wikipedia. It is very valuable to its article. — Wackymacs21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Yes, good photo, but FP? Even as a Mac user myself, I don't find this image "stunning" or "special" in any way - it's just a well-done photo of a computer box... --Janke | Talk21:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Agree with Janke. It's a good picture, very well done, but it just doesn't seem to work for FP. Alr22:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Strikes me as a little dull. The picture itself looks great and does a good job of illustrating the article, but it just doesn't do it for me. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another weak oppose. It is certainly a well done product shot, but product photography doesn't tend to stand out. It clearly adds value to the article though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is the perfect example, IMO, of an image that is as perfect as it can be but just isn't interesting, compelling, or stunning enough to be a FP. Staxringold19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support When judged against other wikipedia images of its type (Ie free images of boring product shots) this is clearly one of the very best we have. It is dramatic in its own way that such a boring subject could photograph even this well. Johntex\talk03:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RaspberriesDarker VersionDarker VersionDarker Version
Looks delicious, and everything is the subject (by that I mean there is no b/g because the b/g is the subject as well!) Alternative Versions: Image:Raspberries02.jpg, Image:Raspberries03.jpg
I like the un-saturated one the best. They do look ripe (except for one at the top). The others look like they have been sugar-glazed. --liquidGhoul05:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd much prefer a darker version - these raspberries simply don't look ripe. It may be the lighting, but I wouldn't eat them. —Cuiviénen(Cuivië)04:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid people would think a dark version over saturated. But I've uploaded three edits for your consideration - I couldn't decide between them. --Fir0002www05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem lies more with the lighting of the image and the raspberries shot than anything else. The darkening is an improvement, so I would support any of the darkened versions, but I still oppose original. —Cuiviénen(Cuivië)18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? If a picture is deftly aesthetic enough to incite the most subtle idiosyncrasies of the human taste buds, then... uh... never mind. I'm just really hungry. I support the original, but anything would do. The yellowish rasberry at the top left could be GIMPed out, but then the picture wouldn't be as "natural." GracenotesT § 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, looks like decent quality stock-photography, but is it really adding that much to the Raspberry article? I'd prefer a picture of them still hanging on the bush. Oh, checking the version history I can see that Fir just yesterday replaced such a pic with his. Sorry, but this looks a bit like self-promotion getting in the way of encyclopedic quality. Sigh, apparently I'm alone with this assessment. Time for an FPC-wikibreak. --Dschwen21:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Image:Raspberries (Rubus Idaeus).jpg, which is the one Fir moved. This picture illustrates a completely different aspect of the subject. Are you saying that such a clear, high-res picture of picked berries adds nothing worthwhile to the article? That's a support by the way. Raven4x4x00:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it does add to the article, and Fir's image is of far better quality, but I do agree with Dschwen: I think Fir should have added his pic to the gallery on the page, instead of moving the original one from the info-box to the gallery. Rasperries on the bush are more encyclopedic - the article is mainly about about the plant, not the foodstuff. Exactly where an image is on a page doesn't affect eligibility for FPC, so might someone (preferably Fir himself) do a switch? --Janke | Talk21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've done that, but you've gotta admit that the pic isn't that best on quality. However I see that it should really have the plant--Fir0002www21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commentwhile supporting Fir's pic, i guess one is justified to complain that Fir has replaced the original head pic, which is a featured pic in Common, with his own straight away ...--K.C. Tang03:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - original only, I don't see any need for editing what is in the original a very good photo. Nice one again Fir. |→ Spaully°τ 14:13, 5 March 2006
Promoted IImage:Raspberries05.jpg Deciding which one to choose was hard. There were some comments exclusively in favor of the first and some exclusively for the darkened ones (the first dark one had a good deal of support), the original seems to be the common denominator and has the most support. BrokenSegue14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heteropteryx dilatata, commonly known as the 'Malaysian Jungle Nymph'
Image taken by neighbour, who agreed at the time that all rights be released to me or any purpose or licence I see fit. Subject is my pet, and the colouration has not been modified. Image featured in Phasmatodea, and is high-resolution (1232x824px).
Oppose Sorry this isn't good enough for FP. The depth of focus is too narrow and less than half of the subject is visible. ~ Veledan • Talk20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the missing part longer than the visible part? Apologies if not. Even so, I'm afraid animal pics fail to get promoted for far lesser portions missing. And there are several other pics on that page which give a better impression of these insects as a whole IMO. ~ Veledan • Talk21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Camera newbie here ... how exactly would you get a wider field of focus? Different lens? What would be different about that lens? --Cyde Weys04:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great value artistically, and no doubt a great portrait of your pet (should there be an article on pet portraiture?). This kind of picture is usually more successful on Commons, where accurate and complete depiction is less of an objective, and artistic value enters into consideration. Oppose. - Samsaracontribtalk12:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Veledan, and disagree with the above comment: artistic value ought to be considered here, too. –Joke16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support an awesome photo, and you even have the species name. Not really missing much with the focus as is, and if it were any wider angle you'd lose the detail of its head. —Pengo02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the background, actually; becuase trying to capture the car in a non-busy street in New York City is one very hard thing to do. Hillhead1509:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The uncropped version is in many articles, and if the cropped version were promoted it would replace the old image in all the articles. --liquidGhoul12:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's used in several articles.... — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-1 15:36
Oppose, because I agree that it's not quite striking enough. I think the cropped one is better, I wouldn't mind if somebody replaced the old image with that one. Mstroeck15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's nothing special about this image. It's a police car on the street, no more. It is not even in motion. The flash of the light is the only interesting spot in the image. --Janke | Talk07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. That hurts. A beautiful NYPD cruiser destine never to be featured simply because its not involved in a high speed chase. I guess it was to be expected though: one must have a love of form to see past such things. TomStar8109:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally! It's not about the car, it's the general look of the image (not "stunning" enough), an opinion that appears to be shared by most voters. With a better background (perhaps blurred because the camera is following a moving car) and a little more dramatic lighting, I'm sure a NYPD cruiser could befeatured! (BTW, we're all spoiled by TV, aren't we? ;-) --Janke | Talk14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, blimey. That was a joke. I wasn't seriously suggesting that that become a featured pic, I was just picking up on Janke's comments on how we are all led to believe that a picture of a NYPD car should be in an exciting car chase with lights flashing and sparks flying. This place is so dull sometimes. Lighten up! —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ11:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are. TV has a way of raising the bar, and my guess is that effect is going to be felt here. Its really to bad; this kind of image could easily be used in any number of police car books. I should know. I own several ;) TomStar8109:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose. I have to admit, I don't find that car very attractive, though. The bonnet/hood is unnecessarily oversized and disproportionate (although this is merely aesthetics, anyhow) and it isn't very stylish. It has the look of a late 1980s/early 1990s car. I'm not saying Australian police cars are the epitome of style but I do think they're a little more attractive ([1] or [2]) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Background is simply too distracting. Cropped version is significantly better, but not featured picture quality, due to the overly busy background. --Red Penguin07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third image is much, much closer to featured picture quality, but I'm still concerned about the background, which is still mildly distracting. --Red Penguin07:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Third Image I streched the color of the second image. Now it seems as though the image was taken in the evening. The prior images look as if it were taken on a cloudy day. AlvinruneTALK03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing against the photographer, but NYPD cruisers have never been more lame. There are plenty of other, nicer types of cruisers (for instance, most states have highway patrol pursuit cruisers made from Camaros and Mustangs) that would make for a better featured pic. In my book, a photo of an ugly woman is ugly no matter how well it's done. Kafziel17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An ugly woman is still a woman, and if you take note of the title I have simply labeled the entry "police cruiser", not "NYPD cruiser", not "special patrol vehical", just "police cruiser". While Camaros and Mustangs would arguably make better FPs, they represent a small faction of the police force; most police vehicals are caprices and tuareses. This picture is ment to represent these standard cars. TomStar8123:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it is a good standard photo of a standard car. I'm not listing it for deletion or anything, I'm just saying the subject matter is very run of the mill. It's not something I'd say, "Wow, that's awesome," which is pretty much what I expect from a featured photo. Why feature something completely standard? Kafziel04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not striking I'm afraid, at least not for me. |→ Spaully°τ 10:25, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
Support this one. I think it's a beautiful photograph. Judge the photo, people, not they style of the car. Anyway, think those 'stralian cars are lame anyways. ;-) —Encephalon11:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, great minds think alike, and so here is another great gastropod image. It appears in Pulmonata. Photographer is one Jürgen Schoner, uploaded to Commons as GNU-FDL by User ML.
Support I like the background too, a pure white background is the most acceptable artificial background in my book. I will ask the contributor if he/she has a larger image, as that would be really good. --liquidGhoul09:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've got no problem with the background, but you ask for a larger image when it's already 1024x604? I really don't get why people always want bigger and bigger images. - Mgm|(talk)10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with asking for a larger image? There is no harm in it, and it could improve the image's quality. I didn't oppose the image, so what is your problem? --liquidGhoul22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't see why we should ask for something with a higher resolution when it's already top-notch resolution. Higher resolution doesn't equal higher quality. You may not have personally opposed it, but it fosters the idea that massive resolutions are better when most people can't even fit such an image on one computer screen. Besides, if they had one, wouldn't you think they would've posted the larger one instead? - Mgm|(talk)09:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LiquidGhoul has now explained he was hoping for a better detailed shell. So contrary to what I believed, he had a perfectly valid reason for asking. - Mgm|(talk)10:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Within reasonable limits (file size, the lens' ability to resolve detail and number of sensor pixels), there is never a good reason to upload a lower quality/resolution image. I sometimes downsample my images by about 50% in order to aid in the perception of sharpness, as long as there is no significant loss of detail in doing so, but as a rule, I try to keep them as high resolution as is possible. Assuming the image is captured with anything higher than a 3 megapixel camera with decent quality optics, there is no excuse for an image less than 1000 pixels on the longest dimension. To reduce it further than that is to waste the potential of the image. I think he had a valid reason for asking as it originally stood since it logically follows that higher resolution image will resolve more detail! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, prefer animals photographed in their habitat, shadow on the right distracts and composition isn't feature worthy. - Mgm|(talk)10:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd like a larger version as well (close-ups of the shell would be cool!), but this is certainly "large enough". Background is great. --Dante Alighieri | Talk00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because it is fake. I cut the snail out because some people complained they did not like the grey and the lines in the background. It's white because I cut it out of the background and put it on a pure white layer. I also enhanced the colours slightly, as you would notice if you opened the image in full view. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly know that it is fake, my problem with it is that it looks fake, or overtly unnatural. I normally would support such a change, however the snail does not cast much shadow itself, so I feel as thought the gray in the background it nessesary in order to maintain a sence of reality. I certainly noticed the color change and think that it is much better, though the loss of the background is too distracting for me.--Lewk_of_Serthiccontribtalk23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (original). Size is fine, background is more or less fine and its a good illustration. On the Helix (genus) page we have Image:Common snail.jpg which is featured on Commons and is quite similar with a natural background. Its mainly the rather flat lighting that weakens my support here. -- Solipsist09:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg Votes are very evenly split between the original and the blanked background version. If there is no partictular perference between the original and an edit I promote the original. Raven4x4x07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A black slug, Arion ater L., on a rock, with its pneumostome clearly visible. File:Slug edit.jpgSlightly less blurFile:Slug edit crop.jpgSymmetrical croptilted crop, aspect ratio as close as original as I could get it
What I like about this picture is how the moistness of the slug is captured by the reflection of the sky on its surface, which also defines its texture. Secondly, the fact that the Pneumostome (breathing hole) is visible is also a plus as it piques the interest of the viewer to find out about what this curious structure is for.
Strong support! Excellent image and high detail. It could probably use some sharpening, but that wouldn't be hard with such a large image. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-28 17:22
This is about as much blur as I could remove, anyone else is free to replace it with their own try. I personally sort of like the blur, though Obli (Talk)?20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support a cropped version, top and bottom of somewhat distracting background removed. Anyone care to do it, or shall I? --Janke | Talk17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I've added a simple top-and-bottom crop. I find the blurring less distracting but I'm not sure it's improved the composition. Oh and please add it to an article. Neither slug nor pneumostome has too many pics: it could go in either or both ~ Veledan • Talk22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's going to be a crop, I'd be more comfortable with tilting it, the aspect ration is retained better that way, avoiding a panorama look (it's a slug, not a sunset, dammit :)). Obli (Talk)?22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel very apologetic for changing my vote like this, but the more I think about it the less I like the manmade background. It's a superb picture of a slug but please get one of it slithering up a wet cabbage! ~ Veledan • Talk01:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a manmade background. It's a rock. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-4 20:53
Support cropped version, oppose tilted - the crop is more encyclopedic, we don't really need all that background. The slug is the focus, and in focus, too. The tilted version loses the slime!! --Janke | Talk22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the background? It's a rock. Slugs like rocks. They don't get around too well elsewhere. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-2 21:43
I don't see what you expect from the background either. You're not going to find a slug on glass table, unless someone puts it there. And I doubt anyone really wants to touch that thing. - JPM | 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a rock, it is a road. It is gravel in bitumen, which when I last looked, is not a natural habitat for many animals. Also, these slugs are omnivorous, so you would expect their natural habitat to be in foliage of some plant or on/in a dead animal (although most of you seem repulsed just by the slug so I can't imagine if it was surrounded in dead flesh). --liquidGhoul12:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait for the photographer's word before we decide if this is a natural rock or not. Conglomerate rock looks a lot like it's artificial, but it's not. Also, notice the background in this picture includes moss - not something you'd really expect to see growing on a road. -- 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It is asphalt, although as the mud, roughness of it and the moss suggests, it is very old and part of a forest running track. One could argue that it is a natural habitat because it is very moist, slugs like that... --Obli (Talk)?21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention that, I was actually going to suggest that it was possibly artificial, like a pathway or something. But the moss on it is pretty damn good evidence that it's not a road. And frankly, what with the humanization of this world, a running trail in the woods almost is a natural habitat these days. -- 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion until now. The background looked like old asphalt to me, like an old, worn road or something. Slugs are common enough subjects, so I think if you're going to have a featured picture of a slug, it ought to be really compelling. This one is good, but I just don't like it enough for FP. –Joke17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What's wrong with the background? It doesn't look good, it distracts from the slug itself (particularly at the size one views it in an article, when the shinyness of the slug isn't as apparent), and it's, well, ugly. It's natural, sure. But one could find, say, an even-colored rock. Or something. You're taking a picture from straight above of a very flat animal, removing any sense of depth (except at unwieldy sizes) - it looks like just a streak of black paint on a rock that looks like it's been vomited on. zafiroblue05 | Talk03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, whether one could find an even-colored rock is irrelevant, the slug was on THIS rock. Second of all, the image is NOT taken straight from above as even a cursory examination of the image would indicate. Lastly, if you looked at the full size image, there's no WAY it could be mistaken for "a streak of black paint". --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I absolutely agree with you! It's not taken from exactly above, but there's a reason someone did a tilted crop - it has so little depth. The slug was on THAT rock, but that's just something one has to deal with. The circumstances of the photo shouldn't affect our judgement on the final product, I have learned from looking at FPCs for a little while. And at full size, the slug doesn't look nearly as bland as a streak of paint - but the slug isn't shown in the article at full size! At any reasonable size, it's a boring image. In my opinion. zafiroblue05 | Talk18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, images are intended to be evaluated at full size, not thumbnail sized. Anyone know for certain? Also, the stated reason that the tilted crop was created was an attempt to preserve as much of the original aspect ratio as possible during a crop. --Dante Alighieri | Talk00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slugtastic - one of the best pictures of slugs I've ever seen. PZ Myers would be proud. And I'm ashamed there's so much anti-slug bias on display here :-O At least give him credit for getting close enough to take this picture. Eeek. --Cyde Weys04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, what is wrong with slugs? They can't hurt, and I would rather pick up a slug than an Fierce Snake any day. A little bit of slime is good for anyone :) --liquidGhoul12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to clarify that slugtastic means support, in case anyone wasn't aware of that particular slugnacular. --CydeWeys01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support cropped version. I cropped away the left portion of the web, which is unsharp, and not typically spiral shaped. --Janke | Talk09:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Warning: may cause acute outbreak of arachnophobia. ;-)[reply]
Support cropped version, the uncropped looks more like a wallpaper while the cropped focuses more on the object of the picture, which is more suitable for an encyclopedia. Obli (Talk)?11:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support cropped version. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-28 17:19
Comment I've uploaded another crop version from the original photo. Note this is a 1:1 crop so be kind on the image quality :-) --Fir0002www07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Any version. I actually liked the first uploaded image as it shows a good, visual scale between the web and the spider. Hillhead1509:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any version (the three on the side, not the "alternate" ones, which I oppose). The first is more "artsy", the other two... arguably more encyclopedic. --Dante Alighieri | Talk00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very vivid and colourful image, extremely hi-res and of good quality, it's aesthetically pleasing and does a good job on demonstrating how varied the species has become through breeding.
Oppose. The image page says: "ARS researchers have selectively bred carrots with pigments that reflect almost all colors of the rainbow". So it does not seem to be different species, like the nomination says. --Bernard Helmstetter11:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Still, I think this image is deceiving. It seems it is really the same exact species fed with different pigments. It is a bit of a silly experiment. This image is not a good ilustration of carrot and it should not even appear in artificial selection. --Bernard Helmstetter13:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you're reading something that is not there: The researchers have bred carrots containing pigments, not fed them the pigments. You don't need to feed red pigment to a beetroot... --Janke | Talk14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; but then again, the image explanations are unclear. How did the carrots come to contain different pigments? We should have better explanations of the protocol on the image page. I am no expert in the field at all, just trying to understand. --Bernard Helmstetter14:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did misunderstand the description and that it is probably a genuine case of artificial selection. I am still opposing because I believe a photo about a scientific experiment should be described better. --Bernard Helmstetter17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to explain this. Pigments, while usually something we think of as being in paints, also are naturally occuring in plants. For example most land plants have Anthocyanin, a pigment that absorbs green light (reflecting red and blue light) and give many flowers, fruits and autumn leaves their colour. Tomatoes naturally have the red pigment Lycopene, and carrots are best known for their carotenoids, which are also naturally occuring without the introduction of any artifical pigment. I don't know if it's the levels of different carotenoids, or changes in pH, or a range of completely different pigments that are making these carrots change colour, but it's something that is naturally occuring within the carrot, in different varieties of the one species. You can read more about biological pigements at the pigment article. And AFAIK, it's not an experiment, it's something farmers have been doing since long before we understood the chemical structure of pigments. Thank you. — Pengo03:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original as the edit has issues (compare the grey areas between the leaves at the bottom of the photo). This is a fine detailed pic and makes a good contribution to carrot and Artificial selection as well as being eye catching ~ Veledan • Talk15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, artistic photograph. Almost too good for an encyclopedia, but very worthy of being a Wiki Featured Photo. SteveHopson06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Either image, interesting shot. -- Calibas 07:12, 12 March 2006
Support idd nice shot poppe 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's a gorgeous and informative photograph; if there are objections about the text accompanying it, that is a different matter from the photo per se. Masonbarge14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This comment appears to have been made by Fongs. Please sign any votes or comments you make by typing ~~~~ (four tildes, above the hash # key next to enter on an English keyboard) after your comment, and try to use good spelling and grammar - it really makes a difference. You can change how your username is displayed in Preferences, at the top right of the page. Note: User has been registered since 2005/10/11 07:59:20, has 198 edits on 59 pages and appears to have manually signed with his rl name instead of username. You can change how your username is displayed in Preferences, at the top right of the page. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ19:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons... High resolution,one of the great landmarks of india
The Delhi Fort is located in Delhi, India. It is also known as Lal Qil'ah and the Red Fort (not to be confused with the Agra Fort, which is referred to by these terms as well).For more visit the main article...
Red Fort
I've uploaded a 2nd version that is sharpened and auto-contrasted. I down-sized it a bit to help with sharpening. Support either. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-27 18:09
Comment. I accept your suggestion... I have replaced the file with your slightly modified one Svnitbharath
support - This is one of the best pictures of the red fort. Its high time we support an indian heritage pic for FP. By the way, the brick wall is part of the red fort. I completely support this pic. Harshavs17:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goats in mountainsEdit - overexposed highlights burned to show detail
I found this image when I went to read about goats. I like the image very much. Whenever I look at it, I desire to be one of those goats, running free in the mountains, free from stress and admins. I also find the background stunning, with the mist in the mountains. It seems that user Fir0002 created the photo -- and that dude created 37 featured photos! I think that a part on the left side of the photo could be removed, because there's something out there that can't be identified. Other than that, cool photo!
Support The mist and dark clouds give the photo a mystical, magical quality. While it doesn't appear that the photo strongly supports either article to which it is attached (do we really have 18 photos illustrating the Goat article?), its a picture I can support. SteveHopson15:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While the image is great, the article subjects (the goats) aren't prominent enough. Which mountains are these? If you added the image to the mountains' article, then I would probably support. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 15:49
Neutral. I like the scene and composition but the highlights are extremely overexposed. I've tried to burn them back a little to make the most of the detail that was left. I don't feel happy enough about it to support it completely, but I'll put it out there for you guys and if you prefer it, you have an alternative to the original, at least. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change the colour of the goats at all. I just recovered some texture in the highlights. Even something that is white will look golden when the source of light (in this case, I assume dawn, but possibly sunset) is golden. You have used that regularly in your photos and complained when people have REMOVED that effect, so you can't have it both ways. In any case, as I said, I never added a colour that wasn't there. I just decreased the luminosity of the existing colour so you can see detail in the highlghts. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)12:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the irony was lost on ya :-)
But seriously, the goats are white, and appeared white in the lighting conditions the photo was taken in. They do not have much detail, even with the human eye they just appear white. Burning them as you did makes them look dirty - much too yellow IMO. Anyway an edit is always good as it allows the photographer to learn from what others want out of a photo. --Fir0002www05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, whatever irony was there was lost of me. :) Please explayne! You can see that areas of the goats that were not directly facing the sun (roughly perpendicular) had a golden/orange tint. I see your point, but do you not see the problem in having no discernable detail due to overexposure? I don't accept that the goats had little detail/texture, if they were correctly exposed, you would see it. Perhaps my edit did burn the highlights too much, but ideally they should not be overexposed in the first place. Ah well. :) For what its worth, its a difficult scene to photograph well, but the moral of the story is underexpose if necessary to preserve highlight detail. Do you shoot raw? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is taken in the only mountain range of Victoria - the Great Dividing Range. More specifically near Swifts Creek, Victoria Australia. --Fir0002www00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty pic but not a significant contribution to any article. I'm afraid my oppose will still hold even if the mountain is identified (because it's not really the subject of the photo). ~ Veledan • Talk18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A nice picture, but it does not illustrate Goat particularly well - IMO, none of the pics on that page are FP worthy. (Also, these are domestic, not mountain goats.) --Janke | Talk07:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Love the mountains and mist, don't love the overexposed goats or tangential connections to the articles the pic illustrates. Markyour words17:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm surprised this picture was put up as an FPC (and the other versions) because the back of the animal is very blurred. Yes, I know getting the Depth of Field is hard but we're judging the final photo and can take no account of the difficulties in taking it. Just as a piece of self-promotion have a look at "Adult Bearded Dragon" at the bottom of Bearded Dragon where I've got the whole animal in reasonable focus (but don't put it up for FPC, it's not good enough focus for that) - Adrian Pingstone23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really don't mind it the depth of field issue Adrian sees. The focus was obviously intended to be on the head in the first place. Circeus23:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like the composition and detail on the head, but I would've liked more of the lizard to be in focus. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:33
Oppose, nice photo but depth of field is just too small. I like to see all the scales, or at least some down its back. There's no reason to have such a shallow depth of field when it (appears to be) in full sunlight, and it's a lizard (they don't move that much). Pengo07:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is an Eastern Bearded Dragon, and you have even identified it as that with the binomial name. The article you placed it in, is for the Central Bearded Dragon (the article should be renamed). I have been meaning to create the Eastern Bearded Dragon article, as I have a pretty good photo from the wild as well. Just out of interest, I think that guy is a juvenile (maybe it should be included in the caption). --liquidGhoul08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um that doesn't really make sense. It's head is the subject, why is that a problem? And I'm not saying it's gotta become an FP just because it has a head in focus body out of focus composition - I'm not even promoting that aspect. All I'm saying is that the DOF draws the attention to the most interesting part of the animal (it's head and claws) without the need of close cropping. I think it's pretty effect. But that just my opinion. --Fir0002www09:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fir, I very much admire your photography skills but in this case the very first thing I noticed was the blurry back-end, and from then on my pleasure in looking at the rest of the photo was spoiled. So that's why I opposed - Adrian Pingstone10:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You seem to run into a lot of photo opportinities. I like the composition of this one and the natural surroundings. DOF is a bit much though even for a purely asthetic image, and a lot too much for an encyclopedic one. --Dschwen10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Like liquidGhoul I prefer Image:Bearded dragon05.jpg where the DOF is much less jarring. I think an encyclopedic pic though should try to get the whole subject in focus even though I appreciate you have valid aesthetic reasons for the effect. Yes it's better than cropping but if you are saying that the lizard's head is the only subject of the photo then the pixel count is just too low. ~ Veledan • Talk18:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the fact that the tail is blurred – in fact, I think that could even look good – but the depth of field is just too shallow in this image. Even the neck is out of focus. –Joke20:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like the desaturation in this one, but the depth of field is marginally on the shallow side. 02 is better in that respect. Ideally just in between the two... - Samsaracontribtalk02:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a Bearded Dargon, so that is the best home for it. So I say leave it were it is! Anyway, couldn't we add the "barbata" to the species list? --Fir0002www11:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My image above is a soldier crab, do you think it should go in the Soldier crab article? Secondly, I don't quite understand what you mean by add it to the species list, but you could add it to the Pogona article, and I have found that Pogona barbata is already an article. You could clean it up some and add it to there. --liquidGhoul01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather be bold and create an article for the Eastern Bearded Dragon, but I have to wait until I can get access to my Australian reptiles book. --liquidGhoul23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support With any more DOF the image would be less attractive, and the background would be busy and distracting. --Gmaxwell22:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Round Hay Bale at dawn; Swifts Creek, Victoria; version 2
I know I've already unsuccessfully tried to feature a hay bale photo, but to me a round hay bale is so iconic of farming and the country (particularly in Australia) that I feel such a photo is worthy of FP status.
I've tweaked the image a bit. Feel free to revert. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:32
Support, despite the lines in the sky, which I'm sure other people will pick up on. I'd rather see them removed, it would be a pity to have this otherwise beautifal image rejected on such an issue.(Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page.Thanks!00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I think the lines are from your monitor. Try degaussing your monitor and see if those lines move. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:27
Support. Difficult topic to illustrate, but I think this does it well. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:27
Considerably better than the last two hay bale nominations. Good composition. The colors - the fields, the sky, are still pretty underwhelming to me. Weak oppose. Maybe take the photo in a different season, when the fields in the background aren't all brown? zafiroblue05 | Talk01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've auto-leveled the image to help with the colors. Make sure to CTRL+F5 to get the new version. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 01:07
My, you're bold... ;-) I think you should have uploaded your edit as "version 2", not overwrite Fir's image. Even though it is compliant with GDFL, in the case of FPCs I think originals should not be overwritten... --Janke | Talk09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really overwriting Fir's. It's just simpler than uploading multiple versions to separate files. I've noticed that when some of the modified versions become featured, the original version remains the one used in the actual article, while the modified version is orphaned. It would be better if people checked the individual histories of each image for their favorite version. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 13:52
Well, according to the file history you uploaded a new version with the same file name. Sure, Fir's original is there in the history, but how many who look at this page would go and check that? Usually, new versions are uploaded and displayed as variations here, so voters can compare them - see the Water drop, British Museum, Ajanta Painting and Cental station further below. --Janke | Talk14:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that very well. My point was that sometimes people forget to put the featured version into articles, leaving the original, unfeatured version in the articles, and leaving the featured version orphaned. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 15:45
Isn't that the job of the person who administers the FPC page and removes the entries from the page when they have approved/rejected? If that isn't being done, then that process should presumably be addressed. It doesn't mean you make changes to the original before the change is supported here.. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like I'm saying my version should be the only choice. It would be easier to automate the process if all the versions were uploaded to the same file, and voters picked their favorite edit (this would only be done for changes to an original image). Then the featured choice could simply be made the only version of the image, and there is no need to change links in articles. I don't know who is supposed to be doing that, but I've seen it happen in the past where the featured picture is orphaned. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 17:00
But you haven't really given viewers the chance to see both simultaneously and decide for themselves. I've seen that happen before too, but I don't really think that updating an existing image before it is approved is the answer, as I've mentioned previously. Maybe this should be taken to the talk page. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah edit conflict with Diliff. Brian0918, please don't overwrite pics like this. I appreciate you had reasons and it wasn't done thoughtlessly but that just isn't the way we currently do things and people will not be expecting it. Such a change in practice needs to be discussed first ~ Veledan • Talk18:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing this for quite a while now. If the change was very significant, and not necessarily better, then I would probably upload it to a separate file, but for generally good changes, I'll just overwrite the original. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 20:44
I've been doing this for quite a while now. - As you can see, we don't all approve of that. In the future, please upload your edits of FPCs as new files, so we can see the changes and vote on them. Not everyone may agree that your edit is better. If the new version is good, it will be chosen over the original, but we need to compare. --Janke | Talk22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd have liked to have had an alternative version rather than an overwrite, as I'm not sure of the background blurring and I prefer the warm glow of dawn. But I'll leave that side you guys to decide. --Fir0002www00:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm neutral towards the colour balance difference but I really dislike the background blurring that he has applied. It doesn't look particularly photographic and natural and even before I had read what he had done, I noticed that the background appeared a little quirky. I support the original image by Fir0002 and oppose the edit. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The background was blurred to help the hay stand out. If you look through Fir's pictures, you'll notice he does this a lot too. Someone might be able to do a better job of it, though. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-27 04:58
I don't really agree with Fir0002's blurring either to be honest. This is opening up that old can of worms again but surely if you want a blurred background, you open the aperture more. I don't think the haystack needed to stand out any more than it already did, anyhow. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't blur the background unless I'm removing noise. I think the only photo I remember digitally blurring is the haystack photo Brian asked my to do to try make stand out more. Like the Bearded lizard is all just natural bokeh --Fir0002www 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC
Getting a bit crazy with the indentations here. I think Brian has to use a bit of restraint in photo manipulation. Blurring isn't necessary in this image at all. It stands out just fine. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)03:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone the background blurring. It wasn't that great to begin with. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-27 05:04
undone... wasn't that great to begin with. So, if I hadn't taken this up, it means that an inferior version would have been promoted... Now I hope you understand why we want the original untouched, and vote on the versions! Please abstain from this practice in the future, thanks! In fact, I feel so strongly that the original should always be visible here (and I think I have the support of Diliff, Veledan and Fir), that I've been bold myself, and added a comment in the voting instructions. NOTE: Discussion now taken to FPC talk page. If you have comments, please continue there. --Janke | Talk07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was waiting for Fir's opinion, not yours. I had planned on working on it some more, but just haven't gotten around to it. I don't see the need to have to upload multiple files to multiple locations when they are all visible from the same location. It just seems easier to have them all in one location to compare. The number of people who agree with you doesn't really matter if your rationale is not sound, so I would focus on that. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-27 13:35
Yes, they appear to be artifacts. The lines are less apparent in Fir's original image. (Another reason to keep the original visible... ;-)--Janke | Talk08:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, though I do like the pic. My doubt stems from the fact that there is nothing to give an idea of scale. I don't know whether I'm looking at a bale that stands 3 feet or 12 feet high. ~ Veledan • Talk18:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original was more popular, so I have reverted Brian's edited version to the original. Raven4x4x 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Round hay bale at dawn02.jpgRaven4x4x05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
British Museum Reading Room Panorama Brighter Version
I think that this image is really admirable. It depicts one of the finest interior spaces available to the public in Great Britain. The photographer has captured the air of quiet, intellectual contemplation of the environment really well and in excellent detail. The image can be found on the British Museum Reading Room page and was taken by Diliff.
Support The small size on the right really doesn't do it justice (it's not going to end up like that on the front page, if it gets there, is it?). Other than that, lovely shot. --Fipe09:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it could ever be featured on the front page 500 pixels wide ;), but I adjusted the size and centred it for this page. Panoramas aren't really suited to the usual thumbnail size, and since this is the the FPC page, I don't see the problem with any FPC pics being around 400 px wide on the preview. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Detail is remarkable, of course, but it'd be nice to get the window at the top of the dome in the photo. Going by this picture, that would probably distort the side walls at the edges of the image. But, of course, this picture distorts the benches in the center. It's a tradeoff. zafiroblue05 | Talk03:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Once again I think the original is more accurate. Why do people always feel the need to make things look 'brighter'? I can see the point when detail is indistinguishable, but this is clearly not the situation... :) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The panoramic distortions give a slightly misleading impression of the shape of the room, but that's more than outweighed by the positive qualities of this picture. -- Solipsist10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting picture for the topic. It might do well to be a bit bigger, but I think this size helps show the pattern better. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-25 04:15
Support Large enough! (Who could want this as a wall-size poster?) Striking - does a good job of illustrating a suburb crowded to absolute capacity, none of the other shots on the page do this. --Janke | Talk09:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Very good picture, but it's too dark - and the main reason for that, I think is the shadows from the houses. The rooftops are always going to be relatively dark, but the streets need to be brighter to stop this picture from being too gray and dark and boring. It'd be a better photo if it was taken closer to noon. zafiroblue05 | Talk04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The moody lighting suits the subject, IMO. BTW: Have you checked your monitor with the little 4-circle test image on the top of the page? --Janke | Talk14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not just that. The image is dark (with shadows covering the streets) and gloomy. Also, the angle of the image seems, I don't know, kind of awkward. AlvinruneTALK21:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A little confusing the the thumbnail, but perhaps that just makes it intriguing. Otherwise a good a clear aerial photo. Surely the Suburb article should have a non-aerial photo too. -- Solipsist10:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lithographic plate from Ernst Haeckel's 1904 Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature), showing unusual and interesting frog species; Samsara has provided a translation of the description of each frog from the opposing page. The image is found in the frog article. I scanned, edited and uploaded it.--ragesoss03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very interesting image. Which description goes with which frog in the image? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-24 03:42
Support, beautiful and informative. To Brian0918: labels has tiny numbers beside each frog (on the margins). An alternative to this would be great though. I'd propose cutting out each frog and sticking it crudely to the left of its text. —Pengo03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! Don't do that! Almost as bad as cutting up the original... ;-) Support, by the way, beautiful example of lithography. --Janke | Talk08:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(not a vote) Well I didn't cut it up, but I've gone and stuck chunky numbered labels on the frogs and added it to the description page. I've found it useful even just for my own reference. PS. The only frog species that has its own article is #2 (Hyla meridionalis) —Pengo09:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I haven't opposed, but I'm not convinced these pictures are encyclopedic in any modern sense. We demand a great degree of fidelity to the subject from FPs, at least in wikipedia (as opposed to commons), and these lithographs typically exaggerate as I understand them. Also, they are common and I don't think we should necessarily promote the first couple we see: when I was writing Bladderwort last summer, I remember sorting through dozens of attractive public domain lithographs to select a couple for the article - and that was only what was available for for one genus. Choosing one to illustrate Lithograph seems reasonable but we already have the anemones. ~ Veledan • Talk17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle with the point you are making, but the (in)fidelity issue is balanced against what these images add to articles that other available images can't provide, their historical significance, and their aesthetic power. Haeckel plates in particular are in a unique position; for much of Haeckel's taxonomy work, his descriptions are still best available and still usable by practicing scientists; exaggeration may be an issue, but not not to the extent that it compromises their encyclopedic value. The three recent lithographs on FPC have been some of the best from Kunstformen der Natur, which was itself compiled by culling the best of images out of over a thousand of Haeckel's drawings. The bladderwort litho in that article is attractive (and of course many of comparable quality are available for many subjects), but I think these Haeckel ones are in a different league. My current plan is to keep gradually nominating these images until they start failing, but if a significant number of people share Veledan's concerns, of course I'll reconsider.--ragesoss18:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While I do share some of Veledan's concerns, my neutral vote is mostly because I don't feel that the Frog lithograph adds as much as the Sea Anemone one did. I don't think we need all of Haeckel's plates as FPs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should FPs of outer space also be limited because they all came from the same source, NASA? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-1 02:15
Improper analogy, we're talking here about lithographic plates not photographs. Regardless of who takes photos of "outer space" they're still going to be photos. The difference between this image and a mosaic of photographs of the relevant frogs, for example, should be obvious. --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that any two photographers will photograph the same subject from the same angle with the same lighting, exposure, aperture, etc, which is not true. So, no, it is not a false analogy. Also, the images from NASA are as much artistic as painting, since the majority of images they release are not true color. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-5 06:19
I'm not sure what angles you think people are going to photograph celestial objects from, but my understanding is that you're not going to get very much luck, even with parallax, even at opposite sides of Earth's orbit. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were referring to photography in general in your original reply, so that's why I included angles. While that doesn't apply to celestial objects, all of the other things I mentioned still apply. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-7 20:18
Yes, I know, hence the smiley at the end of my last reply. :) However, I stand by my assertion that lithographs are fundamentally different than photographs (certainly when the photograph is an attempt to accurately render real-life, rather than going for an "artistic" impression) for the purposes of my argument. --Dante Alighieri | Talk22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Fiji Banded Iguana. It really pops, it's eye is looking directly at the camera, and it has great color. If there is support I'll convince Rklawton to upload a larger version.
Thank you for your nomination. I've gone ahead and uploaded a higher-res version as per your recommendation. God help those with modem connections. Rklawton08:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIF a higher res version is uploaded. Some people will probably whine about not being able to see the whole subject, but they can get over themselves. The picture is illustrating that portion of the lizard, and it looks good. drumguy8800 - speak?05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still Opposepartly because it's only 640 px wide. If I've understood the consensus correctly, 1000 px is now considered minimum for FP. , it's extremely fuzzy in large size - was it simply re-sized from a lo-res image??? Loss of tail is not a concern here, but the head appears to be partially in shadow, thus giving the impression of a dark snout. --Janke | Talk07:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shot this subject with a Canon EOS 20D, an 8.2-megapixel semi-professional digital single-lens reflex camera, using its highest resolution JPEG setting under low-light conditions (see metadata for details). The current image is the original. I have since switched to shooting on the maximum, zero-loss (RAW) setting, but that's not a format supported here. I'll probably re-shoot this subject. Rklawton21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1000 px is not minimum. The wording is "Be of a sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions". I take this as high enough resolution to allow good detail on important parts of the subject. I find the electron microscope image below of good size, as no more detail can be added. However, when it comes to animals, the bigger the better (generally). --liquidGhoul11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, part of the animal is cropped on the side. If the remaining part is indeed out of focus that's a bad thing, but really, I prefer to have as much of the animal in frame of the picture to begin with. - Mgm|(talk)12:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Can be much better: base included, better perspective by being shot from further away, or, if that is not possible, rectify perspective. --Janke | Talk07:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to say something after the first oppose, but now that its gone to 4 opposes, I suppose I'll say something. I really hate it when people oppose an FPC candidate because the area focused on isn't ideal for the voter. The picture is not of the entire Cathedral, it is of the area I as a photographer chose for ideal composition. Had I chosen to shoot the base (which is rather unadorned and unnatractive), the "cracking sidewalk" and "ugly rusty railings" would've detracted from the image and voters would've opposed for that reason. I know that voting is your opinion, but if you're going to oppose someone's FPC do so because the photograph has issues not because the photograph in your imagination is better. Thanks so much. drumguy8800 - speak?23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph has issues... it does not fully display its subject. If the article it was illustrating was about a certain aspect of cathedral architecture, you'd have more of a point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. Don't get so defensive.[reply]
Actually, the photograph does have issues that I didn't include in my oppose reasoning, because I didn't want to be too harsh or nit-picky. But now I regret that decision. Regardless of that, if it's supposed to be a picture of a cathedral, and the cathedral isn't entirely pictured, then this is obviously a problem. And if you think including the base would have opened the image up to other complaints, like "cracking sidewalk," then perhaps the church just isn't cut out for being a FP. You could have focused on a certain aspect of the church, and then this wouldn't have been a problem, but if you present the church as the FPC, and it's not all showing, what can you expect? Look at some of the other FPC's where part of the object in question was cut off -- they almost always get opposed. You're welcome. - JPM | 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Suffers from a lack of Perspective Control, which causes the towers to look like they are falling backwards. Photo has nice features, but lacks technical quality to merit Feature Picture designation. SteveHopson05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this picture strongly meets the requirements of WP:FPC. It illustrates the article content particularly well and it is absolutely eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. The image is public domain, created by a Wikipedian, so no problems there.
Neutral: I agree with bogdan; additionally, I think the other picture on the page better illistrates the subject matter. The blond girl also appears to have a case of red eye, although it could just be me. TomStar8123:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
! Strong Oppose This is a snapshot I realize that its fun to submit silly pictures that would never make it as an FPC just because they have some encyclopedic "worth," but there really are some great candidates if you look around something like deviantart enough. Find a good one, ask the contributor if it can be put on the wikipedia. Out of curiosity, do you know these girls? Are you trying to spite them ;)? drumguy8800 - speak?14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is neither pornography (since it does not cause sexual arousal) nor is it a remarkable picture. Composition and background are bad, colours and sharpness not above average, and the blond girl has in fact a red eye. There is no reason whatsoever to feature this picture. Calderwood21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's pornographic in that I suppose it's purpose is titilation (and there appear to be those who are titilated by it), but it's not an especially interesting or intriguing example. --Dante Alighieri | Talk21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Featured images are supposed to enhanced the look of the main page, and this one fits into that category. -- infinity017:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose It's clearly not in any articles. It's seems to be a simple photo that some teen friends took of each other. (Maybe you mistaked Featured Picture Candidates for Images for Deletion.) Lol. AlvinruneTALK22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A panorama shot from the water tower in Hanko, Finland Full 360°, restitched by Ilmari Karonen Middle 270° from the 360° image above Middle 180° from the 360° image above
Ok, I'll try and see if I can even begin to compete with the magnificent panoramas shown here lately. This one is in the Hanko, Finland article, and shows the typical, mostly wooden architecture, and the coastline of a Finnish small town. Since the camera is looking straight into the sun, the burn-out in the water & sky is inevitable. I shot and stitched this 6 years ago. Back then, there were no good stitching programs available (the one that came with the camera was practically useless), so this is stitched completely manually. For this reason, there are some imperfections. I know some of you are looking for such, so maybe I'm not very wise in telling you this... ;-)
Comment. Nice stitch job. I'd like to see the continuation on the right. The left third is a but boring, the middle part is dark woods and blown out sun/sky. The right third is nice though. --Dschwen13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the manual stitching didn't work further right - the more built-up area gave me no way of "cheating" with the stitching - and, to be honest, that part of town doesn't look as nice. But if anyone has some good stitching software, I can either e-mail or upload the nine original files (totaling 360°) for you to try - only 7.5 Mb... --Janke | Talk17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff did try, but it appears that even his modern software and his considerable talent in using it couldn't handle this, since it is shot with a downward tilt, distorting the original images. If anyone else cares to try, either manually or with software, I'll give you the link to the original pics. Challenge time! ;-) --Janke | Talk09:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, its nice and does illustrate the article, but the sun is a problem and (is it just me) the quality seems slightly off. BrokenSegue20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chop off the left third and accentuate the water a bit, and you've got my vote. The water's the most attractive bit of the photo, and sadly is relegated to background by the shopping centre on the right. --Fipe10:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor image quality at full res. A better time of day (noon) could have been used to avoid the burnt-out-straight-in-the-sun areas --Fir0002www09:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I don't think waiting 27 minutes would have helped much... ;-) Sun and water is always a problem in a back-lit situation. In fact, I was surprised that the camera (a 2 megapixel Canon Ixus made in 1999) managed as well as it did! --Janke | Talk13:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'm willing to try the stitching challenge if you send me the originals. As for the sun over the water, that's an integral part of the landscape. Remember that this town is at latitude 59.5° N. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, thanks! I still see some very slight stitcing mismatches, but nowhere as much as in my manually stitched 360 degree version (which I decline to submit for that reason). Now, we need to decide what part of the 360 degrees constitute a FP - I don't think the whole is greater than the parts, here.. ;-) I think I did indeed choose the best parts in my own stitching attempt... --Janke | Talk16:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it crops off a bit too much on the left - gets kind of cramped in that corner, also due to some vertical cropping - which may be inevitable in the "curved type" stitching, as opposed to rectilinear. --Janke | Talk18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, how about an intermediate 270° version? I kind of like that one myself. It extends approximately as far as you original version on the left, but includes enough extra area on the right to keep the sun in the center. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I prefer either my original version or the 270 degree by you. Let's see what others think, if they still bother to scroll this low down on the page... ;-) --Janke | Talk21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: As the photographer, I'd prefer the original version as FP, due to its rectilinear perspective. --Janke | Talk06:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Hankopan.JPG. Promoted original - all are good and several have some support but no clear consensus for any other version ~ Veledan • Talk00:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fine specimen of a duck. Feather textures are clear. Water droplets show he has just come out of the water.
Image appears in Mandarin Duck (Aix galericulata), taken by Peter Galaxy.
Weak oppose It is an incredibly beautiful bird, and good photo, it just seems slightly out of foucus. Also, the cropping is pretty bad, in that there is a large gap at the front, and his tail is cut off.--liquidGhoul02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another weak oppose, a pity the background is so distracting, and the tail is cut off. BTW, it's probably motion unsharpness, not bad focus - see the moving leg. But, oh, how cute the Mona Lisa smile is! , oh, shucks, it's a male... ;-) --Janke | Talk07:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's motion blur, and it's not aparent at "typical" screen resolutions (e.g. 1280×1024), which is the resolution i'm now thinking i should have uploaded the image at. —Pengo10:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Yes badly cropped, but nothing wrong with the background. I prefer to see animals in a nature environment instead of doctored images with backgrounds removed or changed. - Mgm|(talk)09:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm a little bitter about the entire 'not enough tail!' thing (one of my FPC got shot down for it) but this is a little much to me. It's very clear and in focus though. I like it.. just noticing the tail makes it feel so unbalanced.. drumguy8800 - speak?13:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drumguy, we'll have to differ on the focus. On my 1024 by 768 screen (which gives perfect focus on other pics) it's definitely not in focus. Yes, the focus is reasonable but not FPC quality. Isn't it fascinating how different eyes see things differently! - Adrian Pingstone17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - could be so much better. Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page.Thanks!00:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Isn't this supposed about clicking into an encyclopedia article because the picture looks interesting? I'm not trying to frame it and put it on my wall, but the picture makes me want to learn about Mandarin Ducks. That's the point. The picture is awesome. tara
Comment Personally, I much rather this image. It has a good background, and the ducks are framed well. It has the same focus/motion blur (whichever it is) problems, but doesn't have the other problems. --liquidGhoul02:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The vast Han Empire in 2 CE. Names of non-Chinese peoples and states have been purposely left with their Chinese names
It's not a particularly striking or scenic image, which isn't this image's value; rather, this lists all the major cities, including the ones in Central Asia, and all military possessions, a very expansive and extensive map; and it's detail is its value here that I think should be a role model for all other maps to look up to. It is topographical, and shows trade routes, and hints at the Silk Road. It is therefore of high value to the Han Dynasty (and good for the Xiongnu article to give a bigger picture). This could probably be built on by including the contact with the Ancient Greeks, Macedonians, etc. beyond the Ta-Yuan (which is spelt Dayuan in the image and is to the very western edge of the map), but this is sufficient for featured picture, methinks. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The sourcing is weird- it covers relatively trivial matters such as geographical features, but not the main business of the respective settlements and their statuses. Markyour words01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Interesting map, but too plain to be FP worthy in my opinion. Also, there are a few little problems. The scale in the lower right shows 500 mi where it should be 400 mi. Some words are a little difficult to read, like Wu or Panyu on the coast. Green and yellow dots are not so easy to distinguish. Finally, I am not sure I understand the meaning of the text about the eastern coastline. --Bernard Helmstetter21:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, Neutral. A couple more remarks. NJ-MAN should probably appear in the abbreviation list. And I don't understand if words in capital letters are meant to indicate people, cities or regions. Some of these, but not all, seem to be associated with dots, so it is confusing. --Bernard Helmstetter17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The NJ-MAN thing has been fixed up. The small capital letters are meant to indicate peoples, as is shown in the key on the left. I can see how it may be confusing in the western regions, where some peoples overlap with tributary states. In that area sometimes one people are divided into two tributary states. There are also some peoples who did not recognise the authority of the Han empire. I tend to think that it shouldn't be so confusing for someone with some familiarity with Han history. Yeu Ninje12:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like a lot about the map, but it has issues. For one, I don't think it really does a good job of fully illustrating Han's foreign relations of the period. Perhaps someone can address the concerns and upload an updated version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good changes. The format should be PNG (as noted by Renata) and the white lines (communication and transport routes, see image description page) should be made explicit in the legend, but I'm voting support because I'm betting that Yeu Ninje will promptly address those issues. --Dante Alighieri | Talk20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I would really like to see a higher resolution version if that is possible, some of the dots are hard to see. I really appreciate the extent of the documentation though.--Lewk_of_Serthiccontribtalk22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm the original creator of this map. I've uploaded a new version, cleared up some of the errors (like the "500 mi" thing), and attempted to clear up some of the ambiguities (like how the capitalised names are the names of non-Chinese peoples, not geographical features). I've also taken up Dante's point, and renamed the map to "Han Civilisation". The shaded areas are supposed to show the extent of Han civilisation (as evidenced by the presence of Han culture, direct Han political authority, urbanisation etc.); the orange dependent states in Central Asia were subject to indirect Han political influence. Whilst this map may not make it to featured picture status, your comments are still helpful - keep them coming. Yeu Ninje02:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note to the image which hopefully explains the source: "The shaded areas show the extent of Han civilisation. I've based this on the existence of settlements under direct Han political authority or military control, according to Tan Qixiang (ed.), Zhongguo lishi ditu (中国历史地图集; 1982)." Yeu Ninje01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Text is small and difficult to read. Many of the letters are broken. Also, the white line is not explained in the legend. I assume these are trade routes, but a reader might not know that. --dm(talk)05:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key is now more detailed, and explains the white lines. The text, whilst small, should be quite legible once you expand the map to full resolution. Yeu Ninje01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it should be png and not jpg. If the format will change, please remove my vote. It's a very good map indeed! Renata19:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I agree fully w/ the nominator's reasons for nominating this, but the dark brown color used to depict landmass is much too dark, making the black lettering difficult to read.--Jiang08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Whoever did this map is awesome. I've seen variants of it used on other China articles as well. I'm not a big fan of this particular map (I'd prefer the Three Kingdoms one instead), but if this is the one that gets nominated, it has my support. Palm_Dogg15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is sufficiently large and detailed. It is a perfectly iconic image of a candle. The article appears in candle, Plasma (physics), and Template:User_AI. This image was not created by a wikipedia user but has a stable and verifiable copyright tag.
Oppose. The inner structure of the flame is invisible due to overexposure. I'd like to see the different zones in the flame clearly. --Janke | Talk15:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Janke. Its a fine image in composition but the exposure is off. In opposing this, we are encouraging a superior photo to be produced. Best not to forget that. It isn't a difficult photo to replicate or improve on. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like it is not that easy. This image is shot at 3 stops under, and there is still a little burn-out, while the blue edge at the bottom of the flame has all but disappeared. Might need a composite image of several exposures. Anyone? --Janke | Talk09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a picture is in fact not easy. If overexposure in the core parts of the flame is avoided, everything but this core disappears. But it is possible to make the area of overexposure smaller, so that the parts of the flame with lesser radiation density become better visible. Another objection to this picture is the distorted shape of the flame, probabely caused by the photographer's breath. Calderwood21:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the one thing I like about this image is the shape of the flame! Isn't it amazing how people see things in different light! ;-) --Janke | Talk11:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are now two new images of candle-flames where colour-shift is deliberately applied in order to enhance the visibility of the colour-zones Roger McLassus12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC):[reply]
For me manipulated photographs are a better option for scientific purpose, provided they are manipulated uniformly. By the way, Roger, did you already consider nominating these two pictures here? They might be useful for some articles. Calderwood18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, do these manipulated photos show the correct outlines of the zones in the flame? I.e. where are the unburnt hydrocarbons, where do we have plasma, where soot, where carbon burning? --Janke | Talk09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a version that is a bit sharper, with more color. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-19 16:58
Sharpness is a good idea, but I like the yellowish tinge (PS: and softness ^_^ ) that the original image has. Is it just my personal preference, or some general aesthetic principle? deeptrivia (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version 3 Nice picture and unusual, and doesn't rely on any single article for its contribution. Brian0918, I find your edit a bit too drastic. Do we have any reason to believe that the photographer got the colour wrong when he prepared this image for The Yorck Project? I suspect we are looking at truer colours in the original ~ Veledan • Talk20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "true" colors are those that were originally used in the painting, not the colors that remain after years of wear. By trying to bring out the colors, I am simply trying to undo the wear, the same way that a damaged photograph is repaired, by removing specks of dust or creases. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-20 03:33
This is a philosophical question. Some would hold that the wear does become inherent to the aesthetic value of the artwork of antiquity, and the Ajanta painting sans its wear simply isn't complete. deeptrivia (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. We're talking about an informational photo of an object, not the actual object. Even paintings get restored, and the Colosseum does undergo repairs so that it maintains its present condition--otherwise it would just get worse. But back to this image; the original photo was blurry, likely smeared out the colors, and did not represent the painting very well. I'm sure my change was too drastic, but it needs to be enhanced to better illustrate the article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 05:29
So you're saying it needs to illustrate the article better? The caption reads "Fresco from the Ajanta caves." If this is the current condition of the painting in the Ajanta cave, then doesn't it represent the article perfectly? I think these "informational photos" should try and be as close to the actual object in question as possible. I'm all for making the image more clear, or brighter - but tweaking the colors is a no-no, in my opinion - JPM | 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer himself likely screwed up the colors in the first place. Camera flashes don't simply make an image brighter. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 14:40
But this is only an assumption of yours, and since I was not there when the photo was taken, I will not make the same assumption. - JPM | 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should not assume the colors are correct. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-21 23:38
You're right, but since the original picture is what's presented to me at first, I have to throw my trust at it. - JPM | 03:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no vote yet. The edit maybe went a bit too far, but I think something inbetween might be good. The original is murky, and it's hard to see details. --Janke | Talk15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 3rd version: Since no-one else did, I took the original, corrected exposure only (not the color), reduced the size to 1600 px (original is fuzzy, so no info is lost). There are a few white spots of the undelying wall showing through the painting (armpit, breast) which tells me that the painting indeed has a yellowish color, which must not be changed. --Janke | Talk16:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Version 3 looks fine to me. I'll raise the question about how the original looks like on the Indian noticeboard. Maybe someone's been there. deeptrivia (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original and third version. I haven't been there to say which among the above reflects the current state of the image. By the way, I do not want the second image deleted or unused, but when used, it should clearly state what has been done to the image. -- Sundar\talk \contribs06:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: promoted image has been replaced with Image:Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae - Alchemist's Laboratory.jpg as exact duplicate - see here. --jjron (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page.
When NOT promoted, perform the following:
Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Not promoted| }}
Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the July archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions.
When promoted, perform the following:
Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage: {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}}
Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG
Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the July archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards.
Note: Please use Delist or Keep as your vote.
If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.
If consensus is to remove status then remove the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag and leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section. Also remove the image from Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Weak Oppose Quoting Pengo, "I don't find it engaging enough for Featured status". Alvinrune TALK 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't sit around admiring crabs. Alvinrune TALK 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The image, in general, is dull, though the lighting and shadows are pretty stunning. Alvinrune TALK 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Wow, we are getting some good images in recently. Well done Fir, my vote goes on the original pic, no darkened versions. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - uploaded an edit - I'm supporting that version, the original has a mucky yellowish background. New version looks cleaner to me. drumguy8800 - speak? 05:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Neutral The image is blurry, but the resolution and color is good. Alvinrune TALK 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Falcon_Police_Car.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
