Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrokenSegue (talk | contribs) at 20:09, 15 April 2005 (→‎Nominations older than 14 days, the minimum voting period, decision time!: remove a nom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured picture tools
Shortcut

Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant (see also Wikipedia:Featured articles). 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. If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below into the Current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image that currently exists in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures gallery should not be there, the Nomination for removal section of this page can be used to nominate it for delisting.

For delisting, this page is similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license. Since an image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use) fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery.

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 general consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Here are some guidelines to consider (decisions are made on a case-by-case basis):

The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations.

Also, be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor).

When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Procedure

How to add your nomination

Nominations are now created as subpages.

  1. Create a new subpage named   Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image
  2. Edit the subpage to give your reasons for nomination using the following format
    ===[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image|Name-Of-Image]]===
    [[Image:FILENAME.jpg|thumb|CAPTION]]
    Add your reasons for nominating it here,
    say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
    * Nominate and '''support'''. First vote here - ~~~~
    * '''Support/Oppose'''. Reasons for vote. - ~~~~
    <!-- additional votes go here -->
    <br style="clear:both;" />
  3. Add  {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image}}  to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
  4. 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.

Supporting and opposing

  • If you approve of a picture, write "Support" followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reasons for your objection. Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Community standards

Please adhere to applicable community standards and conventions of writing and layout as relevant for contributions to a dialogue.

Current nominations

Please add all nominations and self-nominations to the top of this list.

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Three John Hancock Buildings

Three John Hancock Buildings in Boston, MA

I took this photo last winter in order to illustrate the John Hancock Tower article's contention that there are three John Hancock buildings in a row in Boston. After posting it, I heve revieved so many positive comments from people who loved it that I felt it should be listed here. - SFoskett 14:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. Self-nomination. - SFoskett 14:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Be advised, self-nomination. It's a funny picture, but not really motivated in the article, I would say. It's not even immediately obvious which of the three buildings depicted is described in the accompanying text. Well, perhaps I should not blame the picture for that one. Jonas Olson 14:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • FYI, The text on the photo's page clearly states which building is which. This photo was specifically requested by the folks working on the John Hancock Tower page. --SFoskett 14:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I was thinking that the section in which the picture appears should explain it fully, which I don't think it does, but you are right that if one reads the rest of the article, it becomes clear. As for the request of such a picture, I'm afraid I disagree with the requestors. Jonas Olson 15:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I have to disagree with you, Jonas, the text supplied with the photo quickly informed me of what it was about. Quite an interesting coincidence(?). Reminds me of National_Treasure --Fir0002 11:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks... very odd, i don't know what to make of it. Enochlau 13:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --brian0918&#153; 19:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its very clever, but not much more than just clever. -- Solipsist 19:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Solipsist. Junes 12:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +3/-4 BrokenSegue 11:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Happy Pensioner

A British pensioner

I found this striking. Illustrates Ageing nicely. - Zeimusu | (Talk page) 09:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support.- Zeimusu | (Talk page) 09:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I found this not striking. Oppose. Jonas Olson 14:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also too low resolution. Jonas Olson 15:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • support.- A very expressive photo indeed! --SFoskett 14:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • support a nice picture that does add significantly. Circeus 00:39, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing striking here. If we say that a picture like this is featured pic quality because it adds nicely to ageing, then we'll have all the 12-year-olds around here posting their school photos up saying it adds nicely to youth. Enochlau 13:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's just another portrait. If you're trying to add to the ageing article, isn't it better to have a series of photos of someone at a different age? Mgm|(talk) 16:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine idea! Now look if there are suitable pictures of those older relatives of your's. I don't think you should hesitate at the possible event that someone else has a better photo series, we could sure use several of them. I think articles often have too few images, even when suitable pictures already are uploaded. Why, for example isn't the crashing Concorde present in the article Accidents_and_incidents_in_aviation? Now let's all help to include more images in articles, don't you think? Jonas Olson 16:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Nice portrait, but I am not quite won over. It might be because the lighting is a bit flat. -- Solipsist 19:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Illustrative, but not especially so against the staggering number of portraits around. Matthewcieplak 11:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +3/-5 BrokenSegue 11:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


North america terrain 2003 map.jpg

1. North America bedrock and terrain.

Shows the separate pieces of rock which formed North America over various time periods. The image page contains text and various related images. All those images but one two are from the same source, they were separated for multiple contexts and to make multilingual use easier. Hawaii and logos were tucked in during editing of this image, to make cropping or relabeling easier. Used JPEG due to amount of detail; 2MB limit followed; original source has much larger and detailed versions.

  • P.S.: Only the squarish Image #1 is nominated. Image #2 with 4 maps is another path into the collection (Image #2 is not on the page for Image #1 because of problems with thumbnails overlaying galleries, and it is not really necessary there). - SEWilco 17:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Used in

2. Sedimentary, volcanic, plutonic, metamorphic rock types of North America.

Related image Image:North_america_rock_types.jpg used in


  • Nominate and support. Self-nominated by creator - SEWilco 09:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great stuff. Junes 13:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #1. Why not upload the full-size image to the Commons, though, which has a larger maximum file size? (10MB, if I'm not mistaken.) —Korath (Talk) 14:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Answer: It is a US Gov image, and I'm not putting such in Commons because US Gov PD is not global PD. (SEWilco 16:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC))
      • A big part of Commons images are US Gov PD (e.g. from NASA). Dont see any problem putting it in Commons --Bricktop 01:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I've just read too much in the Copyright discussions for my image's own good. I'll have to check every few months to see if other countries have changed laws, or if I can find new WikiPolicy. (SEWilco 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • Support number 1. Ah, that detail! Jonas Olson 14:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 0_0 support Circeus 00:40, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I got a wide-eyed frog ranking! Yay! (SEWilco 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • Support very nice work! --Bricktop 01:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 1. --brian0918&#153; 19:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the best maps I have seen here. -- Solipsist 19:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the combination of colors is awkward, making it difficult to read the terrain. The map in my geology textbook is better. - Pioneer-12 23:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted Image:North america terrain 2003 map.jpg +8/-1 BrokenSegue 11:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Newborn_umbilical_suction.jpg

Newborn at 45 seconds. Doctor in the United States prepares to cut the baby's umbilical cord by affixing the second of two clamps. A nurse suctions mucus from the face while the mother holds a foot.

I couldn't have asked for a more descriptive and tighter image. I took the photo on Saturday morning and feature it in umbilical cord. - jk 21:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote. Why do you oppose this shot?jk 00:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Certainly striking; a bit gory, but it makes a point. Not pretty (should we be complaining that the baby's color doesn't complement the umbilical cord's color very well?) but that's not a requirement. --Andrew 22:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's about time we had a photo for the article. --brian0918&#153; 23:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, oppose. It sure is rather illustrative, but I don't find it that fantastic. Jonas Olson 14:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good point, but should an encyclopedia be filled with artistic photography or, as the top of this page states, images that "add significantly to that article." Can you narrow in on what you mean by fantastic? Gore factor, cropping, contrast, composition, lighting, etc? jk 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It should be filled with images that add significantly to the article, absolutely! That's why I don't think all images have a chance of becoming a featured picture. The flags in the gallery will never make it, I suppose, but they serve a great purpose as parts of an encyclopedia. And, no, I can probably not narrow in very much on some criterions that this picture fails to fulfill. I just don't think it's so very special. Jonas Olson 20:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose. i too think that it is a significant addition to the article and think it should be there but dont feel that the featured pics would be made better by it. (i feel the same way about several featured illustrations for the record) Cavebear42 00:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose, doesn't add significantly IMHO. Circeus 00:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • support. Illustrative, striking. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • support. Actually I don't like this picture, but it is an excellent illustration. Could also be used on childbirth to good effect. -- Solipsist 19:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - first class pic - Adrian Pingstone 08:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support! --Chris 73 Talk 12:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Janderk 11:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Certainly striking, and very illustrative, but FP isn't the place for such a graphic depiction. It's a great image, great for the article, but it's something many if not most would rather not see while browsing FP Visible. The same could be said for a few featured other images (concerning arachnaphobics, for instance), but this one is considerably more colorful. Matthewcieplak 11:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support! A wonderful picture. Nick Fraser 14:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - that's one dirty baby. I've seen much more pleasant looking childbirth photos. - Pioneer-12 23:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Defiantly Neutral BrokenSegue 01:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. — Dan | Talk 17:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +9/-7/1 BrokenSegue 11:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Shanghai Grand Hyatt Atrium.jpg

Bottom-up view of the 32-story atrium in the Shanghai Grand Hyatt inside Jin Mao Building.

An impressive picture showing a titillating piece of architecture. Might needs a bit of color adjustment/cleaning, but I can't do it here at college. - Circeus 18:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Circeus 18:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I could go for this one. Support. Perhaps cropping out the glaring lights at the left side. Jonas Olson 18:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support if and only if cropped per Jonas. Neutralitytalk 22:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've cropped the image. Anyone can see the original version on the image's page. Support cropped version. --brian0918&#153; 23:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I took the original picture and support the improved version. Lawrence Lavigne 00:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think a square crop would be effective on this one. --jacobolus (t) 22:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose. im sure it is magestic and great view but, like almost all pics straight up or down, perspective is lost and i have to imagine how this looks rather than seeing it clearly displayed. Cavebear42 00:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Cavebear42. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Cavebear42. Enochlau 14:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Reminiscent of an Andreas Gursky photograph. You don't have to understand the structure, enjoy the pattern. -- Solipsist 19:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    In fact, if I am not mistaken, it looks like Gursky has also photographed this building, but chose a different perspective [1]. -- Solipsist 19:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just doesn't excite or interest me - Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Somewhat intruiging in its pattern, but otherwise insipid and uninteresting. - Sango123 23:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +7 / -5 -- Solipsist 16:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mokoia Island

Storm clouds gathering over Mokoia Island in Lake Rotorua, New Zealand

Okay, so it's a self-nom, but I'm pretty pleased with this image. It captures the broodiness of the storms that can quickly form over Lake Rotorua and the odd colour of the caldera's sulphurous waters. It's used on the articles for both Lake Rotorua and Mokoia Island.- Grutness|hello? 06:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. Grutness|hello? 06:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 10:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose image is copyrighted and far to low-res, otherwise very nice --Bricktop 10:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: would support the high-res version, but only under a free licence. Sorry. --Bricktop 23:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Non-commercial use licenses are non-free, and aren't suitable for Wikipedia at all. While this isn't a big problem, since Grutness can relicense it, the image is still a bit on the small side (though "far too low-res" is an exaggeration), and overall sharpness isn't feature quality. —Korath (Talk) 10:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a very similar res to the previous nomination on this page, which is receiving support votes. If needed I can upload a larger version, but at the time I uploaded this image I believed that 90 k was the maximum allowable for a picture upload. It is free use for any non-commercial purpose, but for legal reasons licensing it for commercial use is out of the question (I am a professional photographer and artist, and this particular picture is in use elsewhere in commercial applications). Since Wikipedia is a non-commercial enterprise, it is free for Wikipedia - the only time this license should come into consideration is for third-party users. Ah well, at least it's prompted me to upload a higher res copy of the picture. Grutness|hello? 12:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the max allowed on Wikipedia is 5MB. I upload images that large all the time. (see User:Brian0918/Free images). If you uploaded a much larger version (with low jpeg compression) I'll support it. --brian0918&#153; 20:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 12:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bad license. Neutralitytalk 22:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. There's a bit of motion blur, but it is in focus, admirably straight, and has excellent contrast and vivid color. The sunny water/dark sky is what does it, I think. Matthewcieplak 06:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bad license. Junes 13:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. not valid license for featured pic. Cavebear42 00:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +2 / -7 -- Solipsist 16:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spider Predation

Orb Weaver Capturing a bee
Orb Weaver with captured bee in web
Orb Weaver eating a bee

Three shots showing the stages as an orb weaver captures and eats a bee.

  • Support Orb weaver with captured bee in web. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Orb Weaver capturing or Orb Weaver eating (EDIT: these are the same images!). Oppose Orb weaver with captured bee in web (too small spider compared with rest, odd perspective). Junes 16:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry! changed it. --Fir0002 23:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support capturing image. Looks like it's the most in focus. --brian0918&#153; 00:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support either capturing or eating, but eating has better detail on the spider (check out the spinnerets, if I'm not mistaken) Matthewcieplak 04:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the eating one. Do you have more hi-res version, so one can see the spider in even better detail --Bricktop 10:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support capturing only. Depth of field is too narrow in the other two. (And it's a pity, since the eating image is the best composition, I think.) Which article do you plan to put these in, by the way? —Korath (Talk) 11:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • These are amazing photos. Support eating, then capturing. Eating is now my desktop. Ground 01:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support either one -- Chris 73 Talk 12:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Capturing only. It's the best of the three, technically excellent and very descriptive. I wish I could see a photo taken earlier before the bee was wrapped, so as to have some chance of identifying the bee. Pollinator 21:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Yes that would have been good, but unfortunately I hadn't noticed the spider until the after the spider was already spinning the bee into a cocoon. --Fir0002 00:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent color contrast. — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 06:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Garden orb weaver05.jpg +10 / -1 for Orb Weaver Capturing a bee. -- Solipsist 15:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Wright brothers flight

First Wright brothers flight, December 17, 1903

Pretty famous photo of the first Wright brothers flight, and unarguably the first photo of a powered, piloted aircraft in flight. Used at Aviation history, Wright brothers, Wright Flyer, and Portal:Aviation. - brian0918&#153; 13:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - brian0918&#153; 13:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. awesome res and quality. Cavebear42 18:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Bevo 18:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Mgm|(talk) 19:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Amazing clarity. --Fir0002 23:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great image --Spangineer ∞ 02:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Indeed some very good quality. It's a funny thing though, how the 800 pixel version looks quite different from the 200 pixel and the full version. Jonas Olson 17:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That's an old version. While you're on the page, hold down CTRL and press F5. --brian0918&#153; 18:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Got it, sorry. Your key command didn't make any difference though. Jonas Olson 18:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • CTRL + F5 forces a reload while F5 doesn't seem to always do so. I've overwritten an image and hit F5 repeatedly and always gotten the old version, until I hit CTRL+F5 and it finally downloaded the new version. --brian0918&#153; 20:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • It does not, in my browser that is. Naturally browser specific. Jonas Olson 22:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • It does in Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox--Fir0002 07:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Nice - Longhair | Talk 15:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support TomStar81 04:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fly it into the featured picture status... -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Astrowob 20:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support surprisingly good quality. -- Solipsist 19:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 12:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Wrightflyer.jpg +13 / -0 -- Solipsist 14:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GreencastleHarbour 2004 SeanMcClean

  • Used in Greencastle, County Donegal and Sheila McClean. Created by Sheila McClean, digitized by User:SeanMack. Strongly painted picture that illustrates in a way complementary to the photographs on the Greencastle page. Free licence. Higher resolution version may also be available (hi-res now uploaded). Zeimusu | (Talk page) 13:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominate and support. - Zeimusu | (Talk page) 13:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - It's one of my personal favs. SeanMack 13:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Mgm|(talk) 19:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A very pleasant composition. Denni☯ 00:30, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Support -- Longhair | Talk 00:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am all for more art images, but am not terribly impressed by the subject nor the composition. Janderk 14:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I do wish that there was a separate gallery of the finest images of artworks. - Bevo 18:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:GreencastleHarbour 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg +6 / -2 -- Solipsist 11:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Westminster underground.jpg

Westminster tube station - extensive structures are required because Portcullis House and the Palace of Westminster are above.

Wow. Used on London Underground, could also be on Westminster tube station. - SPUI (talk) 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - SPUI (talk) 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, I can't find anything striking or interesting in this picture - Adrian Pingstone 21:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose No focus in this image. I have no idea what it's trying to say. Denni☯ 02:09, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    • It's trying to say "Hello, you're looking at me too much." --SPUI (talk) 02:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And I'm saying "Hello, you're a photo. I'm *supposed* to look at you." Denni☯ 21:44, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just not that captivating, though somewhat reminiscent of movie depictions of some dark concrete future dystopian nightmare. :-( --Deglr6328 03:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, just a bit boring. Junes 08:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support maybe because I'm not brittish and not used to subway, but I find it nice and adding significantly. Circeus 00:41, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not British either but it's not interesting. Enochlau 14:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its an interesting space in reality, even if you are not a fan of concrete. But it is difficult to capture it in a photograph. Kudos to Rebroad for risking taking this picture. A couple of months ago, I was almost arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist for taking a photograph of a structural support in an underground station - and this one is beneath the Palace of Westminster! -- Solipsist 18:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - intriguing as hell. Geometric complexity. What is wrong with you people? - Pioneer-12 23:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -7 -- Solipsist 11:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bronc riding

Kitty Canutt, champion lady rider of the world, on Winnemucca
Plunging bronco, Bar Diamond Bar range

Two excellent photos illustrating bronc riding. Found these while looking for another cowboy image. Please list your order of preference. - brian0918&#153; 15:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - brian0918&#153; 15:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Plunging Bronco. Fantastic photo. The coloration looks great. The Kitty Canutt photo isn't that good though. --Fir0002 00:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose One might try looking through a few rodeo sites. These are simply not very exciting. B/W, for such a topic, does not help either. Denni☯ 02:11, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    It's doubtful that any color photos would be freely usable. We have to use what's available to us. --brian0918&#153; 02:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Plunging Bronco. Great action image! The sepia is nice, too. Junes 08:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Plunging Bronco. Yes, it feels so still and quiet to me even though there is action going on. I like! Jonas Olson 18:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Plunging bronco. Why you didn't upload the first one under FlyingHorse.jpg and nominate it separately is a mystery to me. Matthewcieplak 21:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support plunging bronco. (Once it's in an article, anyway.) —Korath (Talk) 11:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support plunging bronco. And nice job on the retouching. However the horizon looks crudely pixelated from the masking and could do with straightening. -- Solipsist 17:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support either one -- Chris 73 Talk 12:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- plunging bronco. - Longhair | Talk 12:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support plunging bronco. Janderk 14:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Plunging bronco, Bar Diamond Bar range.jpg +10 / -1 -- Solipsist 11:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calla Lily

Two photos of a calla lily

Calla lily
Close up of a calla lily
  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the regular pic. The close-up isn't helpful in identifying the flower and thus doesn't provide useful info. Mgm|(talk) 07:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support first version. brian0918&#153; 12:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support first version. Might be improved by evening out the crop, but not really necessary. —Korath (Talk) 15:53, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, just not anything spectacular. No interesting angles, not interesting enough use of line, shape, texture, etc. It's a nice flower, but not featured picture worthy. jacobolus (t) 04:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with jacobolus. Junes 08:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Junes. —Jonas Olson 10:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the first version. Though plain, the flower, the central focus, is strikingly clear and aesthetically pleasing. - Sango123 00:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support first too, agree with Sango Circeus 02:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't have featured pic qualities. Enochlau 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pretty picture but not extraordinary. Pollinator 21:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -5 -- Solipsist 19:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine

RS-2200 linear aerospike engine for the X-33 program being tested

No special reason for nomination, image is simply really nice! Shows a test firing of an aerospike rocket engine, which was in development at NASA for the Venture Star spaceship. Used in Spacecraft propulsion, Aerospike engine, X-33. Created by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. --Bricktop 10:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Bricktop 10:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I might try cleaning up some of the graininess later. --brian0918&#153; 15:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Major WOW-factor going for it. Minimal graininess should be expected at this resolution and I don't feel it a problem. Circeus 16:59, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -Stunning and beautiful. I still can't intuitively perceive its method of thrust production. Just looks like it shouldn't work!! :)--Deglr6328 18:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great photo. Echo User:Deglr6328's sentiments --Fir0002 06:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; no need for cleanup. —Korath (Talk) 15:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Powerful shot. -- Solipsist 17:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine.jpg +7 / -0 -- Solipsist 07:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cowboy

American cowboy circa 1887

Well, if this isn't the perfect picture of a cowboy, then there's no such thing! It's used on the page cowboy. - Dmcdevit 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Dmcdevit 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -Meh. Doesn't strike me as "striking, shocking, impressive, titillating or fascinating". --Deglr6328 07:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well… oppose. I agree, this one doesn't really make my jaw drop. It takes more than just any good picture to make it into the featured, IMHO. It's also far to low-res, I would say. Jonas Olson 19:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - it doesn't have to be all the features Deglr mentions so I'll settle for Fascinating. Blurry backbround sets off the cowboy beautifully - Adrian Pingstone 09:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not much of a cowboy (I live in an Australian country town so I have harsh standards) and surely there are photos taken more recently (there must have been some since 1887) which have a higher image quality. --Fir0002 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • support. i grew up in an american country town so i too have high standards. its a great pic and representative of the cowboys of the timesCavebear42 18:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I grew up in an English industrial city, so I have no standards whatsoever ;-) Nevertheless, I would have thought the cowboy article would be better served by a more modern photo. There are still plenty of authentic, horse-riding, cowboys around, particularly in Latin America. -- Solipsist 11:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like the face of the cowboy, and the details. I don't think a modern cowboy will look the same.--Bernard Helmstetter 12:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like the details too. Remember that a modern picture, while being at a higher resolution, would be of a modern cowboy... Enochlau 14:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Bevo 18:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -4 -- Solipsist 06:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Triangulum.nebula.arp.750pix

Birth of a star in the constellation Triangulum.
The same image at its full resolution (and on the commons)

This is just an all-around cool picture. It's a nebula taken by Hubble. Uploaded by Arpingstone, it is used on Nebula, Stellar evolution, H II region, Nebula NGC 604, and it's even on the Template:Space-stub. - Dmcdevit 22:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -- Dmcdevit 22:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll support it too, despite the fact that space-stub is being considered for deletion by WP:WSS (it duplicates astronomy-stub and rocket-stub). Grutness|hello? 23:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • support lovely picture. Plugwash 00:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I have to point out Space astub was redundant with {{astro-stub}} and now redirects to it Circeus 01:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • So I see. On a related note, has anyone checked out Image:Pleiades large.jpg (which is on {{astro-stub}}); any picture that is on, by my count, 57 genuine articles must have something going for it. --Dmcdevit 01:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Before I vote-This image was taken with the old WIFPC2 CCD imager on Hubble while a newer version taken in '03 with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) is larger and cleaner. It can be seen here [2] what do you think about replacing the image with that one? The colors are different but they're false color anyway....--Deglr6328 06:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • commnet the version we have here has an eiree feel that the other one doesn't seem to share because of the choice of colors. I like that feeling but i can see how the other one is almost certainly a techincally higher quality image. Also the newer version seems to be missing a large section of background Plugwash.
  • Support this version. The newer version is even nicer, except for the lower right, which ruins it. :( —Korath (Talk) 11:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The choice of false colours here is horrible. Enochlau 14:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Astrowob
  • Oppose. I dislike the false colors and there appears to be a lot of noise (although those may be stars) --Fir0002 07:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not all that aesthetically appealing (to me), there's some technical weirdness in the top left corner (probably a mosaicing artifact). But (I know this is late in the game) it's probably worth featuring/not featuring the higher-resolution version from the original site. For what it's worth, I much prefer the newer version linked above (missing corner and all). --Andrew 08:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -4 Its a bit borderline, but even several of the support votes seem to prefer an alternative image. -- Solipsist 19:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aphthona flava flea beetle.jpg

Aphthona flava flea beetle
cropped

I'm no photography expert, but this struck me as a wonderfully fascinating picture. It is used on Beetle, Nature, Aphthona, Aphthona flava, and a cropped version is even the main pic on animal. Uploaded by Ellmist. --Dmcdevit 19:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. --Dmcdevit 19:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support first version. The 2nd one is cropped oddly. --brian0918&#153; 19:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the first version as featured. Yhe second version was cropped specifically to fit the taxobox on animal (the taxobox at the time had some pretty wide entries and was also rather big already so i made the image short and wide to fit there) btw brion0918 what exactly was the change you just made to the first image? Plugwash 20:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good pic but just too out-of-focus for me. A Featured Pic should surely have first class focus? - Adrian Pingstone 09:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Sure part of the plant is out of focus, but you can't have everything in focus when you take a macro-shot of a beetle. The beetle is in focus. Mgm|(talk) 12:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The beetle is not in satisfactory focus, in my opinion. Sure, it's in reasonable focus but I look for more than that in a Featured Pic. Obviously I would want and expect the background to be off-focus. - Adrian Pingstone 12:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing special about it. And we already have numerous insect pics.Circeus 17:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good photo. Must say that User:Arpingstone you seem to have a funny policy with focus - FPC 'first photo' OK, but this one isn't. --Fir0002 06:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is my policy "funny"? My policy is simply that Featured Picture Candidates should be in very good focus, the beetle isn't! - Adrian Pingstone 09:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I was merely alluding to the fact that although you were prepared to tolerate the lack of sharpness in older photos such as the 'first photo', 'cowboy' and 'the only fredrick chopin photo' but not in this compartively new photo of a flea beetle, even though macro shots are extremely hard to get in complete and perfect focus. It strange that you consider that criteria for a FP, specifically the focus of the photo is subject to the age of the photo.
        • It would indeed be strange if I thought that but I don't. I made a mistake in omitting the word modern in the sentence "My policy is simply that modern FPC candidates should be in very good focus". Sorry I've caused a stir through my own careless writing - Adrian Pingstone 20:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with Adrian Pingstone. I would also note that to hold photos from the beginning of photography to the same standards as contemporary photography is, IMO, quite silly. Might as well criticise the first photo for being black and white (what's the matter - couldn't afford a roll of color film for that roof?) Denni☯ 02:18, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not enough emphasis on the subject, needs to be cropped; also it is rare that I would say that a photo is supplied in too much resolution, but this one seems way too large, bytewise, for it's content - Bevo 17:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +5 / -5 -- Solipsist 06:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disney fireworks

"Wishes" is the largest fireworks show ever presented at the Magic Kingdom.

A little something I took at Disney- →Raul654 22:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. →Raul654 22:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - blurry fireworks, mediocre composition. Lupin 00:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Much too much camera movement. Denni☯ 02:27, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Moving fireworks are likely to be blurry, but I would've liked to see at least the castle in focus. Mgm|(talk) 17:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Enjoyable pic but too much blur for Featured status - Adrian Pingstone 09:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Just not striking enough. - Longhair | Talk 16:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough fire in the fireworks for my taste. TomStar81 05:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mediocre photo, fireworks not in focus. - Sango123 23:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -8 -- Solipsist 06:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rope tricks

Tumbler snapper rope tricks

I'm taking a chance on this one, I know. This is an image of a nuclear detonation at 1ms after zero time showing "rope tricks". Exposure is 3 µs. I know the image suffers from moire due to effects of scanning a halftone image (and I would be grateful if someone can clean it up), but I feel the subject matter is so unique and fascinating it might be overlooked. This is probably the highest quality image available of this phenomenon.

  • Nominate and Support.--Deglr6328 06:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can scan the image at a higher resolution and upload it as a low-compression jpg or no-compression png, I can probably remove the moire patterns. --brian0918&#153; 15:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sadly, I don't have the original image.--Deglr6328 00:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominate and Support.--Zxcvbnm 00:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm ....pretty sure ...I nominated but I'll take what I can get :o) !!--Deglr6328 01:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I have always found this microsecond phenomenon fascinating Denni☯ 02:30, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Support, though if a cleaner image can be developed, without the moiré pattern, I will be even more enthusiastic. I've had a quick look at Michael Light's 100 Suns, published in 2003, and agree this photo illustrates rope tricks and the "mottling" effect superbly. The Tumbler-Snapper test series comprised six detonations beginning in April 1952 at the Nevada Test Site. Sandover 02:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Add significantly and is titillating. Circeus 02:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. brian0918&#153; 03:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Fir0002 10:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Enochlau 14:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 12:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Its fascinating, alright. TomStar81 05:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This image needs source information before it can be promoted — +10 / -0 -- Solipsist 06:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Info from http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/tumbler_snapper/ added to image info to support PD attribution as US government photo- Bevo 14:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know how to conclusively PROVE that this image was taken by a govt. employee but I have seen it published in several places with statements that it is a gov. image. Really, I don't know how it could be anything else. The image was taken at some time in 1952. I am unaware of the DOD ever allowing ANY private individual or organization to image bomb tests with ultrafast rapatronic equipment, let alone allowing them to take such images so early on in the testing in the early '50s. It would be a hige security risk. I am 99.999% certain this is a gov. work and in the public domain. :)--Deglr6328 16:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Addendum. Here is a statemtnt by Michael Light, the author of 100 suns, which gives insight to where he obtained the rapatronic images for his book. "At the still picture branch of the United States National Archives at College Park, Maryland, head archivist Kate Flaherty was unfailingly helpful during all aspects of research at that great institution, as were her staff members Theresa Roy and Sharon Culley. Roger Meade, chief archivist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, went above the call of duty to make material available and help identify some of its more arcane aspects. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, archivists Steve Wofford, Beverly Bull and Maxine Trost helped with image research. Nick Broderick, classification analyst at Lawrence Livermore, kindly provided final identification of notoriously difficult to attribute ultra-high-speed Rapatronic images made by E.G.&G. Thanks as well to filmmaker Peter Kuran for additional identification help with Rapatronic images." --Deglr6328 16:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Please place a copy of that text with your "signature" in this images's info page. Thx! - Bevo 18:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tumbler Snapper rope tricks.jpg +10 / -0 -- Solipsist 12:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Banded coral shrimp

Banded coral shrimp

Although the Banded coral shrimp looks like a shrimp and even has the word shrimp in its name, it is not a real shrimp. It belongs to the order of Stenopodidea instead. I took this picture a few weeks ago at ten meters below sea level on the coral reef of Bonaire. - Janderk 15:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Janderk 15:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the shrimp is not quite in focus and too small in the frame. The rest of the pic is out of focus and very "fussy". Just not quite good enough for Featured - Adrian Pingstone 19:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if it's not a real shrimp, it looks equally funny and cute. Animal in focus, nice colored background showing its coral habitat. Support. I wouldn't mind a bit of cropping though. Mgm|(talk) 19:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The picture looks like mishmash. -Hapsiainen 21:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too busy. —Korath (Talk) 02:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too much background. Nice, but nothing really special. --Bricktop 10:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bad exposure, poor focus, background inhibits the subject. Alight 19:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +2 / -6 -- Solipsist 16:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


First Photograph

File:FirstPicture.jpg
The first photograph
The 2nd first photograph

Surely the featured pictures should contain the first photograph ever. It was taken by Nicéphore Niépce in 1826.

  • Nominate and support. Janderk 09:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support high resolution version. Janderk 07:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - how could this not be a Featured Pic! - Adrian Pingstone 10:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So classic, but low-res and mostly made out of JPEG artifacts, so I will have to oppose. When those things are straightened out, I'll support it!. Jonas Olson 10:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded a better version right from the University of Texas that owns it. Janderk 11:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Eagle 12:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose until copyright status is clarified (see Image talk:FirstPicture.jpg). If a work was created long ago, but never published until recent years, can that publication be copyrighted? If so, that may be the situation with this image. I will change my vote to support if/when it can be demonstrated that this is public domain. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -How could I not support?!! As for inquiries of copyright, I sincerely hope this is a joke. The image is 180 years old!!! The creator died less than a decade later. There is simply no way it isn't PD.--Deglr6328 19:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not joking. Are you saying that if someone discovers something old that was never published or copyrighted in the past, it is inelligable to be copyrighted? If that is so under law, I am very eager to have the point clarified. People sticking copyright notices on the first publication of newly discovered works from before 1923 is not uncommon; if this is bogus it would help to be able to show this point, thanks. -- Infrogmation 19:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's in the public domain, it can't be copyrighted. The original creators died long ago; it doesn't matter when it was first published. --brian0918&#153; 22:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Firstly I believe the statement that this is the first photograph is de-batable, it is often said the first photograph was taken by William Fox Talbot. Secondly I do not believe this should be a featured picture because although it is the first photograph taken, it is not that great a picture. --Electricmoose 19:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, perhaps not the first photograph as DigiCamHistory gives a supposedly earlier example. Furthermore, Fotoart has a more complete picture of the history. Jonas Olson 13:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely support if copyright is not an issue. (And if it is, what a joke!) Not that great a picture? Damn rights it is, if it's the first image ever captured! Denni☯ 23:47, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Support. I've contacted the University of Texas, and am trying to get a much higher resolution version. They have a link to a large TIFF on their site, but the link is broken. --brian0918&#153; 01:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. No question of this photograph's import—it deserves its own Wikipedia entry. The condition and quality of the image is irrelevant. Apart from the rubes who think it should be in clearer focus (how can you make technical demands of the very first permanent image made by man?), I think the people who are critical of this image haven't really taken the time to enter it with their imaginations. Imagine the experience of having invented this. And then look out on these buildings, and those fields, and take in the subtle modulations of shadow and light. Look at that bold shadow on the diagonal in the context of the whole, and remember—from its beginnings, this brave new art form, photography, contained both abstraction and literalness. It's a terrific start, and it should be honored. Sandover 06:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless a higher resolution version is submitted; you can hardly see anything. Matthewcieplak 09:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • How could there be a "higher resolution" version, it's the first photo ever so what came out was what came out! - Adrian Pingstone 17:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Simply digitized in a higher resolution. Jonas Olson 10:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support either new version. I appreciate your clarity, Jonas. Does anyone know where the photo was taken, and what of? It'd be absurdly awesome if we could get a modern photograph of the same location, though it's probably much different now if it's anywhere urban. Matthewcieplak 19:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hehe, nice idea! I guess this could be done for any old picture, but it's, naturally, especially interesting for this one. Jonas Olson 18:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - it has a surreal and impresionist feel to it.Brookie 14:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Suppport, even more support for a bigger version. Spangineer ∞ 17:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support 2nd first picture (high-res version). Spangineer ∞ 17:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The first picture definatly deserves to be a featured picture. TomStar81 03:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
NOTICE:I support the Hi-res photo. TomStar81 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support unless proof is provided this wasn't the first. I never liked technical demands on featured pics, but having them on such an early photograph is ridiculous. Mgm|(talk) 09:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Note:I support the hi-res version too. Mgm|(talk) 17:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, agree with above, unless evidence is shown that this isn't the first. Enochlau 10:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I will support either the original or the hi-res version. I will note however that the hi-res version seems much more washed out than the original, but not so much that it is objectionable. Enochlau 07:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's the first, low-res image that's washed out. It's been drastically cleaned up in something like Photoshop to make it look like a normal photo. The high-res version is lossless (the PNG, at least; the JPG is slightly compressed) and from the original source, so it's correct, despite being less aesthetically pleasing. --brian0918&#153; 08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The University of Texas has unexpectedly denied allowing a high-res photo to be made available, despite the fact that a couple years ago they had a link for one to be downloaded freely on their site. They don't have a copyright on the image, they are just unwilling to let it be made available. I guess I'm just too used to the selfless likes of David Rumsey.
    • If anyone knows of a book that contains this image, I can get it through interlibrary loan and scan it at 9600 dpi :) --brian0918&#153; 20:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If you know where it used to be and the copyright is not a problem, maybe archive.org could help out. Janderk 20:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah I already tried that, and there was nothing like it on LOC Memory or OAISTER either. --brian0918&#153; 20:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think I found a high-res source for the image at University of Minnesota. I'll send them an email.
        • I got a reply from UMN--they're going to send me their high-res TIFF. --brian0918&#153; 02:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the photographer was obviously very unskilled. The backrgound is barely visible and the color is washed out. I don't understand how the black and white effect improves the picture. Leonardo 04:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I do hope this Oppose is a joke. This oppose should not be counted, if it's serious! - Adrian Pingstone 11:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Clarifying => Support (I guess I shouldn't be sarcastic) Sorry about that. Leonardo 19:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Clarify again support any Leonardo 01:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This oppose vote demonstrates why some sort of entrance exam must be required before one can cast Wikivotes. (Just kidding, but this comment boggles the imagination!) What is it about the first photograph that some people seem not able to get? Denni☯ 02:37, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Support. A higher-res version would be keen, but this one is quite sufficient. —Korath (Talk)
  • Support. Awesome photo. As well as being the first photograph this photo looks good --Fir0002 10:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the first photograph ever! P.S. hi-res version rules, please put it on commons so others can use it too --Bricktop 10:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We should probably call it something else than "first picture" since we are not sure that this is the case. Perhaps we are even sure that this is not the case. Jonas Olson 19:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I got a high-res version from UMN, and they said that the image is in fact Public Domain.

  • Support high-res version. --brian0918&#153; 16:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support "high resolution" version :)--Deglr6328 17:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent photo. Support high-res version. Sandover 17:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I Support the high-res version. Though, does anyone have a color version? B&W photography is sooo outdated =D --Asriel86 17:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the high-res version. Agree with Asriel86, a color version would be even nicer :-))) --Bricktop 18:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The high res version over the low res. Good work finding it Brian0918!--Fir0002 00:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, no, no! The new, high resolution, looks worse than the old one. My opposition stands firmly, I'm afraid. Jonas Olson 17:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Probably the new version, although I am with Jonas, that the first version has something to offer too. Arguably the Hi-Res version is scanned at a resolution that is significantly higher than any resolvable feature in the image, but that isn't much of a problem. It might be worth adjusting the contrast to bring out the features in the sky that are visible in the first version. This might be a lossless PNG, but there are few absolute standards to say that the scanning got the grey-scale transfer function 'correct'. The first version shows the picture as it is displayed on the UTexas web site, so I would have thought they had got the levels set to give a similar impression to seeing the image in real life. -- Solipsist 12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I should have checked more carefully. The first version is actually a 1952 silver-gelatin print from the original heliograph possibly retouched with watercolor. The 1826 Heliograph itself is shown obliquely and framed. As you would guess, it looks like it has very low contrast. But that still doesn't mean there is a definitive print. In any case, it doesn't give a strong argument to adjust the levels in the hi-res scan. -- Solipsist 12:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg +25 / -3 (I think) with a preference for 2nd hires version -- Solipsist 16:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Easter Bunny

Easter Bunny

From photographer André Karwath (a.k.a. Aka). Currently illustrates Easter and kitsch.

  • Nominate and support. Sandover 06:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I like the absence of background shadow, and the excellent focus (even on the highest res version) - Adrian Pingstone 08:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support good picture, illustrates kitsch well I'd say. Junes 09:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too tacky for words. It may illustrate its article well, but as an image, it is seriously underwhelming in its brilliance. Denni☯ 23:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Did you look up kitsch? This is just the sort of found object that Jeff Koons would re-create in porcelain and sell in a pricey New York art gallery. If any image epitomizes kitsch, this does. Are you sure you're not faulting the photograph for living up so well to its appropriate Wikipedia category? Sandover 05:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm faulting the photo for not meeting a single one of the criteria for featured picture. It is flat out boring; I would not be surprised to run into a similar image in a Wal-mart flyer. Denni☯ 23:04, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
Please don't fault me for making this photo. As well as the vase below, it was never planned to be a featured picture candidate and I think it should not be here. I just wanted to illustrate an article with it and tried to create a simple, clean, technically well done picture. Please have a look at my user page in the commons for other pictures. -- Aka 06:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not very interesting. ed g2s • talk 15:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not interesting. Enochlau 10:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Corny. Need I say more?--Zxcvbnm 00:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -Shudder.--Deglr6328 07:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose What more needs to be said? --Fir0002 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No comments. Jonas Olson 09:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Serves the indended purpose very well. Very good as a product shot. Alight 19:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +4 / -8 -- Solipsist 16:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Carbon cycle

Diagram of the carbon cycle. The black numbers indicate how much carbon is stored in various reservoirs (in billions of tons). The blue numbers indicate how much carbon moves between reservoirs each year.

The actual image filename is a bit dodgy, but the diagram itself is clear, useful and attractive. The fullsize framed version (so that the text is legible) illustrates carbon cycle. It originally came from a NASA publication. - Solipsist 21:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Solipsist 21:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Clear and to the point. Denni☯ 03:20, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very small. Perhaps someone with vector skills and a bit of spare time could trace this? ed g2s • talk 04:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - beautifully drawn. It may be small but I can read everything on it easily - Adrian Pingstone 08:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. It's not clear to me what the 1.6 and 0.5 numbers represent. Also, it could do with some more explanation on the image page. Otherwise, nice and colorful diagram. Junes 09:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I rewrote the title on the image page in an effort to make the importance of this diagram clearer. Janderk 20:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, it's large enough to read. Mgm|(talk) 09:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice, but should be in higher resolution and with an SVG source provided. What ed g2s said. Fredrik | talk 13:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good looking and very important diagram showing how humanity disturbes the Earth's fragile equilibrium. Janderk 20:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Should be higer res, not especially interesting. --Fir0002 10:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Aliasing problems along the lower right border, and the text is far from crisp. Higher res would be nice too. —Korath (Talk) 11:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing special about it. Too low resolution. Jonas Olson 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +5 / -6 -- Solipsist 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chinese vase

Chinese vase.

Another fine photo by User:Aka. As you might have guessed this colourful picture illustrates Vase (an article which could be longer). This isn't the world's best vase, but there must be hundreds of other articles that could use photos of objects as good as this. -- Solipsist 21:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Solipsist 21:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The image quality is impeccable, but the object itself just isn't that interesting. It's a cheap newish Chinese vase, made for export. It's definitely better than the other image on the Vase entry. But if you are familiar with classical Chinese pottery or are a connoisseur, this little vase is a wee bit offensive. Shouldn't a Featured Picture be more compelling than this? That said, there are a lot of other terrific images on Wikipedia from photographer André Karwath (a.k.a. Aka). Perhaps someone could nominate another ...? Sandover 23:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good picture, ugly vase. Junes 09:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with above. Enochlau 10:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent product shot, nice and colorful, perfect sharpness. Alight 19:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thoroughly Oppose. Hideous. No one in his or her right senses could possibly support this. Sandover 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Tell us what you REALLY think!! :)--Deglr6328 04:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +2/-5 BrokenSegue 12:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Red-crested Pochard

Red-crested Pochard, full image
Cropped image

Striking photo of a Red-crested Pochard, from PDPhoto (high-res version). Please choose between the original version (which has more of the interesting waves) and the cropped version (which cuts out the other duck). - brian0918&#153; 04:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - brian0918&#153; 04:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the cropped one, the other duck is very blurred in the other pic - Adrian Pingstone 08:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many spots/specks/dirt in the water and on the duck (I like the cropped image best, by the way). Junes 08:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Alright, I've removed most of the spots/specks/dirt, although I don't really think they were that distracting. --brian0918&#153; 13:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Great! Support now. Junes 14:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 16:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support cropped version, with the clean-up. Sandover 18:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support cropped and cleaned version. Mgm|(talk) 21:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The water isn't very clear at all; its grainy texture doesn't appeal to me. Enochlau 10:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support cropped version. Fantastic work.--Eloquence* 21:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support cropped version. Great photo. --Fir0002 11:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - cropped version. Excellent shot. -- Longhair | Talk 16:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:Netta_rufina_m2.jpg +9/-1 BrokenSegue 11:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Bodie ghost town.jpg

A street corner in the ghost town of Bodie, California.

Beautiful illustration of a ghost town, from pdphoto, which I think means it was taken by Jon Sullivan. (I have emailed the photographer about the possibility of getting a high-resolution version under a free license). --Andrew 22:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just shy of a week later, and still no sign of life from the email. I don't think we can count on a higher resolution image. --Andrew 04:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominate and Support. --Andrew 22:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. You have to pay $2 for a high-res version from him. I'm still waiting on one I purchased quite some time ago. --brian0918&#153; 23:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know he sells hires versions (although that you're still waiting bodes ill). I'm trying to find out if the hires versions are also in the public domain. --Andrew 23:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, they are. See his FAQ. --brian0918&#153; 04:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Could you point out where? It doesn't seem to be on his hires info page or his FAQ, which is why I felt the need to email him. --Andrew 05:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - good pic --Brookie 10:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, stunning! Mgm|(talk)
  • Support, Interesting --Electricmoose 17:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

12:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, breathtaking —Josh Lee 21:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but does anyone else feel annoyed by the power lines (if that's what they are) connecting to the house from the offstage right? And is there a smudge, or a bit of flare, just below them? I wish the photographer had cleaned that up, and given us the clear blue sky. Power lines clash with my conception of what a ghost town should look like.Sandover 06:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, it really is a ghost town, and the power lines (or whatever) really are there, so perhaps it's your notion of what a ghost town should look like that is the problem? I admit the smudge is a shame, but I'm hesitant to just start hacking away at the picture. --Andrew 06:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the angle on the buildings at the edges is distracting, and there's just nothing striking about the photograph (except the sky, which is oddly jarring when taken with the foreground). Matthewcieplak 09:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wierd angle, and those powerlines/smudgy bits are annoying. Enochlau 10:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, compression artifacts in the sky. —Korath (Talk) 02:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Brilliant. Circeus 16:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great photo --Fir0002 10:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The colours and angles on the front of the house are amazing. zaius 14:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice Shot! TomStar81 05:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support When I first uploaded this photo I considered nominating it for FPC, but was concerned by the strong perspective distortion. I've been meaning to try correcting the image, but haven't got round to it. Now the distortion doesn't bother me so much. -- Solipsist 11:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bodie ghost town.jpg +12 / -3 -- 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Microwaved DVD

Fractal and azimuthal patterns on microwave irradiated DVD
Paths spreading across the surface (look at bottom right quadrant for best examples)

Place a CD or DVD in a microwave oven for 5 seconds, and you get some interesting phenomena. Induced current heats up the metal, vaporizing it in places. Current then passes through this gas, creating sparks, which leave their paths on the disk. As paths come together, islands of untouched metal remain, and if these islands are too large, become split by more paths. Fractal and azimuthal branching patterns result.

The first image shows off the full effect, while the second is the result of quick timing on my part, and shows exactly how these paths form, as well as much clearer examples of fractal branching. These pictures are currently featured in fractal and microwave oven, and there are probably a few other appropriate articles. - brian0918&#153; 09:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - brian0918&#153; 09:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support interesting picture, support 1st pic more than 2nd, should be featured picture.

--Electricmoose 12:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support #1, but the pic needs to illustrate an article (a criteria for featuring). Circeus 14:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ordinary. Lupin 15:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So are you saying that it's impossible for pictures of certain things to ever be a featured picture? We we through the same ordeal with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln cent --brian0918&#153; 15:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No. If you re-read my extensive one-word critique above, you'll find that nowhere do I put this argument forward. Lupin 20:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • So you're suggesting that you would support a picture of a DVD for featured picture status, provided that it was more striking/beautiful/etc? --brian0918&#153; 20:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Naturally, I would support a picture of any object, provided it met the criteria for my support. I would of course have to see the picture in question to be able to make that judgement. Lupin 21:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, nice --SPUI (talk) 17:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, picture is interesting - it's a DVD, sure, but it's not as if it's a picture of it in a DVD player or something. Yelyos 18:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting picture, but does not illustrate an article. Denni☯ 18:29, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
    • The picture is currently featured in Fractal and Microwave oven under the appropriate sections. --brian0918&#153; 18:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Placing these photos with these articles is a bit of a stretch, IMO, since their relation to fractals is tangential at best and to microwave ovens not at all. My vote does not change. Denni☯ 03:28, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
        • Did you notice where in the articles I placed the image? For fractals, I placed it in the gallery of examples of fractals occurring by natural or artificial means. Its relation to fractals is not tangential. The arc paths on the CD form by fractal branching, in the same way that the other examples of fractals on that page form. In the microwave oven article, it's in the section which talks about electric arcs caused by placing metal in the microwave oven. You can go to the articles and read for yourself and determine if they illustrate those sections. --brian0918&#153; 03:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I did, prior to making the last comment. My sentiment remains the same. Denni☯ 23:52, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to be difficult, but maybe you should be submitting to commons:Commons:Featured pictures. That is supposed to be a gallery of striking, beautiful, etc. pictures. This is supposed to be a gallery of pictures that illustrate articles well and are striking, beautiful, etc.. I don't really think it's appropriate to nominate a picture here hoping someone will find an appropriate page and integrate it. I think pictures shouldn't be submitted here unless (or until) they illustrate an article well; we can then go see how much it helps the article. (The Chopin photo is a good example: it's ugly, but it's the only picture of him there is). This is not stated in the instructions for this page, but perhaps it should be added (after suitable discussion). --Andrew 22:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • The image is featured at fractal and microwave oven as I stated above, in the appropriate sections. Several pictures have become FP here which are still not in articles. This one is in articles. --brian0918&#153; 22:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't strike me as that interesting. Seems to have been shoe-horned into articles. ed g2s • talk 04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • See my comments above. --brian0918&#153; 04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I can read thankyou. You don't have to have a comeback for everyone who disagrees with your nomination. ed g2s • talk 20:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, your statement was so short and so incorrect that I figured you had no clue what was going on. --brian0918&#153; 20:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • The general etiquette here is to make all your points in your vote, and have a certain amount of respect for other people's votes. Assuming that every person who disagrees with you "has no clue what [is] going on" is going to lose you a lot of good will. ed g2s • talk 01:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I really like the pictures, but I also somewhat agree with Denni, ed_g2s and Andrew. The images are featured in articles, but they don't illustrate them very well. They are not very good illustrations of fractals, because we have to look in the details to actually see fractal patterns. Also, it is a little strange, when we look at the article microwave oven, and the only picture we see apart from the oven is a burnt DVD! --Bernard Helmstetter 15:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The lines on the DVD form through fractal branching. Not just the small lines, all of them. The larger squares become divided, and divided again. The smaller fractals of which you speak are just what you more commonly think of in association with the word "fractal". As for the microwave, I'm not responsible for the lack of other images in the article, and I think people are more interested in the text than the pictures. In any case, the picture is perfect for the section. The only thing that might be better would be a photo of the DVD as it is being irradiated. --brian0918&#153; 16:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, a photo of a DVD being irradiated, that would even better! There is one animated gif in [3], but it is low quality. Apart from this — The lines on the DVD are fractal only in a weak sense of the term. A fractal must have infinite detail. Here, what we first see is a slightly random but mostly regular grid pattern, and then only about 2 or 3 levels of self-similarity. There are only a few areas that really look like true fractals. Would you suggest that the infinite details are too small to be seen on the photo? I am not even sure that they exist. In my opinion, these images are not so interesting because they illustrate fractals or explain the workings of a microwave oven. What is most interesting is the physical process of the DVD being irradiated. There is only a small explanation of it in the wiki, and it is in the info of the image. I am asking myself questions like "why would microwaves induce currents in the aluminium layer? Why shaped this way?" and I cannot find any answer in the wiki, so I am a little unsatisfied. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • You're only going to get infinite detail in a theoretical (ie: mathematical) fractal. None of the other examples at fractal have infinite details either, but they're all good examples, because they were all constructed with a simple fractal pattern in mind. In the case of the DVD, as I stated in the beginning, arcs trace out nonconductive paths (where the aluminum has been vaporized), and once those paths come together, they split the non-vaporized parts up into islands. So, the whole surface gets divided into smaller surfaces. If these islands are too big, arcs can form again, and you get those islands dividing up into smaller islands, and so on. --brian0918&#153; 20:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the patterns are, while ostensibly fractal in nature, not strikingly visible. The photo quality is great, and the phenomenon is interesting enough, but the image itself simply doesn't hit the striking/titillating/whatever holistic category we judge by quite on the head. Matthewcieplak 09:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 1st, interesting subject, great image; I don't think it's too much of a stretch to include it on the pages it is on now, though perhaps an article more specifically related to this effect would be helpful? --Spangineer ∞ 12:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not interesting enough for a featured picture. Plus looks out of place on the fractal and microwave pages. Janderk 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes it's a fractal and yes it's made in a microwave, but I just don't find it that fascinating. I've seen prettier/more illustrative fractals around. Enochlau 10:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They show what happens but they aren't very special. Could we have one with more fractals? Jonas Olson 15:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • All of the lines are fractals, they just don't look like the fractals you're used to. I think that's something everyone's getting confused about. If you want traditional fractals, I think you have to microwave a real CD/DVD, not a CD-R/DVD-R. --brian0918&#153; 15:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you sure about that? The pattern on the discs doesn't show the self-similarity you would expect, other than in small areas. The big problem is perhaps that the outer-most layers are coming off in large pieces. Would that be different in the case of, as you call it, a real CD or DVD? I have CD:s to spare, let's see, what would it take to save the microwave oven from damage? Something that can absorb the waves so they won't overheat the magnetron, right? In that case a glass of water would do, unless perhaps that spoils the effect on the CD. What do you say? Jonas Olson 20:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The azimuthal and circular patterns on the DVD are created the same way that fractals are. Think of the DVD as one big metal island. Current can pass through the whole island. Eventually certain spots get so hot that the metal is vaporized, allowing current to pass through the vapor. This creates the trails that you see, where the metal is gone. When you get 4 lines coming together, it creates a smaller metal island. This happens all over the DVD, turning it from one big metal island into several small ones. If the small islands are still relatively large, more hot spots will start and those islands will be cut into smaller islands in the exact same manner. This happens over and over again, islands being split up into smaller bits, until it gets too small or I turn off the microwave. That's why I thought the DVD was a good illustration for Fractal, because it illustrates fractal patterns that you don't normally think of as fractal patterns. --brian0918&#153; 21:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, a glass of water will work. I don't bother because mine's a dorm microwave. I'm not sure if it'll work on all CDs. You probably need an older, high quality professional CD, not these newfangled el cheapo ones. --brian0918&#153; 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I didn't know there were different types, or qualities. And I'm not talking about CD-R:s, obviously. Those I have here right now are from 1998. Old enough? Jonas Olson 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The only way to find out is to put it in the microwave. It only takes a couple seconds. You should turn off the microwave after the first burst of arcs. --brian0918&#153; 13:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • I'll try that, unless someone else beats me there. Jonas Olson 19:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +6/-7/1 BrokenSegue 13:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Camps Bay, Cape Town, South Africa

Camps Bay, Cape Town, South Africa

I am self-nominating this image because I believe it is striking: the hard rocks and crashing waves contrast with the soft mist rolling off Table Mountain.

It was taken in late-September 2000 which is early spring in South Africa, so it shows a different, more atmospheric side to Camps Bay compared to the traditional sunny and touristy image that people might have.

I believe it contributes significantly to the article on Camps Bay because without it people would not be able to see what Camps Bay looks like. - Etimbo | Talk 20:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Self-Nominate and support. - Etimbo | Talk 20:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not really striking. Lupin 22:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Small photo looks OK, but the full res photo isn't of sufficient

quailty.--Fir0002 23:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - I liked it --Brookie 10:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - very striking pic, and the 640 by 480 pic is in decent focus - Adrian Pingstone 08:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose not that interesting; a bit drab. Junes 09:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Drab, whitewashed on the bottom right in the waves. Enochlau 10:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Easily passes my desktop wallpaper test. There's plenty of definition in the lower right at full resolution, and the spray's captured particularly nicely. —Korath (Talk) 11:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Easily captured my attention. TomStar81 05:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +5/-4 BrokenSegue 16:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


CAGrave

Photograph taken at Castle Ashby Graveyard by User:Brookie on 12 March 2005. The shadow of the other gravestone and the storm clouds in the distance set off the sunlight on the gravestones well.

I believe this image should become a featured article because it an altogether interesting image. The use of black and white, gives the image an aged and slightly eerie effect. The shadows and storm clouds in the picture also add a spooky affect. The image is used in pages:

The Image was taken by R.N.Marshman, aka User:Brookie) on 12 March 2005.

10:38, 2 Apr 2005

  • Nominate and support. Great image, has the 'wow' factor, definately should be featured picture. --Electricmoose 10:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Brill pic. --Tobymarshman 11:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support! I can just feel the atmosphere. Mgm|(talk) 12:02, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing really special with it, is it? Please explain to an amateur. Jonas Olson 13:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Brookie here the photographer - you have the menacing clouds in the background the mulitple image of the crosses all set off in B+W all aimed to create a spooky and atmospheric picture - and don't we get a little spooked in graveyards? I do! - does that help? Brookie 17:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportGreat picture Brookie, sure featured picture material. Cyberlettuce 14:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If I as the photographer am allowed to vote, I support the nomination and am flattered by the nomination -it is one of my favourite pictures. Support Brookie 17:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, spooky indeed. Leonardo 21:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the graveyard is on a hill, but it's hard to tell and this makes the picture feel wonky. I don't like the big shadow on the central gravestone either, especially as we can't see the object whose shadow this is. Yes it's atmospheric, but the composition leaves a little to be desired in my opinion. Lupin 22:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The graveyard is not on a hill at all - it is quite flat. The point of the photo is that you can only see the shadow of another unseen grave.Brookie 08:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I second Lupin's sentiments and at full res the photo doens't look so good. Personally I don't find graves or graveyards creepy, but that's maybe because I'm not into horror movies :) --Fir0002 23:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support McGnasher 13:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - refreshingly different - Adrian Pingstone 08:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whether or not the location is tilted, the photo certainly is. The headstone appears to be the source of alignment, but is washed out, rendering the detail too bright or too dim to make out. I also find the composition somewhat off-putting, but that's about the only "creepy" thing I see about it. Matthewcieplak 09:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although the storm clouds combined with the trees do create a kind of atmosphere, I find the sloping horizon and the lack of detail on the tombstone a problem. Enochlau 11:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Wow! --Bricktop 10:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Composition completely offsets graininess and slight lack of focus. Circeus 17:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Grainy, washed out headstone. Junes 08:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • support but im sure that you meant featured pic not featured article.Cavebear42 18:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted CAGrave.JPG BrokenSegue 16:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Pakoras

Onion and potato pakoras, a popular Indian snack
Attempt at lightening
3rd. attempt

I took this picture to illustrate Pakora and I was quite pleased with how it turned out. Even if it's not up to Featured Picture standards, I welcome suggestions for how to improve this or future photographs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • (Self-)nominate and support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. -Image could be very nice if contrast/brightness/gamma were appropriately adjusted, it's a little dark. It does look delicious though....damnit! now I have to go get a korma for dinner! :o)--Deglr6328 21:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I tried lightening it in Photoshop, although I know very little about that type of adjustment. I'm not sure if I like it, though, because the colors don't seem as real. If someone knows more about this he is welcome to help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Here's my attempt. (3rd) I've lightened and centered the image and applied an unsharp mask to the nearest bits. One problem though, I can't tell if the colors are too off because I'm uhhh, rather deficient in that area. :) The batter on ones I've had though is quite orangey and I don't think this is too awful a representation...--Deglr6328 23:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I like your version. In fact, after this is over, I may switch the article to use that one instead. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - informative but not terribly visually appealing. Lupin 22:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Lupin. I think featured pictures of dishes should be as good as those used in cookbooks. This image fails that test. Junes 08:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just not interesting or striking - Adrian Pingstone 08:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes it doesn't pass the cookbook test, and the entire dish isn't in focus. Enochlau 11:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +1/-4/1 BrokenSegue 16:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Nominations older than 14 days, the minimum voting period, decision time!

The only Frederic Chopin photograph

The only Frederic Chopin photograph (the image, as it wasn't used, is now only found as the first revision of the image below / Fred-Chess 09:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The only other Frederic Chopin photograph

OK it looks old and dirty. But so does the Colosseum. What makes this very special is the fact that it is the only known photograph of great Frédéric Chopin taken c. 1842?. Plus we're low on culture type featured pictures.

  • Nominate and support. Janderk 15:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a larger version. Support either. -- BRIAN0918  15:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's a very important topic and also a great picture.--Missmarple 17:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating - Adrian Pingstone 18:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Circeus 01:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I'd always pictured him as somewhat more, er, elegant. Oh well. Denni☯ 02:48, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Support of course. It should add to Frederick Chopin article significantly as it shows us how he really was as opposed to how we picture him. Mgm|(talk) 12:06, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great photo of a great man. But to my mind that is how Chopin looked like. --Fir0002 23:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Check out the sunlight on his hands. This had to have been a long exposure, and that's a very interesting and deliberate decision by the photographer. If there's a difference between the two photos, I see it around Chopin's eyes. I prefer #2. Chopin has a slightly softer look on his face. Sandover 06:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • About the overexposure. Remember that photography was only publicly announced a few years before (1839), so this photo has been taken with extremely primitive equipment and techniques. Janderk 09:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - don't like it all ! --Brookie 10:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe you should be more precise when explaining your decisions...--Missmarple 17:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • What is about not liking it that isn't enough for you? If you don't like something you don't like it!--Brookie 19:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • You must have known what Missmarple meant! What don't you like - the focus, the black and white, it's not a good addition to the Chopin page, etc. Remember, this is one of the first photos ever taken so you can't expect good focus. - Adrian Pingstone 10:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • It simply doesn't excite me at all and I find it rather boring and not a little cold; I have nothing against it per se - just don't rate it - sorry! Brookie 14:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --192.33.156.82 16:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) --Bernard Helmstetter 16:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted Image:Frederic Chopin photo2.jpeg +10/-1 BrokenSegue 15:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)




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| }}
  • Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  • 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 June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - latest on top
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs
  • Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture}}, and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image.
  • Notify the nominator by placing {{PromotedFPC|file_name.xxx}} on the person's talk page. For example: {{PromotedFPC|Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
  • Optionally, you can check Wikipedia:Picture of the day and feature the image as upcoming POTD.

Nomination for removal

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel do not longer live up to featured picture standards.
Note: Support = Delist | Oppose = Keep

Sand sculpture

Sand sculpture

Far too small. Also, I would have like to be able to see both towers completely. Although the subject is visually very interesting, this picture is not of high quality. Junes 09:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delist Junes 09:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I liked it Brookie 09:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Bevo 17:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - TomStar81 02:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. I must agree that it's too small, and the framing, which chops off the tops of the two towers, doesn't present the subject well. Enochlau 11:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. Again nice, but too small, the cropping is not at a featured level cutting of the left, right and top. And it is almost entirely in the shadow. Janderk 15:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. Wasn't this just recently nominated? I guess that doesn't really matter. Amazing sculpture, average picture. Matthewcieplak 05:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. OK, someone fell on the cropping button and also happened to throw away the high resolution at the same time, didn't you? Admit it! ;-) Jonas Olson 15:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kept, 5 delists/ 4 keeps Bevo 13:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Cat in Greece

Cat in Greece

This picture was a picture of the day on March 26. I though it looked sub par and discovered it apparently never went through the FPC process. User:Fabiform gave it {{FeaturedPicture}} back in October, but no FPC process appear, the pic is also linked only from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs and Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible, but no other FP list.

We've already gone through the collection looking for pictures that weren't nominated. If you look at the archive for this talk page you would find this one was nominated here: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/March-2004#Greece-Cat.jpg, although at that time 3 votes were enough to get it through. ed g2s • talk 16:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find it to be unfocused and stuffed with unacceptable artefacts (for a FP). I must admit the composition is nice though. Circeus 00:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delist Circeus 00:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Denni☯ 01:21, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Support Delisting--Fir0002 05:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find that the composition is more than worth it. Enochlau 04:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • if composition is enough over quality, what of Sognefjord and Cat's eye? This pic certainly won't have me go "wow!", it's just too low quality, despite an interesting composition. Circeus 17:14, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. Boring. ed g2s • talk 16:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I thought it was an evocative picture - I wanted to be there Brookie 10:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Bevo 19:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gotta love the atmosphere. Junes 12:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Refreshingly charming. Sandover 06:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. As much as I like this photo, it's got jpeg artifacts all over the sky, they focus is not great (though the compression makes it tough to tell) and the lighting is not especially appealing. Matthewcieplak 05:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. Low resolution and not exciting. Jonas Olson 15:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kept, 5 delists/ 6 keeps BrokenSegue 12:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Template:MarchCalendar2005

Template:AprilCalendar2005

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=12370017"