Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
![]() | Skip to: |
![]() Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.
If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.
A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance. Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.
|
Featured picture tools: |
Step 1:
Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations. |
Step 2:
Create a subpage
To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.
|
Step 3:
Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list ( ). |
How to comment for Candidate Images
How to comment for Delist Images
Editing candidates
Is my monitor adjusted correctly? ![]() In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. ![]() Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting. ![]() On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate. Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended. |
- To see recent changes, .
Current nominations
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Glacier_park1.jpg/250px-Glacier_park1.jpg)
- Reason
- Is of high resolution; photograph is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
- Articles this image appears in
- valley
- Creator
- BorisFromStockdale
- Support as nominator BorisFromStockdale|Discussion|Contributions 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support Decent representation of a valley, though I'm sure this picture could be taken with better quality. The debris at the bottom is a little distracting, but maybe that's just me. crassic![talk] 01:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Pretty poor quialty. 8thstar 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality poor enough that I thought the background was painted. Also the stuff (or debris, as Crassic says) at the bottom is not good. SpencerT♦C 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality is visible even in the thumbnail--it looks like a painted background for a Hollywood musical. Clegs (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality in the background, and debris in the foreground is quite disturbing. —dima/talk/ 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- indeed, the background isn't clear. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 12:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Lucifer_Liege_Luc_Viatour.jpg/250px-Lucifer_Liege_Luc_Viatour.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Lucifer_Liege_Luc_Viatour_new.jpg/250px-Lucifer_Liege_Luc_Viatour_new.jpg)
- Reason
- This picture is of good quality, as well as being a picture that contributes to the article it is placed in. The picture also has encyclopedic value. Overall, I believe that it would make a useful addition to Wikipedia Featured Pictures.
- Articles this image appears in
- Lucifer
- Creator
- Luc Viatour
- Support as nominator J.T Pearson (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't a tighter crop around the left side be better? Muhammad(talk) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the space on the left of the image adds to the general effect of the image. If you care to edit it, I would appreciate any changes. J.T Pearson (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Being that the subject has been digitally removed from its original context, I don't like that the bottom of it is cut off, which really caught my eye. Also per Muhammad, there's a lot of unneccessary space. SingCal 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose If you're going to isolate it from its background, it needs a crop that shows the bottom and doesn't have so much nothing on the left side. Clegs (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is a cropped Version, the Image got nearly featured in the german wikipedia (11 pro, 5 contra) 62.214.206.29 (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't really like that the bottom of the statue is cut off. SpencerT♦C 01:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Albert_Memorial%2C_London_-_May_2008.jpg/250px-Albert_Memorial%2C_London_-_May_2008.jpg)
- Reason
- An extreme high resolution image of the south face of the monument, showing almost as much detail as you could want (I said almost!) on a clear, sunny day.
- Articles this image appears in
- Albert Memorial
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support impressive shot, seems to meet all the criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support View the full version-- it's much more impressive than the thumb. Spikebrennan (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support. Incredible detail. Pstuart84 Talk 23:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful image ! Bewareofdog 00:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Detail and sharpness is amazing. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sharp and realistic Capital photographer (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Xtreme detail. 8thstar 01:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I feel bad about this, because I requested the picture following an expansion of the article, but is it not very slightly tilted? It looks very slightly off-kilter. I don't think the vertical lines are wrong, more the horizontal ones. More of the steps on the left are shown than on the right, and other things don't quite match up. Maybe it is some optical effect due to the placement of the shadows on the right? I apologise if I am imagining things. Could someone also explain to me the difference in tone of the colours with Image:Hyde Park Albert Memorial Jan 2006.jpg? Is that purely due to differences in lighting? I personally like the effect the bare trees had on either side in Image:Hyde Park Albert Memorial Jan 2006.jpg, but then that was January, and this picture was in early May. Maybe if it snows one year... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect it could actually be the monument itself that is not exactly horizontal. Parts of the foundations ARE basically exactly vertical (such as the very bottom step) yet the pillar on the far left side (europe) is tilted slightly. I agree that there might be one or maybe two pixels of tilt across the entire image (this is virtually impossible to get exactly right and it is only through pixel peeping that we can see it at all), but this is a tilt of 0.017% from one edge to the other! As for the difference in tone, it is mainly due to the lighting. The other image was taken in the late afternoon, so it had a warm glow. It isn't really possible to replicate it in this image as warming the image up artificially would affect the colour of the sky negatively. Such is the price you pay for taking photos on a sunny day! Lighting is complicated, with compromises and trade offs no matter what time of day you shoot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, different time of day. Thought it might have been that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect it could actually be the monument itself that is not exactly horizontal. Parts of the foundations ARE basically exactly vertical (such as the very bottom step) yet the pillar on the far left side (europe) is tilted slightly. I agree that there might be one or maybe two pixels of tilt across the entire image (this is virtually impossible to get exactly right and it is only through pixel peeping that we can see it at all), but this is a tilt of 0.017% from one edge to the other! As for the difference in tone, it is mainly due to the lighting. The other image was taken in the late afternoon, so it had a warm glow. It isn't really possible to replicate it in this image as warming the image up artificially would affect the colour of the sky negatively. Such is the price you pay for taking photos on a sunny day! Lighting is complicated, with compromises and trade offs no matter what time of day you shoot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I've had a closer look, and I think I was imagining things. Possibly the shadows were affecting my perspective. Would still be interested in comments on the colours and the avenue effect of the trees in the other picture. Maybe both could be featured? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, well I had written the above reply before I saw this. You're right about the angle from the west side being slightly better, although then you don't get the frontal view showing Albert. I did shoot the same scene from the west side, but I haven't stitched it yet (assumed this one was better, but I can give it a go if you're not convinced). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I predict we will end up with four featured pics, one from each side... (or can you have a set of featured pics?). I can't remember what the background of the other angles were. I know the view from the north has the Royal Albert Hall in the background, but what is there to the west in a view from the east? More trees? One more point - we talked about the shadows before - what do you think would be the optimum time of day and year for this sort of picture? Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you can featured sets, but only in rare cases, like this and this.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I predict we will end up with four featured pics, one from each side... (or can you have a set of featured pics?). I can't remember what the background of the other angles were. I know the view from the north has the Royal Albert Hall in the background, but what is there to the west in a view from the east? More trees? One more point - we talked about the shadows before - what do you think would be the optimum time of day and year for this sort of picture? Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Very well done mosaic photo. It looks very funny on a small scale from the detail the full res version has. Very well done. victorrocha (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Per all above. Very nice indeed.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 10:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice image, great detail. SpencerT♦C 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just a snapsho... ...whoooaaa... ...that's crisp and high res! Great to see such big pics uploaded. Support. --Dschwen 13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support- Wow. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support amazing resolution. —dima/talk/ 03:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support another awesome pic. Matt Deres (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg MER-C 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Holy_cow%21.jpg/300px-Holy_cow%21.jpg)
- Reason
- Image is highly encyclopedic, showing an adult Zebus found commonly in India. Cattles are major part of Agriculture in India and Hindu mythology. Picture is true-tone high-dynamic range shot. These are all done by taking the same shot with multiple exposures, combining the images, then tone-mapping the result. No distracting background.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ox
- Creator
- Ville Miettinen from Helsinki, Finland
- Support as nominator gppande «talk» 15:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as it is to dark, not useful and too generic and it has clearly been highly edited so is fulse. UNI|SOUTH 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't know what you mean by too dark, some places are almost washed out. Not useful? This is a good shot that shows the whole animal, and as such is very useful. Too generic? What would you like a cow to be doing, jumping through flaming hoops? This is a perfectly composed, highly encyclopedic image. The issues that keep me from supporting are the lack of sharpness over most of the cow, which appears to be a DOF issue, and the funny color graduation in the sky, going from dark blue, to light blue in a halo around the animal, and back to dark blue. Clegs (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'd say there was a bit of artistic license involved, as I'm sure that vignetting isn't normal. It isn't evenly spread either. Might be due to the tone mapping or it might be a case of Photoshopping it in. It isn't a bad photo but neither is it an outstanding one. Its not that I'm calling it generic ( although generic is probably what we should want from a photo of a cow), but it takes up at most half of the frame, and I'd like to see it slightly more side on. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. HDR seems to be not only unnecessary, it also creates an unpleasing distracting vignetting effect. --Dschwen 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very synthetic look, distracting contrast, vignette doesn't work well for this image, poor HDR processing... Capital photographer (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- can someone suggest some method to improve this image? The image is original one if it little bit of work is needed please suggest. --gppande «talk» 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the first thing is to remove the vignetting, but that is very difficult and I still don't think it would make it a featured picture to be honest. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- 3/4 support. This will differ between displays, but I can hardly make out the vignetting that other people are seeing. There seems to be a little bit of noise on the skin flap under the animal's neck. I also would have preferred a more lenient crop at the hooves - I have to go full size to be able to see that they are, in fact, fully in the frame. I shouldn't have to do that. All in all, while it's not a typical encyclopaedic picture, it will make a good eyecatcher on the front page.
- PS: Vignetting can be fixed to a large extent - enough to be imperceivable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hardly see the vignetting!? The cow is in a brilliant glowing halo! And it's not something that needs to be corrected; it probably wasn't there in the first place, just a side effect of poor exposure combination. Thegreenj 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know why you're yelling at me?!!??!?!111! Talk to my display if you feel the need to be juvenile. Srsly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see neither caps nor boldface, why would you think anyone is yelling?!oneeleven --Dschwen 12:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know why you're yelling at me?!!??!?!111! Talk to my display if you feel the need to be juvenile. Srsly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hardly see the vignetting!? The cow is in a brilliant glowing halo! And it's not something that needs to be corrected; it probably wasn't there in the first place, just a side effect of poor exposure combination. Thegreenj 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting and unnecessary processing. Thegreenj 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too unbalanced and out of proportion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted . --John254 05:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Image-Schloss_Nymphenburg_Munich_CC.jpg/250px-Image-Schloss_Nymphenburg_Munich_CC.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Image-Schloss_Nymphenburg_Munich_CC_edit.jpg/250px-Image-Schloss_Nymphenburg_Munich_CC_edit.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Image-Schloss_Nymphenburg_Munich_CC_edit2.jpg/250px-Image-Schloss_Nymphenburg_Munich_CC_edit2.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Image-Schloss_Nymphenburg_Munich_CC_edit3.jpg/250px-Image-Schloss_Nymphenburg_Munich_CC_edit3.jpg)
- Reason
- I saw this picture on Commons Featured Picture Candidates and thought it deserved a chance here. It is of high quality and of value to the article.
- Articles this image appears in
- Nymphenburg Palace
- Creator
- user:Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator NauticaShades 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Support iftilt is fixed. Latics (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)- Yes, I'd appreciate if someone did that. Unfortunately, I don't own the software to do it myself. NauticaShades 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do it myself tomorrow if I get time. Unless someone else wants to do it, I'll try to edit and have it up tomorrow afternoon. Latics (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Support edit 2Latics (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)- Support edit 2 or 3 Latics (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd appreciate if someone did that. Unfortunately, I don't own the software to do it myself. NauticaShades 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 10:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support-The quality of pictures each years just increases. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 2 great shot. —dima/talk/ 03:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2 Wow, the thumbnail really doesn't do it justice. faithless (speak) 09:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 2 Good job, very nice image. SpencerT♦C 03:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, this image is used only a gallery on Nymphenburg Palace, which would mean it doesn't really add value to the article. (I'm quite surprised everyone missed this.) Please find a better home for it. MER-C 11:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it is a far better image of the palace than any of the others in the article. I'm going to be bold and feature it more prominently. NauticaShades 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also added it to a gallery of historical buildings of Bavaria. I doesn't add a lot of value to that article, but the palace should be mentioned there anyway. NauticaShades 20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Edit 2 has very bad compression artefacts in the sky. Original has some weird gradations as well (scroll from left to right at full res and look at the sky change) --118.138.220.97 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Would you like me to save edit 2 at a higher quality? Latics (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you should save it with the same quality as that of the original. FPs have to be as good as possible. Muhammad(talk) 12:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright. I'll have it up by midnight (CST), at least. Latics (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Newer version is up... Latics (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support (preference for edit 3) great image, meets all the criteria. 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note:The above vote was made by User:Guest9999. SpencerT♦C 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Image-Schloss Nymphenburg Munich CC edit3.jpg, edit 2 without the artifacts. MER-C 11:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Pavlovsk_Railing_of_bridge_Yellow_palace_Winter_bw_threshold.jpg/250px-Pavlovsk_Railing_of_bridge_Yellow_palace_Winter_bw_threshold.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Pavlovsk_Railing_Composite.jpg/250px-Pavlovsk_Railing_Composite.jpg)
- Reason
- It's a nice example of how thresholding can be used to good effect. One may want to think about making a composite or hover-over with the original as an alternative.
- Articles this image appears in
- Thresholding (image processing)
- Creator
- Andrew Krizhanovsky (Андрей Крижановский)
- Support as nominator Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment it seems a little pointless on its own. Your idea about a composite would be better, I think; either splitting the image in half (before and after) or duplicating the whole image vertically (top before, bottom after). Matt Deres (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't there a way to do this as hover/rollover on Wikipedia? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so; you'll note that our article on rollovers doesn't include any examples, only external links to examples. Matt Deres (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't there a way to do this as hover/rollover on Wikipedia? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I created and uploaded a composite if anybody prefers that. NauticaShades 03:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose both. The source image has very poor technical quality, and given the ease with which an example like this can be created a better quality image should be used. Admittedly this isn't vital for the non-composite image, but the composite is much more informative. Time3000 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Time3000 on this. An example of thresholding could be created with a much better quality original image. NauticaShades 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Really poor composition --Mike Spenard (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above comments Clegs (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this might look better if it was done with something like a face. 8thstar 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. If it was done with a picture that had a little more color gradient in it, it would be a good example of thresholding. Clegs (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Burj_dubai_3.11.08.jpg/250px-Burj_dubai_3.11.08.jpg)
- Reason
- The most noticeable feature of the towers' shadows, meets requirements, shows the contrast of Burj Dubai's height to other towers in the city. (This could be replaced when Burj Dubai has completed construction.)
- Articles this image appears in
- Burj Dubai
- Creator
- Aheilner
- Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not sure what my opinion on it is yet. It is above minimum requirements but I feel like I want to see a bit more detail in it. Also, I don't think it would be necessary to replace it when it is finished, as I'm sure the construction of it is valid enough for its inclusion in the article and a FP. We don't really feature things that have a lifespan (evolution in minimum criteria notwithstanding), so it either is FP material or it isn't. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to avoid complications down the line, I don't think you can oppose an image on the basis of size if it meets the requirements, and you can't ask for "more detail", because a given resolution will only allow a certain amount of detail, so it goes back to the same criterion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- What nonsense - you can always ask for more detail, even if an image passes the minimum resolution requirement, since we're looking for the best images on the project. For a panorama of a city, detail is hardly an unreasonable request. Pstuart84 Talk 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can ask for more detail, who says we have to settle for this resolution? It's only barely over the requirements. Someone has to retake the same scene at a higher resolution, simple as. And tee bee haytch, Diliff can ask for anything he likes around here. ;) —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- He can ask but he may be told that it's unreasonable, and his opinion may be disregarded if it doesn't refer to the criteria. Same as anybody else btw. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The criteria is a guideline of minimum reasonable requirements. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to oppose it for any other reason just because it scrapes through. Ultimately we will make our own judgement based on the criteria. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- He can ask but he may be told that it's unreasonable, and his opinion may be disregarded if it doesn't refer to the criteria. Same as anybody else btw. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to avoid complications down the line, I don't think you can oppose an image on the basis of size if it meets the requirements, and you can't ask for "more detail", because a given resolution will only allow a certain amount of detail, so it goes back to the same criterion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Only appears in a gallery so I don't think it adds enough to the article.Guest9999 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - interesting photo, but although it meets the requirements on size, it still doesn't display enough detail for the type of photo it is. Very few digital cameras shoot at such a low resolution as this - has it been downsampled? If so, can we see the original? It's had all its Exif data stripped, so I assume it's been put through Photoshop's Save for Web function or equivalent, to try to reduce the filesize. As such, it's easily possible it was downsampled beforehand. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. For a subject like this, a high res picture is needed. Clegs (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Two_eastern_Lubber_grasshopers_%28Romalea_microptera%29%2C_mating.jpg/250px-Two_eastern_Lubber_grasshopers_%28Romalea_microptera%29%2C_mating.jpg)
- Reason
- a good photo
- Articles this image appears in
- Grasshopper, Romalea guttata
- Creator
- User:Tomfriedel
- Support as nominator Tomfriedel (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- This picture doesn't appear in any articles. Please fix this. MER-C 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
ConditionalSupport. If this high quality and informative image is placed in an appropriate article, I will support it. NauticaShades 14:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)- Article is a stub with five images already. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The appropriate article, of course, is Romalea guttata, but the current taxobox picture is very good and shows a single, whole specimen. There is a gallery at the bottom, but we should probably find a more prominent place to display this image. Are these grasshoppers mating? If so, it would be a good image for the "Reproduction" section of grasshopper.--ragesoss (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. They are almost certainly mating.Tomfriedel (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. It now appears in Grasshopper (although the image formatting in that article is horrible, mainly because of the taxobox) and Romalea guttata (but just in a gallery).--ragesoss (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Laitche (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Two_eastern_Lubber_grasshopers_(Romalea_microptera),_mating.jpg MER-C 11:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Rose-Crowned-Fruit-Dove%2C-Vic%2C-3.1.2008.jpg/250px-Rose-Crowned-Fruit-Dove%2C-Vic%2C-3.1.2008.jpg)
- Reason
- This image provides excellent detail on feathers and colouring for this species; sharp and well-lit. Provided a quality image for a previously unillustrated article.
- Articles this image appears in
- Rose-crowned Fruit-dove
- Creator
- jjron
- Support as nominator jjron (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak opposefor now. I'm concerned that there isn't enough contrast between the head and background. Can this be fixed? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)- Strong oppose. Okay, let's be honest about this. I have a problem with the twig in the foreground slightly obscuring the tail, as well as DOF issues with the foreground foot being out of focus. I think this image has a number of flaws that would point to a reshoot as a more viable alternative. I thought I'd mention the contrast issue first, but in fact that problem helps to obscure the fact that the framing is bad - crop is too tight at the top, bird wants to leave picture. It's an image that's bound to trigger someone's delist knee-jerk, but really, I'm whole-heartedly opposing out of my own judgement here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't think contrast is an issue.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Distracting background, plus the range of smaller flaws Papa Lima Whiskey notes.--ragesoss (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Encyclopedic image, contrast is ok. Muhammad(talk) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- weak support A couple of minor drawbacks (per Papa Lima Whiskey), but not enough for me to oppose. The contrast issue is more prominent in thumbnail than full size, I think. Matt Deres (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The blurry background is uncomfortable to look at, and it means the pic does not show anything of the habitat. Narayanese (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Angle is not ideal and unpleasant bokeh. Mfield (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Knee jerk de-list? Doubt it. On the contrary, I think this is a very beautiful picture. The crop is just fine, and there are no contrast issues when viewed at full size. As for the bokeh, I think it only serves to emphasize the subject. Very good picture! Clegs (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Papa Lima. 8thstar 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- One of the best and most encyclopedic photos of a plant I've seen in some time.
- Articles this image appears in
- Cestrum
- Creator
- commons:User:Mbdortmund
- Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh lighting in the top half of the photo, and a leaf is blocking some of the fruit. In addition, the stalk of the plant appears to be somewhat blurry. SpencerT♦C 18:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - low technical quality.--Svetovid (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Ryan_Valentine_scores.jpg/250px-Ryan_Valentine_scores.jpg)
- Reason
- A FP at Commons which shows a great action shot of a English Association football match between Wrexham and Boston United with Ryan Valentine scoring a penalty kick to keep Wrexham in The Football League and relegate Boston United to Non-League football.
- Articles this image appears in
- Association football, Wrexham F.C., Boston United F.C., Penalty kick, Racecourse Ground, Steve Evans (footballer born 1962), Ryan Valentine
- Creator
- Markbarnes
- Support as nominator Kingjamie (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The crop is too large with little content. While the Goalie is caught mid-action, he is too small in the frame to be of any interest. Lipton sale (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not being able to tell who took the shot is a problem. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It took me a bit of time to find the ball...it's just very busy. SpencerT♦C 18:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The fact that it is so busy makes it hard to tell the main focus of the shot (presumably the person taking the shot and/or the soccer (excuse me 99% of the world outside of America I mean Football [1]) ball, also the fans all wearing what I presume is the team color (red) in the background make it very distracting and even harder to easily find the subject at a glance which should be possible in such a photo. Cat-five - talk 09:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- "And now for something completely different": (editorial note) If anyone believes that me using a ref in a FPC nom is out of line please feel free to remove the reflist template and the ref tags around the article link in my comment. Cat-five - talk 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sure how this passed at the Commons. No better than a snapshot that most people could take at a game, imo. crassic![talk] 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A lot of problems with the timing of this shot, the ball is mostly obscured, the crowd have not reacted yet, and the keeper has gone the wrong way so his being in mid dive is really meaningless. Buc (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Preservewildlifea.jpg/250px-Preservewildlifea.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Preservewildlifeb.jpg/250px-Preservewildlifeb.jpg)
- Reason
- A high resolution, good quality example of Works Progress Administration artwork. Vintage poster from 1940. Restored version of Image:Preservewildlife.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Federal Art Project
- Creator
- Frank S. Nicholson
- Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - is it just me, or does the whole thing seem slightly out of focus? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-09 18:24Z
- I downsampled and selectively sharpened this file. Didn't want to go too far and generate a grainy appearance. Think it could use one more tweak? DurovaCharge! 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Tried another edit. DurovaCharge! 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I downsampled and selectively sharpened this file. Didn't want to go too far and generate a grainy appearance. Think it could use one more tweak? DurovaCharge! 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not sure that any edits will squeeze more detail out of it, although I agree, it is slightly soft. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Really like this, wishing it was slightly sharper and sampled higher. --Mike Spenard (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. It would be nice if the above concerns were addressed, but the image is of very good quality anyway. NauticaShades 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support both Question: Is the yellow diagonal stuff supposed to be there, or is it just the aging (or something else)? SpencerT♦C 18:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like aging or other post-printing discoloration (although it might be an accidental artifact of the production process). The deeper yellow region ends abruptly at the border of a different color, and doesn't reappear in the bottom right section of the same color.--ragesoss (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- The yellow diagonal appeared to be artistic intention so I didn't alter it. Suggests stylized rays of sunlight through the trees. DurovaCharge! 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for clarifying. SpencerT♦C 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The yellow diagonal appeared to be artistic intention so I didn't alter it. Suggests stylized rays of sunlight through the trees. DurovaCharge! 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like aging or other post-printing discoloration (although it might be an accidental artifact of the production process). The deeper yellow region ends abruptly at the border of a different color, and doesn't reappear in the bottom right section of the same color.--ragesoss (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support (prefer edit 1).--ragesoss (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 - meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Preservewildlifeb.jpg MER-C 06:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/LMFBR_schematics2.svg/250px-LMFBR_schematics2.svg.png)
- Reason
- Clear and informative picture. The world is now facing an energy crisis and fossil fuels are becoming global problem, so I want to attract attention to a new source of energy through which we can produce more clean energy than consume.
- Articles this image appears in
- Fast breeder reactor
- Creator
- Graevemoore
- Support as nominator Alokprasad84 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, english is not my first language either, so take my corrections with a grain of salt. But more importantly the nomination text is pure soapboxing. May I suggest you rephrase so it points out why the image (as opposed to the topic) would be featureworthy, and how the image fulfills the FP criteria (and it does IMO). --Dschwen 17:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Diagram is pretty clear and readable. The rectangular border detracts from the image and isn't necessary, so I'd suggest removing. Also, the grey dashed line down the middle clashes with the text; consider adjusting its thickness or making it transparent under the text. Could have a little better detail in the components. Definitely should have a scale of measurement indicating something of the size of the unit. Is it as big as a house? Bigger? Smaller? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would assume these reactors could be several different sizes, spanning an order of magnitude or two. Kaldari (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Jeff Dahl's concerns are good, but furthermore, I'm a little troubled by the steam and water being cut off. I assume that it goes to a turbine, much like a nuclear, coal, or gas plant. "(to turbine)" and "(from turbine)" labels would be nice.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have made changes to address people's concerns. Graevemoore (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good now.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support de Bivort 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit Very informative image, looks nice...very detailed. I learned something today! :D. SpencerT♦C 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:LMFBR schematics2.svg --NauticaShades 14:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Macropodus_opercularis_-_side_%28aka%29.jpg/250px-Macropodus_opercularis_-_side_%28aka%29.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Macropodus_opercularis_-_front_%28aka%29.jpg/250px-Macropodus_opercularis_-_front_%28aka%29.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Macropodus_opercularis_-_side_%28aka%29_edit.jpg/250px-Macropodus_opercularis_-_side_%28aka%29_edit.jpg)
- Reason
- Nice colours and quality. has already been a selected picture on the Fish portal
- Articles this image appears in
- Paradise fish
- Creator
- André Karwath
- Support as nominator Abdominator (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support original. When I first looked, it seemed that some areas were noisy, but after reviewing the whole picture, I have to conclude that the "noise" is simply the fish's natural, uneven distribution of pigment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
oppose edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Was based on bad thumbnail that seems to be a caching problem. Looked like destructive editing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Support #1 - the other one doesn't show its colours or body very well. But the first is good ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 15:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit #3 - Changing my support - Support the new one without the leave. ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 09:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which would be Edit 1, unless you know something about a future 'Edit 3' that we don't? --jjron (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think he meant third version, edit 1. Muhammad(talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes thank you Muhammad. I did of course mean #3, edit 1. And thanks jjron for acting like a fool, sparing me the embarrassment of having slightly incorrectly worded my support. ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, "slightly incorrectly worded" both supports if you want to be picky. My apologies for wanting votes to be correct and clear for the closers. :-) --jjron (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes thank you Muhammad. I did of course mean #3, edit 1. And thanks jjron for acting like a fool, sparing me the embarrassment of having slightly incorrectly worded my support. ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think he meant third version, edit 1. Muhammad(talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which would be Edit 1, unless you know something about a future 'Edit 3' that we don't? --jjron (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support original Oppose other Original is a nice encyclopedic shot that shows the whole fish and has very few tech problems. Other version has clear DOF issues.D-rew (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support original although it would be better with some sense of scale, even if it's just in the caption. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-09 18:14Z
- Support Original, Oppose Edit 1. As much as I like the second shot, the first is clearly more encyclopedic. NauticaShades 01:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the work on edit 1, but it is clear there has been some manipulation if you know to look for it. NauticaShades 03:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Support originalGreat, high quality photo. Plant in the background could be removed, but not a big deal. The alternate doesn't show the fish as well as I'd like. crassic![talk] 02:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support original or edit 1 crassic![talk] 02:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support
OriginalEdit one I really like the high res detail and colour. Is it possible to eliminate the green thing at the bottom? SpencerT♦C 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)- Fixed now. SpencerT♦C 11:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 the leaf is a distracting element to the original and since it was only a minor element it makes edit 1 a lot clearer with it out of the way. Cat-five - talk 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 looks better without the distracting leaf. Muhammad(talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Macropodus opercularis - side (aka) edit.jpg MER-C 06:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!
Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination. Please close nominations from the bottom up.
Older nominations requiring additional input from users
These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Upernavik_evening_panorama_2007-08-08_cropped_sharpened.jpg/350px-Upernavik_evening_panorama_2007-08-08_cropped_sharpened.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Upernavik_evening_panorama_2007-08-08_cropped_sharpened-edit1.jpg/350px-Upernavik_evening_panorama_2007-08-08_cropped_sharpened-edit1.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Upernavik_evening_panorama_2007-08-08_cropped_sharpened_edit2.jpg/350px-Upernavik_evening_panorama_2007-08-08_cropped_sharpened_edit2.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Upernavik_evening_panorama_2007-08-08_cropped_sharpened_edit3.jpg/350px-Upernavik_evening_panorama_2007-08-08_cropped_sharpened_edit3.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Upernavik_evening_panorama_edit4.jpg/350px-Upernavik_evening_panorama_edit4.jpg)
- Reason
- A highly detailed panorama from an unusual place, which is not easily accessible. The prefabricated wooden houses are exported from Denmark by ship, assembled and painted in bright colors. The panorama is a stitch of 21 images taken between 11:42 pm and 11:50 pm on August 8, 2007.
- Articles this image appears in
- Upernavik (actually it is another shot from another day with a soft focus which presently appear in the article as pointed out by Jjron during peer review) -- Slaunger (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Creator
- Slaunger
- Support as nominator Slaunger (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the Original or Edit4. Although both of these edits (as well as Edit 3) are darker and less colorfull than Edit 1 and 2, I think they better represent the real scenario as it was. Nomatter which edit gets promoted, if any, I'd like to thank jjron and Mfield for spending some of their precious time on trying to improve my image. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak SupportWeak Support Edit 1 - Support Edit 2 A nice scene. The image has an odd grain to it though, much like scanned 35mm film but could be JPEG compression noise. You can see it particularly in the sky and areas of shadow. User:Capital photographer|Capital photographer]] (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like jpeg compression artifacts rather than film grain (blockiness & mild Posterization) but not really noticeable at 100% Thisglad (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Each photo is in jpg from a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 800 IS set to super-fine jpg quality. In the stitching process, tif is output. After doing all the editing steps in tif I have saved to jpeg at a quality of 92/100 in GIMP (default is 85). It is my experience that at this quality level there is no clearly visible jpeg articfacts in the image. The grain/noise you probably has two sources. 1. The original photos. 2. The curve adjustment i have made to bring in some more light and contrast in the image. Given the equipment I think it is quite close to optimal. I have had a 30 cm long print ordered, and in the print no noise is seen. IMO this is mainly a perceived on-screen thing when viewing in close to 100%. Had I applied NR more agressively, details would have been lost. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- JPEG compression (even at "super fine") is always present and visible, both as artifacts and the way JPEG compression degrades colour fidelity (compresses 12 or 14bit colour camera sensors capture to 8bit~). Nothing much can be done without ill effect in post-production to remove the artifacts and restore colour fidelity, but given most camera have a TIFF and or RAW option, it can be avoided. It is a very nice image and the stitching is very well done. ~12bit colour captures 4096 colours, 14bit captures over 14,000 (Source: Canon), so compressing to 8bit gives 300-600 possible colours depending on who you talk to Capital photographer (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Unfortunately, my camera does not allow me to save in tif or raw format, so here we are. I could probably benefit form better equipment. Unfortunately such equipment has an exccedingly low WAF. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- actually there is a hack for canon DIGIC II based cameras that allow them to save to RAW, but I would bet the benefits of raw vs jpeg are minimal. Thisglad (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Minimal? Raw can utilise the full 12bit colour (or 14bit on newer ones like the Canon 40D and Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III) the sensors can pick up so you get a larger gamut and smoother gradients. Also, it's not compressed so any subsequent saves will not result in repeated compression. Edit 1 improves it a lot, with very little artifacts in the housing area and noise reduced in the background. Anyway, because you had no choice but to use JPEG and Edit 1 is so good, I'll support. Capital photographer (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- for web display you have to convert to jpeg (sRGB) thus losing the benefit of the wider gamut of colors, raw does have a better dynamic range however Thisglad (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, saving a final output for the web does negate some of the advantages of using TIFF or RAW. Regardless of the final output, the more in the original image, the more software has to work with for editing. Taking an image in JPEG, the colours are thrown away immediately. The final output may have a limited gamut, but more colours in the original allows an editor to have better control over what is output to the limited gamut rather than accepting whatever the camera chose to keep. Capital photographer (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Echoing Cap Photographer's sentiments about RAW, I can tell you that there are definitely benefits to shooting in RAW, even if the end product is 8-bit JPEG. The end quality product is fundimentally dictated by the quality in which it is captured. Sure, if you have no intentions of editing an image after shooting it, perhaps JPEG will suffice, but as soon as you introduce ANY editing or processing, working from an 8-bit JPEG is inherently inferior. You argue that the wide gamut captured by RAW is lost when converting to SRGB. This is not true. The gamut is usually compressed but not lost as such. You still have the detail available in the RAW file, and you have control over how the colour is processed. For example, if you shot a JPEG of a very red image, if it exceeded the gamut range of sRGB, all red detail would be lost. If you shot it in RAW and were able to capture the red detail within the gamut of the RAW file, you would have the ability to compress the gamut while RETAINING the red detail, if you needed to. Similarly, you have slightly more dynamic range in a RAW file that you can selectively compress when processing the image, rather than losing it the instant the JPEG is created in the camera. Even Fir0002 was a vehement benefits-of-shooting-RAW denier until recently, when he saw the light. ;-) The benefits aren't obvious to a layman, but they are there if you know how to use them and you care about quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Capital Photographer, I assume when you said "~12bit colour captures 4096 colours, 14bit captures over 14,000 (Source: Canon), so compressing to 8bit gives 300-600 possible colours depending on who you talk to" that you didn't mean 4096 colours, but rather 4096 colour values per channel. By logic, 8-bit colour means 256 values, not 300-600, so I'm a little confused by what you mean depending on who you talk to. I don't see how the answer could be anything else but mathematic in nature (ie 8 bit = 2 to the power of 8 = 256, 12 bit = 2 to the power of 12 = 4096, etc). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it depends on which of the 10 kinds of people you talk to, those who understand binary or those who don't ;-) --Dschwen 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did mean per channel. Most digital cameras are capable of 12bit capture (even if they can only output 8bit JPEG) which according to multiple sources including Canon will yield 4096 possible colour values per channel. Selected newer cameras will do 14bit resulting in over 16,000 possible values per channel. It is still being debated whether this increase actually means much despite the impressive jump in possible colours on paper. Most are agreed though that it does smooth colour graidents in an image. Comparing the shots from my old and now broken 350D to my 40D and 1Ds mkIII, I certainly see smoother gradients and more vivid colour range. Capital photographer (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rofl, I had to read that line 10 times, that is, twice, before I got it! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it depends on which of the 10 kinds of people you talk to, those who understand binary or those who don't ;-) --Dschwen 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Capital Photographer, I assume when you said "~12bit colour captures 4096 colours, 14bit captures over 14,000 (Source: Canon), so compressing to 8bit gives 300-600 possible colours depending on who you talk to" that you didn't mean 4096 colours, but rather 4096 colour values per channel. By logic, 8-bit colour means 256 values, not 300-600, so I'm a little confused by what you mean depending on who you talk to. I don't see how the answer could be anything else but mathematic in nature (ie 8 bit = 2 to the power of 8 = 256, 12 bit = 2 to the power of 12 = 4096, etc). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Minimal? Raw can utilise the full 12bit colour (or 14bit on newer ones like the Canon 40D and Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III) the sensors can pick up so you get a larger gamut and smoother gradients. Also, it's not compressed so any subsequent saves will not result in repeated compression. Edit 1 improves it a lot, with very little artifacts in the housing area and noise reduced in the background. Anyway, because you had no choice but to use JPEG and Edit 1 is so good, I'll support. Capital photographer (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- actually there is a hack for canon DIGIC II based cameras that allow them to save to RAW, but I would bet the benefits of raw vs jpeg are minimal. Thisglad (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Unfortunately, my camera does not allow me to save in tif or raw format, so here we are. I could probably benefit form better equipment. Unfortunately such equipment has an exccedingly low WAF. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- JPEG compression (even at "super fine") is always present and visible, both as artifacts and the way JPEG compression degrades colour fidelity (compresses 12 or 14bit colour camera sensors capture to 8bit~). Nothing much can be done without ill effect in post-production to remove the artifacts and restore colour fidelity, but given most camera have a TIFF and or RAW option, it can be avoided. It is a very nice image and the stitching is very well done. ~12bit colour captures 4096 colours, 14bit captures over 14,000 (Source: Canon), so compressing to 8bit gives 300-600 possible colours depending on who you talk to Capital photographer (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Each photo is in jpg from a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 800 IS set to super-fine jpg quality. In the stitching process, tif is output. After doing all the editing steps in tif I have saved to jpeg at a quality of 92/100 in GIMP (default is 85). It is my experience that at this quality level there is no clearly visible jpeg articfacts in the image. The grain/noise you probably has two sources. 1. The original photos. 2. The curve adjustment i have made to bring in some more light and contrast in the image. Given the equipment I think it is quite close to optimal. I have had a 30 cm long print ordered, and in the print no noise is seen. IMO this is mainly a perceived on-screen thing when viewing in close to 100%. Had I applied NR more agressively, details would have been lost. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Jjron has been kind enough to provide an edit which has better light in the shadowy parts, and less noise as a consequence of downsampling to a pixel height of 1000 pixels. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1, Weak Support Original. I don't really care about the camera or format used, this is a useful image of decent quality, and is from somewhere where we're probably not going to see many photos with this amount of information. Touches I like include the icebergs floating in the bay in contrast to the mainly rocky landscape, and the design of the buildings (though I'd prefer more info on the actual photo/setting in the image summary and less about how the pano was created). --jjron (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have added info about shutter speed (1/250 s) and aperture (5.5) in the image page (as well as a description of your edit and a link to the original). -- Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maintain support for Edit1 - best lighting and noise. --jjron (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have added info about shutter speed (1/250 s) and aperture (5.5) in the image page (as well as a description of your edit and a link to the original). -- Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. This is really a lovely image, and encyclopedic. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As I hate downsampling, I have added an edit inspired by Jjron's but that maintains the original size by tackling the noise problem with NoiseNinja instead. Selective reharpen instead of NoiseNinja USM to resharpen buildings without reintroducing noise into sky or causing haloing along horizon. Mfield (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank your for taking your time to do this edit Mfield. I am quite impressed by what you have accomplished although the previously shadowy region at the RHS of the port is quite noisy in the edit. Overall, I still think it is an improvement though. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, ideally NoiseNinja would need to be applied to your full size original version before it was cropped and and sharpened - and then this problem would go away. There's too many sharpens and saves this way. Mfield (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct about this. The edit path for your edit is non-optimal. Is there any way I could send you the enblended and stitched tif file, which is produced by Hugin? The file is on another compter but as I recall it is about 100Megs. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to try saving it as a png, so it will be compressed losslessly, perhaps enough so (under 20MB) that you can upload it to Commons. Even so, I doubt it will be significantly different from a jpeg with less compression; jpeg is an excellent format, and I find there to be little difference between it and RAW/TIFF unless the photo has significant technical problems, like white balance or exposure. Thegreenj 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct about this. The edit path for your edit is non-optimal. Is there any way I could send you the enblended and stitched tif file, which is produced by Hugin? The file is on another compter but as I recall it is about 100Megs. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, ideally NoiseNinja would need to be applied to your full size original version before it was cropped and and sharpened - and then this problem would go away. There's too many sharpens and saves this way. Mfield (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank your for taking your time to do this edit Mfield. I am quite impressed by what you have accomplished although the previously shadowy region at the RHS of the port is quite noisy in the edit. Overall, I still think it is an improvement though. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support original It's taken under the midnight sun, so fiddling with light levels is losing the plot a bit. Good enc and pattern and interesting detail as above. It should also go in the Midnight sun article because it illustrates the sort of place that gets midnight sun and would lift that article considerably. But I am a bit puzzled as to how you have got a picture from the future Motmit (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Got me there on the date. Corrected! -- Slaunger (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support A detailed photograph of an uncommon place. Muhammad(talk) 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I gave up sending or uploading the original TIF file that came out of the box, it was too large. I noticed some soft spots in the original stitch and I have therefore done a new stitch based on the latest SW releases. I have saved this new "raw" output as an 18MP 100% quality JPEG (edit3, 12 MB) such that other editors have better base material for doing edits. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have a go at the new version today, hopefully there's still time to get it in before it closes. Mfield (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here you go, Edit 4 added, I did the same NR and sharpening but no shadow lift as I think I prefer it without and there just isn't enough DR in the original to survive the operation nicely. Mfield (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, MField. Reviewers should note that the edit 3 restitch and the new edit by Mfield has a substantially larger pixel resolution, 9095x2051 pixels. The original, edit 1 and 2 looks brighter and more colorful. This is because of a general, global tonecurve adjustment and a tad added saturation in the original prior to downsampling to 7220x1500 px. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here you go, Edit 4 added, I did the same NR and sharpening but no shadow lift as I think I prefer it without and there just isn't enough DR in the original to survive the operation nicely. Mfield (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have a go at the new version today, hopefully there's still time to get it in before it closes. Mfield (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support
Edit2 andEdit4, Oppose Original and Edit1 Unecessary downsampling on Original and Edit1. Mfield (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)- I'm not sure I understand that. You oppose the Original for "unecessary downsampling", yet support Edit2, which is...an edit of the original? --jjron (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was mostly opposing the extra downsampled Edit1, I think the Original and Edit2 size is acceptable, yet I prefer Edit2 over the Original. I will move all my support to Edit4 though as it's all got rather confusing with so many versions. Mfield (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand that. You oppose the Original for "unecessary downsampling", yet support Edit2, which is...an edit of the original? --jjron (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There's almost as many images up for nomination as there are supporters... Which one? MER-C 12:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Any, clearly meets all the featured picture guidelines. EgraS (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edits 1 and 4. I like the lighting on Edit 1, but Edit 4 is clearly of higher quality. NauticaShades 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 4 does that solve our problem now? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 4 Nice image, problems worked out. SpencerT♦C 16:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Edit 4 - the warmer colours of the earlier edits look more natural to me, given the lighting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Although I am aware that the decision of which (if any) candidate will be promoted is not merely a matter of vote counting, let at least me summarize the vote part of it for convenience to the closer
- Original: 5.5 support, 1 oppose
- Edit 1: 5.5 support, 1 oppose
- Edit 2: 4 support, 0 oppose
- Edit 4: 8 support, 1 oppose
- -- Slaunger (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Upernavik_evening_panorama_edit4.jpg MER-C 06:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Suspended nominations
This section is for Featured Picture candidatures whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Woman_from_Ladakh.jpg/250px-Woman_from_Ladakh.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Woman_from_Ladakh_edit1.jpg/250px-Woman_from_Ladakh_edit1.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Ladakh_Woman_fullres.jpg/250px-Ladakh_Woman_fullres.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Ladakh_Woman_edit4.jpg/250px-Ladakh_Woman_edit4.jpg)
- Reason
- Beautifully lit and framed photo of a woman in traditional dress. Reminiscent of an Andrew Wyeth painting.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ladakh
- Creator
- Steve Evans (Flickr)
- Support as nominator Verne Equinox (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I was all ready to support this stunning portrait. I mean, look at the light and the subject and the ENC value. However, at full size, there is an unacceptable number of compression artifacts that muddle the image significantly. I hope it would be possible to get a less compressed version. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose To be sure, the content of the image is worthy of an FP and the composition and lighting is good. However, the compression, making this image a tiny 85kb, is extremely detrimental to the quality of the image. Compression artifacts are visible throughout the image and cannot be fixed with software. A great shame because in other respects, it is a fine image. Capital photographer (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure if anyone's in touch with the Creator, but it'd be great to get a higher-resolution version (sans compression) if possible. If not, the photo's so striking that I'm ready to support anyway on technique, EV, and rarity of photo ops. SingCal 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I used to be in touch with him, but I'm agnostic now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh, you'd think being the Creator, he could fix the artifacts in an instant...breathe | inhale 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. Glad I could do my part in giving FPC something to laugh at. SingCal 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh, you'd think being the Creator, he could fix the artifacts in an instant...breathe | inhale 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I used to be in touch with him, but I'm agnostic now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. An edited version has been added. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The edit is little better. Compression artifacts are still quite obvious and the face seems to be lacking fine detail. Capital photographer (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Both Great pose, but there's artifacting, especially in the top right corner, and the blown windows on the R side are distracting. Clegs (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I sent the photographer a message, but I don't know if he'll get back before this is due to close. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- He said he would get us a higher resolution in ten days. He's travelling and doesn't have access. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Propose we Suspend the nom until we hear back; ten days isn't too bad. Matt Deres (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support above proposed extension, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Suspended until 17 May pending high res version. --jjron (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Nom re-opened May 18 No sense waiting much longer. Matt Deres (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any point sending it back to the top of the nom queue though? If there is no update, there is nothing new to vote on. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Got the picture. Uploading it now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- It will need a few edits. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- How about removing the other smaller versions to clean up the page?41.222.30.20 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- That could cause confusion because all of the opinions given so far refer to those two versions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think at least Edit 1 could be removed since the sticking point was resolution and jpeg compression, not noise. Any further edits should be done from the original (version 3, that is), rather than the first nominated image. If we mention that the old images can be accessed via a link on the nomination, rather than showing the actual image, then I don't think it will cause confusion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I seem to recall that there is a way to hide an image. It's been used for adult content images before. I can't figure out how to do it though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- {{Template:Hidden:[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb]]}} should work. Thegreenj 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I seem to recall that there is a way to hide an image. It's been used for adult content images before. I can't figure out how to do it though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Add version 4 that's about the best that I can get out of it with more time I don't have to spare. Its a very noisy original, I unfortunately had to downsample slightly (you know how I hate that) to combat some of it but its still 1300x2000. Mfield (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Version 4. The head dress sparkles in this version and the windows aren't 'blown'. Good job. Verne Equinox (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Version 4. Mfield (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support version 4 The hair looks grainy, though. SpencerT♦C 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Version 4. Too much noise, sorry. Kyle McInnes (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose all. Those which aren't too small are too noisy. Pstuart84 Talk 12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, they're all above minimum size. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you're not becoming preoccupied by my interpretation of the size requirement, but essentially it's a minimum and just because a photo is above the minimum doesn't mean the size is suitable for the subject in question. Pstuart84 Talk 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry. There is ongoing debate about this. It ultimately comes down to this: if the de facto size requirement has changed, that should be reflected in the criteria. On the other hand though, we have to be careful not to base our size requirement on what the camera can do, but what is a sensible size that conveys all the pertinent information, e.g. do I need to be able to see individual hairs on the trunk of an elephant for it to be an FP? What about the fine structure of a person's clothing? Wouldn't it be nice to see that? And already, you've thrown out a whole load of historic images where we have no hope of obtaining a copy at the appropriate resolution because, well, history happens only once. Same for extinct animals or people, subjects no longer in public view, etc. etc. Any further raising of the bar will increase systemic bias. Does that make sense? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you're not becoming preoccupied by my interpretation of the size requirement, but essentially it's a minimum and just because a photo is above the minimum doesn't mean the size is suitable for the subject in question. Pstuart84 Talk 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, they're all above minimum size. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 10:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Closing procedure
A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC
When NOT promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing
{{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}}
on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
When promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
- Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
- Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Add the image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
- Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
- The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
- Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
- If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
- Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}}
to the top of the section. - Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the September archive. This is done by simply adding the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}}
from this page to the bottom of the archive. - If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.
Nominations for delisting
Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.
|
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Webber_usgp_2004.jpg/200px-Webber_usgp_2004.jpg)
- Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Per nom, and because we have many much better racecar pictures. Mangostar (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist. Too small. I think the tilt is due to it being on a corner. Clegs (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per size. crassic![talk] 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Too small, but also consider that (a) á la Clegs, the tilt is from the corner (b) the subject is rather large given the frame and (c) is is difficult to get a perfectly framed, motion blur-less image of a large object going close to 200mph.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Delisted MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Leaf_1_web.jpg/200px-Leaf_1_web.jpg)
- Reason
- Low resolution, poor composition (cut off on three sides), reproducible
- Nominator
- Pstuart84 Talk
- Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 21:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist I had been meaning to nominate this one myself. Mangostar (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Renominate this when a better alternative has been uploaded. Currently, this image does its encyclopaedic job very well. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- weak keep per PLW; delist this when we get a better one. Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think this does a very good job of showing the veins in a leaf. With that as it's purpose,a wider crop would just add distracting background. Clegs (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nominate again when a better is available. crassic![talk] 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Clegs and Crassic. 8thstar 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This picture is quite informative. I would wait to delist until a better picture is taken. NauticaShades 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist I agree a wider crop might not help but that just looks off kilter... it will still be used in the articles even if not featured. gren グレン 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Even worse cut-off than the one below. There are thousands of badly cut but very encyclopedic pics on Wiki - what makes this special. Motmit (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Because of the crop. It's a relatively easy photo to reproduce. The freddinator (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist As aforementioned, the way it is cropped makes it much less appealing. Otherwise if the entire leaf was shown it would be deserving of FP.-- mcshadypl TC 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Coyote_portrait.jpg/200px-Coyote_portrait.jpg)
- Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Admittedly, the cut off ear is unfortunate, but the sharpness is excellent, and I doubt this kind of shot would be easily reproducable. --Schcamboaon scéal? 10:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist noisy background, subject cutoff in awkward manner. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Very difficult shot to reproduce (trust me, I am a photographer who takes quite a few animals pics). He had to have been using a huge zoom to get that close a shot without the coyote looking at him, and the sharpness is spot-on. Clegs (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist I'm certain that a better photo could be taken. crassic![talk] 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Until better photo is taken. 8thstar 02:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a high quality image, and must have been difficult to take. The crop is somewhat tight, but it does not detract too much from the image. NauticaShades 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep despite the cut off ear it is still a high quality image and of course probably quite difficult to reproduce. Cat-five - talk 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the Van Gogh effect is unfortunate, but still a FP. ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 09:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Cut-off is not an issue, high detail and enc value. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-20 18:22Z
- Keep for now. Ideally, we should see the whole subject, but I don't see strong evidence for overthrowing the original decision. Anyway, enjoyed the humour @kennedy! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm glad someone does :) ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist cut-off of the ear is unacceptable for the highest accolade. Also the placement is less than ideal. Does not prevent it being considered a useful enc pic, which has valuable place in articles, until a complete head is available Motmit (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's still a very good photo. Andrew18 @ 19:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Tour_eiffel_at_sunrise_from_the_trocadero.jpg/200px-Tour_eiffel_at_sunrise_from_the_trocadero.jpg)
- Reason
- Very blurry; more notable for artistic lighting than encyclopeidic value.
- Nominator
- Pstuart84 Talk
- Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Blurry, but high rez outweighs that. Good composition: artsy lighting, but perfect angle for detail. It isn't perfect, but it is really good. At least until Diliff can be dispatched...--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of my favorite pictures. I forgot it was this unsharp, but otherwise, it's very nice, mainly because of the cute composition. Blieusong (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep It's a good photo, but the sharpness is a little iffy for a featured picture. crassic![talk] 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't find sharpness bad at all; it's eight megapixels, and the level of detail in the picture is comparable to recent FPs. Thegreenj 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. Mfield (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep a little blurry admittedly but still overall a good picture and fp worthy. Cat-five - talk 06:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist An important and interesting subject gets the dreaded sillouette treatment because someone notices the sky is a different colour at dawn. All detail of the subject is lost behind an awful glare. Delist and take this and others of its ilk out of Wiki articles Motmit (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Delist closing procedure
Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.
If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:
- Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.
If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the image with{{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}
. - Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the delisted image with{{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}
. - Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
- Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}
to the top of the section. - Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}
to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive. - If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.