Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kurando-san (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 12 March 2006 (Keeper of the Imperial Archives (talk) (contributions): Automatically moving nominations older than 14 days.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the New nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the Nomination for removal section.

For listing, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.

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

To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Nomination procedure 

===[[Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAME}}| ExampleName ]]===

[[ Image: Example.jpg |thumb| Caption goes here ]]

Add your reasons for nominating it here; 
say what article it appears in, and who created the image.

*Nominate and '''support'''. - ~~~~ 
*

<!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
{{breakafterimages}}
  • Add   {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName}}   to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
  • Add  {{FPC}}  to the nominated image's page. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.

If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish to simply add your nomination to this page without creating the subpage, that is OK as someone else will create the subpage. The important piece of information is the pointer to the image, and the reason for the nomination.

Please be aware that there is a bot which currently helps to maintain this page. Please also be aware that the first date on the subpage should always be the date when it was placed on this page. See the notes section on the bot's userpage.

Supporting and opposing

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

Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.

Evaluating dark images

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

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Current nominations

Place new nominations at the top of this section.

Dead Leaf Mantis Camouglage

A "dead leaf mantis."

We already had a FP of camouflage a year ago or so, but I stumbled upon this one by Adrian Pingstone. It does have some problems with it, like blurriness, but I think it'd make a nice image if it got touched up a bit.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas

File:Dallas-Reunion.JPG
Downtown Dallas from the observation deck of the Reunion Tower.
Edited by Alvinrune.

This picture appears in the Dallas article. It is a well balanced shot from a great viewpoint. The sky in particular looks great. It appears that this shot was taken in the early morning. An excellent contribution to the Dallas article.

Sorry, Alvinrune, the sky is even worse in your edit, even though the colors are better. Editing grainy or "artifacty" images is not easy - most often the results are inferior to the original. --Janke | Talk 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Oak Leaf

Orange Oak Leaf
NOT FOR VOTING. Not this one?
How about combining the images? If you feel this is better, please vote for "combination".
File:Orange oak leaf camouflage.jpg
Another combination by Alvinrune

Flora, fauna, - both? "Wow" when I first saw this... wow ever since. Shot in the wild. Thanks to Shyamal for identifying this for me. This photo illustrates an otherwise uncolourful article Colours of animals. It will also illustrate the Kallima article at some point. Photo taken/posted by: Rklawton

  • Nominate and support. - Rklawton 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, do you perhaps mean this? While the camouflage is impressive, it is so impressive it is not clear from your photo what it is demonstrating. This photo is at least needed for demonstration |→ Spaully°τ 17:51, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
Good point. I didn't include the second photo because it doesn't illustrate the point made in the article. To wit: Thus the leaf-like butterflies (Kallima) present various types of colour and pattern on the under side of the wings, each of which closely resembles some well-known appearance presented by a dead leaf... However, I made sure to cross-link the two images on their respective pages. To me, the second photo looks like just another pretty butterfly photo. Rklawton 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unfortunately the image quality isn't up to FP standard - grainy, and severe compression artifacts. If a version of higher quality can be uploaded, and possibly combined with the second image into one, showing this amazing mimicry, that would be a stunning image, and I'd support. --Janke | Talk 21:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes. I've uploaded a higher resolution image and changed the DPI setting. This took care of some of the problems described. Please note, this is not an example of mimicry. It is an example of camouflage. The image usefully demonstrates the Kallima's hiding abilities as noted in the Colours of animals article. Google "Kallima" (images) and you'll see this image is the best Kallima-in-hiding photo on the 'net. Rklawton 22:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See what I had in mind (more encyclopedic) in fact, I was so bold as to put this version in the Colours of animals article. With the image pair, you're intrigued with the difference in the top and bottom coloring of the flutterby. (PS: Of course, you're correct re. mimicry/camouflage.) --Janke | Talk 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reverted your change to the Colours of animals article and provided a detailed explanation in the article's talk section. Your revision misses the point of the article. The article isn't about pretty butterflies. It's about how well Kallima's hide. The second photo illustrates a Kallima sticking out like a sore thumb. On the other hand, the double image would look great in the pending Kallima article... except that I have a three-image illustration that shows the wings opening from the same angle that will serve better as an illustration of a Kallima. Rklawton 07:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I disagree about the pair being inappropriate for the article. The contrast between the top and bottom is what is really interesting to me - there are lots of insects camouflaging which don't show this duality in coloring. Since the dual image is now an orphan, I suggest it should be re-inserted in the article if consensus here favors it. Fair enough? --Janke | Talk 07:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the images here are out of context, the consensus should be sought in the article's talk page. The fact that an image is an orphan does not justify its intrusion into an article. While you are intrigued by the duality of the butterfly's coloring, that particular intrigue has a more appropriate venue: the pending Kallima article. The Colours of animals illustration is meant to wow the viewer with the insect's ability to hide. I didn't insert the Kallima reference into the article; it's the author's example of "invisibility." The illustration I provided is meant to show the reader what the author meant by "invisible." Viewers who want to know more about the Kallima know where to click. When they do, they'll get a second "wow." I sure did. Rklawton 07:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined, although it should be feasible to make a larger version. I can't understand why both images aren't in the colors of animals article, it makes no sense! It's an example of an animal with two different color schemes which serve different purposes. –Joke 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article only references this particular critter's ability to hide, so the illustration only shows this critter's ability to hide, and it does it rather well. Look at it this way, if I provided an illustration of male anatomy for an article on male anatomy, would you also insist I provide an illustration of female anatomy? Of course not; it's off the topic. It's really that simple. Now, an article about a Kallima would be a different story entirely. I have different images to illustrate that article - when it's written, and believe me, the transition from leaf to butterfly is breath-taking. Rklawton 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"male anatomy ... insist I provide an illustration of female anatomy" Not a valid analogue. Males and females are two entirely different creatures (ask my girlfriend... ;-) The dual image illustrates the coloring of this single butterfly perfectly, whether in a Kallima article, or an article about (camouflage) colors. BTW, the Colours of animals article is a mess (copied from E. Brit. 1911), and should be moved to Wikisource, and a new, shorter, much better article written instead. --Janke | Talk 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please at least acknowledge that the sentence mentioning the Kallima only references its ability to hide. Folks who haven't read the article might miss this rather important fact.
As for EB 1911, check the talk page. Another editor posted that it wasn't. Personally, I don't know. I agree the article needs rework. Perhaps the original editors may wish to undertake the effort. Rklawton 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Please at least acknowledge that the sentence mentioning the Kallima only references its ability to hide." OK, OK, sure, no need to get your feathers all ruffled up... ;-) Some of us still would like to see the duality. And Alvinrune, I don't see the idea of your new edit - in fact, you made an error, there's a strangely mismatched or superimposed stripe in the middle. --Janke | Talk 06:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mukka fishing

Fishing in Mukka, near Mangalore
File:Mangalore fishing.jpg
Edited by Alvinrune. (It still needs A LOT more editing to be a FP.

I took this photograph in December 2003 - it depicts two fishermen in their boat attempting to catch fresh fish for us to purchase. The palm trees illustrate how close we are to land, and of course the tropical nature of the surroundings. In high resolution you can make out that the fishermen are not very well dressed, illustrating how the lower classes of Indian society continue to make ends meet through primary economic methods such as fishing... especially in a coastal town such as Mangalore.

The picture was taken by me, has been released into the public domain, and appears on the Mangalore article, used in conjunction with the section to do with the local economy.

04:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment exposure time of 1/640 sec (0.0015625) is very less, esp when the natural light is dull . This should have been more. --vineeth

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoroute Ville-Marie

Autoroute Ville-Marie just outside of downtown Montréal.

This picture appears in Freeway and Autoroute Ville-Marie. The picture is beautifully shot, with excellent composition and framing. It exemplifies the urban freeway design that appears in many major cities. The picture was taken on May 28, 2005 and uploaded by me on March 9, 2006.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poinsettia

Poinsettia Inflorescence

Image of Poinsettia. Currently used in :

  • The Inflorescence article.
  • Leaf adaptations : In poinsettia the pigmentation of the leaf changes to red to attract insects, birds, and very few species have this ability. This image clearly shows this transition in color of the leaves.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle Carrier Aircraft

A Shuttle Carrier Aircraft carrying Space Shuttle Atlantis
File:Atlantis on Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 3.jpg
Second Image

I found this very striking image of a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft carrying Space Shuttle Atlantis, with a beautiful background. The original image came from Wikimedia Commons. I edited it a little and resulted with the current image. The photo was taken on September 1, 1998 by Carla Thomas for NASA. It is image number EC-98-44740-2, specifically GPN-2000-000183.jpg. Dbenbenn from Wikimedia Commons uploaded this image. (See Dbenbenn's Wikipedia user page.)

Not promoted (7/6/1) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva

File:Geneva - Switzerland - 2005 - 02.JPG
Geneva,Switzerland

I think this is a very nice picture of Geneva.

She's painting the scene. Alright, thanks for the comments. sikander 05:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy men

Sleepy men in Tehran

Photo captured in Tehran during Ramadan and and subsequently edited by Bertil Videt. The photo is used in the Fatigue_(physical) article.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthomyiidae

Anthomyiidae

All together now, Promoted Image: Anthomyiidae sp. 1 (aka).jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OHP-sch.JPG

Overhead projector

Visually pleasing, nicely framed, shows precisely what an Overhead projector does. Not particularly exciting but it does the job well. By User:Mailer diablo.

  • Nominate and support. - Sum0 10:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, something about the composition doesn't appeal to me. - Mgm|(talk) 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing special - seems like a snapshot. --Janke | Talk 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too dull.. nothing special about the image. Sorry. sikander 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Strong Oppose Dull. Alvinrune TALK 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this captures the essence of an overhead projector perfectly. Sure it's dull, not special.. even boring. Remember what it's like being in a classroom watching one of these things? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Noisy photo, unpleasant composition, bad use of the projector (small font, ugly slide). There's potential for a featured photograph of an overhead projector: 1) Play with the lighting from the projector and the environmental light. 2) Show (perhaps in a series) the possibilities of overlaying multiple slides, e.g. to combine information in different ways, to make clever use of colors, and to annotate slides. (Just not a stupid "Ohh, here's some secret text I'll reveal later" trick.) 3) Pick a nicer room. :-) There's less ugly projector models as well. [1] Add a human operator to make things interesting. -- Alternatively, a diagram illustrating the working principle. Dante, who said overhead projectors have to be boring? Any presentation tool can do wonders in the hands of a skilled presenter. :-)--Eloquence* 11:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you seen a video of an artist making sand paintings on an OH projector? There are some nice examples on the net. Google for sand+painting+overhead+video and you might find some awesome stuff... --Janke | Talk 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar Symbol Evolution

Dollar symbol evolution.

Very informative picture which alot can learn from.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn colors

Autumn colors

Found on a recently deceased Wikipedian's talk page as a farewell.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Liberty

File:Liberty 1 by bencwright 2.jpg
The Statue of Liberty
File:Libertyhead edit.jpg
Sky cleaned up

The following picture of the Statue of Liberty is okay, but when I saw this, the other image wasn't at all comparable. This image nicely depicts the countanance of Lady Liberty. As for the copyright, the copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose, including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification, and it came from here. It was uploaded by Petrusbarbygere, using his/her Wikimedia Commons account, which is also User:Petrusbarbygere.

  • Weak oppose upon closer inspection. I didn't realize how bad the sky looked, even on the smaller version on the image page. I was willing to support an image that only looked bad at absolute full size, but this one even has a problem at the medium Wiki-viewing size... Staxringold 16:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Liberty

The Statue of Liberty as seen from the Circle Line ferry.
Alternative (by Alvinrune)

As an admirer of the artistry and beauty of the Statue of Liberty, I self-nominate this photo because it shows the scale of the statue in relation to the people interacting with it, is well-centered, and was taken at a high resolution in beautiful sunny weather. Many thanks for viewing.

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard of 2006

Blizzard of 2006
version 2
An ordinary winter day in southern Finland.
I think this one is much better to show snow strom Renata 18:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a picture of the North American blizzard of 2006 uploaded by Quasipalm. The picture is sharp and clear, and of a sufficient resolution. It is very informative an detailed. It is a beautiful and excellent image of the snow. It really draws attention to how powerful the storm was.

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Nebula pillars

False coloured shot of the Eagle Nebula taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.

This is a photo of the Eagle Nebula, perhaps one of the most beautiful and well recognised of Hubble's photos. It is a star forming region, consisting mainly of hydrogen, and the largest pillar is about 4 light years long in height. It is constructed of 3 images with three colours representing different wavelengths: Red shows emission from singly-ionized sulfur atoms. Green shows emission from hydrogen. Blue shows light emitted by doubly- ionized oxygen atoms. It was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, released into the PD by NASA. I searched through the FPs, and was very surprised not to see this there already. It appears in Eagle Nebula, Hubble Space Telescope and WFPC2 among others.

  • Nominate and support. - |→ Spaully°τ 20:35, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
  • There is a giant poster of this right above my head. Hmmm.... Support :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-6 20:53
  • Support Support I uploaded a slightly improved version and saved it over it, since it was trivial. Now, the image is a little more sharp and vivid. Alvinrune TALK 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I remember admiring this image when it was originally published in Time magazine. --Janke | Talk 21:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I just can't support it due to being an incomplete rectangular image. It looks like a work-in-progress to me. I can appreciate there may be technical constraints but that doesn't mean it has to be featured. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those missing areas are just as famous as the image itself. There are versions without the missing areas, but I don't think they are nearly as high a quality. This is by far one of the most famous images produced by Hubble. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-7 03:10
      • Comment: Brian - can you point to a complete image - we might make a composite, combining the good quality of this with the missing areas from another... --Janke | Talk 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are some complete versions listed here, although some of them may have been photoshopped. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-7 06:36
          • Browsed through some 10 of those pages, and also did a image search for "Eagle nebula Hubble" and "M16 Hubble", but there was only one "complete" version, all too obviously photoshopped, thus entirely unencyclopedic. So, no go. --Janke | Talk 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine with me. I like it better this way :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-7 07:31
              • Oh? I found this one quite easily and its most definately not a photoshop job (its a composite image as opposed to fake airbrushed stuff). Not to mention this is a better image IMO. Oppose incomplete image.  ALKIVAR™ 13:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The second image you link to has "additions by J. Morse", suggesting it has been supplemented perhaps by other images. As has already been mentioned however the 'ladder step' shape is iconic of the HST due to the technical setup and as such this image demonstrates something that is hard to explain in words. The first image is very nice, but completely different, pehaps you would like to propose it? |→ Spaully°τ 14:20, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
                • Yes, I found that first image as well, but it is way too low in resolution. The 2nd image may be more appealing, but does not have the iconic status of the original. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-12 18:03
                • The J. Morse version looks photoshopped to me, and fairly crudely done at that. You can even see the brush strokes. I could probably do better given a few hours with the clone tool, but I see no point. The original image is staircase-shaped — why try to conceal that? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I originally though "J. Morse" may have been an artist's name, but it looks like he's been involved with a lot of Hubble photographs. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 04:03

Promoted Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud motion on Jupiter

Various patterns of motion are apparent all across Jupiter at the cloudtop level seen here.

The excellent Jupiter image nominated below reminded me of another great animation from Cassini that I had thought about nominating for FPC a while back. Used in Cloud pattern on Jupiter, this animation shows in unprecedented detail the complex motion on Jupiter. It illustrates the article perfectly, and in a way no diagram could convey. The full size image is quite large, although I've uploaded larger files to Commons before :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-6 17:10

All together now, Promoted Image:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif ~ Veledan • Talk 18:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Layout

File:UltiClubNationals05Layout.jpg
An Ultimate player lays out to catch a disc.

Self nominated at the suggestion of Christopherlin. The picture is from Ultimate (sport), and was taken by Scobel Wiggins at the 2006 club ultimate national tournament in sarasota, florida. The picture itself is a great example of an action shot and portrays beautifully a layout.

  • Nominate and support. - Leppy 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose resolution is unsufficient for FP-status Calderwood 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, too low-res according to current (consensus?) standards. Also, background is too messy, the main subject does not stand out. --Janke | Talk 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you possibly upload a larger version (at least 1000px, the more detailed the better)? FPs other than those depicting unique historic events should be big enough not just for article inclusion, but to allow quality reproductions in other formats. As it stands, I'm afraid this isn't big enough to be eligible whatever its other merits. Great shot though — for once I disagree with Janke's verdict and I think the DOF does enough for the subject & the people in the background add value  :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - great pic but hoplessly too small - Adrian Pingstone 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – good pic, but small, DOF too deep –Joke 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now – great pic, but someone needs to contact the photographer for a higher res version as was discussed on Talk:Ultimate (sport). The DOF adds to the descriptive quality of the picture, plain and simple. If the pic was illustrating the player or the act of bidding, then the background would be distracting, but it isn't. It is illustratign Ultimate, which is characterized by informality and people sitting on the sidelines. In the article, there is enough difference in sharpness to clearly show the foreground wihout distraction. People who think the DOF detracts from the photo need to learn more about the culture of the sport as the on-field action is only half of the picture. (pun intended)—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 20:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"The DOF adds to the descriptive quality of the picture, plain and simple." and "People who think the DOF detracts from the photo need to learn more about the culture of the sport"? I know plenty about the culture of ultimate, and I know plenty about sports photography, and I think that the DOF is too deep. You should feel free to disagree, but don't assert some kind of ultimate authority. It sounds petulant. –Joke 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter from Cassini

An image of planet Jupiter, created from several up-close images taken by the Cassini spacecraft when it flew by on December 30, 2000. It is the most detailed image of the planet ever taken.

This is an excellent representation of the Solar System's largest planet. The detailing is exquisite. It was taken by the Cassini spacecraft, and is a NASA public domain license. It currently appears in the Jupiter article, as well as several articles related to Cassini-Huygens.

The original version was upload by Awolf002. A larger version was uploaded later by Deglr6328. The current version, even larger with a lot of black border cropped off, derived from the original high-resolution TIFF base file, was uploaded by Dbenbenn.

Promoted Image:Portrait of Jupiter from Cassini.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howler Monkey

B&W version

This is a youg howler monkey in Costa Rica. I took the photo through a telescope thats why it has a black circle around it. its in the Howler Monkey article i think theres some feeling to this photo that makes you conect with this monkey and want to read about it.

March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy.gif

File:Pregnancy.gif
Pregnancy

An excellent illustration of the life-cycle of a foetus during pregnancy and symbolic of the birth of life.

Appears in Pregnancy.

Created by de:User:Christoph73 and cleaned up by User:Ilmari Karonen. Based on Month_1_sm.jpg to Month_9_sm.jpg from the National Institutes for Health, uploaded by User:Stevertigo.

  • Comment: As I've seen no response from Stevertigo, I've sent an e-mail to A.D.A.M. and the NIH asking for their help in determining the copyright status of the original images. I've also asked them, should the images turn out to be copyrighted, to consider releasing them under a free license. One can always hope... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' Great picture: good quality, simple to understand, clear, to the point, relatively small in size 147Kbyte for 9 pictures). Notice that even the breasts are shown to grow. Msoos 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted It is obvious that this picture has a consensus of support (including from me) but it can't be promoted while its copyright is in question. If you get a favourable reply to your emails (fingers crossed), I'd recommend re-nominating it immediately and it'll surely be promoted (especially if you can adjust the text to read Month 2 etc) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional boxing bout

Professional boxing bout featuring Ricardo Dominguez (left) versus Rafael Ortiz.
Top of head restored by Shawnc.

This is an image I found in the US Marine Corps image archive. Although it might not fulfill all technical specifications, I personally feel that it brings out the essence of focus and aggression in boxing, and contributes greatly to the article. The background and is very unusual for a boxing image, and atleast for me, it conveys an eerie feeling. I could imagine this one as a featured picture.

Promoted Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg--Marcus 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose second photo. Voting after the fact and after Shawnc pointed me to this discussion. Altered photos are in violation of the WP:NOR policy and should not be used to illustrate articles in the main Wikipedia namespace, let alone be promoted to Featured status. The reason is that they purport to illustrate something that is not true; they show a moment in time that never occurred. That is certainly a beautiful photo and I'd support the first one as Featured. Tempshill 06:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Daly

File:John Daly at AmEx.JPG
John Daly during the 2005 American Express Gold Championships at Harding Park in San Francisco, Ca.


I am nominating this picture because I feel that it exemplifies not only John Daly and golf, but also the level of fitness (or lack thereof) required to play; This appears in the John Daly and the golf article and was taken by me.

Comment So are you opposing *simply* because the subject of the image 'grosses you out' without any regard to the technical composition of the 'photo? Nippoo 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposing because I ALSO find the image technically unrenarkable and otherwise roundly uninteresting.--Deglr6328 06:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support #2 cropped version. I also find the picture somewhat un-pretty, but I'm surprised to find this guy is a professional sportsman. We don't have enough good GFDL pictures of reasonably famous people. This is a weakly contested subject area, so despite misgivings, support. -- Solipsist 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Second version. I think the skyspace actually makes the picture cooler, making the golf ball look even smaller. My only complaint is that his face, the key factor for showing what a famous person looks like, is very shadowy. Staxringold 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support second version. Excellent quality, illustrative. Unusual to get such a good PD image of a famous person. Plus, it gives hope to fat men everywhere that they too may become rich and famous and featured in Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The 2nd picture is great. Really makes you stop and examine his golf game. How does he get away with it? Canuck89 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support second version. - Bevo 16:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 17:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-15C

USAF F-15C fires a AIM-7 Sparrow
Current Featured Picture
Implied an "evening" environment and sharpened it (though I think the shapening took away from the image

This image is a interesting photo of a F-15C firing a missle (AIM-7 Sparrow medium-range air to air missile). I cropped the image from Image:USAF F-15C fires AIM-7 Sparrow.jpg. The former image was in the article, F-15 Eagle. This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the United States Air Force (www.af.mil/photos).

Promoted Image:USAF_F-15C_fires_AIM-7_Sparrow_2.jpg +10/-2/1

Light-blue soldier crab

Light-blue soldier crab (Mictyris longicarpus)

The Featured picture list is quite lacking in invertebrates. I love this photo, nice and colourful and accurate.; Appears in Mictyris, and will appear in its own species article as I get to it. Created by me. --liquidGhoul 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Liquidghoul, are you aware that Brian0918 has made a change to your image again (replaced original, not uploaded as a different file)? I've compared both and there really isn't a big difference though. I do wish he would see the logic of the situation (and what seems to be the majority consensus) and just upload a copy, rather than overwrite the original. On that note, do you have a larger sized image or is that as big as it gets? It already looks rather overprocessed (massive sharpening lines around the legs) but in this case, the image is unique enough for me to support it in its current form. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentUnfortunately, this is as big as it gets. Although there were thousands of these guys, they will bury themselves as soon as I get ready to shoot. This one was further away than I would have liked, and the crop took quite some size. Can you give me which legs look overprocessed, I personally cannot see it. I have sharpened a bit, but have layered a mask over it, and gotten rid of most of the sharpening as I did not like it. Thanks for your comments. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Add on comment I have zoomed in around the legs and see what you are talking about. I have lost the PSD file (stupid) so it is hard to do it again. I can only see it on the very occasional spot at actual size (mainly two left legs), so if anyone has a big problem with it, I will fix it when I have ample time. But I have learnt to always keep the PSDs and check sharpening with zoom. Thanks :) --liquidGhoul 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see it to some extent on all of the legs that have bright, illuminated edges contrasting against the background, but as I said before, I don't think it detracts enough to not support. It was more of a comment than a withdrawal of support. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, majority != consensus. Second, as you pointed out yourself, the change was very minor. That's why I didn't upload it to a new file. Voting over something so minor would have been a waste of everyone's time. But feel free to keep me under a magnifying glass. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-5 16:39
        • I'm not keeping you under a magnifying glass, I just happened to view the image and notice that once again you had made a change, in this case without actually mentioning so on this page. You are right that majority does not equal consensus, but I don't think that one person (you) who advocates doing things a different way is a lack of consensus in supporting the status quo either. If one dissenting opinion destroyed status quo, it would be chaos! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hear, hear! --Janke | Talk 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • In my opinion minor changes such as the one Brian0918 made should be uploaded over the original. I don't think anyone would say that the modification wasn't an improvement, and if there happens to be dissent, it's easy to revert. ~MDD4696 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see your point, and it applies well in this case. But don't you agree that any change, however small, to a FP should always be announced on this page? --Janke | Talk 07:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Chaos?!?! Oh no! You must've won the argument, because your statement sounds so frightening... Anyways, I thought I announced the change on this page, as I normally do, but I guess not. In the future I will do so. In your original statement, however, you were not concerned with my announcing the change, just with my right to make that change. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-12 17:54
  • Weak oppose, I like the picture, and have no problems with it technically (size/whatever) but I don't find it engaging enough for Featured status. The camera is too high up and looks down on the poor crab. Pengo 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is about 5-10cm wide, and in incredibly wet sand. I was not going to kill my camera, by putting it in wet sand just to get a shot. Secondly, a low angle wouldn't suit this subject. The front is so large, that a low angle would take out most of the rest of the rest of the body, which would be less encyclopaedic.--liquidGhoul 23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Aus soldier Crab.jpg howcheng {chat} 17:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beige Desktop Power Macintosh G3

A Beige Power Macintosh G3 Desktop, with optional zip drive in the lower 3.5" expansion bay.

Well, this is hardly the most exciting of subjects - but it illustrates Power Macintosh G3 in the only way possible. The image is deceivingly simple, but it's hard to get the background, lighting, angle and color so well as to rival Apple's own promotional photographs, the replacement of which with free alternatives has been a pastime of mine for a while now. Along comes Danamania, and uploads some very well done shots to Commons, licensed under CC-BY-SA (don't worry, I'll only nominate this one). It's perhaps not the highest of resolutions, but quite sufficient for print.

Raspberries

Raspberries
Darker Version
Darker Version
Darker Version

Looks delicious, and everything is the subject (by that I mean there is no b/g because the b/g is the subject as well!)
Alternative Versions: Image:Raspberries02.jpg, Image:Raspberries03.jpg

I like the un-saturated one the best. They do look ripe (except for one at the top). The others look like they have been sugar-glazed. --liquidGhoul 05:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heteropteryx dilatata

Heteropteryx dilatata, commonly known as the 'Malaysian Jungle Nymph'

Image taken by neighbour, who agreed at the time that all rights be released to me or any purpose or licence I see fit. Subject is my pet, and the colouration has not been modified. Image featured in Phasmatodea, and is high-resolution (1232x824px).

  • Isn't the missing part longer than the visible part? Apologies if not. Even so, I'm afraid animal pics fail to get promoted for far lesser portions missing. And there are several other pics on that page which give a better impression of these insects as a whole IMO. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, more is visible than not, no problem. Thanks! Ian13/talk 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police cruiser

Police cruiser
File:New york police department car-2.jpg
Cropped, sharpened
File:New york police department car-3.jpg
Streched the color

A very nice shot of an NYPD police cruiser. This photo is used in several articles, among them police cruiser and light bar.

  • I've uploaded a cropped, rotated, sharpened version. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-1 02:45
Because there's nothing special about this image. It's a police car on the street, no more. It is not even in motion. The flash of the light is the only interesting spot in the image. --Janke | Talk 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. That hurts. A beautiful NYPD cruiser destine never to be featured simply because its not involved in a high speed chase. I guess it was to be expected though: one must have a love of form to see past such things. TomStar81 09:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally! It's not about the car, it's the general look of the image (not "stunning" enough), an opinion that appears to be shared by most voters. With a better background (perhaps blurred because the camera is following a moving car) and a little more dramatic lighting, I'm sure a NYPD cruiser could befeatured! (BTW, we're all spoiled by TV, aren't we? ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this more what you had in mind, Janke? And I'm neutral, before anybody asks. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Access denied to site. --Janke | Talk 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, second try. Check this. Remember to click the Zoom In button under the image. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks - totally artificial looking. --Janke | Talk 11:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Janke here. Did you really think that would be more appropriate? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, blimey. That was a joke. I wasn't seriously suggesting that that become a featured pic, I was just picking up on Janke's comments on how we are all led to believe that a picture of a NYPD car should be in an exciting car chase with lights flashing and sparks flying. This place is so dull sometimes. Lighten up! —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deadpan humor doesn't work in text format. A simple ;-) would have helped... --Janke | Talk 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are. TV has a way of raising the bar, and my guess is that effect is going to be felt here. Its really to bad; this kind of image could easily be used in any number of police car books. I should know. I own several ;) TomStar81 09:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Third Image Support Third Image I streched the color of the second image. Now it seems as though the image was taken in the evening. The prior images look as if it were taken on a cloudy day. Alvinrune TALK 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing against the photographer, but NYPD cruisers have never been more lame. There are plenty of other, nicer types of cruisers (for instance, most states have highway patrol pursuit cruisers made from Camaros and Mustangs) that would make for a better featured pic. In my book, a photo of an ugly woman is ugly no matter how well it's done. Kafziel 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An ugly woman is still a woman, and if you take note of the title I have simply labeled the entry "police cruiser", not "NYPD cruiser", not "special patrol vehical", just "police cruiser". While Camaros and Mustangs would arguably make better FPs, they represent a small faction of the police force; most police vehicals are caprices and tuareses. This picture is ment to represent these standard cars. TomStar81 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it is a good standard photo of a standard car. I'm not listing it for deletion or anything, I'm just saying the subject matter is very run of the mill. It's not something I'd say, "Wow, that's awesome," which is pretty much what I expect from a featured photo. Why feature something completely standard? Kafziel 04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not striking I'm afraid, at least not for me. |→ Spaully°τ 10:25, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Support this one. I think it's a beautiful photograph. Judge the photo, people, not they style of the car. Anyway, think those 'stralian cars are lame anyways. ;-) —Encephalon 11:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg

Helix pomatia, the edible snail
File:Grapevine Snail.jpg
Edited
Transparent Image
Transparent Image

Well, great minds think alike, and so here is another great gastropod image. It appears in Pulmonata. Photographer is one Jürgen Schoner, uploaded to Commons as GNU-FDL by User ML.

You've got no problem with the background, but you ask for a larger image when it's already 1024x604? I really don't get why people always want bigger and bigger images. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with asking for a larger image? There is no harm in it, and it could improve the image's quality. I didn't oppose the image, so what is your problem? --liquidGhoul 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply don't see why we should ask for something with a higher resolution when it's already top-notch resolution. Higher resolution doesn't equal higher quality. You may not have personally opposed it, but it fosters the idea that massive resolutions are better when most people can't even fit such an image on one computer screen. Besides, if they had one, wouldn't you think they would've posted the larger one instead? - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LiquidGhoul has now explained he was hoping for a better detailed shell. So contrary to what I believed, he had a perfectly valid reason for asking. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within reasonable limits (file size, the lens' ability to resolve detail and number of sensor pixels), there is never a good reason to upload a lower quality/resolution image. I sometimes downsample my images by about 50% in order to aid in the perception of sharpness, as long as there is no significant loss of detail in doing so, but as a rule, I try to keep them as high resolution as is possible. Assuming the image is captured with anything higher than a 3 megapixel camera with decent quality optics, there is no excuse for an image less than 1000 pixels on the longest dimension. To reduce it further than that is to waste the potential of the image. I think he had a valid reason for asking as it originally stood since it logically follows that higher resolution image will resolve more detail! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg Votes are very evenly split between the original and the blanked background version. If there is no partictular perference between the original and an edit I promote the original. Raven4x4x 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black slug

A black slug, Arion ater L., on a rock, with its pneumostome clearly visible.
File:Slug edit.jpg
Slightly less blur
File:Slug edit crop.jpg
Symmetrical crop
tilted crop, aspect ratio as close as original as I could get it

What I like about this picture is how the moistness of the slug is captured by the reflection of the sky on its surface, which also defines its texture. Secondly, the fact that the Pneumostome (breathing hole) is visible is also a plus as it piques the interest of the viewer to find out about what this curious structure is for.

... so your vote will change with every new edit? ;-) Please specify... --Janke | Talk 07:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I've added a simple top-and-bottom crop. I find the blurring less distracting but I'm not sure it's improved the composition. Oh and please add it to an article. Neither slug nor pneumostome has too many pics: it could go in either or both ~ Veledan • Talk 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What the hell, Support crop ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's going to be a crop, I'd be more comfortable with tilting it, the aspect ration is retained better that way, avoiding a panorama look (it's a slug, not a sunset, dammit :)). Obli (Talk)? 22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I feel very apologetic for changing my vote like this, but the more I think about it the less I like the manmade background. It's a superb picture of a slug but please get one of it slithering up a wet cabbage! ~ Veledan • Talk 01:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a manmade background. It's a rock. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-4 20:53
  • Support cropped version, oppose tilted - the crop is more encyclopedic, we don't really need all that background. The slug is the focus, and in focus, too. The tilted version loses the slime!! --Janke | Talk 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Uninteresting except at huge size. Ugly background. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with the background? It's a rock. Slugs like rocks. They don't get around too well elsewhere. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-2 21:43
  • Oppose only the tilted version as per Janke. - Samsara contrib talk 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ugly background. –Joke 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with the background? It's a rock. Slugs like rocks. They don't get around too well elsewhere. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-2 21:43
    • I don't see what you expect from the background either. You're not going to find a slug on glass table, unless someone puts it there. And I doubt anyone really wants to touch that thing. - JPM | 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not a rock, it is a road. It is gravel in bitumen, which when I last looked, is not a natural habitat for many animals. Also, these slugs are omnivorous, so you would expect their natural habitat to be in foliage of some plant or on/in a dead animal (although most of you seem repulsed just by the slug so I can't imagine if it was surrounded in dead flesh). --liquidGhoul 12:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to wait for the photographer's word before we decide if this is a natural rock or not. Conglomerate rock looks a lot like it's artificial, but it's not. Also, notice the background in this picture includes moss - not something you'd really expect to see growing on a road. -- 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
          • It is asphalt, although as the mud, roughness of it and the moss suggests, it is very old and part of a forest running track. One could argue that it is a natural habitat because it is very moist, slugs like that... --Obli (Talk)? 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Funny you should mention that, I was actually going to suggest that it was possibly artificial, like a pathway or something. But the moss on it is pretty damn good evidence that it's not a road. And frankly, what with the humanization of this world, a running trail in the woods almost is a natural habitat these days. -- 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion until now. The background looked like old asphalt to me, like an old, worn road or something. Slugs are common enough subjects, so I think if you're going to have a featured picture of a slug, it ought to be really compelling. This one is good, but I just don't like it enough for FP. –Joke 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great shot, DOF is spot on. The background is not problematic (it's natural). As for crops or tilting... I'm still undecided. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What's wrong with the background? It doesn't look good, it distracts from the slug itself (particularly at the size one views it in an article, when the shinyness of the slug isn't as apparent), and it's, well, ugly. It's natural, sure. But one could find, say, an even-colored rock. Or something. You're taking a picture from straight above of a very flat animal, removing any sense of depth (except at unwieldy sizes) - it looks like just a streak of black paint on a rock that looks like it's been vomited on. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, whether one could find an even-colored rock is irrelevant, the slug was on THIS rock. Second of all, the image is NOT taken straight from above as even a cursory examination of the image would indicate. Lastly, if you looked at the full size image, there's no WAY it could be mistaken for "a streak of black paint". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I absolutely agree with you! It's not taken from exactly above, but there's a reason someone did a tilted crop - it has so little depth. The slug was on THAT rock, but that's just something one has to deal with. The circumstances of the photo shouldn't affect our judgement on the final product, I have learned from looking at FPCs for a little while. And at full size, the slug doesn't look nearly as bland as a streak of paint - but the slug isn't shown in the article at full size! At any reasonable size, it's a boring image. In my opinion. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • IIRC, images are intended to be evaluated at full size, not thumbnail sized. Anyone know for certain? Also, the stated reason that the tilted crop was created was an attempt to preserve as much of the original aspect ratio as possible during a crop. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slugtastic - one of the best pictures of slugs I've ever seen. PZ Myers would be proud. And I'm ashamed there's so much anti-slug bias on display here :-O At least give him credit for getting close enough to take this picture. Eeek. --Cyde Weys 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Alvinrune TALK 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ugly tarmac background. chowells 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orb Weaver Spider at night

Orb weaver in web
Cropped version
Another crop

Captures the Orb Weaver when it is active - at night. Alternative versions: Image:Orb weaver black bckgrnd02.jpg, Image:Orb weaver white bckgrnd.jpg, Image:Orb weaver white bckgrnd02.jpg

Promoted Image:Orb weaver black bckgrnd03 crop.jpg Raven4x4x 08:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrots of many colours

Carrots selectively bred to produce different colors
File:Carrots of many colors edit.jpg
edit

Very vivid and colourful image, extremely hi-res and of good quality, it's aesthetically pleasing and does a good job on demonstrating how varied the species has become through breeding.

  • I think I did misunderstand the description and that it is probably a genuine case of artificial selection. I am still opposing because I believe a photo about a scientific experiment should be described better. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to explain this. Pigments, while usually something we think of as being in paints, also are naturally occuring in plants. For example most land plants have Anthocyanin, a pigment that absorbs green light (reflecting red and blue light) and give many flowers, fruits and autumn leaves their colour. Tomatoes naturally have the red pigment Lycopene, and carrots are best known for their carotenoids, which are also naturally occuring without the introduction of any artifical pigment. I don't know if it's the levels of different carotenoids, or changes in pH, or a range of completely different pigments that are making these carrots change colour, but it's something that is naturally occuring within the carrot, in different varieties of the one species. You can read more about biological pigements at the pigment article. And AFAIK, it's not an experiment, it's something farmers have been doing since long before we understood the chemical structure of pigments. Thank you. — Pengo 03:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Carrots of many colors.jpg Raven4x4x 08:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedFort

File:Redfort(2560X1920).jpg
Redfort

Reasons... High resolution,one of the great landmarks of india The Delhi Fort is located in Delhi, India. It is also known as Lal Qil'ah and the Red Fort (not to be confused with the Agra Fort, which is referred to by these terms as well).For more visit the main article... Red Fort

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

Goats in mountains

Goats in mountains
Edit - overexposed highlights burned to show detail

I found this image when I went to read about goats. I like the image very much. Whenever I look at it, I desire to be one of those goats, running free in the mountains, free from stress and admins. I also find the background stunning, with the mist in the mountains. It seems that user Fir0002 created the photo -- and that dude created 37 featured photos! I think that a part on the left side of the photo could be removed, because there's something out there that can't be identified. Other than that, cool photo!

  • Nominate and support. - Candide, or Optimism 14:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The mist and dark clouds give the photo a mystical, magical quality. While it doesn't appear that the photo strongly supports either article to which it is attached (do we really have 18 photos illustrating the Goat article?), its a picture I can support. SteveHopson 15:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. While the image is great, the article subjects (the goats) aren't prominent enough. Which mountains are these? If you added the image to the mountains' article, then I would probably support. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-26 15:49
  • Neutral. I like the scene and composition but the highlights are extremely overexposed. I've tried to burn them back a little to make the most of the detail that was left. I don't feel happy enough about it to support it completely, but I'll put it out there for you guys and if you prefer it, you have an alternative to the original, at least. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for your edit, but the goats are in fact pure white and therefore the original picture I feel is much more true to life. --Fir0002 www 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't change the colour of the goats at all. I just recovered some texture in the highlights. Even something that is white will look golden when the source of light (in this case, I assume dawn, but possibly sunset) is golden. You have used that regularly in your photos and complained when people have REMOVED that effect, so you can't have it both ways. In any case, as I said, I never added a colour that wasn't there. I just decreased the luminosity of the existing colour so you can see detail in the highlghts. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the irony was lost on ya :-)
But seriously, the goats are white, and appeared white in the lighting conditions the photo was taken in. They do not have much detail, even with the human eye they just appear white. Burning them as you did makes them look dirty - much too yellow IMO. Anyway an edit is always good as it allows the photographer to learn from what others want out of a photo. --Fir0002 www 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, whatever irony was there was lost of me. :) Please explayne! You can see that areas of the goats that were not directly facing the sun (roughly perpendicular) had a golden/orange tint. I see your point, but do you not see the problem in having no discernable detail due to overexposure? I don't accept that the goats had little detail/texture, if they were correctly exposed, you would see it. Perhaps my edit did burn the highlights too much, but ideally they should not be overexposed in the first place. Ah well. :) For what its worth, its a difficult scene to photograph well, but the moral of the story is underexpose if necessary to preserve highlight detail. Do you shoot raw? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on Diliff's talk page --Fir0002 www 11:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message on the author's talkpage, asking for the same thing. --Candide, or Optimism 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is taken in the only mountain range of Victoria - the Great Dividing Range. More specifically near Swifts Creek, Victoria Australia. --Fir0002 www 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't see it fitting into any article well. --liquidGhoul 10:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I've never noticed that before! It looks more like an old crate or something --Fir0002 www 07:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page.

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  • Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }}
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  • Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  • Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions.

When promoted, perform the following:

  • Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage: {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}}
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
      • Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  • Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  • Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - latest on bottom
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - latest on bottom
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
    • You might want to use Template:FP: {{subst:FP|file=|description=|at=|by=}}
  • 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|Image: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 delisting

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards.
Note: Please use Delist or Keep as your vote.

  • If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.
  • If consensus is to remove status then remove the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag and leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section. Also remove the image from Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
  • Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Archived removal requests
To see recent changes, purge the page cache


Template:FebruaryCalendar2006

Template:MarchCalendar2006

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=43376206"