Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2012
Featured picture tools |
---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2012 at 17:50:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, good EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Fresnel lens
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
- Creator
- Frank Schulenburg
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Is that a railing at the bottom of the image? SpencerT♦C 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support So use dry technical terms.... That is so cool! Also, a dramatic and interesting illustration of the article with historical significance. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think the picture in the gallery has a better view; showing the entire subject. JKadavoor Jee 06:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- This one also shows the entire subject... And it has a far better lighting. Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- But the bottom (railing?) is a bit disturbing to me. JKadavoor Jee 13:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- This one also shows the entire subject... And it has a far better lighting. Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support I like the horizontal angle of this version better. --Pine✉ 23:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Mediran talk|contribs 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support I do like the lighting and angle of this image better than the other picture of the same lens in the gallery; however, like JKadavoor, the railing is a little distracting to me and I think it would be a little better if it were cropped out. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- comment there are a lot of these things in museums. Going after the one in the london science museum with a tilt shift lens might produce a better result.©Geni 09:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject is interesting and useful, and the image is technically high quality, but the composition and lighting is low quality. -Fjozk (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per reasons above, I think we can do better. — raekyt 16:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a worthwhile picture as far as illustrating the subject is concerned, but for me it has insufficient artistic quality to raise it to "featured picture" status. 86.160.84.230 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2012 at 09:21:31 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV, good illustrative diagram
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bicycle, Template:Bike equipment
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
- Creator
- Al2
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: it was recoloured re to be more "eye-friendly" but I'm not convinced - it makes the red pointing circles harder to discern. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! Just noticed the file history now. Prefer the green one. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support: This has to be both the simplest and most informative diagram of a bicycle I have ever seen. I can't imagine a better diagram ever being uploaded and see no reason why this image should not be featured. 16bitz 19:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per 16bitz. I wish one in Malayalam too. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Is it just me or do the grey boxes look awkward/distracting to anyone else? SpencerT♦C 21:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed that unusual thing earlier; but not very disturbing to me. Instead it acts as a handle to hold and group the links together. Moving the letters left and right to avoid the overlapping may better; but it is just my taste. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not "amazed" by the quality; a solid image, but IMO not quite FP worthy. SpencerT♦C 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: Graphically this is rather crude, although more or less technically correct. It would be a lot clearer as a simple line drawing, for example the cranks would stand out from the chainring not blend into the dark mass there, and coloured rims distract from the pointers as above. It's absolutely basic in diagrams that your pointers don't cross over, or touch other things - the front derailleur label goes right over the rear one. The grey boxes are distracting and serve no purpose. Finally, the labels are grouped semi-logically e.g. the head tube is part of the frame, there are no labels for brake levers or brake cables. A very definite 'no' to FP as it stands. ProfDEH (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The underlying line drawing is in fact very nicely done, lots of clear detail, and it would be great to see that without any colour, or just a light tone that highlights the solid parts but keeps all the detail visible. That and rearrange the labels a bit. ProfDEH (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support It is rare that the EV itself conveys a "wow" factor, but wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm definitely not a fan of the grey boxes or the font choice. Change them and I'd support in an instant! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as is A few important things are missing, like the stem, or much mention of braking components (lever, cable, should say front caliper break). It would be nice to have a rear caliper brake and a front disc brake to illustrate both types of components there. I'm not a huge fan of the arbitrary grouping ("Saddle Area" is just something invented for this particular diagram, better not to mention it, "Group set" is usually the name given to the drive train components including the crankset but not the pedals). JJ Harrison (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support very clear,concise and uncluttered.One minor nitpick-should it be tire or tyre-I'm not certain whether this is a 'British' or 'US' article Lemon martini (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Armbrust The Homonculus 09:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Grey boxes need to go. Would prefer colorless version too. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2012 at 20:08:50 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Lackey moth
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Dr. Holger Krisp
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support good technical quality and good EV. --Pine✉ 03:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support good image! looks scary but good Mediran talk|contribs 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
. Excellent picture. ComputerJA (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Absolutely! An eye-catching image full of technical win. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Looks very nice, definitely helps the article. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Malacosoma neustria Caterpillar.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2012 at 20:27:19 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Saint-Augustin, Paris
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Saffron Blaze
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Good angle but this also worth a look. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Jeb's lighting is warmer and more pleasing that is for sure. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. It's a shame that the trees in the foreground obliterate the side of the building, but short of a bit of urban vandalism of those trees, there's not a lot we can do about that... Thanks for the extra link Jkadavoor but tbh the nom is streets above that one, mainly because it's, well, "above street" level... The angle of your link means that a large amount of the building is hidden... gazhiley 10:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Gazhiley. Jkadavoor (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support with note to Tomer T that in the article, the captions don't need periods because they're not sentences, so you didn't need to add the periods. --Pine✉ 16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per all above. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 19:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support I really love the angle, this is how all buildings should be photographed. Agree that the lighting is a bit bland and that the trees obscure the building, but still, an amazing photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, the angle, in my opinion, gives a much more dramatic picture than this. —Bruce1eetalk 07:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Saint Augustin Church Paris .jpg --Julia\talk 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2012 at 11:20:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Muhammad Ali Mosque, Ottoman architecture
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Kallerna
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm assuming this has been stitched as it's exhibiting fairly common distortion caused by cylindrical projection. Sometimes it's aesthetically pleasing but I'm not sure it is in this case... It makes the building look bulbous (not helped by the curved domes on top). I think a rectilinear projection would be more appropriate for this image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2012 at 22:30:11 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, of historic significance, Quality image in commons , Featured picture in Farsi Wikipedia.
- Articles in which this image appears
- History of Gilan, Amlash culture
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
- Creator
- Rama
- Support as nominator --Scholarphil (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- comment blown highlights on the comb bit. Very hard to avoid mind.©Geni 04:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- The cutting it out to a false black background also seems a bit crude and clear it was done... — raekyt 09:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2012 at 20:29:11 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and good EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nyala
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Spacebirdy
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Is it just me, or is the DOF kind of narrow? Dusty777 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes; on large view. JKadavoor Jee 06:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support per Dusty777 Mediran talk|contribs 10:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not convinced by the framing or the background. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Distracting and awkwardly positioned clutter behind animal. 86.160.84.230 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)- Please log in. Tomer T (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, nice pose, and I don't find the background distracting; high EV (the only female on the nyala page). —Bruce1eetalk 07:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, after some thought I have to agree with Bruce1ee (talk · contribs) regarding high educational and high encyclopedic value, in addition to high quality of the image for usage with such purposes in mind. — Cirt (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose the photo's focus isn't good enough for FP. The photo of the male is better in this regard. --Pine✉ 18:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 11:56:19 (UTC)
- Reason
- Pleasant lighting and colors, good angle.
- Articles in which this image appears
- John Lennon Peace Monument, John Lennon, Imagine (song)
- FP category for this image
- Artwork/Others
- Creator
- Creative Concern Ant Clausen
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 11:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose While this is a valiant attempt at good photography, the text is a bit blurry when viewed at full size, and the Hilton sign in the background is unwelcome. --Pine✉ 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as well, I also don't think the big photographic banner in the background would be covered under FOP in the UK, so there is a potential copyright issue here. — raekyt 08:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose that when you shoot from the point of monument's inscription, the Hilton sign would be inevitably there (don't know about the background portrait though). Brandmeistertalk 12:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wider aperture would take care of that. However dealing with the blow highlight issues on the right would be a bit of a challenge. Perhaps trying with the sun very high in the sky?©Geni 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Pine. looks noisy Mediran talk|contribs 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Raeky - the background image is almost certainly not covered under FOP and may present copyright issues with the image. The Hilton sign is also a problem. It looks as though you're not quite centered on the inscription text; if you change the angle a bit, you might be able to obscure any recognizable parts of that backdrop with the monument itself and avoid the issue entirely. It's a very good image, but unfortunately the potential issue with FOP is a non-starter. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 02:50:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, good image, has a free license, good resolution
- Articles in which this image appears
- European Turtle Dove
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Yuvalr
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 02:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose focus should be better for a featured picture. --Pine✉ 23:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Pine's right - the focus looks ok at thumbnail size, but at full resolution things get a bit fuzzy. It might be possible to sharpen things up a bit using an image editor, but sometimes they add a lot of noise to the image, so use caution. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- For me, the composition is awkward. 86.160.84.230 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, the out-of-focus bird in the background is distracting. —Bruce1eetalk 07:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:16:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great picture, excellent lighting. (Hasn't met the one-week requirement yet, but as it obviously belongs where it is and I don't see any better daytime photo of the main building, it's not going to get replaced.)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Moscow State University
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Dmitry A. Mottl
- Support as nominator --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Almost had me standing up and singing "Soyuz nerushimiy respublykh svobodnykh ..." and packing to volunteer to go down to the kolkhoz and help with the harvest. Great perspective on the best-known example of Stalinist architecture, and you're right—we're not going to get a better one any time soon. Might want to consider a tighter crop, though. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with comment regarding a crop. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I added a crop, though I'm not entirely convinced that it makes it better as it loses a bit of the dramatic wide-angle feeling with the clouds and such. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with comment regarding a crop. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support crop I agree the first has a more interesting composition, but EV needs the crop. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support crop for en:WP; the dramatic version should be for Commons except the dang Russian FoP crap. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- What's the Russian FoP crap? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- commons:COM:FOP#Russia. If you take a photograph of a building, it may not be free in some countries, in particular Russia. However, we ignore these restrictions here because we only care about US law, but Commons does care. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- What's the Russian FoP crap? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support--Tomcat (7) 20:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support both. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support either, prefer original. I don't see why the crop has higher EV; architecture is contextual. Chick Bowen 23:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support cropped version a better and more focused view of the building. Mediran talk|contribs 13:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Crop Per above. Dusty777 09:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- The above was added by User:Dusty777. SpencerT♦C 06:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Moscow State University crop.jpg --Julia\talk 18:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2012 at 06:59:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- A well known mosque in the Bara Imambara complex in Lucknow. Good quality, EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bara Imambara, Asaf-Ud-Dowlah, List of mosques in India
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment Appears to be tilting to the left.Dusty777 16:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)- Comment Seems to have the same distortion problem as the Taj Mahal. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The image quality is very good, and as far as I'm concerned, the 'distortion problem' is not important, but the upward looking angle and the scaffolding in the foreground doesn't really help the composition. I'm left wishing I could see it from a better vantage point. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- The green metal poles are permanently placed there. On crowded days such as Fridays, sheets of material are placed over them to act as an extension of the mosque. --Muhammad(talk) 08:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support I too wish if the photographer can stand in the same level of the courtyard; but assume there is no possibility considering the steps in front. JKadavoor Jee 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Mediran talk|contribs 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nice catch. -Fjozk (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Alt-1 Prefer tilt fix. Dusty777 22:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Asfi masjid.jpg --Julia\talk 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Tilt correction has been uploaded to the original file. Julia\talk 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2012 at 03:42:18 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and EV, extremely high resolution
- Articles in which this image appears
- Seaview SVII
- FP category for this image
- Natural phenomena/Others
- Creator
- Uploaded by User:Hersfold, image credit belongs to Underwater Earth/Catlin Seaview Survey
- Support as nominator --Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- support While perhaps not the greatest image its interesting on a technical level and the OTRS release looks solid.©Geni 04:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support It is rare to be able to get underwater photography of such high resolution and quality. Plus great wow factor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per KoH JKadavoor Jee 15:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support I think it's an excellent underwater image, and it's difficult to get underwater imagery of such quality. Eire102 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
OpposeI'm going to have to oppose here, first, we have tons of great underwater photography freely licensed on Commons. The big issue with this is the perspective is just VERY strange, it stretches very weirdly along the bottom and is nothing at all like a "normal" perspective. I don't know what scientific parameters they're using to capture the images with this kind of distortion, or if it can be programically undone or is done so it can be stitched together better with automated software or what, but this image is just weird and hurts my head to look at it. Therefore I can't support it as "our best work." — raekyt 08:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)- I don't want to seem like I'm hounding, but as the caption mentions, the distortion is actually part of the EV of the image. The image is captured as a 360-degree panorama, allowing the viewer to look in any direction when it's rendered properly (up and down as well as left and right and such). When rendered in that form, there is little to no distortion at the top and bottom "edges." Here, the image is rendered similar to a map of the world - I think using the Mercator projection, although I may be wrong. The point being, the image is best represented as the inside surface of a sphere, and that's how it was meant to be displayed. That distortion you see is indicative of this, and the best way we have at our disposal to demonstrate that to the reader within our article. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe it would have good EV for an article on the method of making that 360 view if we have one, or that projection method, but otherwise I think it has less EV... is that how all the images are taken for that survey to be displayed for google? Looks like only a very small few was used by Google for some novelty on their maps program, the majority of the images from this project I doubt are rendered this way since it would make it more difficult to do a survey for which they're intended. Rendered this way, viewing this way, it's odd.... EV for this project is low, an image of the actual underwater craft would be MUCH higher EV... — raekyt 16:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of the images taken as part of this survey are available in the proper 3D view on the group's website - there's a link to one such tour at the bottom of the article. Some - in time, maybe all, I'm not entirely sure - will eventually be available on Google as well (they've six locations already). They also provide public access to the "flat" versions like this one, which is where I downloaded this image after handling the copyright stuff. So no, they likely won't use "flat" versions of the image for survey data, but we have no means by which to display the 3D version here. I agree it looks odd, but it does make it very clear that the image is meant to be seen in a 3D view, thus illustrating the capabilities of the camera. (Since you mention it, the article does contain an image of the camera itself, but it's a little fuzzy and not FP-quality.) Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- We do have the means. I've added the appropriate template to the image page to link there. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ooooohhhh... :-O Pretty. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Would potentially change my vote if the caption linked to the toolserver version of the image..... — raekyt 20:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ooooohhhh... :-O Pretty. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- We do have the means. I've added the appropriate template to the image page to link there. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of the images taken as part of this survey are available in the proper 3D view on the group's website - there's a link to one such tour at the bottom of the article. Some - in time, maybe all, I'm not entirely sure - will eventually be available on Google as well (they've six locations already). They also provide public access to the "flat" versions like this one, which is where I downloaded this image after handling the copyright stuff. So no, they likely won't use "flat" versions of the image for survey data, but we have no means by which to display the 3D version here. I agree it looks odd, but it does make it very clear that the image is meant to be seen in a 3D view, thus illustrating the capabilities of the camera. (Since you mention it, the article does contain an image of the camera itself, but it's a little fuzzy and not FP-quality.) Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe it would have good EV for an article on the method of making that 360 view if we have one, or that projection method, but otherwise I think it has less EV... is that how all the images are taken for that survey to be displayed for google? Looks like only a very small few was used by Google for some novelty on their maps program, the majority of the images from this project I doubt are rendered this way since it would make it more difficult to do a survey for which they're intended. Rendered this way, viewing this way, it's odd.... EV for this project is low, an image of the actual underwater craft would be MUCH higher EV... — raekyt 16:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to seem like I'm hounding, but as the caption mentions, the distortion is actually part of the EV of the image. The image is captured as a 360-degree panorama, allowing the viewer to look in any direction when it's rendered properly (up and down as well as left and right and such). When rendered in that form, there is little to no distortion at the top and bottom "edges." Here, the image is rendered similar to a map of the world - I think using the Mercator projection, although I may be wrong. The point being, the image is best represented as the inside surface of a sphere, and that's how it was meant to be displayed. That distortion you see is indicative of this, and the best way we have at our disposal to demonstrate that to the reader within our article. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Mediran talk|contribs 10:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support The image is being used to illustrate this particular scientific photography endeavor, and it is the proper choice of subject and shows the distortions. -Fjozk (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, simply breathtaking panoramic vista. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Heron Bommie SVII.jpg --Julia\talk 19:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 01:29:23 (UTC)
.
- Reason
- It's certainly not a pixel-perfect portrait, but given the very challenging conditions (poor lighting and heavy rain), I think it's a pretty successful photo of a subject that we have little quality photography of, and this is a fairly prominent event in the cycling world - The Womens Road Race at the London Olympics. The photo is taken in the closing stages of the race and focus is on the middle rider and eventual winner, Marianne Vos of the Netherlands. The rear rider, showing fierce determination is British Lizzie Armistead, with Russian rider Olga Zabelinskaya leading them into the closing stages. Water is flying everywhere, pouring down from the sky, and spraying up off the tyres of the bikes. Lighting them from the rear is the official's car just out of frame. It was understandably a tricky shot to get as I had just a split second to lean past the crowd, try to avoid waving flags/heads/arms getting in the shot, then frame, pan and track the cyclists as they passed by, and hope that they focus stayed locked in.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cycling at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's road race and Lizzie Armitstead
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 01:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support I prefer more lead room; but convinced by your argument "to avoid waving flags/heads/arms getting in the shot". Why not add to more important articles like Road bicycle racing or Bicycle racing? JKadavoor Jee 06:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- When you say more lead room, do you mean more space on the right side of the frame? This can be accommodated, there is a bit of space available that I chose to crop, but there is an official in fluorescent green standing there which I thought was a bit distracting. I'll upload it as an alternative. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes; I prefer it (alt) even though the fluorescent green is a bit eye catching and her look on you is a bit distracting. JKadavoor Jee 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- When you say more lead room, do you mean more space on the right side of the frame? This can be accommodated, there is a bit of space available that I chose to crop, but there is an official in fluorescent green standing there which I thought was a bit distracting. I'll upload it as an alternative. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support good image, looks dramatic Mediran talk|contribs 10:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support original - The yellow jackets in the foreground (of Alt 1) and background work to draw your eyes away from the bikers, which of course should be the main focus of the image. This is a very good shot, though, particularly under the circumstances. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, very nice use of focus, makes you feel like you're right there alongside them. — Cirt (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support either (slight preference original), very nice sporting shot. Chick Bowen 04:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support both, I would go for the original, although I don't mind Alt 1 – the yellow jacket on the right tends to balance out the one on the far left. —Bruce1eetalk 07:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support original This is a highly dramatic photo with lots of EV. I find the yellow jackets in the alternate distracting, though it's also a fine photo. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support both, prefer alt. ■ MMXX talk 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support both can't really decide, but I am leaning towards supporting the original. Their yellow jacket is a little bit distracting.--Tomcat (7) 11:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support original, the second yellow jacket in the alt is off-putting. BencherliteTalk 19:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Olympic Road Race Womens winners, London - July 2012.jpg --Julia\talk 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 09:33:24 (UTC)
- Reason
- A good image, has a free license, good resolution
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mount Pinatubo, Olongapo, Presidency of Corazon Aquino, U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
- Creator
- United States Marine Corps
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 09:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- commentEven for early 90s 400ISO film thats pretty horrific grain.©Geni 15:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose While a decent depiction of the ash, the grain is just too much of a limitation. SpencerT♦C 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose That noise is overwhelming. Dusty777 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 18:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 09:31:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV video explaining the work of the European Southern Observatory
- Articles in which this image appears
- European Southern Observatory
- FP category for this image
- link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
- Creator
- European Southern Observatory
Support as nominator --Pine✉ 09:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)- Support, high educational value and high encyclopedic value. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Excellent EV. Dusty777 17:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Question What about all those Google Earth copyrights in the map sequence?
- This is currently being discussed at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ESO_Trailer_2011.ogv. Should we pause the nomination until this is resolved as keep or delete? --Pine✉ 17:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw after discussion on Commons regarding the unfortunate problems with licensing. --Pine✉ 17:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 14:53:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Dom Luís Bridge, Porto
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Poco a poco
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent detail, good perspective, although it's a shame that there's the tip of something poking up from the bottom-right corner. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, wonderful perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good ev and nice quality. SpencerT♦C 06:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Pine✉ 00:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Puente Don Luis I, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 13.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 06:56:56 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality portrait; high EV, especially for Wrinkle; Commons FP
- Articles in which this image appears
- Wrinkle, Demographics of Nepal
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- travelwayoflife
- Support as nominator --—Bruce1eetalk 06:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, applicable for usage on multiple articles, educational, encyclopedic, high value and high quality. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I'm getting a strong sense that this has had an unnatural level of post processing, in particular that kitschy bleach bypass type effect. It weakens the EV. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. This kind of photo would always be move valuable with more information, as its limited, not terribly helpful use in articles demonstrates. It would be more valuable in wrinkle if her age were known, more valuable in Demographics of Nepal (and potentially other articles) if her ethnicity were known. Chick Bowen 01:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the photographer did not publish this information here, probably because it was not known. —Bruce1eetalk 06:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Manang is not ethnically heterogeneous. People from manag are called nyeshang or manang-bas; they speak their own language, Manang language, and are adherents of Bon. Several volumes have been published on the region and are likely to contain further information if required. Also note that for the purposes of the 2001 Nepal census, Bonpo were lumped with buddhists; fwiw, by this classification, only 3 of the 515 people in the village administration area were *not* "bouddha" in religious orientation; these three were Hindu, which we can exclude with a high degree of certainty for the woman depicted. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 17:23:13 (UTC)
- Reason
- Important figure, successful portrait, good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Harald zur Hausen
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- Kuebi
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- And Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, high quality, historical value and scientific therefore of course educational and encyclopedic value is also high in this particular case. — Cirt (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also Support for the alt, it's just as good. — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Only his face is in focus. The left side of his head (his right side) is out of focus, the left side is only partly in focus, and the top of his head is soft. The technical defects detract considerably from the EV.Dusty777 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)- I added now an alt - I think maybe it has better sharpness. Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support alt -Fjozk (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Alt It's not entirely in focus, but the angle of the picture, as well as the stronger sharpness increase the quality considerably, and contribute strongly to the EV. Dusty777 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Question. Is he really bright red like that? Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:32:28 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is the best illustration of the Shapley–Folkman lemma in human history. Shapley's 2012 receipt of the Nobel Prize in Economics (to be awarded in December) makes this topical.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Shapley–Folkman lemma, Minkowski addition, Zonohedron (Zonotope), oriented matroid, Ivar Ekeland.
- FP category for this image
- Mathematics
- Creator
- David Eppstein
- Support as nominator --Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, educational and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Comment [I understand now that I cannot vote unless logged on with an account]. Incomprehensible, even after reading the opening of the article. I'm not saying it would not make sense with further study, but to be a featured picture, it needs to be more accessible than this. 81.159.107.19 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)- Comment A (now-retired) member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "All I can say about its illustrations is that 'I am impressed'. Excellent.", in response for a request for an evaluation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per ip. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please rephrase your oppose so that it includes a "specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image". Would it be fair to say that "the caption is too complicated and a drastically simplified caption should be substituted"? I suggest an alternative caption below, which is simpler.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Alternative caption:
- Minkowski addition and convex hulls. The sixteen dark-red points (on the right) form the Minkowski sum of the four non-convex sets (on the left), each of which consists of a pair of red points. Their convex hulls (shaded pink) contain plus-signs (+): The right plus-sign is the sum of the left plus-signs. This picture illustrates that the convex hull of the sum of sets is the sum of the sets' convex hulls.
- I'm afraid I still find this unintelligible. I have no idea at all what this diagram is supposed to be illustrating. 86.146.108.178 (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Its taken me a while to understand the picture. It wasn't until I got down to Shapley–Folkman lemma#Statements that in became clear. The statement which made it clear was if a point x lies in the convex hull of the Minkowski sum of N sets then x lies in the sum of the convex hulls of the summand-sets. Even that needs some decoding, first take the four sets on the left which consist of two points each. Take all posible sums of points from each set (the Minkowski sum) this gives the 16 red dots on the left. Next form the convex hull, imaging stretching a rubber band around all the points, the convex hull is all the points inside the band, this gives the pink region on the right. The convex hull of each of the sets on the left is just the pink lines joining the dots. Finally we get to the lemma, take any point in the pink region on the right, this must be the sum of four points on the pink lines on the left. This is illustrated by the + signs.
- As to the actual image, one you understand the lemma it is a very elegant illustration. However, it maybe a bit too concise, trying to put everything in one diagram, which is a impressive feet, may make it a bit harder to follow. The steps could be broken down into 4 or 6 images. A) the four sets, just with the dots, B) their Minkowski sum - the 16 dots on right, C) & D) convex hulls of A) & B), E) & F) final pic with + signs. A caption making it clear that the 16 dots on the right is the MS of the sets on the left might also help. --Salix (talk): 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the substantial comments. :) The statement that the convex hull of the sum is the sum of the convex hulls is a preliminary result, not the Shapley Folkman lemma (which states that an even more surprising fact, which is illustrated by David's drawing)! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah get it now. As the dimension of problem is 2 the point must be the sum of four points only 2 of which can be in the convex hulls.
- Rather than a featured picture I think this would be a good candidate for the Picture of the Month in Portal:Mathematics. It would need a much improved caption so its clear what the statement of the lemma really is. Maths picture of the month does allow for a more extensive caption. Its also worth pointing out the significance of the lemma as Shapley won the 2012 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.--Salix (talk): 12:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rather than "can be", you mean "need be", I think. :)
- The criteria for featured pictures do not include general accessibility, as far as I read. Would you, Tomcat, or the IP link this policy, please? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- My knowledge of Wikipedia policy does not extend that far I'm afraid! However, I would argue that the image has no great intrinsic skill or merit, and is something that anyone with a basic familiarity with computer drawing packages could easily produce. Therefore, its only potential claim to fame* is its explanatory power, and I currently find its explanatory power conspicuously lacking. You could say it explains the theorem to people who already understand it, but is unintelligible to people who don't. 86.167.19.237 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC) * I mean, in a "featured picture" sense. I'm sure it is a very worthwhile addition to the article itself...
- David's picture was the first and may be the only illustration of the Shapley-Folkman lemma in world literature. You can see some hand-waving illustrations of the "convexification on average of Minkowski addition" in Mas-Colell's New Palgrave article on convexity and in Dimitri Bertsekas's book on nonlinear programming (cited in our SF lemma article), but there may still be no other illustration of the SF lemma---certainly not before Eppstein's picture (2010).
- The criterion for judging pictures is the picture's contribution to the article, not the accessibility of the mathematical theorem (or the technique needed to produce this illustration, once David has made the conceptual break-throughs). David is a Professor of Computer Science who specializes in computational geometry, and I suspect that his use of colors, etc., rewards attention.
- I thank you for ending the paragraph with a conciliatory sentence. Indeed, de gustibus non est disputandum. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Right, it may be that I am misunderstanding the scope of the "featured picture" award. I imagined featured pictures ought to be of fairly wide appeal and interest, and accessible, at least on some level, to most people reading the encyclopedia. If that's not the case then my objections on the grounds that almost everyone won't understand it go away. 86.167.19.237 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- My knowledge of Wikipedia policy does not extend that far I'm afraid! However, I would argue that the image has no great intrinsic skill or merit, and is something that anyone with a basic familiarity with computer drawing packages could easily produce. Therefore, its only potential claim to fame* is its explanatory power, and I currently find its explanatory power conspicuously lacking. You could say it explains the theorem to people who already understand it, but is unintelligible to people who don't. 86.167.19.237 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC) * I mean, in a "featured picture" sense. I'm sure it is a very worthwhile addition to the article itself...
- Thanks for the substantial comments. :) The statement that the convex hull of the sum is the sum of the convex hulls is a preliminary result, not the Shapley Folkman lemma (which states that an even more surprising fact, which is illustrated by David's drawing)! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support Yes, it does illustrate the lemma. But I'm not convinced it does so really clearly. The example given in the text of article is much easier to understand ('The Shapley–Folkman lemma implies, for example, that every point in [0, 2] is the sum of an integer from {0, 1} and a real number from [0, 1]'). JJ Harrison (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- A one-dimension illustration on a two-dimensional computer-screen would not capture the imagination.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
My support is weak because I think three points in the plane might be less confusing.
- I suppose that you mean three pairs of points (to be summed).
- The lemma states a proposition that depends on the dimension of the space and not on the number of summands. So having four summands illustrates this take-home message, which is the reason that this lemma is so important in economics.
- I had the same thought. :) However, Three pairs of distinct points (having line segments as their convex hulls) would be simpler, yet three summands do not lend themselves to symmetric graphical-representation. David's four-windows treat the four summands symmetrically. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:51:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- Best illustration and perhaps the only illustration in the literature, which simply uses the definitions (without illustration). The distinction between inner radius and circumradius explains why the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem is an improvement over the Shapley–Folkman theorem.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Shapley–Folkman lemma
- FP category for this image
- Mathematics
- Creator
- David Eppstein
- Support as nominator --Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, educational and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd like to see some verification provided. I assume there is some academic paper or textbook that could be cited to show that the information presented is correct. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply The information is correct because it simply applies the definitions found in the original article (Starr). I understand that supremum and infimum operators are difficult to understand for persons who've not studied university mathematics; you could ask at the WikiProject Mathematics for additional confirmations. However, Jacob Scholbach, Geometry guy, and other mathematicians have scrutinized the article as it went through GA and A class nominations (successful) and its FA nomination (unsuccessful, because of failure on "brilliant prose"): Perhaps you could first scan those nominations and judge the comments about the content and its being based on reliable sources, before asking for new confirmations? (In response to your query, I left a notice at the WikiProject Mathematics.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is a little more detailed explanation of correctness that can be given. The outer circle is optimal because it has three points forming an acute triangle on its boundary; enclosing all three of these points by a different circle would be larger, regardless of whether it contains any of the other points. For the same reason the inner circle can't be changed to be near to its current position without making it smaller. and in the other parts of the point set the points are placed so densely as to make it obvious that there is no larger inner circle anywhere else. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply The information is correct because it simply applies the definitions found in the original article (Starr). I understand that supremum and infimum operators are difficult to understand for persons who've not studied university mathematics; you could ask at the WikiProject Mathematics for additional confirmations. However, Jacob Scholbach, Geometry guy, and other mathematicians have scrutinized the article as it went through GA and A class nominations (successful) and its FA nomination (unsuccessful, because of failure on "brilliant prose"): Perhaps you could first scan those nominations and judge the comments about the content and its being based on reliable sources, before asking for new confirmations? (In response to your query, I left a notice at the WikiProject Mathematics.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A (now retired) member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "All I can say about its illustrations is that 'I am impressed'. Excellent.", in response for a request for an evaluation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, the criteria were a little more lenient on this point than I'd expected - they allow for verification in the article. Whilst I am uncertain whether that ought to be allowed, it clearly is. I'm certain this is supported by the sources in the article. Support. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to me to be a self-evident illustration of the concepts. The set is finite (and hence compact), and so the extrema are attained: The radii can be confirmed using a protractor (as in sophomore geometry in US high schools). The inequality of the radii is obvious. What is your concern? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have replied sooner. My concern is with verifiability. One man's self-evident is different to another man's, surely a princple we apply to articles all the time. For me to be able to verify the image, I'd need to look at an outside work, a book or article. Now I was under the impression, when I first commented, that such verification had to be given on the image page, but I was mistaken. In this case, it is clearly provided in the article and its sources. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, the criteria were a little more lenient on this point than I'd expected - they allow for verification in the article. Whilst I am uncertain whether that ought to be allowed, it clearly is. I'm certain this is supported by the sources in the article. Support. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)