Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Desiccation cracks in sludge[edit]

Edit 1 - sharpened. Samsara (talk  contribs)
It caught my eye, it's got cool patterns, it is of high quality, and is of encyclopediatic value.
Articles this image appears in
desiccation, sludge
  • Support as nominator TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Are you certain this isn't an aerial shot of a suburban subdivision? ;) DurovaCharge! 04:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak Oppose Poor sharpness at 100% and not a particularly breathtaking subject to overcome this. --Fir0002 11:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. Nice picture, but nothing to provide a sense of scale. How large are these desiccation cracks? IronGargoyle (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Can I borrow you to say that again some time? Scale is a rather neglected aspect around here imho. Samsara (talk  contribs) 08:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gargoyle. Clegs (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose; it's not interesting enough, nor is it of much encyclopedic value. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support, I agree with IronGargoyle that scale would be nice, but its really not the subject. It's dessication which can happen at various scales so it doesn't make it any less encyclopedic. gren グレン 06:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - Broccoli is a plant of the Cabbage family, Brassicaceae (formerly Cruciferae). It is classified as the Italica Cultivar Group of the species Brassica oleracea. Broccoli possesses abundant fleshy flower heads, usually green in colour, arranged in a tree-like fashion on branches sprouting from a thick, edible stalk. The large mass of flower heads is surrounded by leaves
A beautifully executed, encyclopedic picture of a common subject
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Hadseys (talkcontribs) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not one of our best. Overexposed, and not enough information about the image, e.g., was the broccoli frozen or fresh? Finally, composition is not enchanting. I have a feeling Fir may be aware of these shortcomings. Samsara (talk  contribs) 09:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ResponseHow does it not illustrate the subject? What else is there to illustrate, and given that theirs no ice, its fresh, and the composition is subjective. How would you have done it? --Hadseys (talkcontribs) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe the phrase I used was not enough information, and I was quite specific about what is missing. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Obvious support. Excellent, top-quality shot of broccoli! Maybe you shouldn't have cooked it, but cooked is fine too since it's only of interest to people as food. --f f r o t h 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not cooked. It says "ready for cooking". See the confusion? Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Óppose - Boring composition, plus the broccoli looks like it has freezer burn around the edges when you look close up. Colors are washed out, and the caption talks more about a full head, which this isn't. Last, ready for cooking is completely and totally subjective...not everyone gets their broccoli into this form before cooking. Sorry, but it just isn't spectacular (meaning the best of wikipedia) in any way. I would much prefer a shot of the whole head, that is more illustrative than chopped up bits. pschemp | talk 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to clear the confusion on the state of the broccoli. They were fresh and chopped up in pieces - mum was about to cook them when I stopped her and took the picture hence the "ready for cooking". --Fir0002 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose; the detail is there...but I find it boring for some reason. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are a few gaps in the brocolli which show the white below that ruin it for me, they're just... too distracting, I guess. --Mad Tinman T C 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't know if its the color or the little white spots, but this broccoli looks very unappetizing, and I like broccoli. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Close-up of mole[edit]

Original - moles are members of the mammal family Talpidae in the order Soricomorpha. Moles live underground and burrow holes. Moles have cylindrical bodies covered in fur with small or covered eyes; the ears are generally not visible. They eat small invertebrate animals living underground. Moles can be found in North America, Europe and Asia.
Excellent close-up picture of a mole. The image is very encyclopedic, showing both the large claws and the face of the creature, including the prominent whiskers and fur in detail. In addition, the image is suitably high quality for FP, and as a bonus has an enjoyably amusing quality about it...unless you have a well-kept lawn. Bob talk 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles this image appears in
Mole (animal), Talpidae
  • Support as nominator Bob talk 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support great picture! Λua∫Wise (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - look alright as thumbnail, but at full resolution, almost none of the photograph is in focus, and in particular the details of the mole are in some areas very blurry. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-25 14:01Z
  • Oppose The only thing that is in focus is the tip of his nose. Clegs (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose focus issues. Unfortunate; how common is it to see a mole above ground like this? --Bridgecross (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak and reluctant oppose per focus issues. Adorable critter. DurovaCharge! 19:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Dohhhhh I so want to support this, but too little is in focus. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support I love the mole, but is there any way to bring the background into just a little bit more focus? Either way, I support because this is a rare picture of a mole above ground during the day in the wild, and as I said, the picture of the animal itself is very good. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First supersonic flight[edit]

Original - Chuck Yeager breaks the sound barrier, 1947.
A 1947 newsreel of the first supersonic flight; pioneering moment in aviation.
Articles this image appears in
Sound barrier, Bell X-1
unknown; U.S. Gov't public domain
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 04:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • support sweet. de Bivort 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.Spikebrennan (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I wonder how many horrific accidents there were with plans peeled to shreds before they could make this little news bulletin for Beaver's family --f f r o t h 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Just amazing... I don't know what else to say. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very well done! Clegs (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wow. Very impressive find. Thingg 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ummm...Not applicable? This is a video, isn't it? We're nominating pictures, not video. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Some featured pictures are video files. DurovaCharge! 10:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Free lesson: 'movie' is derived from the term 'moving pictures', which is what film was originally called; video of course is a later derivative of film. To get to the point, yes it's a picture, yes it's eligible. --jjron (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, whee. Thanks for that little lecture. I'm giving this one Strong Support for its encyclopedic and historical value. I'm simply astounded that the first supersonic flight took place onboard such an aircraft. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogv MER-C 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lower Consolation Lake[edit]

Original - This image shows Lower Consolation Lake, located close to Moraine Lake, on Banff National Park in Calgary, Alberta.
Another beautiful image of Banff National Park. This is a breath-taking and stunning image.
Articles this image appears in
Moraine Lake, national park
  • Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Breathtaking indeed, though the upper-right corner could be a little sharper (and not cut off)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - great picture.   jj137 (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support- Ahhhh.....pschemp | talk 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's lovely, you can almost breathe the crisp mountain air.. but it doesn't hit a big encyclopedic note at all. There's precious little of the lake in the shot – it actually looks more like this – and the bit of it you do see (with the underwater tree remnants) I would prefer to crop out to improve overall composition. Honestly, I can see why it will garner support but I'm left wondering what the name of the mountains in the distance is, as they're the only really prominent subject. --mikaultalk 09:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's Moraine Lake; this is Lower Consolation Lake, which is adjacent, but not the same. howcheng {chat} 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • question what's going on with the shadow intensity? Is this an HDR image? The shadow on the right side of the valley is dark along its edge, but is bright lower down. It looks like it has been selectively lightened within the shadow. The reflection of the sky near the far mountains is brighter on the lake than it is in the actual sky. I suppose that's optically possible, but really, it looks selectively lightened in the shadows. de Bivort 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what it is. It could have done with being softer , certainly, but the effect is similar to using a graduated ND filter over the lens to darken the sky relative to the FG. It's such a straight line it might even be a filter. I don't mind it, actually, even though it is a bit obvious. --mikaultalk 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess one of the points of this whole photography adventure is to replicate the perception of a scene, and given retinal adaptation, this might not be too far from that perception, but it just looks too manipulated to me. de Bivort 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per distracting selective lightening. Otherwise I think it is very nice. de Bivort 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for not really representing the subject article well. Great shot, though. Try for FP on the commons. gren グレン 10:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak Oppose It is quite nice but the obvious lighting/feathered HDR attempt is too distracting. Plus as mentioned above it hasn't got terrific enc value. --Fir0002 11:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support wow!! Mario1987 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose lack encyclopedic value. Cacophony (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was considering nominating this the other day (I think we followed the same set of links from the FP article below), but I knew there would be gripes about the "representation" of the lake. I'd support it, but I don't think there's a chance of it passing at this point. Nice find though.—DMCer 08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Now that it's in national park, it becomes exceptionally encyclopedic. The image quality, obviously, speaks for itselft!—DMCer 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I think this would make a great encyclopaedic image in national park. It would also work in an article that discusses definitions of "pristine" in the context of ecology. It seems we don't yet have such an article. Samsara (talk  contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As this nom has been going for some time now, I've gone ahead and inserted the image as proposed. Samsara (talk  contribs) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose; it's a great picture, no doubt, but it lacks encyclopedic value. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's in two articles now, so why am I still opposing? Support! Yes, I reiterate that this is a great picture...although "stunning" might have been a better word. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Angelono2008 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support superb picture. I've been there twice and this image definitely captures the feeling of Banff NP. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent picture, superb quality. Schcambo (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as creator. Hope that's not considered too egotistical but I think it captures the spirit of the place and it looks like the shot can use all the help it can get. (Chuck Szmurlo) (talk) 30 January 2008(UTC)

Promoted Image:Consolation-Lake-Szmurlo.jpg MER-C 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lilium 'Citronella[edit]

Original - A Lilium 'Citronella, a flower of the Lily family, is pictured, during a beautiful partly cloudy day.
Edit 1 An edit to remove the artifacts from the cloning attempt made in Edit A.
Edit A First edit to remove the distracting flower, from the commons nomination.
This is a clear, and nice image of a Lilium 'Citronella, part of the Lily family.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 The distracting flower in the original was not good. The composition and perspective is what is cool. Let me rant on two subjects. First, over-saturation: As some famous photographer who's name I can't remember said: "Wild colors are the bastion of the uninspired and unskilled. Light is the most important aspect of photography. Light is what gives photographs life, feeling. Color just fools innocent people into thinking an image is good." Looking at Ken Rockwell's pictures makes me ill, the combination of ultra wide and grossly over-saturated color. This image is good in spite of the crazy colors, not because of them. The second, is crazy long signatures. Oreo, your sig is no less than three full lines on my edit page. Really, not to cramp your individuality but if people want to know something about your style, they'll visit your userpage. Anyway, you are definitely not the only one. This is all in good humor but, uh, maybe something to think about. ; ) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of second flower. Samsara (talk  contribs) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original. And FCB, your sig seems to have trailing spaces. Samsara (talk  contribs) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (edit 1) - I like them just about the same, but I find the extra flower slightly distracting.   jj137 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose (edit 1) the edit was actually a re-edit -- a 'don't edit this but if you are going to edit it, at least do it well'. -- carol 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support Original Not bad - but the framing is a bit clumsy. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Edit 1 - poor cut out job (check out the ends of the stamen - looks like it was done using fluidmask?). --Fir0002 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I never heard of that software. The edit history is mostly here. I did not like the artifacts left in the sky in edit A and I think I mostly replaced the whole sky. Any problems you see around the flower -- probably GIMP did via masks. And, it would not have been GIMP (which is a collection of algorithms that have gui attached to it -- frequently referred to as software), it would have been the user of the software at that time who screwed up what was already an unnecessary and destructive edit of a perfectly good photograph. Sky gradient that was used. -- carol 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DurovaCharge! 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Has the leaf at the top also been worked? The discoloration could be a cloud, but it really looks like someone has painted some blue across the edge of the leaf, perhaps to remove some other distracting element. Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just like magic, where the magician (and the assistant) say 'look here' while just out of range of your attention, something else is going on or perhaps you need to get your monitor calibrated. -- carol 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talkcontribs)
  • Weak Oppose its just not quite there. Close, though. Rudy Breteler (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lily Lilium 'Citronella' Flower 2578px.jpg MER-C 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indiana State House[edit]

Original - Picture of the Indiana State House; Indianapolis, IN; 2006
Shows a great view of the State House that none of the other existing pictures do. Has good aesthetics, lighting, etc.
Articles this image appears in
Indiana_State_House, Indiana, and Indianapolis
  • Support as nominator -- JTHolla! 01:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unencyclopedic composition presents slanted verticals and cuts off the subject in many places. Try for a more straightforward shot some of these.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HeretoHelp. Clegs (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per HereToHelp and due to some noise in the sky. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find myself scrolling down looking for the bottom of the building. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Monument Circle[edit]

Original - Picture of Monument Circle in Downtown Indianapolis, July 2006
Nice picture of the Soldiers and Sailors Monument in downtown Indianapolis. Meets all the requirements, and is a great looking picture.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator -- JTHolla! 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Doesn't look too good. 8thstar 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Waaaay too much sky; barely any buildings. It goes to a lot of effort to show us the top of the monument and then doesn't show the bottom or surroundings. Also, the colors towards the bottom right look very dull.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HereToHelp. Clegs (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per HereToHelp and because it is of below-average quality. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand Central Station outside.[edit]

Original - Grand Central Terminal in New York City.
You know, I wonder how Diliff managed to take his picture of GCT here I set up to take a panorama in the inside and some US military officer comes over and nearly confiscates my tripod. Maybe Diliff shot hand-held but it was pretty dark in there. Diliff, (if you see this) how did you manage it. Anyway, outside, I avoided a tussle with a drunk middle-aged woman and took this. The perspective was difficult but let me say that I got it almost as well corrected as I think possible.
Articles this image appears in
Grand Central Terminal, Rail transport in the United States
  • Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • question this a squared off building right? It looks really curvy and would benefit from perspective correction I think. de Bivort
  • Comment Could some of the distortion be an optical illusion, because there's a round building behind it goofing up the perspective? Clegs (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there's some residual distortion left over. What I see is the angle between the left wall and the subject wall. That will be nearly impossible to correct fully. This is the third stitch I've done to try to correct all of the distortion that I could see. If you could point out specific places where it is worst, I could do another stitch. Keep in mind that in NYC there isn't really wide open space to get nice perspective on the building. I think the horizontal angle of view was close to that of a 10mm lens on a full frame, something you can only get with a fish-eye and leaving worse distortion. So I could potentially try again if you mean someplace specific but I was very pleased to get it this corrected. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Current There's three smudges right in the middle of the picture. Looks like a smear on the lense? per the distortion issues raised by debivort. I do realize they are difficult to fix, but the picture just looks funny. Clegs (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, uh, with all due respect those "smudges" are steam or smoke emanating from the station due to heating or train activity. I actually found them quite aesthetic. I'm slightly interested by the strong oppose, assuming that they were actually smudges, they would have been very easy to remove. In any case, I hope that clears things up for you. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll see if I can correct it a bit better. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. Clegs could have added that the flag is blurry as well, but these "flaws" are just a part of taking low light photos. Cacophony (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Verticals aren't straight, for one thing. I'm not sure if I prefer a straight-on shot or not, but this one looks…odd. Kinda. Meh.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very odd distortion. The whole picture is bowed and warped - even the proportions of the taxis change over the span of the image - Peripitus (Talk) 08:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HereToHelp and Peripitus. Matt Deres (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a former New Yorker I confess bias toward images of that grimy yet gorgeous city, yet it's hard to see the particular encyclopedic value here. This is one of the better known landmarks. I can't endorse the shot as architectural photography or as a candid scene of city life. If post-9/11 security makes photography cumbersome then shoot across the street (not the Chrysler Building, the Chanin Building - or take the crosstown shuttle, ride up the 2 or the 3 to 96th street, stroll down to Riverside Drive, and shoot the Cliff Dwelling...I'd really love a photo of that art deco forerunner...but I digress). DurovaCharge! 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did shoot that interior shot hand-held. It was dark, but I used a high ISO and image stabilisation. Even so, I was pretty limited at f/4 but managed to pull it off, I suppose. :-) It is pretty common inside buildings to be prohibited from taking photos with a tripod. They usually use the excuse that it may cause a safety hazard (people tripping over the legs etc), but occasionally when they want to restrict you from taking commercial quality photos. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Stealth monopod? ;) DurovaCharge! 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unencylopaedic distortion. I will certainly support it on Commons, though. --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 11:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per peripitus. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dryadula phaetusa[edit]

Original - Heliconius hecale is commonly known as the Tiger Longwing. It is a Heliconiid butterfly that occurs from Mexico to the Peruvian Amazon.
Apologies to anyone who saw this one coming. I hope the merits are obvious.
Articles this image appears in
Nymphalidae, Dryadula, Dryadula phaetusa
Richard Bartz
  • Support as nominator Samsara (talk  contribs) 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Very nice picture indeed - but WIkipedia has way to many images like this. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 15:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And what is wrong with having way too many images like this? Chris.B 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • support great photo Muhammad(talk) 15:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent shot. Great use of colour, contrast, composition. Chris.B 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Encyclopedic and beautiful. Cacophony (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support beautiful - vignetting in the bokeh, compositionally spot on. lovely. de Bivort 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's some funny response, Chris, and yes, I would Support this image; there are no faults that I can see. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support One of the best butterfly pics on Wikipedia. Lycaon (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent image, color and clarity. Achromatic (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- JaakobouChalk Talk 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose too artificial and tawdry Wladyslaw Sojka (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ummmm, ok... care to explain? Clegs (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Philaethria hecale 2 Richard Bartz.jpg MER-C 05:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Admiral Farragut[edit]

Original - Admiral David Farragut of the American Civil War.
Unrestored file from colloidon glass negative, 1855-1865. (provided for comparison).
Admiral Farragut was the top Union Naval offier of the American Civil War. This was the man who said, Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead. The eyes fascinate me - calm and fierce at the same time.
Articles this image appears in
David Farragut
unknown Mathew Brady or Levin Corbin Handy
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice cleanup...seems mens glove styles haven't changed significantly...I support--MONGO 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great job on the clean up but I've got to oppose on composition - LHS hand cut off --Fir0002 11:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Actually that crop was a necessity. As you can see from the unrestored version, that area of the photograph was heavily damaged. The portion beyond the current frame was too decomposed to restore. DurovaCharge! 11:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Another very well done restoration. Kudos! Clegs (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support A historic, encyclopedic image. Muhammad(talk) 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for historic and encyclopedic value; we can always use images like these. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support well done, a very good portrait superbly restored. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very nicely done. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 07:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Adm2.jpg MER-C 05:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Central Pier Hong Kong[edit]

Original - Central Pier, in Cental Hong Kong, one of Hong Kong's most populated, is shown at night, with high skyscrapers rising about.
Edit 1 - Noise reduction
This is a stunning image of a night shot of Central Pier in Hong-Kong with awesome clarity.
Articles this image appears in
Central, Hong Kong
  • Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Sky seems noisy/artifacty. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as per Howcheng. Achromatic (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as above... the lower half of it seems alright though. -- Phoenix2 07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose- re-take this photo on a clearer night, the far away buildings in the left of the picture are too fuzzy from the smog Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Smog is an unfortunate reality for this location. It's China, I don't think you can get around it. Unfortunately, I'm in the oppose camp, due to the noise. I definitely love the pierre though.—DMCer 12:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo Soldiers[edit]

Original - Buffalo Soldiers of the 25th Infantry, some wearing buffalo robes, Fort Keogh, Montana, 1890.
Version 2. Better contrast, smaller size
A rare photograph of encyclopedic and historical value with surprising informality. In an era when most group military portraits of enlisted men feature neat ranks and perfect uniforms, these men show personality. One peers shyly from behind a tree, another holds up a frying pan, a third rests a shovel on his shoulder. A whiskey flask makes its rounds while three other men brandish weapons--a real Old West flourish. Another fellow stretches on the ground and rests his eyelids. Restored version of Image:Buffalo soldiers.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
25th Infantry Regiment (United States)
Chr. Barthelmess
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent find. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Immense historical value and high quality for the period. I love the attitude of the guy with the pipe and shovel. These men look badass. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
    • Note My vote is for the original version only. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As per above Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 15:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wonderfully done. Support. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment i've tried to improve (see second version) --The Watusi (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • weak support for original. The historical aspect is huge, but the quality here leaves a lot to be desired. The Watusi's edit is worse (no offense; a worthy try). Matt Deres (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I was neutral previously, but now that you uploaded the cleaned up version I support it (the cleaned up one of course) Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Original More interesting, more authentic "feel" to it, IMO. Great historical significance either way. faithless (speak) 06:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Buffalo soldiers1.jpg MER-C 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seattle Ferry[edit]

Original - The Bainbridge Island ferry in front of Downtown Seattle.
This is a very encyclopediac and clean picture.
Articles this image appears in
Seattle, Washington
Jamies (talk · contribs · count)
  • Support as nominator ComputerGuy890100 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great. Caption might need some improvement. Muhammad(talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to low resolution. I'd be more forgiving if it wasn't such an easily reproduced photo. It would also be nice to have a wider view that shows more of the skyline. Cacophony (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Very nice and sharp, with good coloring. As Cacophony said, though, something like this should be significantly higher-res. Clegs (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly. Easily re-creatable photos like this need to be the best of the best. gren グレン 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Grenavitar. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gothenburg Opera[edit]

Original - GöteborgsOperan (English: the Gothenburg Opera) is an opera house in Gothenburg, Sweden. The construction of the opera started in 1989 and it was opened in 1994. The building located on the southern riverbank is one of the most notable landmarks in Gothenburg.
Edit 1 - edit to correct perspective and pincushion distortions and add some LCE
Edit 2 - colours adjusted
Reason for nominating the picture? Trying to get it featured of course! :) – Image has encyclopedic value, it depicts the architecture of the building quite well in my opinion.
Articles this image appears in
Gothenburg Opera
Krm500 (talk)
  • Support as nominator Krm500 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment To me (and sometimes my eyes do play tricks on me) it seems like the building is leaning to the left slightly. It's hard to say for sure though, because there are so many angles on the building. Clegs (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's distortion. If you run a ruler along the verticals, you'll find them to be all different angles. MER-C 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose original Distortion should not be present in anything striving to be an encyclopedic depiction of architecture. Especially as its so easy to correct - see my Edit 1 Mfield (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both - Both are rather distorted per a more rectilinear view like this. Although the nightshot is good, from what I can see online the building's colouring is important and perhaps should be shown more prominently. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Didn't think the distortion would be an issue since other FP images on wikipedia also has it, I was more worried about the building being cut off on the left side. Thanks for your edit Mfield, but it's almost impossible to get a good result afterwards, the best thing would be a tilt and shift lens from the start. I could probably do something about the colour, but IMO it isn't more colourful in real life, the broad daylight probably affects the other image you presented. --Krm500 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Added a new version, with adjusted colours. --Krm500 (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nice job on the distortion fix. If you could somehow get the Macbeth sign fully in the photo (in edit 1), while keeping the great color of the original version, I'd support it in a heartbeat.—DMCer 12:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting, the colors appear different between Original and Edit 1 to you DCMer? They look identical to me on multiple browsers. I didn't edit the colors at all, just corrected distortion and did some local contrast enhancement so they should appear the same. Unless there is some kind of profile mismatch. Re: the Macbeth sign, its a maximum crop after the distortion is corrected, unless the original file has more image to the left there's just too much distortion to remove without some of that sign having to go. Mfield (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I actually was referring to an attempt to correct the sign cutoff, while not enhancing the colors as they are in edit 2, I like the colors better in the first two. Shame about the distortion fix/cropped sign tradeoff. I still love the picture though.—DMCer 08:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • support Edit2, great HDR, nice prospect of this building Wladyslaw Sojka (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A Day Panorama[edit]

Original - A digital composite of 6 panoramas taken periodically through the course of a single day. On the RHS is the east and dawn and on the LHS is the west and sunset.
I don't think you could represent a day any better than this and it makes for a very interesting and unique image.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Fir0002 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, trying to illustrate "day" is really stretching the concept of "encyclopedic". It's not a concept that needs to be explained through photos, and if someone from outerspace didn't know what a day was, I don't think this composite image would greatly help. Perhaps it could be used to illustrate azimuth: showing the azimuth of sunrise and sunset. (you'd need to mark angles along the image, and add details in the text of longitude, latitude and time of year to make it a clear example) —Pengo 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nom this on commons for a sure FP :D\=< (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pengo. Would possibly support a version showing 6 suns, that would illustrate the concept of day much better. Great image, though. --Janke | Talk 08:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as per all comments above. I have no issues with quality. The only problem is that it may not be of encyclopedia appeal, being more of an eye-candy than a picture fit to be on an encyclopedia. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    •'s used in an article, and I re-learnt the definition of encyclopedia via Wiktionary. My vote's changed to Support. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just looked up the word 'encyclopedic' there -- they say it relates to the word 'cycle'. -- carol 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose, Commons it. --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 11:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support If nothing else, it illustrates sunrise \ sunset and the symmetry between them. To me, I think it's great as it shows the beginning and the end of a day. It's stunning, to. I do however, suggest that you make another of these , showing 6 suns (as Janke said). I would strong support that in a heartbeat. --Mad Tinman T C 19:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • PS: You've outdone yourself with this one Fir. --Mad Tinman T C 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the comments (and compliment!) however getting more suns in this image is pretty near impossible. They were taken in June so the sun was a low as it ever is (in the southern hemisphere) and the images were shot at 17mm and yet the sun was still way too high to get it into the frame. To get more suns in you'd sacrifice the land and the two most important events, sunrise and sunset. --Fir0002 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Really? Can't say I very much understand panoramas, and was unaware of such limitation. Given that, I chage my vote to strong support. --Mad Tinman T C 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Simply love the photo.. and it fits in the article.. what more can you demand :p The only thing that bugs me a bit is the rather low vertical res.. could be a bit higher ;) Yzmo talk 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good idea, but the picture itself is too blurry, if it were clearer and sharper, especially around the tree, I would support Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Picture is blurry?! You serious? It looks pretty darn sharp to me --Fir0002 05:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I must agree with Fir, not sure where you see that blur, I checked the tree and it seemed fine. --Mad Tinman T C 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment... so, we're not on Tatooine, right? Not sure I want to oppose it but the lines around the rays of lights don't look very good. gren グレン 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support Think it perfectly illustrates day and night. Schcambo (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pengo. It doesn't really illustrate anything well, either day by itself, or day and night. Clegs (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, much per Pengo. I might hang it on a wall, in fact, but I can't for the life of me see how it is particularly encyclopaedic. Samsara (talk  contribs) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment to those who do not find this encyclopedic Allow me to explain why I believe this is quite encyclopaedic. For that purpose, I'll depart from an example. Take Real numbers. To represent this set , we use one of 3 representations : ℝ , an infinitely long number line , or ]-∞ , +∞[, IE, the two limits of the set. Now, carry this idea on to day. It begins with sunrise, and ends with sunset , and, carrying on from the previous example, this concept can be represented by representing it's limits and the idea of transition between. This picture does exactly that, and thus gives a very good idea of what a day is. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 20:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC) PS: In a discussion above, originality was referred by a voter as possibly having some value for FP's. Doesn't get any more original then this.
  • Support Good shots but brilliant idea. I am impressed. IMHO, adding to its description at which period of the year and where it was taken (geotag if possible) would be very useful. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • support same opinion as Alberto Wladyslaw Sojka (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support While I don't think it illustrates day particularly well (at first glance, that is), I think it's a beautiful, creative picture which will definitely catch the eye of whoever comes across it, and get them to continue reading. faithless (speak) 06:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mice galaxies[edit]

Original - The Mice Galaxies, NGC 4676A (right)/NGC 4676B (left), a pair of colliding galaxies. Taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.
Interesting and striking astronomy image. Adds value to several articles
Articles this image appears in
Galaxy formation and evolution, Mice Galaxies, Interacting galaxy, Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, Galactic tide
Hubble Space Telescope
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment First fix the caption. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Caption fixed (it wasn't that hard). --jjron (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support; there really is no issue with this image that I can find. It's a little bland, but there's nothing much you can do about it. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support encyclopedic, interesting, technically sound. Cacophony (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support encyclopedic, magnificent and very good for many articles gppande (talk) 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Cacophony and gppande. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportRyan shell (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:NGC4676.jpg MER-C 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Priapus statuette[edit]

Original - Bronze statuette of the Roman fertility god Priapus, made in two parts (shown here in assembled and disassembled forms). This statuette has been dated to the late 1st century C.E. It was found in Rivery, in Picardy, France in 1771 and is the oldest Gallo-Roman object in the collection of the Museum of Picardy. This figurine represents the deity clothed in a "cuculus", a Gallic coat with hood. This upper section is detachable and conceals a phallus.
Fascinating piece of artwork. Wouldn't this be a nice front page image. is my source for it being made of bronze.
Articles this image appears in
I should point out that the image apparently consists of crops and copying from this commons image. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DurovaCharge! 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Oh wow. The Fat Man approves.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The phallus is not as sharp as it should be ... for a controlled shot like this one -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I was going to support this despite the blur on the phallus - there are overpixels after all, but the hood is just a cropped clone of the assembled version on the right - which seems misleading. de Bivort 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The statue is interesting, but it looks like all images have been cutout and pasted onto that coloured background - no that doesn't discount it from being an FP, but it just looks odd, especially that 'floating' torso. (And personal grumble, why are we getting an increasing number of candidates through here with their image page description in another language? Can they not be translated? I like to read these to see what the original uploader said, not just what's been put into the caption here, which is often considerably different.) --jjron (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't read French, so I used babelfish to translate the original French caption, puzzled out what it was supposed to say, then did some additional research to come up with the caption used above. I've added my English-language caption to the Commons description page for the image. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not very good quality for a still life. Blown out, not sharp around some edges. etc. --gren グレン 08:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per per Debivort and Jjron. Clegs (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose too bad, I think this is a fascinating sculpture, but I don't like how it looks cut and pasted. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Loch Lomond waterline[edit]

Original - View across Loch Lomond at the waterline looking North at Ben Lomond
Just a beautiful picture across the the Loch, and clearly showing the Ben it takes its name from on the far side. Also perfect as a wallpaper (which I use it as!)
Articles this image appears in
Loch Lomond, Ben Lomond
Alison Wheeler
  • Support as nominator AlisonW (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it just my screen, or does this have some artifacting in the water and the near shore. Clegs (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There isn't any so far as I can tell (from checking on flatscreen and CRT). --AlisonW (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose thanks for the nomination, but this photo is too small and lacks the detail to rise to the level of one of the best landscape shots on wikipedia. de Bivort 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh? Sorry, hadn't realised people were size-ist! I have now replaced the earlier (1,280×800) version by the full version (2,272×1,356). Hope that helps ;-) --AlisonW (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, sizeists in the forum that selects the very best images in the project? Imagine that. I'm sorry but the new version doesn't add much detail, and is grainy. To be among the best, this shot would likely need to be taken as a panorama and stitched. de Bivort 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support Good composition. Flat lighting and haze make me less than enthusiastic. DurovaCharge! 18:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose; now, surely you can get a better-quality picture than this. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: color casts, horizon is not level. Achromatic (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the several issues raised by Achromatic and Debivort. Clegs (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Foucault Pendulum[edit]

Original - Animation of a Foucault pendulum showing the sense of rotation on the southern hemisphere. The rate of rotation is greatly exaggerated. A real Foucault pendulum likes to go weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee and swing back and forth, released from rest, does not pass directly over its equilibrium position as the one in the animation does.
I happened across this entirely by accident when I went to the signpost page to determine why it was linked to an open afd of mine. While there I caught sight of the 2007 picture of the year link, and the image caught my eye. Its a finalist from the competition, and is already featured on the commons.
Articles this image appears in
Universe, Foucault pendulum
Commons User:DemonDeLuxe
  • Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DurovaCharge! 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's a brilliant animation, but with a few problems. If it's greatly exaggerated motion, and "A real Foucault pendulum, released from rest, does not pass directly over its equilibrium position as the one in the animation does", why are we featuring it? It's factually inaccurate, and without an accompanying caption/article, is misleading. Also, what's the consensus over FPing this version with a German compass rose (O for Ost as opposed to East)? —Vanderdeckenξφ 09:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanderdecken. I will happily support a corrected version.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanderdecken. Also the reflection of the ball on the photo is distracting. de Bivort 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A real Foucault Pendulum takes 24 hours to complete the oscillation cycle-- this is misleading and therefore unencyclopedic. Spikebrennan (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe the point here is not to show the time, but the trajectory of the pendulum. Surely an animated gif which takes 24 hours to complete its purpose wouldn't be of much encyclopedic value. I think a simple caption will take care of the time paradox, but as stated by Vanderdecken, the fact that the caption has excuse the pendulum's path of moving over the equilibrium makes this one a reach for me. —DMCer 12:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment It is plain nonsense that the pendulum takes 24 hours to go all the way around. It is 24h / sin |latitude|. That is, it is only at the poles it takes 24 hours. At the equator it does not go around at all. In between it is more than 24 hours. If you were to add a watch it would then have to be localized to a specific latitude. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose as per factual inaccuracy stated by Venderdecken and irritating rear reflection. On a side note, however, I think it does a great service for the Graphics Interchange Format. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you support a slower version? Or one with a timer shown? I don't think making it literally 24 hours is a good idea but removing the illusion of such speed might be. gren グレン 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Stick a clock on the wall next to the picture with only an hour hand. —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • That still wouldn't help. The plane of a Foucault pendulum's oscillation, in New York City for example, rotates 235 degrees in a day, but it would oscillate back and forth hundreds of times (exact number would depend on the length of the pendulum). The only way to make it accurate in both its rate of oscillation and rotation would be for the diagram to simulate the movements of such a pendulum in a planet with profoundly weak gravity - and then speed up the animation relative to actual time. Meniscus (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Couldn't we just say this is the theoretical perfection of the oscillation? Obviously in planetary physics and such you will very rarely run across an example that doesn't have some sort of variable messing it up. Couldn't we just rewrite the caption to reflect that? Clegs (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Can not believe this was a finalist for PoTY at commons. Wikipedia sure is tough to please :D --Muhammad(talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe the difference is probably because Commons is primarily concerned with the artistic value (which is very high here, it's a gorgeous animation) and Wikipedia is primarily concerned with encyclopedic value (which is small here because of several factual errors). Clegs (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding Vanderdeckens comment that the Foucault pendulum does not pass through the center when released from rest in the rotating coordinate system that is correct. But the pendulum does not have to be released that way! The animation actually depicts the trajectory as seen from the rotating system when released from rest in an inertial system. This can easily be accomplished in the rotating frame by giving it a small initial tangential velocity when released. Concerning that the animation is misleading, I think it would be nonsense to animate it in real time. It can be correct by the way if the pendulum is suspended in a very very long line as the period of oscillation goes up that way. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As explained above it is the caption, which is misleading. The animation can be correct concerning the trajectory. It is a matter of the initial boundary conditions of the equations of motion. And concerning the exaggerated angular velocity it has to be this way to illustrate the motion. A clock won't do as the clock depends on the latitude. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I think the solution to making this an encyclopedic picture is to have a caption that includes the characteristics of the planet it is operating on. For instance, this image would work on a planet if we say that the pendulum is located at the north pole (the rotation would be opposite on the south pole) of a planet with earths gravity, except with a rotational rate ~10,000 times faster than Earth's. To get this factor exactly we need someone to measure the exact time it takes this animation to repeat itself and then divide the length of a sidereal day on Earth by this time. The result would give how much faster a planet would have to be rotating than Earth for this animation to be accurate at its north pole. Without the relevant planetary statistics I would have to oppose this image based on its unencyclopedic nature. Meniscus (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. As such, it is misleading, doesn't represent the "traditional" pendulum experiment. --Janke | Talk 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Downtown Seattle[edit]

File:MG 4949wp.jpg
Original - The skyline of Seattle at night as seen from Alki Beach.
Very beautiful and flowing picture.
Articles this image appears in
*List of United States urban areas
Achromatic (talk · contribs)
  • Support as nominator ComputerGuy890100 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to noise. In the future please use a less arbitrary (MG 4949 isn't very discriptive). Cacophony (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As discussed extensively in a recent nom, images appearing only in these 'List of...' articles aren't adding much value to the article/encyclopaedia. If it's good enough it should be in a proper article, such as the main Seattle article. --jjron (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But that's a very easy problem to fix. The only problem with that is that some people (usually newbs who don't know any better) think nothing of switching out a really good pic for their piece of junk. For this one, I say, by all means, add it to the Seattle article. It would go nicely with the other Seattle FP, which is taken from the land side of the city. Clegs (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • As discussed in the other nom I linked to, it's not always as easily fixed as you suggest, especially in big articles like Seattle. Secondly (also as discussed in the other nom), it's something that should be fixed before the image is nominated at FPC - as the first line on this page defines: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles...". It can't add to an article if it's not in it. --jjron (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I find no faults with the picture. However, I think there's too much...water...if you know what I mean. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • After reviewing the newly-uploaded version, my vote has been changed to Support. Good work on addressing the issues we've mentioned. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, excess amount of noise and artefacts, especially in the sky. --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 11:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Since none of the problems I mentioned are present in the new version, I change my vote to Support. Great colours, light, ok sharpeness. --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do hope this is not inappropriate - I've only just noticed this nomination, and am flattered. I do feel that many of the comments made are valid, and in light of this have uploaded a newer version - higher res, with a lot less noise and artifacting. I've also adjusted the composition better, as I think the shot benefits from the 'waterline' being lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talkcontribs) 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on usage (please refer to criterion 5). Adds little to no value to this 'article' (well, list) - in fact I'd say it's rather misleading as it only shows 'downtown' Seattle which could suggest to users that that is what is meant by an urban area. The photos of say LA and New York in that article are far more illustrative in this regard. (Incidentally, the new upload hasn't addressed the file naming problems raised by Cacophony either.) --jjron (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, looks great as a thumbnail, but is a huge letdown in full size. The noise may be gone, but the details are too. The highlights look way oversharpened, displaying strong aliasing. Plus I second Jjron's comment about filename and adding value to the 'article'. --Dschwen 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Dschwen. The details are gone and the colors are smudged. Is there a better copy of this anywhere? Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Silurian Orthoceras Fossil[edit]

Original - Macro of a Silurian Orthoceras Fossil.
Edit 1 background removal
I think it has a high technical standard, resolution and encyclopedic value.
Articles this image appears in
Orthoceras Fossil
--Digon3 talk
  • Support as nominator --Digon3 talk 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we need a bit more info here. What exactly are we looking at/for? What are the significant features that this photo shows particularly well? Samsara (talk  contribs) 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • weak oppose this particular shot may be a macro, but this kind of fossil is common and often large (up to more than 30cm long), so I was hoping for more detail at the full size. de Bivort 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Çomment- One thing I know, it doesn't show the whole fossil animal and this is a isn't really close up enough to be considered a macro shot. pschemp | talk 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, it looks like this was shot in a museum, but we don't know where. It would be good to include this information. Samsara (talk  contribs) 07:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The picture was taken at my house, and I bought the fossil about 7 years ago. I could include the dimensions if that would help. As for a good caption, it is not really my strong point, and I was hoping someone else could come up with a better one. --Digon3 talk 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Julia Allison at Fashion Week[edit]

Original - Julia Allison, Star Magazine, Bryant Park, New York City
its beautiful and should be recognized
Articles this image appears in
Julia Allison
Christopher Peterson
  • Support as nominator Thatsbeautifulforeal (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The image does not meet the size requirements. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-06 20:21Z
  • Speedy Close - Does not meet the requirements as per Brian. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per above, additional oppose for composition (arm is cut off). Spikebrennan (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per above. Clegs (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein Alumni and Faculty Center[edit]

Original - The Goldstein Alumni and Faculty Center(GAFC) is a 3-story red brick building which has a Colonial Georgian architecture. The building cost $25,000 to build. The GAFC was originally home to the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, until 1974 when the Syracuse University purchased the building from the fraternity and renovated it. The building now serves as an Alumni Center where students, faculty and alumni may gather.
Self-nomination, this building has a lot of history in it with Syracuse University. The image is high quality and encyclopedic. The image has good contrast and color balance as well as adding great value to the article it belongs too. I believe this image fully meets the FPC criteria and should be therefore considered for the honor of being FP. My only complaint is the flag pole in the image, but there is no way to get this quality of a picture without it there. Besides that, I do not believe the flag pole detracts from the image, but rather enhances it by adding to the location of where the image was taken.
Articles this image appears in
List of Syracuse University buildings
  • Support as nominator ZeWrestler Talk 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I may support a better reshoot. This one has flat lighting and awkward composition. DurovaCharge! 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What would improve make the composition less "awkward"--ZeWrestler Talk 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It may be tough to get a good angle on this structure because of the hill. I suggest examining official campus publications where it's been shot professionally and determining where the photographer stood. You might wind up at a window of another campus structure using a zoom lens. Try to do this either early or late on a day with less haze in the air. That could require a tripod if you end up with a really long lens. The conditions for this shoot would have been fine for outdoor portraiture, but they obscure the architectural details. Also that tree in the foreground interferes with about 70% of the facade and the flagpole breaks up the side wall. I'd try a different angle if possible, and frame/crop closer. DurovaCharge! 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the verticals aren't vertical. The building is leaning to the right. I make support a reshoot, though. Clegs (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose slanted, too much sky, too much foreground, not clear enough- this picture has none of the qualities one looks for in a FPRudy Breteler (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • " well as adding great value to the article it belongs too." This is used solely in a list, not a proper article, where it's one of over 30 tiny images at a whopping 50px wide - how is that adding "great value"? As I've said on a couple of recent noms, no images solely used in lists amongst squillions of similar images add much value. Honestly, if they were adding value they would be in a real article, whether it be about this building or about the university itself. And I will keep repeating this until the message gets across. --jjron (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Clegs and washed-out colours. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Windmills in La Mancha[edit]

Original - Group of windmillss at Campo de Criptana in La Mancha, Spain.
Attractive, adds value to several articles. Featured on commons and in Spanish wikipedia, among other places.
Articles this image appears in
Windmill, Wind power, La Mancha, Spanish architecture, Don Quixote
Commons contributor Lourdes Cardenal
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Why this particular crop? DurovaCharge! 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some pixellation, blown highlights, and it's just a hair below the size requirement. Also there's something about the composition that seems unbalanced. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not below the strict size requirements. de Bivort 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Below Barely meets size requirements; it's so easily reproducible that this is inexcusable. Clegs (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not below the strict size requirements. de Bivort 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, but this could easily be retaken with a resolution 3 times larger than the current candidate.
  • weak oppose - pretty interesting culturally, but the lighting is harsh and the composition is uninspiring - moreover, it seems like the composition could be very neat with a change in the camera angle. de Bivort 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't care for all of that clutter in the foreground, between the stone wall and the windmills. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I think the lighting fits the subject well. --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • weak oppose per Bivort. I want to move to the left and get more of these windmills, minus the stone terrace and the television antennas. DurovaCharge! 06:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse[edit]

Original - Collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, 1940.
One of the more spectacular engineering disasters to have been caught on film, this clip is a minor classic in its own right. From the article text: In 1998, The Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". This footage is still shown to engineering, architecture, and physics students as a cautionary tale. Fortunately no people were killed in the disaster, but a cocker spaniel was too frightened to leave the car that was stranded between the spans. So apologies for the rush of nominations these last couple of days, but I could hardly believe my eyes when I realized this video hadn't been an FPC yet.
Articles this image appears in
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Barney Elliott (released public domain)

NOTE: The Tacoma Narrows actually failed due to Aeroelastic Flutter, not by resonance. See the page of this bridge Diego Torquemada (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support there is no doubt at all that this deserves an FA star, but I will state fir the record that having a guy whom I consider to be a pro with a camera on hand on the date of the incident is by a wide margin the least likely thing that could have happened here, and because of that I feel this vid segment should be treated with a grain of salt. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The fellow who shot this was owner of a local camera shop. The bridge had been nicknamed "Galloping Gertie" by local residents because of its tendency to sway with the slightest breeze, and these appear to have been gale force winds. The film was used in newsreels, has been featured in university lectures for decades, and joined the National Film Registry list of important American cinema. Can you cite one source for this doubt about its authenticity? DurovaCharge! 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not doubting its authenticity (otherwise I would have opposed), what I am saying is that in a sense people should consider the fact an expert on cameras shot this and treat this as a unique instance of filming: obviously proffesional film guys are not on hand for every building collapse, bridge collapse, train derailment, 982 car pile up, etc. I say this largely because the I-95(?) bridge collapse in minnasota a few years back was captured by a Army Corps of Engineers survalience camera that happened to be looking that general direction, but when nominated for FP status people complained that it didn't measure up to the tacoma footage. I am merely noting here, as I did there, that this was shot a profesional and that such occurances are very rare, and that because of that I tend to be a little bais against the image because I feel it was, in a sense, "staged". TomStar81 (Talk) 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, I understand better now. This bridge had only stood for four months. So the local residents had reason to doubt that it would last. Clearly Mr. Elliott knew how to frame a shot. Looks like he saw an opportunity to shoot something significant and leaped at it; it's not as if he worked for a news service. DurovaCharge! 03:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • WTF? --jjron (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with Jjron. WTF? It doesn't matter in the slightest whether the cameraman was professional or not, it only matters if it is freely available and of high quality/significance. Anyway, how do you stage a bridge collapse? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am the only person in this community who has scene a hollywood movie!? Sheesh, people, go forth and live a little for pete's sake, and then come back and see if it doesn't look just a little bit like something you would see in a Jerry Bruckimer film. And I take the oppurtunity to point out that I didn't oppose the nomination, I just wanted people to put the quality of this film into context. Thats all, nothing more and nothing less. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - this is an iconic piece of footage that is widely used as an example of wind induced mechanical resonance in bridges. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The Tacoma Narrows actually failed due to Aeroelastic Flutter, not by resonance. See the page of this bridge Diego Torquemada (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Highly encyclopedic. Good find! Clegs (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support; regardless of who filmed this video, it is definitely of great encyclopedic value. I saw this video back in the 1990s and it piqued my interest. Anyone who has never seen this video would definitely be interested to watch the whole length of it. It is also a reminder to us that suspension bridges aren't that easy to build. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 06:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom. I had no idea that this footage was in the public domain-- the collapse was in 1940. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support per the reasons that TomStar81 used for only giving weak support, the Jerry Bruckheimer comments especially, because it's actual footage and really old as well. It's not like anybody could stage this by jumping up and down on the bridge or something like that. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportRyan shell (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great historic value. faithless (speak) 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support This is one of my favorite clips of all time. It is extremely encyclopedia-worthy. Enough said. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Encyclopedic footage of a historical event. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I would of course a featured media page for vids but that not being relevant support since this is an extremely good video of an exceedingly encyclopedic topic. Cat-five - talk 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is so obvious. -- RM 04:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tacoma Narrows Bridge destruction.ogv MER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Admiralty Butterfly[edit]

Original - A Red Admiralty butterfly (Vanessa atalanta) collecting nectar from a Blue Gem flower (Hebe x franciscana)
A high resolution and good quality illustration of a well known butterfly in its natural environment, comparing favourably with the existing pictures
Articles this image appears in
Vanessa atalanta
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
  • Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either. They're both good, but I think there's a little more detail in the first image. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 13:57Z
  • Support original --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Original Wow! Excellent picture! You can see every single detail on his wing! Clegs (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original. DurovaCharge! 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Original, Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak Oppose Alternative. Gonna buck the trend here - the original is badly oversharpend with an unappealing background. The alternative is better in that the oversharpening isn't as bad but it now lacks definition; also composition could be better in that the low angle results in too much of the butterfly being obscured by the leaf without much gain IMO. Sorry but the insect bar is fairly high... --Fir0002 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Fir, are you sure that the original is a victim of sharpening? I thought that the picture was too blurred to match up to Featured Picture standard. I mean, if you were to compare this image with this one, you might go, "Wow, a beetle." and "Pfft, a butterfly.". This image was well-shot, but it just doesn't match up. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I'm pretty much 100% certain it's been oversharpened - you can see this in all the white "flecks" in contrasty edges. It isn't blurred per se but lacks definition (for want of a better word) - meaning that a blurry photo has been heavily sharpened in some kind of software gaining little or nothing in terms of detail a lot of oversharpening artefacts. --Fir0002 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, prefer original. Background of original is just fine. Interesting to have the underside visible for a change. Samsara (talk  contribs) 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ..."Interesting to have the underside visible for a change"??! Uh you might want to revise that considering more than half of the current butterfly FP's show the underside: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 --Fir0002 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Outstretched, baby, outstretched. Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original. Good enough quality, enc. --Janke | Talk 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose both both not sharp enough. The lightning of the first is not perfect, too. —αἰτίας discussion 15:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Vanessa January 2008-2.jpg MER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanks of World War I[edit]

Original - World War I Allied tanks advance in Langres, France (1918).
It's one thing to see a photograph of a tank, another to watch one in action. And yes, by the end of this two minute clip there's definitely some action. This early example of filmmaking has unmistakable historical value.
Articles this image appears in
Tank, History of the tank Tanks in World War I, World War I
Unknown (U.S. Gov't public domain)
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 07:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. At the end of the clip, is the tank dragging barbed wire? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • More like carrying it, I guess. Getting past that fence is probably why it fires the shell. DurovaCharge! 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC
  • Support Good find, Durova! Clegs (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as of significant historical value. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportRyan shell (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very informative, great historical value. faithless (speak) 05:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For information: This footage is not genuine World War I. The scenes of the British heavy tanks are reenactments staged for a 1927 cinema film called "The Somme." The brief shot of the French Renault FT light tank has been cut in. The source might well describe the clip as stated, but there is nothing to confirm that any of it was shot at Langres. Hengistmate (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tanks of WWI.ogv MER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Racist campaign poster[edit]

Original - A Pennsylvania political campaign poster for a white supremacy platform, 1866.
A historic campaign poster shortly following the American Civil War in the northern border state of Pennsylvania. Even among opponents of slavery, during the mid-nineteenth century in the United States racism was widespread and many white people believed that African-Americans did not deserve full citizenship rights. It serves an encyclopedic purpose to acknowledge that this existed and that it was this blatant. Restored version of Image:Racistcampaignposter.jpg
Articles this image appears in
Racism by country#Post-slavery racism, John W. Geary, and Disfranchisement after the Civil War.
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support perm nom. Another excellent job, Durova. You rock. Clegs (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support We had a blackface ad about a month ago that this reminds me of.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent original source in good condition, very helpful and direct to the understanding of the topic Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Take a look at the original, unrestored version on Picture Peer Review to see what an impressive job of restoration Durova has done. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much. You guys are making me blush. :) DurovaCharge! 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice one. - Darwinek (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support though I'm not sure to understand the message of the illustration. They both look ill, the black and the white! - Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The white man is better groomed and wearing better clothes. Since only white men could vote in that election, the message appears to be don't be a radical, vote your own interests - go with a winner. DurovaCharge! 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a great image. The relevant section in Geary's article could use some expansion, including perhaps the information in the image caption (with sources would be ideal), if anyone is interested. Chick Bowen 05:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent idea. Done. :) DurovaCharge! 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great restoration. faithless (speak) 06:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg MER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - Size comparison of all cetacean species
Very simple yet informative.
Articles this image appears in
Cetacea, Evolution of cetaceans
  • Support as nominator Nnfolz (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose, for now - not very attractive in the thumbnail, surely it could have a little color? Also, I find the variability in line width of the figures unfortunate - clearly some of these images are identical scaled versions of each other. de Bivort 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose-this image is not nearly interesting enough to be a FP, the criteria clearly states that it must grab attention and that the image should, by itself, draw people in to read the article. I do not see this colorless, uniform conference of simple drawings of similar subjects doing this. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Perhaps someone more knowlegable ~than me (just about anyone)could make it more atractive. Perhaps by changing the backround or something.Nnfolz (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, needs reference to verify whale size. gren グレン 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, needs scale in meter or centimeter or inch also mentioned somewhere on picture. gppande 05:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a human silhouette? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it is worthy of FP at the moment, maybe if some more work is done to it. Just to say a few things, all of the diagrams are made individually, except for the right whales, which are just scaled. The reason for the different thicknesses is that i originally made them as separate images (see any of the cetacean species articles) and then i added them all to one SVG afterwards. I don't fully understand SVG but this seemed to prevent me from adjusting the thicknesses of the lines (although i would like to). A scale line could be useful, but i think the human is enough (since it is used for similar posters etc). They could do with some colouring (the blue whale individual image has had one done here) but i am not very knowledgeable on this.

At the moment it is not FP, but maybe with some work... Chris_huhtalk 14:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The fonts used in this SVG are not web safe. See Wikipedia:DIAGRAM#Fonts. Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • When i made it i started with another font, but it just messed up and the text would move all over the place. The wikipedia svg engine didn't seem to do normal fonts so i had to go with the one that is there now (whatever that on is). If you know how to get this with a websafe font that actually works and doesn't mess up, could you let me know how? Cheers Chris_huhtalk 12:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Try using Verdana, Arial, or Times and see if you have any luck. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Foaming grasshopper[edit]

File:South African Insect.JPG
Original - Foaming grasshopper from south africa
Edit 1: Sharpened, cropped, downsampled
It's pretty. Also perhaps this will inspire an article.
Articles this image appears in
None. We need one!
  • Retract Support as nominator The comments are right, it is blurry. I didn't check the full size version. It is pretty though. I don't know how you close a nomination. Ariel. (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blurry. 8thstar 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blurry. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ineligible. Must be in an article. Speedy close. --jjron (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What species is it?--Svetovid (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close too few pixels on subject, blurry, no article. Snowball's chance. de Bivort 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was able to improve the image somewhat by sharpening and downsampling. However, while the original crop was

of sufficient size, the downsampling was rather necessary, and the image is now clearly too small imho. Samsara (talk  contribs) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Doesn't appear in an article and thus fails criteria #5. Cacophony (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, nothing in the picture is in focus, not even the grasshopper. Second, it doesn't appear in any article. the crop and sharpen does not help either, because it is too far out of focus for a sharpen to help. Clegs (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both by Clegs. —αἰτίας discussion 12:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per everything already said. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Brush Bronzewing pigeon[edit]

Original - Brush bronzewing pigeon, Phaps elegans, standing upon it's semi-completed nest which was just a few feet above the ground in the crown of a treefern.
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - noise reduction in the shadows
A good side view of the bird which shows the destinctive colored plumage on the wings
Articles this image appears in
Brush Bronzewing, Phaps and Bronzewing pigeon.
  • Support as nominator Benjamint 02:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportRyan shell (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very well done. —αἰτίας discussion 15:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - very well executed --Hadseys (talkcontribs) 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - very sharp, but the flash makes the lighting look quite harsh. Schcambo (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose it's not blown out, but there's a pretty significant flash relection off the bird's stomach and off some of the leaves in the nest. The lighting looks very harsh overall b/c of the flash. If someone can fix the lighting issues, I will gladly change to support, as this is a pretty nice picture. Clegs (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Either - preference for Edit 1. The picture has excellent sharpness and portrays the subject well in a natural environment. However the flash lighting is a bit harsh - hence the "weak". That said, I think the flash was probably necessary to bring out the iridescent colours in the wing of the bird so it's not altogether bad. The only other quibble I have with it is that the composition is a little tight on the RHS - gets too near to cutting off its tail.--Fir0002 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral.Oppose Seems oversharpened, esp. in the neck feathers. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Looking at it a second time, the flash does bother me now, and the framing, as mentioned above, is off, with the tail feathers on the edge of the picture. Samsara noadmin (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The flash lighting is really bad, the composition is not very compelling, there are distracting elements in the BG, it is oversharpened. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per direclty above. Bad lighting. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Flash light and oversharpening disturb. Lycaon (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Flash light. -- RM 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthidium florentinum bee[edit]

Original - A leaf-cutter bee (Anthidium florentinum) collecting nectar from a Lantana camara flower, with its long and slender tongue. This species of solitary (non-social) bees belong to the Megachilidae family. They fly all summer and make their nests in holes in the ground, walls or trees, with hairs plucked from plants.
A detailed and high quality depiction of a handsome bee in its natural environment
Articles this image appears in
Bee, Anthidium
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
  • Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either Prefer original because the wings are sharper. Excellent work. :) DurovaCharge! 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both Original has poor sharpness (I suspect from a too small aperture) and the wings are quite tatty (reducing enc value unless this is characteristic of the species) and are slightly motion blurred. The alternative has harsh lighting and is oversharpened. Nice enough photos, but not quite FP level IMO --Fir0002 10:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both by Fir0002. —αἰτίας discussion 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both sorry but I have to agree with Fir0002, the alternative looks false and the original just lacks the crisp detail needed --Hadseys (talkcontribs) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either. Animals age, it's a fact of life. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both Due to oversharpening and/or aperture selection. Very nice composition, however. -- RM 04:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Bad quality, poor sharpness, and everything mentioned by Fir0002. --Macy's123 (review me) 00:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Arches National Park[edit]

Original - A natural sandstone 'Double Arch' is shown in Arches National Park in Moab, UT, which contains over over 2,000 natural sandstone arches.
This is a stunning and sharp image of an double arches taken at Arches National Park.
Arches National Park
User: Flicka
  • Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the contrast, clarity, and color is good, and the subject is well enough situated to make it feature picture worthy. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DurovaCharge! 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This doesn't appear to be a double arch. Can you explain? Is it the view back down the trail coming through the first arch, or how does it work? Clegs (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response copied off my talk page: "If you look closely, under the first large arch, is a small hole, and you can see another arch. This resembles a double arch. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)" Thanks for clearing this up! Clegs (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The view through the whole that I think is supposed to double of the arch looks very flat and possibly artifacted, and the shadow under the main arch has some out-of-place pink noise. Otherwise, I love this image, and would support if these issues can be fixed or if they can be explained. - Enuja (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's a nice scene but the rocks and the shrub in the lower LHS have a lost a lot of texture from what I suspect was a noise reduction filter. Whether or not this is the case these areas have an unpleasant plasticky texture. --Fir0002 10:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Nice picture. —αἰτίας discussion 15:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, good lighting and nice angle. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 18:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Fir. Cat-five - talk 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Schcambo (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Double-O-Arch Arches National Park 2.jpg MER-C 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - Stonecutting at the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, 1909.
Cathedrals play a major role in the history of Western architecture, but this appears to be Wikipedia's first image of an actual craftsman at work building one. Interesting textures in this depiction of traditional craftsmanship methods. Restored version of Image:Stonemasonry.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Stonemasonry and Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York.
Bain News Service
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wow. That's about all I can say. On a side note, (tongue in cheek) if you keep uploading this many nice pictures, people are going to start being excessively picky about them. Another good find and excellent restore. Clegs (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support it would be nice if he were all in there, but this is good for this class of historical photo.Rudy Breteler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support- Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose magnificent architecture and clearly a lot of effort has been put into the resoration, but i don't like the curved lines running through the image, I also dont like the way its been lit it looks overexposed --Hadseys (talkcontribs) 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Not the greatest of pictures but, as the nom pointed out, we can forgive that considering the historical aspect of the photo. Very informative, and the only picture in stonemasonry which shows the actual process. faithless (speak) 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Stone_sculptor_at_work.jpg MER-C 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Bell 206 Jetranger helicopter[edit]

New version - A higher resolution version with better colors and slight rotation removed to improve sharpness.
highly encylopedic image clearly detailing a police helicopter in flight
Articles this image appears in
Los Angeles Police Department
  • Support New version as nominator Mfield (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Encyclopedic and sharp. Somewhat flat lighting, but good enough overall to fit the bill. DurovaCharge! 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a bit small for a featured picture, but it's within the requirements, and for a picture of this size, it looks quite good. Support. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 06:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • After reviewing the new version, my vote has been changed to Support Original and New version. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good, correct picture but not special enough to reach FP level -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's an easily retaken picture, so this could be much much higher resolution. Clegs (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Support Very encyclopedic. Clegs (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support new version good, crisp, clear, encyclopedic. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for new copy good for wikipedia as it demonstrates all aspects of police helicopter.gppande 16:03, 1 February 2008
  • Oppose It is very blurry around the areas of movement. If you had faster shutter speed it would be better. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:LAPD Bell 206 Jetranger.jpg MER-C 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain[edit]

Original - Mark Twain, 1909
Edit 1 - sharpening
A good portrait of one of the greatest writers in United States literature. Restored version of Image:MarkTwain.LOC.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Mark Twain, Osteopathic medicine in the United States, List of premature obituaries, Unfinished work, and Reception history of Jane Austen.
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 22:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --Janke | Talk 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
My support above was/is for the original. In the edit, the soft-focus effect (probably intended by original photographer) is lessened, and grain increased (note collar). --Janke | Talk 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support very nice portrait... for all intents and purposes supporting per nom. Cat-five - talk 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not perfect (shallow DOF, a bit shadowy, on the small side, and he's very old here), but it seems to be the best we have, and Twain as an outstanding author amongst other things, and as a very photogenic guy, deserves a spot. --jjron (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support preference for Edit 1. It's somewhat surprising that there isn't an FP of Twain yet and this one is pretty good (original is a bit too soft for my taste tho). --Fir0002 10:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the sharpened version.--Svetovid (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. - Darwinek (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original - Expressive portrait Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Twain1909.jpg MER-C 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

a Lone House[edit]

Original - Impressive Computer Graphics work, created by Michael Otto with Blender 2.44.

Articles this appears in: Blender (software) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talkcontribs) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


This is in my opinion (of course) a very impressive piece of 3D art work, created and licensed freely by Michael Otto. What puts it even closer to my hearth is the fact that it has been created with Blender, an open source software 3D animation program. It gives you an impressive look of the capabilities of open source software, even if it is free and those who are developing it do so, at least most of the time, without any payment. I also feel that there aren't many computer graphics pictures among Wikipedias featured pictures (perhaps even only one?)

But enough about this! Let us look at the picture! Created by Michael Otto (applause going out in his direction). Let us get the essential things down right first.

  • It has a free license.
  • It is of high resolution.
  • It makes itself of good use in the Blender article, and I think it qualifies to be put in several other articles about computer graphics. This image simply says you can do impressive and realistic pictures by using 3D software.
  • It is definitely among Wikipedias best work when it comes to images generated by (3D) computer graphics software. As far as I can recall, there is only one other such picture among wikipedias FP.

But what strikes me most is the touch of realism that it offers. At the very first eyesight, you can't really tell that it has been computer generated. It is when those in learned rules (can you say that?) in you brain examine it further that you start realizing that this is 3D artwork, but I was simply even more impressed at that moment.

Some of you might complain about the position of the tree or that wooden thing to the right (no, I can see what it is! I just don't know the English name of it.) But I humbly believe that the old rules of composition do not qualify for reviewing this picture, as the purpose of this pictures is totally different. I believe the encyclopedic purpose of this piece of it is to show the potential of what 3D software has to offer. And having a close up on a big building and a tree that both look realistic and have a pleasing look fulfills that purpose.

I also want to talk a little about the "3D-features" that this pic has and that I (from my own (limited) experience) know are hard to accomplish.

  • Objects in large numbers, managed and spread all over the scene to give it the realistic look. I am talking about the small objects that you can see; pieces of wood, tires, tractor, etc. close to the wall of the house, the leaves surrounding the corners of the building, the birds, but perhaps the most impressive aspect: the trees and their leaves and the grass on the ground.
  • Textures, that give the objects their looks. They have to have several properties to look realistic, but especially their color and look and how they reflect light, all related to what object we are talking about.
  • But what I like most is the lightnings, especially how it has been put on the building to the left.

So, there you go. Now let's here the verdict! PureRumble 13:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator PureRumble 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, but it needs to be added to an article. That shouldn't be too hard though: Blender, 3D animation, open-source, etc. would all make good homes.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree, but just to make it clear, it is already on the Blender article! PureRumble 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to make this clear: I (the nominator) haven't made this picture. It is the work of Michael Otto. Sadly, he doesn't have a wikipedia account so I can draw his attention to this. PureRumble —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talkcontribs) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Wow! That's all I can say. Clegs (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent 3D render to be sure. There are two thinks I dislike about it, one is the crow sitting on the tyre in the lower LHS - it looks too small. Crows are very large birds and from this perspective I'd imagine it would look much larger (especially in comparison to the grass). The other thing is the (driveway?) furrows - they look a bit liquid/glassy. However that doesn't significantly detract form the excellent attention to detail elsewhere. --Fir0002 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't know how much I wish I had the original blender file so I could fix that. :-[ PureRumble 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What article is illustrated by this picture? - (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Blender :-]. PureRumble 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Not only is it a beautiful image, but it's a fantastic representation of what the software is capable of. faithless (speak) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I noted in extensive discussion on the PPR nom, while I like the picture, I think it is a poor representation of Blender. To quote myself "Blender is a 3D program, used for animations and modelling among many other things, but this image simply looks like a 2D art work...This is therefore rather an atypical use of Blender, and probably something that would be better made in another program." --jjron (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You and I had this discussion on the peer review site, but just to share it with our new friends here and I also want to add somethings too. Jjron, if we are supposed to follow your argument, then an artist that one day decides he wants to visualize (for the viewer) a scene of an abandoned multiple-storey house, surrounded by the atmosphere created by a sunset and close too a garden that has been abandoned too, in a location where there are lots of trees and close to mountains/hills... then that artist shouldn't use a 3D software, but instead 2D software. Yet Michael Otto simply proves your argument wrong by creating and showing us his work that we are discussing now. And what other program are you referring to anyway? I can think of nothing but only headaches if you were going to create something like this in let's say photoshop. PureRumble 13:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talkcontribs)
Which perhaps simply goes to show you don't know much about different types of software. Photoshop is an photo/graphics editing program, again a poor choice for creating works like this. As I pointed out in the PPR discussion, I can write an essay in Photoshop or Excel, but Word is a far more suitable and intelligent choice. Just because you can do something in a program, doesn't mean you should. --jjron (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But that is what I said. "I can think of nothing but only headaches...". I explicitly stated that photoshop would be a bad choice. You are correcting me on something that I have not stated/said! My initial question remains open; what other program are you referring to that would be a good choice for creating this scene? --PureRumble (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Jjron, a movie is just made out of lots of images like this, no big difference.. and this looks awesome =) Yzmo talk 09:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I have no idea how a movie relates to anything I said. So we are again reducing FPC to pretty pictures? That's not its purpose. --jjron (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know Blender, or how difficult or easy it is to produce this picture using that software, but I'm not convinced that this picture illustrates Blender any better than any other picture that might be created using that software. For example, are any of Fir's photos encyclopedic for the camera used to take them? I suspect not. Pstuart84 Talk 14:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Neither do I know of blender (in fact, I know NOTHING of it. ) In fact, I disagree. Say we have a camera X, yes? This camera is capable of amazing detail in photography, and yet, is easily obtainable and the maximum of it's capacities are, in fact, unknown to the majority. If that were the case, we could put a picture (of great quality) there to exemplify this. Boiled right down to it, what I mean is that this clearly demonstrates something blender can and is very good at doing, that the majority doesn't know, and as such, has quite an encyclopedic value. My two cents. --Mad Tinman T C 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Blender is general purpose 3D software developed for the tasks of modelling, texturing and animation. This simply means that there is no single button to click to create a building, or several birds in the sky, etc.. I'm saying this to address your first question. On your second point, I don't know what you mean by "Fir's photos". However, since as I said Blender is a general software program, it is difficult to say that some picture "illustrates it better than any other picture". I don't think that is what we are trying to do here. We just want to present ONE picture that presents the capabilities of Blender, even if you can create pretty much any picture you can think of with features far greater than this one. PureRumble 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talkcontribs)
  • I'd say Blender 2.45 screenshot.jpg, 30px, and heck, probably even Engine movingparts.jpg give a better indication of what Blender is designed to do and its true capabilities (all also from the article, and no I'm not putting them up as alternatives). --jjron (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am putting this comment here because (in my humble opinion) some weird arguments have been presented against this picture. First of all some of us are discussing the purpose of Blender and if this picture represents that purpose. I answer to this explicitly like this: Blender is a general purpose 3D program. This means that the goal of the developers (or more the community, because I am now thinking of those who develop plugins too) of the program is that you should be able to create ANY scene that you can think of. A car? Horse? Architect who need to create a mock up? Architect who needs final renderings of how it will look like? Fantasy creatures? An abandoned house in a sunset scene? You name it!
Second. Yes, in my nomination I put big emphasize on Blender, and now this is in some way being use as the make or break point of this picture. It is like it MUST represent blender, otherwise it is out. But I feel it represents Blender, 3D software packages, Computer Graphics, art, open source projects, etc.. And hence what qualifies this picture is that it simply looks very good, realistic, has something to tell the viewer, etc., free license, big resolution. And it also shows what you can do with Blender, what you can do with 3D software packages, what you do in Computer Graphics, how art can be created/represented, just how serious is the open source community, and something related to etc. ;-). So hence it represents several topics in an encyclopedic way. Those are my five cents. --PureRumble (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think this is enc for Blender - in the same way that a photograph does not illustrate the camera used to take it. Pstuart84 Talk 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, you can use a picture as a representation not of the camera that took it, but rather of the capacity the camera that took it has. For instance, every picture (I think) Fir has taken has the camera he took it with identified - which would be pointless if the photograph was in no way representative of the potential of the camera. Given that, this is perfectly enc in blender as it shows the full potential of the program. Support and cheers. -- (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (Mad Tinman T C 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
      • But I still don't think that any of Fir's photos could be added to the Wikipedia page for his camera and then nominated here as enc for the camera article. Pstuart84 Talk 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think this is a particularly good illustration for the Blender article. There is no user interface visible or explanation in the caption of what specific features were utilized. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - So we are getting more and more comments about this picture not being representative of Blender's features and capabilities. However, there is another computer generated fpc (don't have time to find it, glasses with wine, dices I think, made in cinema 4D). I presume that it has been nominated since it appears in some other article than cinema 4D. How about we do the same thing for this picture? I do not think this is cheating. That cinema4D picture shows a close up on a still, just a certain few objects. This picture shows a completely different aspect of what you can do with CG. For instance, this one is an outdoors scene with environment lighting. Also, the objects appearing here are natural and organic as opposed to the cinema 4D picture. Any comments on this idea? --PureRumble (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Some comments here seem to be based on the premise that the Blender article could have only one FP, and this FP should be of the user interface. However, we have articles that have more than one FP, and adding an FP does not necessarily mean the previous one has to be demoted. This is only usually done when both images illustrate the same aspect of the subject. So having two FPs, one for the user interface, and one as an example result, would be acceptable; however, I also don't know of any screenshot of a graphical user interface being promoted, but it's possible someone will correct me. Generally, the problem is that screenshots are fair use images and thus ineligible for FP. To return to the image at hand, I think it demonstrates the versatility of Blender very well, and as such, has exceptional encyclopaedic value. Samsara (talk  contribs) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Speaking for myself, I have no problem with an article supporting more than one FPC. However, I'm still interested to hear in what way you think this illustrates Blender any more than a photograph illustrates the camera used to take it. Pstuart84 Talk 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Because the fact that it was made with Blender is the most remarkable thing about it. I'd hope you would concede that a stereogram would likely be a better illustration of the technique than a picture of the camera itself.
        Just to clear up any confusion, the reason this is illustrative of Blender's 3D modelling capabilities is the lighting, which could not be generated without rendering the scene from a 3D framework. To mark this down for being a 2D image is to completely miss the point – that it's a remarkable example of the power of modern 3D rendering software in generating 2D artwork with near-photo realism. --mikaultalk 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments here there & everywhere. --mikaultalk 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This isn't like composing a document in photoshop, because you really are not using the tools in photoshop to do anything creative. The fact that Blender can also be used for this type of work (in which the creative tools of blender were used), I see no reason to oppose. -- RM 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lone House.jpg MER-C 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Baroque fresco by Rottmayr[edit]

Original - Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary. Detail of the Rottmayr fresco in the Karlskirche (Vienna, Austria)
Nice detail of Baroque fresco in Austria by its most prominent (IMHO) painter: Johann Michael Rottmayr.
Rationale: One year after the last great plague epidemic in Vienna, Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI pledged to build a church for his namesake patron saint, Charles Borromeo, who was revered as a healer for plague sufferers.
Articles this image appears in
Karlskirche, Johann Michael Rottmayr, Charles Borromeo
Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DurovaCharge! 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. Does the real painting have all those cutoff feet (both sides and bottom)? The bits of feet and wing poking in at the top and side also look pretty weird. --jjron (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As a fresco, cropping is often unavoidable. As a detail shot, I agree it could have been better cropped but it's very difficult to say what might have been intruding into the scene from this angle to prevent showing all of the feet, for example. --mikaultalk 09:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. SpencerT♦C 02:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary - Detail Rottmayr Fresco - Karlskirche - Vienna.JPG MER-C 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Last judgement[edit]

Edit 1 - downsampled, minor saturation increase, edge sharpen filter applied with 40% transparency.
This picture is awesome and the best picture of the Last Judgment on the web. FranksValli's previous picture for The School of Athens already received feature status and I thought this deserved it too.
Articles this image appears in
The Last Judgement
User talk:FranksValli
  • Support as nominator Remember (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - sooo close. There are lots of compression artifacts at full resolution though. I wonder if a downsample would obscure them... de Bivort 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per debivort. Great art; flawed photograph. Support edit 1 Spikebrennan (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how you will ever get another better photograph of this painting considering the Vatican probably won't allow it. I'm also not sure how The School of Athens got to be a FP while this one failed using the same system. Oh well. Remember (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't give up Remember! Here is an edited version. de Bivort 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I have no idea what you did, but thanks for doing it! Remember (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 - I think the detail in the painting overwhelms the flaws in the parts of the photo showing the floor and walls. I assume this was a low light shot, thus the sensor noise in the floor and wall areas? I would also support a version in which most of the wall and floor were cropped away. de Bivort 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sides are not clear enough, and there is too much shadow, especially in the bottom center, top center, and top left. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus (quorum not met) MER-C 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Patti Smith performing in Finland[edit]

Good shot, and is already featured on the Commons.
Articles this image appears in
Patti Smith, Provinssirock, Concert, List of female rock singers
Beni Köhler
  • Support as nominator The Watusi (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - great concert portrait.... Play Freebird! de Bivort 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DurovaCharge! 16:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose B&W -Why is it in B&W? Does the color version still exist? Cacophony (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
no, it's available only in b&w --The Watusi (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Umm, why? As creator, why is an image from 2007 "available only in b&w"? --jjron (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, the Commons nom says the creator is Skit ineb, the image page says it's Beni Köhler, and you're claiming it's you. What the heck is going on? --jjron (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
you're right, Beni Köhler is creator. fixed.
The photo is only available in BW because I chose to do a conversion from the color version, which in my opinion did not work very well. I don't know what you are talking about uncertain origin, It is shot by me, Beni Köhler, at Provinssirock in 2007 in Seinäjoki, Finland. There are no details blown out in the hilights in the face, i made sure of that while doing the conversion, as for composition, that is a matter of what looks good to you. --skit_ineb (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what I meant by uncertain origin is pretty clear when I've listed three separate names that were down as 'creator'. FWIW, you may not be aware of this, but Single-purpose accounts like this (edit history) are also regarded as somewhat suspicious until the user has proved themself. --jjron (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reason for B&W, extremely harsh lighting on singer's face blowing out details, uncertain origin of photo, and personally I don't like the composition. --jjron (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per jjron. Clegs (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Punk is not dead --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per jjron. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the B&W only minimally detracts from the encyc. and probably greatly helps the artistic side. It shows an historic and encyclopedic person doing what they're famous for. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You don't think the B&W is being used to attempt to cover up obvious problems? --jjron (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I suppose it could be, but if the problems are covered, then I'm not too worried about them :-). B&W photography, especially for artistic portraits, is a common enough standard. In this particular case, I think the textures brought out by the B&W are more interesting than the lost colours. In contrast, our "unnecessarily" B&W portrait FP of Golda Meir I find to be quite flat and bland. Matt Deres (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Screams punk-poet. Lighting and B&W only serve to draw you to her face- Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I went back and forth on this one-- on the one hand, it's a very expressive photograph; on the other, we're looking up at her chin. But Mccoy Tyner 1973 gh.jpg this image is featured and has a lot in common with it; if McCoy Tyner is featured then I think this photo deserves it too. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting; I actually think you may have found a pretty strong candidate for delisting there - size, composition, etc. The "it's no worse than this one" argument isn't particularly strong regardless. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with jjron here. The Tyner picture wouldn't even make it past PPR b/c of the size requirements and noise. Saying that this picture is no worse is a very weak reason to support it. Clegs (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per jjron. Very harsh lighting. SpencerT♦C 02:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 04:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Computed tomography of human brain[edit]

File:CT of brain of Mikael Häggström.png
Computed tomography of human brain, from base of the skull to top. Taken with intravenous contrast medium.
encylopedic images clearly detailing all the layers of the human brain
Articles this image appears in
Human brain, Computed tomography
Mikael Häggström
  • Strong Oppose; it does not match up to the regulation size of 1000 pixels as stated in the criteria for a featured picture. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Individual images used to create this are 512 x 512 pixels - so why is the composite so minuscule? And why have the original jpgs been used to make a png? This may stand a chance if it was redone to a decent size. --jjron (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have notified the creator and asked if a larger version is available (suggestion: min. 2000 px wide). If there is, I'll gladly support - very high enc in this candidate! Furthermore, I'd suggest dropping 4 intermediate images, to get a regular array of 30 images. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE Creator has uploaded a new, large (3639 px wide) version. If someone (or I, if no-one else in a day or two) removes the "all rights released" text, I'll support. --Janke | Talk 12:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Already a FP, but created with MRI instead of CT
Kind of redundant of featured animation. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought we already had an FP animated version of this... — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-31 14:14Z
    • Well, the animated gif is nice, but you don't have time to study the individual frames. Aso, it's only 213x231 px, while the current candidate's images are a lot larger, and show more detail (check the eyes in the three frames top right). So' I'd say the enc is much higher for the new candidate... --Janke | Talk 14:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as redundant with existing FP. DurovaCharge! 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The FP animation is created from MRI frames, which is a different technique than CT. Apart from that, I do have data to create a slightly higher quality MRI animation than the currently featured anim... --Dschwen 16:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Support new version. DurovaCharge! 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Animation of a stack of vertical MRI sections of a normal adult human brain
  • Comment. The old version was promoted in Sept 2004 when standards were considerably lower. I'm almost inclined to put the existing version up for delist - it's very small and poor quality. Quality here is superior and it's more usable, though I wish the uploader would remove those 'copyright free' notes from all images, composite and individual, as that really deters me from supporting. --jjron (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I also think the current candidate is better than the old one. Second what Jjron suggested. Clegs (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • MRT!=CT. Why is this animation even mentioned in this nomination? --Dschwen 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was the opposers that brought it up, so why question us? --jjron (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right, I misunderstood the reference to the old candidate. --Dschwen 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've uplodaded a new version, without the 'copyright free' notes, both in the compound and in the individual ones. Regarding the size, I've also added links to a larger and a smaller one, if any other size fits better. So, if it's better than the existing FP, then I see no other reason against at present. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the image size of each individual brain is far too small. Posters with small pixel size shouldn't be FPs, in my opinion . Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My vote has been changed to Oppose new version as per Rudy's comment. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Note re. the two opposes above. A larger version has been uploaded, see below. --Janke | Talk 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support new large version without copyright free notes (especially as it's not duplicating an existing image). And for opposers, why is it OK to stick a bunch of small images together into an animated gif or some other movie and say size doesn't matter, but not OK to put them into a sequenced composite image like this? --jjron (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

LARGE Computed tomography of human brain[edit]

  • Comment. So, the problem seems to be that each individual image in the composite still is too small. However, what about this large version of the image:
Computed tomography of human brain, from base of the skull to top. Taken with intravenous contrast medium.
LARGE encylopedic images clearly detailing all the layers of the human brain
Articles this image appears in
Human brain, Computed tomography
Mikael Häggström
  • Support large version. --Janke | Talk 08:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, this is much better. Thanks for taking the trouble, and yes, I Support. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. DurovaCharge! 08:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think my intentions to support are clear. --jjron (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellant and interesting pictures. SpencerT♦C 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:CT of brain of Mikael Häggström large.png MER-C 04:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reservoir Guarapiranga at sunset[edit]

Original - A photograph of the Reservoir Guarapiranga taken at sunset from my apartment (26th floor).
This picture is very beautiful and shows how the sky in the city of São Paulo, although polluted, can sometimes be marvelous and how splendid is the reservoir Guarapiranga itself.
Articles this image appears in
--Nadir D Steinmetz
  • Support as nominator --Nadir D Steinmetz 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This could be almost anywhere, so the enc of this image is very low. To be FP, you need more than a nice sunset. It's also quite grainy, and tilted. --Janke | Talk 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose low quality and nothing special. Clegs (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you have Photoshop I suggest using the healing brush to augment the clone stamp. You might be interested in a Commons venue called quality images where photos of sunsets have an easier going. Many photographs of sunsets are beatuiful, but few have special encyclopedic merit. DurovaCharge! 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Also the description at the bottom ---taken from my apartment (26th floor) --- might be good description of the picture on orkut or some other buddy portal. Not on wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia gppande (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC).
  • Oppose It is tilted and noisy, and is slightly grainy. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Durova and gppande. SpencerT♦C 14:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Macy's123 (review me) 22:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Berlin New Synagogue[edit]

Original - The interior of the New Synagogue, Berlin, circa 1896. The synagogue was noted for its moorish style and resemblance to the Alhambra. During the Kristallnacht pogrom of 1938, the Synagogue was set ablaze. Today the synagogue serves as an exhibit for various aspects of the Holocaust, particularly Kristallnacht.
A particularly exquisite engraving of a noteable, and gorgeous, synagogue in its heyday. Also as the synagogue is now a museum, preserved as it was after its destruction, a color digital photograph would be nigh on near impossible to take
Articles this image appears in
New Synagogue
Wilhelm Ernst and Sohn
  • Support as nominator Hadseys (talkcontribs) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Were there never any photographs taken of the interior while it was a functioning synagogue? DurovaCharge! 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've only seen a couple and they were all pretty lame, I dunno I think this is a good sketch but that's just me --Hadseys (talkcontribs) 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I'm a little skeptical, particularly about the date of the engraving. Those look like 1860s fashions - compare the hoop skirts to 1860s in fashion against the slimmer skirts and broader sleeves of 1890s in fashion. Would you confirm the date on this image from a second source? DurovaCharge! 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • WIthout wishing to sound ignorant, does it really matter, essentially the building was the same --Hadseys ChatContribs 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I apologize if this sounds nitpicky; I have a degree in history so this kind of thing really leaps out at me. If this gets featured it'll go onto the main page. Probably hundreds of thousands of people will visit that page during its day in the sun; some of them would notice the same details I saw, and if the date is 30 years off that would be an embarrassment since our site strives for accuracy. No disrespect intended toward the quality of the engraving or your diligence in finding it. This has obvious significance because of what and where it is. DurovaCharge! 05:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Nominate with date change: Seriously, we can date the sketch as depicting the synagogue from 1860 to 1890. Here's a photograph from Berlin, taken no later than 1870 (according to the photgrapher's collection). I assume it's Berlin, but I'm not certain. Note the very wide hoop skirts. The men have shorter hats, almost bowlers, unlike the tall hats from the sketch. But their coats are short, like the ones from the sketch. Now, here's a picture of a couple in the 1890's:[1]. In that one, apparently taken in Czech, the man's coat is longer, and the woman's skirt is narrower than in the sketch, but not dramatically so. And here, three women with skirts that flare out, but not nearly as much as the ones in the '60s. This last one is from Berlin. So perhaps the sketch was made in the 1890's, or duplicated then, but the depiction is from an earlier period. --Otheus (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support good engraving; illustrates the building well, --Brendan44 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support when viewed full, you can really see it well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer (talkcontribs) 14:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - really nice, clear engraving :) --Brent Ward (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Berlin Neue Synagoge Innenansicht BusB.jpg MER-C 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

William Shakespeare[edit]

Probably the most influencial person in the history of the English language, this portrait represents what little we actually know about Shakespeare. It meets featured picture requirements easily, and would make an excellent featured picture. Majorly (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles this image appears in
William Shakespeare; see the File links on the image page for the complete list.
Unknown; attributed to John Taylor, but unconfirmed.
  • Support as nominator Majorly (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds of quality, admittedly it is an old photograph, but part of the picture looks like he has a bruise on his forehead or something. Also, its very flaky as parts of the portrait appear to have peeled off. Also i wasn't aware shakespeare had a pierced ear, surely this should be checked before we promite an image?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talkcontribs) 20:46, 3 February 2008
That's simply the quality of the painting. You'll find no better version of it. But... it's likely to be the only portrait of Shakespeare that is actually authentic. Think about that. And yes, he did have an earring. Majorly (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We actually know stunningly little for certain about Shakespeare. This may or not be him, as pointed out below, stated on the image page, and clearly discussed in the Chandos portrait article. We also don't know whether he really had an earring; any 'evidence' for that comes from this painting, and some studies suggest it was added later anyway. For all intents and purposes though, this is Shakespeare, as there are no better images of him available. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question photographs of two dimensional artworks aren't copyrightable. Is this the best file of its type available? And BTW the earring is old news, no problems there. DurovaCharge! 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Support per Jjron. Convincing argument that this is true to the painting. DurovaCharge! 07:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose corpselike color balance. As an illustration of the person, this is bad. Maybe if the painting had its own article. de Bivort 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It does: Chandos portrait. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you possibly adjust the colour balance of the picture to improve it? Seddon69 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on it. Majorly (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Here is a link to the National Portrait Gallery (UK) version of this image (they hold the original). This looks pretty close to the true colours and quality going on their site. Please be aware that there exists virtually no images of Shakespeare that we know are of him or that are any good. Most 'better' quality pictures are based on this portrait (which may or may not be him, but at least dates from the right time). This spent over two centuries exposed to the 'elements' - smoke from open fireplaces, candles, etc, before going into the NPG in 1856 as its founding portrait, so it's pretty degraded by time, and also highly significant. Given some of the other meaningless trash that gets featured I can't in good faith anything but support this significant piece (assuming copyright is OK). Honestly, this is about a million times more significant and encyclopaedically valuable than the engravings below (no offence, it's just that they're nearby) that are getting nothing but support. --jjron (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Incredibly high encyclopedic value. faithless (speak) 09:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • support - historically significant, and quality is good enough. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Aren't you still abbreviating "encyclopedic" as "enc"? ;) · AndonicO Hail! 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as an illustration for Chandos portrait. Per that article, attention should be drawn to the fact that the identity of the painting's subject as Shakespeare is far from certain. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The caption at Chandos portrait indicates that the image is a 20th century reproduction. Is that the case (just clarifying because it may have applied to a previous version of the page)? --Iamunknown 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Good point; the details on the image page aren't entirely illuminating, though if it's a reproduction it appears to be pretty true to the original. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support matches the painting and fulfils other criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support one of the best you're going to find of Shakespeare... Mønobi 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - it's the best we have, or ever will have really. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. A great picture, although I must admit that I never knew he had an ear-ring. Qst (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support very encyclopedic, and I never knew either that he had an earring. SpencerT♦C 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – There are no problems with its encyclopedic value, but this image definitely fails featured picture criteria #1 (bad lighting of photograph: the painting has a greyish look) and #2 (not high resolution: its height is 600 pixels instead of the minimum of 1000 pixels); a better quality version of this portrait is possible, and this can easily be verified with the aid of User:Jjron's link (use the "View this portrait in detail" option). – Ilse@ 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hold up here, someone has uploaded a smaller version over the bigger one, so we are not all judging the same image. If we are to compare different versions for any reason, upload it as a separate file instead of over-writing the original. I would support the original--what more do we need? Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The issue here is that it does not meet the criteria for featured pictures (refer to Ilse@'s post. I note that it counts as a historical image, but that does not immediately mean it qualifies for featured picture status. <3 bunny 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The image used to be 1,943×2,490 pixels wide until someone over-wrote it. Just check the file history. See previous version. What I want to know is why? Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I changed it because it was changed without discussion for no other reason than to try to attain featured picture status. I and many others spent months trying to get the Shakespeare article up to feature status, and after three attempts it was finally granted, using the previous picture. Majorly took it upon himself to arbitrarily change the picture and wipe out the previous versions, and with no discussion, as I said. The picture that illustrated the article is a much better and more attractive version, even though it may not be as authentic, having had the colors brightened. If you want to go ahead and try to attain featured status, I'll leave this version up, but as soon as it is granted I plan to revert it back to the original picture. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The promotion only applies to the large version. MER-C 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Here it is, I just reverted it to the old version. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ilse@. <3 bunny 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Shakespeare.jpg MER-C 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Beer Street and Gin Lane[edit]

Original 1 (Beer Street) - Beer Street and Gin Lane are 1751 engravings by William Hogarth published partly to support the 1751 Gin Act. Beer Street shows a happy city drinking the 'good' beverage of English beer, whereas Gin Lane claims to show what would happen if people started drinking gin, a harder liquor. People are shown as healthy, happy and hard working in Beer Street, while in Gin Lane they are scrawny, lazy and acting carelessly, including a drunk mother accidentally sending her baby tumbling to its doom.
Original 2 (Gin Lane)
Old Beer Street image
Poor copy of first state of Beer Street
It's a high-quality scan - well, scans - of some art that I'm very happy to have acquired for Christmas. As a set of two images, it seemed to make more sense to nominate them together.
Articles this image appears in
Beer Street is only used in Beer Street. Gin Lane is used in Gin Lane, William Hogarth (where it stands as the representative of the set), Gin, East End of London, Augustan literature, and Gin Craze (in all of which it replaces an old, low-res image). Caption is based on the description in William Hogarth, though I cut a bit.
William Hogarth
  • Support as nominator Vanished user talk 14:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both. Majorly (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both. Famous illustration well scanned. DurovaCharge! 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice scan of a famous, historical shot. Cat-five - talk 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support it tells people the bad effects of drinking beer. Also, it is a great photo. Dar book (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support one Gin Lane looks fine. Do you have any more details on Beer Street? It may be a state I haven't seen before, but some details are missing from the first issued state: for example Lockman's name on the New Ballad on the Herring Fishery is difficult to read, the text the king's speech and a large wall are missing, the girl being fondled by the pavior has a different expression (all of which are discernible in the old image even if the text if not legible). Do you have the information on who issued the reprints and which states of the prints they are? Yomanganitalk 12:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I don't. Sorry! I got it, and it turned out to be one of those awful things where someone cut it out of a book, removing all context. Vanished user talk 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't find any reference to this variation as an "official" state from Hogarth's plates. Nichol makes no mention of it, and he's normally pretty thorough up to 1833. I suspect this is re-engraved after Hogarth sometime in the latter half of the 19th century. While it is a pity, because it is an excellent detailed scan, I don't think this should be featured without some provenance that ties it directly to Hogarth. Yomanganitalk 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I believe this one is from the 1880s. As I said, I don't know anything further - it's possible that it was done from new plates (reproduced by pantograph, perhaps), as I think they tended towards that in Victorian times, and that the engraver for Beer Street took a few liberties. This is, of course, pure speculation. Vanished user talk 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • However, I have to admit to finding it difficult to identify many of the differences you suggest. Could you give a bit more detail as to where things are? I am not a Hogarth expert, I fear. Vanished user talk 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Sure (much of the detail is difficult to make out in the old images, but unfortunately the decent copies I have are in books that wouldn't survive the trip to the scanner):
              1. Behind the sign-painter and blacksmith with the ham in his hand is a large wall. This was added between the first and second states, probably to fill some blank space left by the removal of the Frenchman who was replaced in the 1759 issue by the leg of ham/beef/mutton and the pavior/drayman and housemaid
              2. The tankard in front of the butcher at the table has a foamy head in the first state and in the second state the foam is spilling onto the table. In the new image it spills halfway down the tankard.
              3. On the table in front of the butcher is a copy of a speech given by George II. In the new image the title is hard to make out and the body of the speech on the other sheet is replaced by wavy lines. The words are visible in both the states issued during Hogarth's lifetime
              4. The speech lies on top of a loose sheet of "The Daily Advertiser" in the two issued states (though the title is slightly obscured in the first state). In the new image it lies on an unmarked piece of paper.
              5. A pipe lies across the sheet of "The Daily Advertiser" and the bowl is visible on the table in the first state. It is removed in the second state (our old image), but appears in the new image detached and slightly removed from the paper.
              6. The housemaid dangling the key has a different expression in the new image and her fingers are in slightly different positions
              7. The ballad held by the fish-seller clearly reads "By Mr. Lockman" in the issued states. In the new image this is somewhat obscured by hatching
              8. In the new image in basket of books, the book placed by itself at the side has no title visible, and the topmost book is missing "Vers" at the end of the title. The next book down "Hill on Royal Societies" hides the "al" of "Royal" whereas it is visible in the issued states, and it omits the "Ant" of "Antique" visible on "Turnbul on Antique Painting" The label on the basket in the new image is missing "the" before "Trunk Maker" (replaced by a squiggle) and replaces "in" with "St" before "Paul's City"
              9. The top of the chimney just visible behind the painter's shoulder juts out in the new image whereas it is flush to the body of the chimney in the issued states (though the chimney is barely discernible in the old image). Yomanganitalk 10:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Yep, this version's been pantographed then. It's not particularly large in my original - I suspect Hogarth would have done it bigger than a largish postcard, and it looks like the person responsible for preparing it got lazy in the Beer Lane version, leaving out the fine detail. Vanished user talk 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • It is strange that it combines details from both issued states in that case. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any copies of this new image apart from on WP mirrors. And by the way, I've knocked up a quick article on Beer Street and Gin Lane, as discussing them separately is nonsensical. Yomanganitalk 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:William Hogarth - Beer Street.jpg and Image:William Hogarth - Gin Lane.jpg MER-C 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you are still watching, they are both engraved by Samuel Davenport (1783–1867) "from the originals by William Hogarth", probably around 1806-09 for a version of Trusler's Hogarth Moralized. Yomanganitalk 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, honestly - what are these images featured as? I mean, they are very pretty, with lots of pixels and all, but these version are not either of the two originals by Hogarth. -- Theramin (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Squirrel[edit]

Original - The Japanese Squirrel is a species of squirrel endemic to Japan.
Edit 1 by Samsara: Noise removed, selective sharpen.
Edit 2 by Fir0002; NR, sharpened, cropped
Edit 3 by Fir0002; NR, sharpened, cropped, cloned out log
technical quality, cuteness (oh, no!)
Articles this image appears in
Japanese Squirrel
  • Support as nominator Samsara (talk  contribs) 08:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2 or Edit 3 Lovely scene and technical quality is pretty good - though I wish it were taken at a smaller aperture (to be fair I'd guess the lighting didn't permit). --Fir0002 08:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support any of the edits. Lovely colors. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 3 (I've changed the caption). Lovely depiction but the last edit seems the best - Peripitus (Talk) 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all versions. Limited DOF can not be fixed. Squirrels are easy targets (with a bit of practice). Have another go. Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ouch, that's a bit harsh. Increased DoF is inevitable with the smaller chips in compact cameras, which I'd venture this was shot with. Unless we effectively exclude all but DSLR wildlife shots (based on this one, I wouldn't) we have to make some allowance for the absence of thousand-dollar optics. Personally, I really don't think it looks "worse", just different to the classic bokeh-smoothed BG, which just isn't obligatory in all cases. I'd further speculate this was shot wide-open, full telephoto, so the chances of the same photographer improving on that aspect of it would be slim to none. --mikaultalk 01:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You may find it difficult to communicate with the photographer - unless you can write Japanese. -- Danverlanche (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • 分野の深さは限られている。それは変わることができない。リスは容易なターゲットである(僅かな練習と) 。別のものを行ってもらいなさい :-)). Just a pity that he/she is not very active (last activity was 21:20, 1 August 2007). Lycaon (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 3 --ZeWrestler Talk 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Japanese Squirrel edit2.jpg MER-C 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Love or Duty"[edit]

Original - "Love or Duty", an 1873 chromolithograph by Gabrielé Castagnola.
Edit 1 without Library of Congress imprint on bottom edge.
Spikebrennan had a beautiful eleventh hour idea to nominate a pic for Valentine's Day. So I rushed over to LoC and restored this from Image:Love or duty.jpg. Obviously, the nun and the painter have fallen in love. There's a visual hint of which decision she's making: two chains hang from her wrist. One has a crucifix and the other has a charm like a human skull. The crucifix is receding into her sleeve, while his cape slides back to reveal a dagger (love conquers all, Sigmund Freud would have a field day with this but it's 30 years before his time). Needs a little WP:IAR on the nomination time frame (and please help with the article, especially if you speak Italian).
Gabrielé Castagnola
Articles this appears in
Gabrielé Castagnola, Chromolithography
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 01:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Durova uploaded another good one. Nuff' said. Dengero (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This looks non-controversial enough that three more days should be sufficient time. 11th hour, indeed!--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know... while I'm willing to bend the rules, the earliest this can be closed is the 12th due to practical (i.e. volume) reasons - the "worst" case scenario is 12 promotions in 2 days. MER-C 05:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You've got me confused, why is there a mirror operation involved in the restoration?! --Dschwen 14:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do you think the second picture is the original? All the signatures are backwards. Matt Deres (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't infering that. But still weird that LoC has a flipped version on file. I didn't notice the writing. Anyways good job on the restoration. --Dschwen 16:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yes, I agree it's weird that LoC hosted a flipped version. DurovaCharge! 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - brilliant restoration. Well done. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a large amount of text on the bottom of the painting. Should that have an affect on the status of this painting? --ZeWrestler Talk 19:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Chromolithograph, actually. Is this a request to remove the text? I could... DurovaCharge! 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • If it doesn't affect copyright status or anything to remove it, then by all means, go for it. --ZeWrestler Talk 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Judging from the expression of her face and eyes, she's closer to passing out than she is to falling in love. Good restore, Durova! Clegs (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The face seems like a visual pun on that painting of the Madonna. Obviously this lady is thinking of something much more earthbound. ;) DurovaCharge! 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone confirm the colour balance on this? I would have guessed much of her clothing would be white instead it's a deep cream - almost a yellowy orange. --Fir0002 09:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know that there's any way to do so. Generally, chromolithography has a decay problem. I started with the assumption that the white on the painter's sleeve was a correct or true white, and adjusted the balance so that it wouldn't be blown. That leaves the nun with a near-white wimple and a cream colored cloak. The artist takes several other liberties with factual detail: the slashed sleeve is sixteenth-century fashion, which means the painter ought to be wearing shoes with squared toes instead of pointed toes. So I read the color balance as metaphor: the religious art is entirely dull earth tones while the painter wears luxurious red velvet - certainly not an outfit anyone would actually wear to paint a canvas (he's still carrying a palette), but perfectly representational of earthly pleasure and sin. So earth tones on the nun suggest she's still a virgin - she's kept her vow to the Church so far. DurovaCharge! 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, with all due speed and haste. What a lovely image. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Love or dutya.jpg MER-C 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - A welder making boilers for a ship.
This is a very high quality, well composed, and encyclopedia-worthy image. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles this image appears in
welding, United States home front during World War II, and Welding helmet
Alfred T. Palmer
  • Support as nominator TheOtherSiguy (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Considering I uploaded and restored it... ;) Thanks for the compliment. DurovaCharge! 04:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • PPR discussion here. --jjron (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great shot, can't believe it was taken so long ago. Aesthetically, I'd say it's at least as good as, which is featured. A good point is made at the PPR discussion that this picture would ideally exist in an article along the lines of History of welding, but still, support. faithless (speak) 09:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh wow, that's some masterful restoration indeed! For its historical and encyclopedic value, I Support. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Almost perfect but for the mark in the smoke, about 300 px from left, which looks like a cloning error. thegreen J Are you green? 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you checked it against Image:AlfredPalmerwelder.jpg? I was using the healing brush rather than the clone stamp in that area. Not sure which mark you mean - if it isn't in the original please be more specific? DurovaCharge! 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not in the original. Look at the area towards the top of where the long scratch in the original was. There's a dark patch, which looks perfectly natural except that the top does not blend into the smoke around it; there's a sharp, straight border about 4 pixels from the top. I'm not sure how the healing brush works (it's not in the older version of Photoshop that I have.), but if it's similar to clone tool, my guess is that that the area that was selected to be copied in place of the scratch was slightly above what you cloned it onto, so once you reached the top, it stopped working, leaving a visible border. thegreen J Are you green? 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Right you are; I've fixed it now. That happens when the source section on a healing brush alteration goes beyond the frame of the image. Usually I catch that myself; sorry to have missed this one. The healing brush operates on a mathematical formula that blends the source area with the target area. Often it works wonders, but using it is an art form and a few circumstances make it cough and sputter. I think it was first introduced in Photoshop 7. DurovaCharge! 12:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Shows the protective clothing very well, but doesn't show much of the welding.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Another great shot of proletariat at work. - Darwinek (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, per my earlier comments on PPR. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support; a nice image, but I can't really figure out where this belongs. I think the best place is actually welding helmet, since it offers a clear view of the protective gear that a welder wears (and it's similar in appearance to what is still worn today). It doesn't illustrate welding well, and there are better options already available. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:AlfredPalmerwelder1.jpg MER-C 03:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Felix from the International Space Station[edit]

Original - Hurricane Felix (2007) as seen from aboard the International Space Station
A large resolution picture of excellent subject content and quality. I feel that this picture is in a class of its own compared to other pictures taken from space. There are few that have such excellent panorama and able to maintain good subject content without it being just white cloud with no contrast. There is good contrast between earth, atmosphere and space with a good balance between cloud and sea/land to provide an excellent picture worthy of FPC
Articles this image appears in
Hurricane Felix (2007)
Expedition 15 astronaut
  • Support as nominator Seddon69 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support excellent textures, and angle makes the altitude of the craft clear. DurovaCharge! 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • From PPR discussion, current FPs at a glance that are somewhat similar: Gafilo 2004-03-06 0655Z.jpg, Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg and to an extent even Top of Atmosphere.jpg. --jjron (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally i feel that this picture is a combination the best features of those FP's that you have mentioned and is a much more visually pleasing and of better content than the three of them. Seddon69 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Juliancolton (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hurricane is cropped and there is no reference for scale. If I hadn't seen a picture of a hurricane from space before I would have no idea what this is. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the curvature of the earth? I would argue that it provides a sense of scale that the other 3 FPs jjron linked to don't have. Cacophony (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Cacophony makes an excellent point, and along with what Durova mentioned earlier, I don't think theres a way this picture misses out on encyclopaedic value or easy identification of what it is. Not to mention, it's in an article, so when you saw it, you'd have the concept smack dead in front of you to relate to it. (Also, Support.) -- (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't personally think that similar FPs should be used a consideration for current ones. For the curvature of the earth to be effective it would need to show the diameter at the equator. The cyclone over Iceland is much better. I agree it's a cool picture, but I think it would do better featured on the commons. I stand by my original remarks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont want to dazzle people with terminology and science because it isn't really needed but there is a reasonable difference in what the low pressure system over Iceland is and what the hurricane in the Carribean is. Seddon69 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...--Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty much for the above reasons - this is great! Adam Cuerden talk 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This can't really be compared to those other FPs; both of them are overhead satellite images and one of them isn't even of the same subject content (they are all pictures of clouds though). The lack of perspective/scale is an issue but from what I've seen of low-altitude images from space this is always a problem simply because the picture is taken from so close to the earth; the Felix picture is about the best I've seen from this category just in terms of the angle and distance of the storm when the picture was taken. — jdorje (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Felix from ISS 03 sept 2007 1138Z.jpg MER-C 03:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pasture Day Moth Caterpillar[edit]

Original - A Pasture Day Moth Caterpillar (approx 40mm in size) browsing in capeweed, Swifts Creek
Alternative 1
Alt 1 Edit 1 - Color temperature corrected
Alt 1 Edit 2 further NR
High quality shot of this vividly coloured caterpillar in it's natural habitat - has plenty of enc value and is technically very good.
Articles this image appears in
Pasture Day Moth
  • Support Original or Alternative, Oppose Alt Edit 1 Fir0002 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Both are good, I lean towards Alternative 1. faithless (speak) 08:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again, you've shown us that you really are a good photographer. I Support the Original and Strongly Support Alternative 1. Hang on...Fir, is this caterpillar 4cm long as stated on the image description page? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah it is - I guess I'd have an error margin of 5mm, so I'd say it's in the range of 38-43mm. It's not fully grown (they get up to 6cm) yet but it's getting pretty close --Fir0002 22:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support alternate same quality, and you can see the caterpillar better. Clegs (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support alternative 1 - more of the 'pillar is seen, thus better enc. --Janke | Talk 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both - Though the alternative is slightly better, both stand out as some of Wikipedia's best work. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Alt 1 Edit 1 - The color temperature in the original is too high. (Too warm) pschemp | talk 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Dirt is brown, not grey/blue - the original Alternative 1 is the correct temperature from the photographer's perspective. --Fir0002 22:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1, nice shot. Oppose alt1 edit, gotta believe the eye witness. --Dschwen 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support "alt 1 edit 2" Samsara (talk  contribs) 21:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Pasture day moth caterpillar02.jpg MER-C 03:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spinning wheel[edit]

Original - Irish spinning wheel, 1890-1900.
One of the more impressive prints from the photochrom era and a rare color image of a vanishing craft during its useful life, before spinning wheels got relegated to museums and hobbyists. Probably taken 1890-1900, published no later than 1905. Restored version of Image:Elderlyspinner.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Spinning wheel and Activities prohibited on Shabbat
Detroit Publishing Co. (photographer unknown)
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 12:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Impressive indeed taken its age. Worth a note on historical terms. Dengero (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly encyclopedic for Spinning wheel. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Very encyclopedic. Lycaon (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support another awesome image by Durova. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic photograph. - Darwinek (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support An amazing picture, especially because of the time period. - The Emperor561 (talk)
  • Support Truely encylopedic about the period. - gppande (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:elderlyspinnera.jpg MER-C 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mach5 at Comic-Con[edit]

The image should pique readers' interest in the upcoming motion picture. At the time the photo was added to Wikipedia (a year before the film's release), trailers were unavailable. The image on the Mach Five page should lead some readers to the article about the 2008 film. Unlike other images now available showing the car, this one was not an ad. People in the background illustrate the lively environment which surrounded the car but without drawing attention or intruding into the view of the car. The photo is a high quality image of high resolution, has a free license, adds value to two articles, is accurate, has an informative caption, is neutral, and has no digital manipulation other than trimming of the left and lower edges in order to center the car in the image.
Articles this image appears in
Mach Five, Speed Racer (film)
  • Support as nominator Doczilla (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bad lighting, messy composition, cut off at right. --Janke | Talk 11:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke Clegs (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - low technical quality, bad composition and light conditions.--Svetovid (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WWI Causes[edit]

Original - Although World War I was triggered by this chain of events unleashed by the assassination, the war's origins go deeper, involving national politics, cultures, economics, and a complex web of alliances and counterbalances that developed between the various European powers over the course of the nineteenth century, following the final 1815 defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte and the ensuing Congress of Vienna.
I think it is a great way to think of the causes of the war and allows visual learners remember what is going on as well as classifying for others which causes were the main bonfire, which were oily rags, which was the spark etc.
Articles this image appears in
Causes of WWI
Harris Morgan
  • Support as nominator Harris Morgan 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really like the font much. It makes it look a bit 1970, when a somewhat earlier date would fit it better.Adam Cuerden talk 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'll refrain from making any comment on the quality of the image itself, but the fact that it's symbolic/metaphorical makes it more like a work of art more than a visual aid; in fact when I first saw the image preview I thought it was a political cartoon. Obviously there's no historical value, and the metaphor you're using is fairly subjective so I don't like if for enc value either. While it's clever, it doesn't do what I think a visual aid should, which is present the subject matter in as clear and straightforward a manner as possible. SingCal 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SingCal. I thought it was a cartoon, also. Clegs (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose A political cartoon from 90 years ago might be worth consideration for historical reasons. Yet - with respect to the nominator - a modern illustration really can't carry that particular value, no matter how well done it is. DurovaCharge! 05:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Durova and others. This is basically original research and probably shouldn't be in the article.--Svetovid (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply What the hell? Have you looked at the page? It shows that all causes on the picture are valid. Sure, it doesn't call them oily rag or a stick of wood but you've upset me a bit saying it shouldn't be included at all. Gees. Harris Morgan 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
      • Hey hey, AGF, CIVIL and all that. Don't take it personally. —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry - I spent a lot of time pruning that picture. It won't happen again. Harris Morgan 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
      • The importance and order of causes can be considered original research.--Svetovid (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. --Janke | Talk 11:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - likely OR, specks on the scan at bottom left, text is aliased and stretched, white text boxes overlap illustration at points. —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per all above. Macy's123 (review me) 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose, firstly, I really liked this... and I went to look for what magazine it was from and to see if the resolution was high enough. But, this is original research and should not be in any article. Sorry about that. But, I think it's very well done... gren グレン 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That is, as the Egyptians would have said, a shame. Harris Morgan 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

Not promoted MER-C 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ernie pyle death[edit]

Original - Journalist Ernie Pyle shortly after being killed on Ie Shima, April 18, 1945
Edit 1 after restoration
Rare and recently discovered image of one of the most notable American World War II front-line correspondents. Photo was taken under fire within a short time of Pyle's death from Japanese gunfire during US Army assault on Ie Shima, near Okinawa, Japan on April 18, 1945. More on the history of the photo is here [2]. No known negatives exist of the photo, so reproduction is from a print.
Articles this image appears in
Ernie Pyle
Alexander Roberts, US Army
  • Support as nominator Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It's disturbing, but that's not an issue here. But it is rather small: Is there any way we could get a higher-resolution scan? Adam Cuerden talk 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose At the current size it's too small. Weak Support This size is much better, but it could still be a good bit larger. Anybody got a bigger scan? Clegs (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose despite my utter loathing of the size guidelines I have to agree that this is too small if only for the fact that it is inherently harder to see more detail at smaller size and it hinders practical usage (for example on the FP templates among other uses), I'd definitely support a bigger scan though. Cat-five - talk 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question and comment I read the article three times attempting to determine the status of Alexander Roberts, the man who shot this. Can you confirm that photography was part of his official duties? That would determine whether this is PD-US or copyright-fair use (and ineligible for FP if the latter). Also, would it be possible to obtain a larger image file? A lot of photographs of this type would have been developed as 8"x10" so a full sized scan might exist somewhere if you ask around. A Holocaust museum uploaded a larger version of this image upon request when it was nearly delisted last month. If you get a bigger file, ping me and I'll work on a restoration. Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to everyone. I'll try to find a larger image and renominate it at that time since this one appears to be failing mainly because of image size. The article linked to above makes it clear that Roberts was acting in his official capacity when he shot the photo, "Roberts and two other photographers, including AP's Grant MacDonald, were at a command post 300 yards away when Col. Joseph Coolidge, who had been with Pyle in the jeep, reported what happened. Roberts went to the scene, and despite continuing enemy fire, crept forward — a "laborious, dirt-eating crawl," he later called it — to record the scene with his Speed Graphic camera. His risky act earned Roberts a Bronze Star medal for valor." Cla68 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're probably right about the PD-US. Good luck with the request for a larger file version. If that doesn't work out, you might drop it by the workshop I've set up on Commons for restoring encyclopedic images that are important historically but may not qualify for FP. DurovaCharge! 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I found a larger image (800x631 vs the 539x350 that it was before) and uploaded it, but I don't know if that's as large as the reviewers here would still like to see. Cla68 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an improvement. I've rotated it, cleaned artifacts, adjusted the levels, and cropped the border. The face hasn't changed: the collar bends upward, his glasses reflect sunlight, and that looks like blood dripping from his mouth (probably the reason they kept this from the widow). Here's the hard part: as important as the subject is, this is also slightly affected by lossy compression and scanner streaks. If you view the original at 300% you'll see the streaks especially in the dark area at upper right. That can be partially corrected during restoration so I've done what I can, considering it's a low resolution scan. DurovaCharge! 09:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Caligo eurilochus[edit]

Original - Caligo eurilochus is an owl butterfly ranging from Central to South America.
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - lightened
Technical quality and encylopaedic value.
Articles this image appears in
Caligo eurilochus
Richard Bartz
  • Support as nominator Samsara noadmin (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Excellent pic. Clegs (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 per nom. Ba'Gamnan (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DurovaCharge! 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • weak oppose good quality pic. but I think recently there have been lots of butterfly pics as FP. and one more....don't know what to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talkcontribs) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Too many butterfly FP's is in no way a valid criterion for opposing. How is it that being a part of a group of commonly photographed subjects detract from the value of this image specifically? Also, Support. --Mad Tinman T C 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's criterion no. 3.--Svetovid (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • ... meaning that all butterflies form a single subject (there are about 150,000 known species)? What about mammals? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Butterflies are a type of insect, grouped together by similarity in characteristics, which is why they can be grouped more tightly then the looser group of mammals. Still, the fact that the Order: Lepidoptera is often photographed in no way detracts from the value of this photo itself, in fact, this photo just adds to our compendium of photos that well illustrate the variety of the order.. Also, how can "Is among Wikipedia's best work." be intrepreted as "Too many FP's that represent similar animals can't be had"? That one just bewilders me. --Mad Tinman T C 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry Mad Tinman (and Gppande). Ranked taxonomies are not comparable across big evolutionary gaps. That Mammals are a "Class" and Lepidoptera an "Order" is essentially meaningless. Both groups evolved at the same time btw, and have had therefore the same amount of time to diversify genetically and phenotypically. de Bivort 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Let me justify my vote here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should cover all aspects of human knowledge. Special attention to one particular /subject/science/people/art/literature....etc would mean it is not truely encylopedic. For new comer if he sees same topic picture everyday on homepage it sends wrong signal. I have nothing against the picture and its truely amazing to qualify as featured picture. My opinion is there should some time gap if same subject pictures are to qualify as FP. gppande (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support original - Yes, it is beautiful, but a little dark for enc purposes. Also, I would like to see more detail (more resolution) on the head and body - Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose edited version. For ethical reasons. Author is around and perfectly able to edit his picture if he wants to. For a question of courtesy, I don't think it is a sound practise to create new versions of the pictures nominated for FP without previous agreement of the author/nominator -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't see any ethical problems in modifying a picture that has been released under a free license. If the author didn't want his images modified he shouldn't have done as much. Regardless, I support either. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I wouln't like it if it were my picture. Why rush to edit this particular photo when the author is a well known photographer perfectly able to do the job? Not a question of "right" but of elegance. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Fairly good sharpness and detail and I really like the background. --Fir0002 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original per nom. Lycaon (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 nice. de Bivort 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both Well done. —αἰτίας discussion 02:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support both Very nice background compensates for the only average sharpness. Otherwise it's great. -- RM 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. I wanted to oppose the original for being too dark but now it's OK.--Svetovid (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original per nom. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original -- Laitche (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original -- Edit loses drama. pschemp | talk 05:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Caligo eurilochus 3 Richard Bartz.jpg MER-C 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

World War I women's recruitment poster[edit]

Original - Recruitment poster for women to join the United States Navy, 1917.
The Navy was the first branch of the U.S. armed forces to accept women in capacities other than nursing. This vintage World War I poster promises fair advancement to any person who enlists. The insignia on the model's sleeve indicate 8-11 years' service and the senior enlisted rank of chief (E-7). Restored version of Image:WWINavyYeoman.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Yeoman (F), Loretta Perfectus Walsh, and Female roles in the World Wars.
Howard Chandler Christy
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 04:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great historical significance. faithless (speak) 08:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as per Faithless. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a larger scan out there? Really like it, just wish it was a bit larger. Clegs (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This was the Library of Congress file. Usually they host the largest version available. DurovaCharge! 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Checked it out on the Loc website. While itðs true that for some reason they only offer this image in this size, this similar one is available much larger. However, the composition is much poorer, hence I'm inclined to Support this one. Adam Cuerden talk 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That temporary link doesn't work. Do you have the call number? DurovaCharge! 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Just search for "I want you for the navy". But POS - WWI - US, no. 424 (C size) [P&P] Reproduction number: LC-USZC4-9459 (color film copy transparency) Adam Cuerden talk 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Higher resolution, inferior layout. And annoying stamps added later. DurovaCharge! 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:WWINavyYeoman1.jpg MER-C 07:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Arches National Park by Night[edit]

Original - The stars light up the sky at Arches National Park
A vast majority of pictures are taken during the day. Few are taken at night.
Articles this image appears in
Arches National Park
  • Support as nominator Alwynloh (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quality is bad. The stars are very blurred, the whole sky looks fake, and it's very noisy. Doesn't really illustrate anything either. Sorry, it's pretty as a thumbnail, but not an FP. Clegs (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Looks somewhat like a background out of Star Trek, sorry, just not up to quality standards. Dengero (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - horrific noise, blurry, lighting is bad, not to mention the heavy JPG artifacting. Sorry, not a chance. Try WP:PPR before FPC next time. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per clegs, a pretty thumbnail, but the 'big image' quality isn't there. I like the idea, and an picture of a similar setting could be really neat, but especially damning is that the focus is on the tree thereby leaving the arches and sky to look like hell. The tree is by far the least interesting thing in the picture.D-rew (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I like the contrast and the look of it a lot... but it's not an encyclopedic image--but it is a really nifty one. gren グレン 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - low technical quality as mentioned above. Also, it doesn't illustrate the National Park.--Svetovid (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perspective view of the Box Tunnel entrance in winter[edit]

Original - Winter overview of western portal
Picture gives an idea of how Box Tunnel relates to its surrounding landscape, showing its bowed entrance, the colour of the local stone used in its construction, contrasted by the winter landscape in which it is set.
Articles this image appears in
Box Tunnel
  • Support as nominator Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Composition is lacking (looks like a snapshot), foreground and person are distracting, strong vignetting. Not FP material, sorry. --Janke | Talk 07:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Clegs (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. —αἰτίας discussion 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Dengero (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, you can stop now. I get the message. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's nothing personal. If you look in the archives, you'll see pictures that have received much worse than this. Keep trying, though. With better framing, this may have had a chance. Clegs (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake Como panorama[edit]

Original - a view of Bellagio promontory and the three branches of Lake Como, Italy, from Mount San Primo
I think it's wonderful: it provides a full view of the three branches of Lake Como (so it's encyclopaedic) but is also aesthetically pleasant, due to the perfect weather conditions. No manipulations.
Articles this image appears in
Lake Como
  • Support as nominator Marcus90 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose badly artifacted and rather washed out. Clegs (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Clegs, plus its only been in an article for 3 days. Mfield (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, nice picture but too bright. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose a bit too much fog in the image. Ilikefood (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose by Clegs and Mfield. —αἰτίας discussion 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Good image but not featured article material in my opinion. Samasnookerfan (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per Clegs. Juliancolton (Talk) 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - Subbuteo players from the 1980s. Foreground is Brazil, background Argentina.
Brilliant use of focus used to create a nice feel to the picture.
Articles this image appears in

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Typical house in Alentejo, Portugal[edit]

Original - A house in the main square of the village of Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal, about 180 km south of Lisbon. This is a typical house of the Alentejo region, with white washed walls and a blue band close to the ground.
A high quality picture and an encyclopaedic depiction of a typical Portuguese house.
Articles this image appears in
Porto Covo, Sines, Portugal
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
  • Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral It looks like a great picture, but the white balance is off and the tree on the right is cut plus plus its tilted a bit. Noah¢s (Talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Suggest cropping/rotation? Durova

Charge! 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Info - No tilt, just the effect of perpspective and the not pefect geometry of the whole building (please notice the verticals). I might try a crop later, thank you -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of cropping it, how about taking more of it? Include the tree and tilt the angle the right way up. Then it would be a great picture. Dengero (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's neither stunning/interesting or particularly enc. I don't see how this particular building illustrates a whole town (Porto Covo) or the municipality of Sines (and having it illustrate the "parishers" of Sines further reduces the enc value of this pic). Furthermore the technical quality is quite poor (sharpness) for such an easily reproducible shot. The scene would also have been improved if the trees weren't in their "dead" winter state but had some leaves. --Fir0002 09:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • But if they had leaves then you wouldn't see the building properly. Dengero (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice colours, may do well on Commons, but it's not an encyclopaedic crop. We need to see the whole house. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fir and Samsara. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is tilted, and the image is of the middle of the house which does not illustrate the entire structure. It is nothing special, and in no way is FP worthy. Juliancolton Talk 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We can't see the whole house because of the trees. Galileo01 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


High quality/high encyclopedic relevance. Very well done. FP on commons.
Articles this image appears in
Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel

regards, —αἰτίας discussion 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support reasons see above —αἰτίας discussion 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support well-composed, good depth of field, and that all important cuteness factor. Thumbs up. DurovaCharge! 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Good composition. Clegs (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very good quality. Ilikefood (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Relevance. -- RM 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Sure thing. Samsara (talk  contribs) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent image. Juliancolton Talk 00:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Goldmantelziesel.jpg --Dengero (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Muir and Roosevelt[edit]

Original - U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (left) and nature preservationist John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, on Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park. In the background: Upper and lower Yosemite Falls.
Edit 1 - clean up, level and curve adjust.
This picture shows how Teddy Roosevelt as an environmentalist worked to preserve the environment through the national park system and by working with preservationists such as John Muir.
Articles this image appears in
John Muir , Theodore Roosevelt
Underwood & Underwood
  • Support as nominator The Emperor561 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 the original is a little small but encyclopedic enough IMHO, I cleaned it up and tweaked contrast and levels. Mfield (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Cleaned up version is better than the original. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Good quality for its age. Schcambo (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. Good restoration of a famous and encyclopedic photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Muir and Roosevelt restored.jpg --Dengero (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Monarch Butterfly[edit]

Original - Monarch Butterfly feeding on an Echinacea purpurea flower
This is one of the best pictures of this particular subject (and is the disputed taxobox image). It is highly detailed, has a pleasing, non-distracting background, and is high resolution. It clearly shows it feeding with its proboscis and no body parts are obstructed by other objects.
Articles this image appears in
Monarch butterfly
  • Support as nominator -- Ram-Man 03:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support- It's beautiful, and illustrates the subject perfectly. Ilikefood (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but that's nowhere in focus. —αἰτίας discussion 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Nowhere? The focus is dead-on, but the DoF could've been slightly higher (at the cost of center sharpness), but I needed the fast shutter speed. Compare the DoF to other FPs: 1 2 3 4 5. For the sharp focus areas, this may be the sharpest, highest resolution butterfly FP we have. -- RM 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutral insufficient DOF but nice --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, beautiful, crisp, everything a FP should be. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Only rear edge of wing slipping out of focus. I'm always impressed when people get the antennae right. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Laitche 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus on Echinacea purpurea 2800px.jpg --Dengero (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - Emile Zola's famous public letter "J'Accuse" to the president of France in protest against the mishandling of the Dreyfus Affair, 1898.
This might qualify as the most famous newspaper editorial of all time: Emile Zola was France's leading writer, the Dreyfus Affair was its most famous scandal, and Zola published this public condemnation of the government in order to force his own prosecution for libel, so that he could raise evidence in defense of Dreyfus that had been suppressed from Dreyfus's case. Sounds convoluted? It was, but it wasn't a passing scandal either; the affair was a landmark in the history of antisemitism and Zionism. High resolution legible file; English translation available at Wikisource. The headline reads I accuse...! Letter to the president of the republic from Emile Zola
Articles this image appears in
Dreyfus affair, J'accuse (letter), L'Aurore
Emile Zola
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - an extremely important historical document. The image pages on EN and commons don't seem to specifically state it, but is this actually a scan of a 110-year-old newspaper (as it appears) or is this some kind of facsimile, like a printing from a microfilm or something? Just curious. Great find, Durova; not a typical FP, but quite deserving, IMO. Matt Deres (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks like a scan of the actual newspaper. DurovaCharge! 02:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks for nominating it, it's great. Neutralitytalk 03:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Of course! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great historical significance, legible and therefore very informative. faithless (speak) 10:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious featured picture. - Darwinek (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Not like this one needs my vote, but I just wanted to say I learned something new and important from it! This is the stuff text FPs are made of.D-rew (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, of course (per nom). Spikebrennan (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:J accuse.jpg --Dengero (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam Veterans Memorial design[edit]

Original - Original design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. by Maya Lin.
The most important public art competition of its era was won by a 21-year-old college student. No restoration attempted: a couple of pencil smudges and water drips are part of what make this remarkable. Architectural sketches with legible handwritten description, submitted 1980-1981. I've just finished several days' correspondence with the Library of Congress reference department to confirm that this actually is PD-US.
Articles this image appears in
Vietnam Veterans Memorial and Maya Lin
Maya Lin
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. dvdrw 06:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support i had never seen her proposal before, and this image makes it seem even more amazing that her design was chosen. Fascinating. de Bivort 04:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe I ought to transcribe her description? She knew exactly what effect the memorial would have; nothing was accidental. DurovaCharge! 07:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The abstract and minimally detailed submission are rather fitting given the subtle nature of the memorial. You can transcribe the text if you like and think it will contribute to the article; but it's perfectly legible in the image.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:MayaLinsubmission.jpg --Dengero (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

Original - The Coat of Arms of Pope Benedict XVI were designed by then Archbishop Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo soon after the papal election of 2005. The coat of arms is notable for its inclusion of the silver mitre in place of the papal tiara, which had adorned the popes' coat of arms since the 14th century. Also the inclusion of the pallium differed from the long standing tradition against including external ornaments. However, as the Pope has the authority to alter rules of ecclesiastical heraldry to permit these additional items, he has put the rules aside by granting authorization for his personal coat of arms.
Excellent picture that appears to meet the criteria and is some of our best image work. Also, is a new innovation in heraldry due to miter and pallium inclusion.
Articles this image appears in
Bear, Dominus Iesus, Pope Benedict XVI, Papal Tiara, Division of the field, Mitre, Prophecy of the Popes, Papal coat of arms, Works of Pope Benedict XVI, Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, Early life of Pope Benedict XVI, Corbinian, Coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI, Template:Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, Pope Benedict XVI and Islam, List of journeys of Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, Summorum Pontificum, Spe Salvi
  • Support as nominator MBisanz talk 08:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not very special or stunning looking. (Also old discussion: Feature one coat or flag, and you'll have to feature all...) --Janke | Talk 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Firstly I have a few issues with the shield's accuracy. What was it based off? Because the colours don't match A - they are closer to B but which is the correct version? Then there's the crown - in this version it looks more like A but that's quite different from B. But if A had the correct form than what's with the bear's tail? In this version it doesn't match A or B AFAI can tell. Secondly why do the PL/EN copyright notice things render with the SVG? Lastly per Janke - there's nothing to seperate this particular SVG shield/flag from the rest. --Fir0002 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This C is the official version. In hearldry, the individual items may be rendered slightly differently by each artist. I have no idea about the PL/EN issue. And the thing that makes this COA different than others is that it has a mitre replacing the tiara, which was used for 600 years, and it includes the pallium, which has never been used in hearldry before. MBisanz talk 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So it's the same as B? I'm assuming that it's just a dodgy scan in B and C which give them the different hues to X? Because the colour is close but it's not the same - for example the "gold". I'm no expert so I don't know whether the heraldry does have different rendering but I would strongly prefer if this version followed the official coat of arms far closer. Specifically on the person: (and I'll refer to this nom as "X" and the official version as B) I dislike the gaping mouth of X versus B's closed lips, the differences in the crown structure, the lack of detail in the hair of X, the sausage shaped collar of X versus the sharp lines of B, and the differences in the finishing of the shirt. Specifically on the bear: the awkward rendering of the bear's pack - it looks like a saddle in B and in X it doesn't look like much really, the legs look somewhat clumsily drawn (they lack claw detail visible in B) and the tucked in tail of X. Lastly the red section of the shield doesn't join properly with the black border (there's a white gap) - I'd fix it but I don't know how. I know this may seem like nit picking - but for a COA or map the detail and quality really has to set it apart from others. --Fir0002 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an official version of a coat of arms. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link --Fir0002 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose If by some miracle a coat of arms is ever promoted to FP (extreme examples of quartering aside), this rendition will not be the first. A much better example was recently shot down for the second time. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can't see how you can have a featured picture of something that is not well-defined, as evident from the link provided by I. Pankonin above. Essentially what that link is saying is that any representation of a CoA is as good as any other, other criteria (e.g. SVG format) being met. Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would take a lot of visual appeal for a CoA to be featured. It has to be drawn amazingly, almost like the animals were real and were actually photographed holding up a shield or walking across it, but it still has to be SVG. It's almost a catch-22. I disagree with what you say here though. That a COA has to be technically correct according to the blazon doesn't mean that none of the other criteria apply. All that link is saying is that as long as you follow the rules, it's technically correct and acceptable from a heraldic point of view. One can still judge visual appeal in an FPC nomination. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 13:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, when I was talking about photographic quality, I meant for others to accept it as FP, not myself. IMO the UK coat of arms should be featured except for a minor technical detail. Others rejected it as too "cartoonish". -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Polar Bear at Edinburgh Zoo[edit]

Original - The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a bear native to the Arctic. Polar bears are the world's largest land carnivores, with most adult males weighing 300–600 kg (660–1320 lb); the adult female (pictured) are about half the size of males. A semi-aquatic marine mammal, the polar bear has adapted for life on a combination of land, sea, and ice, and is the apex predator within its range. It feeds mainly on seals, young walruses, and whales, although it will eat anything it can kill.
High quality encyclopaedic and attractive image, showing the whole of a female polar bear. Shows the polar bear in amuch greater detail than the current FP
Articles this image appears in
Edinburgh Zoo
Edinburgh Blog
  • Support as nominatorJack · talk · 04:08, Sunday, 10 February 2008
  • Oppose Yes, it has much more detail than the current FP, but at the expense of the bear's natural habitat, which causes it too loose to much value and fails to distiguish it above other zoo shots. thegreen J Are you green? 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Agreed as per above, although I also agree this picture provides much more detail than the current FP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengero (talkcontribs) 06:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nice shot. thegreenj raises a good point, though considering that in a few decades it is quite likely that most polar bears will be in zoos rather than in the wild, we might need to rethink what 'natural habitat' means. :) faithless (speak) 10:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, since its already on everybody's mind when looking at a zoo picture of a polar bear I would like to see some mention of the predicted plight of them in regards to climate change.D-rew (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No need to promote alarmism. Polar bears are doing just fine. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I won't be trapped in some debate here, but I'm not saying that the caption be some sort of alarming statement. Just that climate change and how polar bears will be affected will already be on people's mind's seeing the image, and I think it is at least worth a mention.D-rew (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is that a twig hanging on to its front leg, or a smudge on the glass you may have been shooting through? Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Noisy with several pieces of dirt or something on the camara lense. Also, the content of the image is nothing special, and would be better off with a more interesting angle. Juliancolton Talk 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The animal is too dirty. Royalbroil 02:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • LOL, say again?--Svetovid (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for unencylopedic setting (so obviously a zoo photograph) Spikebrennan (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not the natural habitat, therefore UE. —Vanderdeckenξφ 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per unencyclopedic habitat (There are cement sidewalks in the Arctic ice floes?) Clegs (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning to oppose - Great image, but I do have to agree with the oppose comments (that the animal is not in the natural habitat). Macy's123 (review me) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't mean to sound argumentative, nor am I suggesting anyone change their mind: we're all entitled to our opinion here. However, I feel I have to address the argument of those opposing this picture because it was taken in a zoo rather than in the wild. I do not see this as a legitimate argument and, more importantly, there is precedent that zoo-photos can also be featured pictures: Image:Mexican wolf lounging.jpg and Image:Jaguar at Edinburgh Zoo.jpg being the two examples that I know of. There are also other featured pictures of animals not taken in their natural habitat: Image:Day old chick black background.jpg, Image:Melanerpes-erythrocephalus-003.jpg, Image:Brachypelma edit.jpg, Image:Mouse spider.jpg and others. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons to oppose (though I supported), I'm just saying that I don't see a problem with the location. Cheers, faithless (speak) 09:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with you. It's called Polar Bear at Edinburgh Zoo after all.--Svetovid (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Those examples are also quite exceptional (both in composition and technical aspects) as well as being taken in a zoo - the good points outweigh the bad. However, they're also all closeups - the only one I think it's obvious that the subject is in a zoo is the Mexican wolf. This polar bear pic, whilst illustrating a polar bear, is still a fairly average photo (not all sharp, grey lighting, the horrible rusty metal thing at bottom right), with the arguments against it compounded by also not being in its natural habitat. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not the natural habitat. FF23 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Skyline Panorama[edit]

Original - The skyline of Montreal, Quebec, viewed from atop Mount Royal in October 2005
Good quality shot, shows city and surrounding geography well. I took 5 shots with a Canon Easyshare CX7330, stiched them together, and improved the colour/contrast.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator MTLskyline (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm no guru on photography, but this panaroma hurts my eyes o.0 Dengero (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The image is a bit on the small side for a panorama and the sky is entirely blown out...the contrast has been upped a little too much. CillaИ ♦ XC 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sky is horribly blown, way too small for a panorama. No chance. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too small for a panorama, and the sky is completely blown. Clegs (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dengero and Clegs. Macy's123 (review me) 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, not a bad attempt. But, you should look at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama for examples of expected quality on FPC panoramas. gren グレン 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merry Cemetery[edit]

It is a encyclopedic image of a major cultural and folklore related site in Romania
Articles this image appears in
Merry Cemetery, Stan Ioan Pătraş
  • Support as nominator Mario1987 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can think of too many ways in which this could be a much better picture. First of all, shooting against the sky hasn't helped, only forced some foreground objects to be underexposed. On this bleak winter day, the colours ended up undersaturated. This would be much better shot either from a higher vantage point on a slightly sunnier day, or in summer, when there's foliage in the background to keep out the bright sky and allow foreground objects to be correctly exposed. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Samsara. Clegs (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per Samsara, couldn't put it better. Dengero (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - sky is blown, very unsharp almost everywhere, vignetting, chromatic aberration on almost every edge. Please read the criteria, look at current FPs and make an honest judgement before nominating an image. You may also consider using PPR before nominating if you're not sure. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, there are problems that prevent a support vote. This is also a really interesting location. Would it be possible to reshoot under better conditions? There's an FP in here; keep trying. DurovaCharge! 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - This represents an image of a Bufflehead,a small American sea duck.
Alternative A
This image has amazing clarity, and it extremely sharp.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Original, Oppose Alternative A. The original is great except for the resolution being on the low side. The alternative is too unsharp. -- RM 04:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both Both are very sharp, good color, and very encyclopedic poses. Clegs (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support both Crop is tight at the tail. Samsara (talk  contribs) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose alternitive, neutral original Juliancolton Talk 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    This is not a vote, please provide a reason for your oppose. MER-C 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bucephala-albeola-010.jpg MER-C 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Panorama of French Public Library[edit]

This is a beautiful panorama of the French Public Library and everything that surrounds it, including Bercy Bridge.
Articles this image appears in
Bibliothèque nationale de France
  • Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very nicely done; good colors, good stitch. Clegs (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It strikes me as odd that this is receiving even less attention than a very poor pano of Montréal above - maybe it needs to be in North America? Also please note, this is already an FP on commons. Schcambo (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, meets all the criteria but the caption should be improved by saying that it's in Paris. That may sound trivial, but too many people are horrible at basic geography.--Svetovid (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not clear to me from the caption which of these buildings are the library. Also, I always have copyright concerns when we're dealing with photographs of contemporary French architecture-- have these been considered and resolved? (I know the photo is tagged as PD, but there are special concerns under French copyright law when what is depicted is a recent architectural work). Spikebrennan (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. So all the buildings in this picture are part of the French National Library? That's the only conclusion I can draw from the captions and image page; if so it's remarkably big. --jjron (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bnf 20070218.jpg MER-C 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Swallow chicks[edit]

Original - Pair of welcome swallow chicks, Hirundo neoxena, the day after fledging
Edit 1 slight desaturation to bring colors closer to reality
Shows the birds well, clear, good quality image.
Articles this image appears in
Hirundo and Welcome Swallow
  • Support as nominator Benjamint 09:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The birds' tails seem to be fairly blurry when viewed at full size. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. It's an excellent composition, and I can forgive the blurry tail since the patterning is still clearly visible. Samsara noadmin (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Samsara. Clegs (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The image looks oversaturated. The other images at Welcome Swallow look more like natural colors. Maybe tone it down a bit? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-04 16:28Z
  • Comment - Colors look off to me as well. Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've uploaded a slightly desaturated version to bring the colors closer to reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-05 01:00Z
  • Support the adjusted one The one you have adjusted to fix the coloring is very good. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-06 20:24Z
  • Oppose both Colours still look unnaturally saturated. Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you submit an alternative? The 2nd one is much closer to reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-06 21:00Z
      • It doesn't work that way. You can't boost and then lower stauration in the same way that you can't boost and lower contrast. The original picture (whether or not the submitted original is it) has a full range of saturations. When saturation is boosted, the middle range is stretched out, but areas with an already high saturation won't go higher. When you take this image and lower the saturation again, the areas with a high saturation will be at a much lower saturation than they originally were. Quick example—note the decrease in saturation on the bumper from the first image to the third. thegreen J Are you green? 22:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lycaon. thegreen J Are you green? 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Support Edit 1 – The edit appears to have corrected the problem I had with the strong (probably unrealistic) blue colour appearing at the edge of the birds. Apart from that I cannot really fault the composition or the other technical aspects of this picture. Centyreplycontribs – 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Swallow_chicks444-2.jpg MER-C 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Landsat image of Island of Hawai'i[edit]

Original - This false-color composite (processed to simulate true color) image of Hawaii was constructed from data gathered between 1999 and 2001 by the Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus (ETM+) instrument, flying aboard the Landsat 7 satellite. The Landsat data were processed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a landcover map. The black areas on the island (in this scene) that resemble a pair of sun-baked palm fronds are hardened lava flows formed by the active Mauna Loa Volcano. Just to the north of Mauna Loa is the dormant grayish Mauna Kea Volcano, which hasn’t erupted in an estimated 3,500 years. A thin greyish plume of smoke is visible near the island’s southeastern shore, rising from Kilauea—the most active volcano on Earth. Heavy rainfall and fertile volcanic soil have given rise to Hawaii’s lush tropical forests, which appear as solid dark green areas in the image. The light green, patchy areas near the coasts are likely sugar cane plantations, pineapple farms, and human settlements.
Enormous, valuable satellite image
Articles this image appears in
Hawaii, Hawaii (island)
Hawaii Land Cover Analysis project, NOAA Coastal Services Center
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Interesting, but way too contrasty and garish; processed to simulate true color sounds almost like a joke... Details are lost because of this, and yes, blown out highlights in the clouds, too! ;-) Find a lower contrast version, and I'll support. --Janke | Talk 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - False colour images serve two different purposes imo: to emphasize certain terrain characteristics (relief or coverage, in general) or just to be beautiful. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose by Janke. —αἰτίας discussion 01:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Clegs (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment should be placed on Landsat program and satellite image. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Good thought-- added to Landsat program. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Quilter, 1940[edit]

Original - Mrs. Bill Stagg with state quilt, Pie Town, New Mexico, October 1940.
A piece of Americana: a frontierswoman stands outside her log cabin home in a gingham dress and sturdy black shoes while she displays her proudest artistic achievement: a hand pieced and embroidered quilt that depicts all the state flowers and birds (there were 48 states when this photo was taken). Harsh lighting suits this portrait: the deep lines on her broad featured face suggest a hard life - note the complete absence of flowers, birds or any other living thing on her "lawn". Scenes like this could have taken place anytime from 1840 to 1940 and we're lucky to have one in Kodachrome. Restored version of Image:Russellquilter.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
History of quilting and Quilt
Lee Russell, U.S. Gov't public domain
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. —αἰτίας discussion 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Much more interesting than one might expect an illustration of History of Quilting to be. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1940 is not that rare. If it was 1890 and a color photograph I'd support. 1940 just doesn't cut it for a old photograph of this kind of subject. There isn't anything particularly special about her. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But, this is a early example of good color photography. That in itself is valuable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly it's not being used to illustrate that, and secondly we seem to have a plethora of 'good color photography' from around this time. --jjron (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly a plethora: most of the good PD color photography from this era comes from the U.S. Farm Security Administration. Color files are a tiny fraction of that body of material. Several of their photographers didn't understand the medium, a fair portion of it seems to have been developed incorrectly, and as for the better part - Wikipedians are well on our way to picking it clean (pick, pick). DurovaCharge! 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, perhaps you've just been spoiling us recently then. ;-) --jjron (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent example of early color. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose basically per Fcb. The interesting part of this photo (and what it's being used to illustrate) is the quilt, but I don't think it is a great illustration of that. The reason for the nom itself seems to support this idea as the reason focuses on the woman and the setting. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Can't think of a better illustration of an amateur quilter. Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Russellquiltera.jpg MER-C 07:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln's Second Inauguration[edit]

Original - This photograph of Abraham Lincoln delivering his second inaugural address is the only known photograph of Lincoln giving a speech. Lincoln stands in the center, with papers in his hand. John Wilkes Booth is visible in the photograph, in the top row right of center (White, The Eloquent President).
(caption borrowed from Lincoln's second inaugural address). Only known photograph of Lincoln giving a speech.
Articles this image appears in
Lincoln's second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln
Alexander Gardner, 1821-1882, photographer. (according to [3])
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's very difficult to find him. I'm still not sure that I did. Clegs (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak Oppose - Took me a minute to find him. he is in the very center of the image. I am not a fan of the image quality when it is shown in full size. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - So, is he the guy with the handlebar mustache standing next to the man with the high top hat? -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, he's the guy standing up reading from a piece of paper (at least I think so). Clegs (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that looks right, and sounds right, since that guy seems to be the centre of attention and looks to be the only person vaguely giving a speech (or unless Lincoln just happened to grow a handlebar moustache for this occasion). FWIW unfortunately I can't really see enough here to support, but whatever happened to brilliant speeches like that? --jjron (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a white table just above the stone wall. Lincoln is standing just to the left of this. Booth is the hatless guy in the top deck, who looks like this: Jwbooth.jpeg and who is standing immediately to the left of a guy with a bowler hat. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Isn't anyone else finding it striking that this image is (1) apparently the only photograph of one of the most famous speeches in the history of the United States being delivered, and (2) both Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth (his assassin) are in the picture? Spikebrennan (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. As a Lincoln picture fan opposing this one is tough to me, but as previously commented on, it is difficult to find Lincoln, and worst of all he is out of focus. I understand that nothing can be done about that, that the image is very historic, and that for some people it will outweigh the problems of the picture. But I am a simple man and a simple photo-judge, if the focal point of the picture isn't in focus and difficult to find I have trouble voting for it. D-rew (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Consider it as an illustration of the inauguration, rather than of Lincoln as an individual. This is apparently the only known photograph of Lincoln giving the (deservedly famous) address. (For the benefit of those who might not be familiar with the event, this was the speech that concluded: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.") Spikebrennan (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • SUPPORT - It's Alex Gardner's photo of Lincoln as he was speaking. Come on!

Additionally, the man indicated in the crowd as being Booth, clearly is not. This man's face is full, not lean. He parts his hair on the right, not the left, as did Booth. His mustache is more like Hitler's than Booth's. There are however, two individuals who look very much like Powell(Paine)and Booth on either side of this man. Both wear hats and are equadistant from the man(not Booth)holding his hat. In fact, after a very close analysis of both, it's likely that this is Booth and Paine. As for the theory that other conspirators are in the group, directly below the President, though it makes for good drama, most, if not all, of the people immediately below the President, on the sidewalk, were either soldiers, plaine clothes detectives or police. The security presence was several thousand. Including sharpshooters on neighboring rooftops, cavalry in the streets and thousands of troops.

Not promoted MER-C 07:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X[edit]

Original - Malcolm X, photographed in 1964
Edit 1
Good scan of an encyclopedic, PD portrait of a recent historical figure (most of our FPs of images are much older because of the difficulty in obtaining more recent PD photographs)
Articles this image appears in
Malcolm X, List of converts to Islam
Ed Ford, World Telegram staff photographer (but it's PD, see image page)
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Great choice for black history month! Would you mind if I played with it a little in Photoshop? Looks like the levels need adjusting and I see a few artifacts; don't want to steal your thunder. DurovaCharge! 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not my photo; not my thunder. Do what you will. Spikebrennan (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
All right then. Filled in the blank strip at upper right, got rid of artifacts (and please don't ever upload another houndstooth jacket). Then while adjusting the levels the thought came to mind, how black should I make Malcolm X? I hope this is suitable. DurovaCharge! 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is fine. Making him any blacker or less black doesn't make a difference to his historic significance. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Support DurovaCharge! 17:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Support edit 1 - slightly better due to enhanced contrast and removal of some minor flaws. Matt Deres (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Malcolm X NYWTS 2a.jpg MER-C 07:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Desert Storm Map[edit]

Original - Ground troop movements during Operation Desert Storm from February 24-28th 1991. Coalition forces invade Kuwait and Iraq to defeat and expel Iraqi forces.
Edit 1 - Iraqi forces shown
Clear, accurate map that shows complex troop movements during a critical phase of Operation Desert Storm.
Articles this image appears in
Gulf War
US Army, vectored by Jeff Dahl
  • Support as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 04:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find the mix of unit insignias and national flags odd. It's interesting from a grognard perspective, but confusing-- U.S. military units are not expressly identified as such; and not all of the symbols used on the map are explained in the legend. Is there any available information about the pre-attack positioning of Iraqi forces? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a map showing Iraqi forces and added the information to this map in an alternate. I'll fix the legends in both. I thought the flag/unit icons were self explanatory, but I'll consider suggestions. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1 is certainly an improvement. I would suggest replacing the flags/U.S. Army division insignia with APP-6A markers like you did for the Iraqi forces. Also, I don't think that the meaning of the green tint of some of the land near the Tigris is explained in the "Elevation in Feet" bar in the legend. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support gppande This is a awesome map created by the author with all the minute details properly shown. Wikipedia needs more good quality maps like this and map makers like this author. I know a lot of effort must have gone in making this. —Preceding comment was added at 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can a more specific tag instead of the blue 'Coalition forces' in JFC-N go there? Surely it's possible now to identify who it was (Egyptians, if memory serves, or that may be the green box next door), and correct a bit of our systematic bias by identifying the formations involved. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The green (Saudi) flag represents the Saudi led forces, including Saudi/Kuwaiti task forces. Yes, the blue coalition banner includes two Egyptian divisions making up much of the force, and Syrian forces (which did not advance with the rest of the coalition). Since the Syrians did not advance, it makes sense to split it out. I'll upload a new version shortly. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, looks better now. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Great job Jeff. I think the legend needs information about the different kinds of arrows, for instance the 101st Airborne and the French movement west of As Salman. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 09:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be a little wary about adding too much. It would need to be referenced. As of now this map is deemed reliable because it is from a government made map but if it is changed sources will need to be provided which might be difficult. gren グレン 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I checked an army field manual (101-5-1) which confirms the 101st Airborne arrow represents troop movements by an airborne unit. The normal arrows are for ground troops. The same field manual says the double headed arrows for the French and 3d ACR are for security forces. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This information should be on the image page if it's not in the image itself. Other than that I'd say it was close to perfect. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Added to image description page. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 17:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:DesertStormMap v2.svg ("close to perfect" == support, thus quorum met) MER-C 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

West African Gaboon Viper[edit]

File:West African Gaboon Viper.JPG
Original - A West African Gaboon Viper (Bitis gabonica rhinoceros) in captivity at St Louis Zoo
Attractive image that both shows you what the snake looks like, and how it hunts using leaf-pattern camouflage. A reflection was removed from the out-of focus background in the top left corner.
Articles this image appears in
Bitis gabonica, Crypsis and Ambush predator.
  • Support as nominator Tim Vickers (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't know why, but there is something bugging me in this picture. Dengero (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Really, I hope people are looking at these at full resolution (not the image page). The quality at full res is rather bad, noisy and there is texture lost everywhere due to in-camera NR. The white balance is green shifted and the tail is badly OOF. The tail is cut off. Other then that, its a compelling shot. What I mean is that it was clearly wide-angle meaning the photographer had to get close to the snake. Like really close. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It was taken in a zoo, the photographer says he's edited out a reflection, so I'm guessing he was pretty safely behind glass. :-) --jjron (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose A bit blurry, and noisy. · AndonicO Hail! 12:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - as per Fcb, horribly blurred, noisy, white balance and general colour off, bad contrast - looks okay at thumbnail but not any bigger. Again as per Fcb, I really don't think that the nominators of most of the recent nominations we've had have actually looked at the image full size, I cite this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. I don't know how we can make it any more clear that people need to think for more that thirty seconds about whether their image is good enough, to actually read all the criteria all the way through and realise that most of them need to apply, to look at their image full size all over, and to compare their image against others which are currently featured. There have been quite a few nominations in the last three to six months where I've almost dismissed them as a troll nom (anyone remember the real trolls like this? Or the innocent-but-worse ones like this from even longer ago?), and then realised that although the image is bad or worse, the person nominating really did think that it might pass for some reason. I don't understand why the advice and instructions at the top of the page aren't clear enough already. This isn't the worst image we've had by any means, but it still shows that some standards appear to be slipping. —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Calling this a troll nomination seems a bit harsh, I do admit I don't have full vision myself, so I probably wasn't able to assess this as well as I should have. The picture was taken at low light levels from behind thick glass, which might explain the flaws you can see. However, in light of the tone of your comments I don't think I will try this process again. Sorry for wasting everybody's time. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Please note, I wasn't saying that this nom was a troll, I was commenting that the recent trend of nominations where the quality is obviously low has some examples which, a year ago, would have been suspected as troll nominations. —Vanderdeckenξφ
  • Oppose It has all been said above - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the blur. Galileo01 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: Image withdrawn by nominator by removing it from FPC page - see here. --jjron (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rock Cycle[edit]

Original - The rock cycle is a fundamental concept in geology that describes the dynamic transitions through geologic time among the three main rock types: sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous. Due to the driving forces of the rock cycle, plate tectonics and the water cycle, rocks do not remain in equilibrium and are forced to change as they encounter new environments. The rock cycle is an illustration that explains how the 3 rock types are related to each other and how processes change from one type to another over time. Legend: 1 = magma; 2 = crystallization (freezing of rock); 3 = igneous rocks; 4 = erosion; 5 = sedimentation; 6 = sediments & sedimentary rocks; 7 = tectonic burial & metamorphism; 8 = metamorphic rocks; 9 = melting.
Edit 1
Edit 2 by Fir0002
Very informative diagram that illustrates this fundamental geology concept. This diagram has a high resolution and encyclopedic.
Articles this image appears in the
Rock cycle
  • Support as nominator ZeWrestler Talk 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Support Rather than have the lengthy legend in the caption, it should be in the image. Even better would be eliminate the numbers completely, and replace them with the names of the rocks. Then, I would be able to support this. Very well done. Clegs (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it possible to lower the noise? Dengero (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Its been a while since I've used photoshop, what would I do to go about that?--ZeWrestler Talk 07:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question, Does a circle around the inset images mean it is a process and a square mean it is a type of rock? If so I would like to see some mention of it, because right now I feel the diagram confuses processes and types of rocks.D-rew (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You know I haven't noticed that before, but looking over the diagram types of rocks have square images, and processes have circles. It can easily be mentioned in the caption if you feel it is necessary. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I meant circles to be processes, and squares to be "reservoirs". Woodwalker (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This being a diagram I always try to advocate as much information as neccesary presented in the simplest manner, so, now that I've thought about it, I think it would be better if the difference was more inherent in the image. If you didn't notice its doubtful most others would catch it! I'm not sure of the best method to go about this, but I think that modifying the caption should at best be plan B.D-rew (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, needs some references for verifiability. Also, I think the look is a little hokey... I dislike the background coloring--if they're meant to represent depth there should be some indicator of that and maybe better coloring... Also, I think better fonts could be chosen or maybe it's the color. It looks a little amateurish to me... gren グレン 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Would the Rock cycle be reference enough, or are you referring to each image within the diagram? Also, given everyone's comments here, should I just build diagram meeting everyone's criteria?--ZeWrestler Talk 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The references used in rock cycle if reliable would be enough. Just, even images should be independent referenced. gren グレン 07:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I contacted Woudloper requesting the original PSD file so that I could change the bg and clean it up a bit but he only had a PSD with the numbers as layers - the rest was flattened. However the original had better quality which I think is incorporated in Edit 2, and I think the new text style is a little more stylish --Fir0002 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll support the edit by Fir0002--ZeWrestler Talk 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I like edit 2; the image not having any text was my deliberate choice so that it could be used in other languages; but I don't mind it having text at all. Thanks all. Woodwalker (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • so then you support it?--ZeWrestler Talk 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I am not sure if I should as the original creator? Woodwalker (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • As far as I know, you are allowed to. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that. --ZeWrestler Talk 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For me this fits into the category of good pictures for their article but not Feature-worthy. I don't think it looks great. Pstuart84 Talk 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Airbus Emergency Landing[edit]

Original - JetBlue Airways Flight 292, an Airbus A320-232, going from Bob Hope Airport (BUR) to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) made an emergency landing at LAX on September 21, 2005 after the front landing gear malfunctioned. The front gear was turned perpendicular to the runway causing the tires to be torn off and sparks to fly up on impact. No one was injured during the landing and passengers began to disembark less than seven minutes later.
Edit 1 - Lowered noise reduction
Edit 2 As Edit 1, but cropped.
A rare shocking picture showing a plane making a emergency landing. This is a very unique image, because very few pictures exist during airplane crashes, and its rare that they're released under a free license suitable for Wikipedia. I realize the plane is a bit off center, but if you count the smoke as part of the picture it looks centered. I was kinda surprised this wasn't a featured picture.
Articles this image appears in
Airbus A320 family, JetBlue Airways, Emergency landing, and JetBlue Airways Flight 292
Andrew Marino at, uploaded by Neurophyre (talk · contribs)
  • Support as nominator Noah¢s (Talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support A tiny bit small, and not enough leadroom in front of the plane, but considering that it's rare...--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely encyclopedic and not an easy shot to get. A careful noise reduction would help. DurovaCharge! 03:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I was thinking it might need some noise reduction, but I had no clue how to do this Never mind, I figured out how to do it. Noah¢s (Talk) 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1, the image certainly has its problems (most notable i think is the short lead-in), but the wow factor makes this one a go for me. The edit did a good job in reducing the noise without going overboard.D-rew (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It's got enough WOW factor to convince me over the picky little things. Clegs (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original Great picture, but edit 1 looses too much background detail over some noise that never really disturbed me anyways. thegreen J Are you green? 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original I agree with thegreen J Are you green? --Trounce (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:JetBlue292Landing.jpg MER-C 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Leopard Tortoise[edit]

Original - The Leopard Tortoise Geochelone pardalis, is an attractively marked tortoise. It is a grazing species of tortoise that favours semi-arid, thorny to grassland habitats. Leopard tortoises are the fourth largest species of tortoise.
This is a good, considerably high resolution picture of a tortoise. It is the best leopard tortoise picture on wikipedia, and might just be the best tortoise picture. It shows the tortoise's facial features and its tongue which can not be seen in other pictures. It also shows very clearly the scales around the tortoise's eyes and on its head. These details can not be shown on a full view of the tortoise, which makes this image even more encyclopedic.
Articles this image appears in
Leopard Tortoise
  • Support as nominator Muhammad(talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for this to have encyclopedic value, it needs to show more than the face of the tortoise. Clegs (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This picture is special in the sense that it shows the facial details wonderfully well, as if you are crouching down looking at the tortoise. Such detail can not be caught on a full view of the tortoise. A full view, I repeat can not show what this picture shows. So, just as a full view is encyclopedic, so is this head shot. Hope you understand. Muhammad(talk) 15:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC).
    • Consider Dragonfly compound eyes02.jpg. Would you say it should not be an FP because it does not show the whole dragonfly? Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • But that is an image of the EYES. Specifically. We're talking about a whole turtle here. Dengero (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Just as the Eyes are encyclopedic, so is just the head of this tortoise. You can not have a full view of the tortoise with the head in such detail. Muhammad(talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The point, though, is that there's nothing special about this head over any other reptilian head. The other picture is the best pic I have ever seen of compound eyes. This, on the other hand, is a nice portrait, but not specially encyclopedic of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talkcontribs) 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Image is not bad, but it looks like “over-flashed” (see the eye of the tortoise). The depth of field lacks a bit as well. Altogether not enough, sorry. —αἰτίας discussion 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to the glow in the centre of the eye? Muhammad(talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe he is referring to the reflection/shadow on the head of the tortise that gives a strong feeling of directional light from somewhere, even if not from the flash. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - there is a shadow in the image and also the lighting seems a little harsh --Hadseys ChatContribs 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose On EV basis. I actually really enjoy the image, and I can see that it enhances the detail around the face. But ultimately those details don't seem to be important to the reader's understand of a Leopard Tortoise. The article doesn't mention anything about the face being important to the tortoise's identity. That's not really a problem for the image until you consider that the carapace, which is extensively discussed, is missing entirely from the image. Perhaps in a different context, with a different creature, this image would work for EV, but I think this one fails FPC5. SingCal 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The article lacks quite a bit of information. Some of this is provided by the image. However, this image is still encyclopedic because it still illustrates the tortoise. Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The comments here seem to me to be a bit picky, especially in light of some of what I saw amongst the ostensible best FPs of the year. I'd prefer the whole animal, but I think that this is pretty good. Unschool (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with Unschool, this is a superb picture. I can't understand why it is so important to show the whole animal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Crop is a bit tight... But the lighting is really nice on this one and the angle is more informative. Oh, and its no problem taking a look at pictures. Good luck. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose If the caption emphasies the largeness of the animal, the crop is just a bit on the tight side. Very good quality though. Dengero (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The caption mentions it being the fourth largest species of tortoise. However, this tortoise was just around a foot long. If the caption is slightly altered, would you change your vote? Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It mentions more than that. "is a large and attractively marked tortoise. It is a "large,". And yes, if you change the caption I will change my vote, its a good picture after all. But if we took out the large in a tortoise? hmm... Dengero (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Removed the large, but have kept its rank as 4th largest. Muhammad(talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The other issue is with "attractively marked", which this picture shows nothing of. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose lighting is far too harsh. Mfield (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I find this to be a highly informative picture. It was argued above that a picture of the whole animal would be better; I don't necessarily agree with that. True, it would show something which this picture obviously doesn't, but then you would be sacrificing the facial detail provided with this shot. You can't have it both ways, and I don't think either is necessarily preferable. As for the lighting and other issues mentioned, I'm by no means an expert photographer, and trust that others can pick this stuff out much better than I can, but this is still a very attractive, high-quality image in my amateur opinion. faithless (speak) 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the lighting (flash) problem. This could be easily retaken in better quality (i.e. better lighting). Samsara (talk  contribs) 09:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Not very easily retaken. After all the tortoise doesn't walk around with its tongue stuck out.
FPC critria no 3 says

It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.

This is currently the best leopard tortoise picture. Muhammad(talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
One criterion alone is not sufficient. Tortoises use their tongue whenever they are feeding. Samsara (talk  contribs) 15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You surely dont mean that. This image clearly meets more than one criterion. Muhammad(talk) 17:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is maybe the best example of a tortise head, but one of the worse examples of a leopard tortise. There is nothing in the picture by which to identify what species of tortise this is. Sorry to come down hard on this, but this is one area I feel strongly about. If this were on the Commons, I would support it for its artistic value. But WP is first and foremost and encyclopedia, and this portrait has nothing particularly encyclopedic about it. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Muhammad, I see that you've chosen to ignore the fact that this photo could be easily retaken any time that you offer a tortoise food. Mouth opens, tongue comes out. This is a reliable occurrence. Bring your camera, give the scene some nice ambient light, and Bob's your uncle. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as per the previous version from this series that I supported. There's no issue with it 'only' being a headshot, there's plenty of headshot FPs. --jjron (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support No reason not to. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bee on Yellow Coneflowers[edit]

Sharp, beautiful, educational, high resolution. DoF is shallow enough for a nice background, but most of the flower is still sufficiently detailed.
Articles this image appears in
Echinacea paradoxa
  • Support as nominator, Neutral for downsampled I don't like the idea of limiting people's choice to downsampled images for an image that looks "bad" at 30in x 20in, as would the downsampled image. -- Ram-Man 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Original Edit 1 Nice composition and enc - original's quality is quite bad at 100%, fortunately this is largely fixed in the downsampled version. --Fir0002 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The original was taken with an SLR, a very sharp macro lens, a tripod, and a fast shutter speed. Of course *all* unprocessed digital images look "bad" at 100% due to Bayer interpolation. Are you suggesting we downsample and/or photo process all images just to optimize them for web viewing? The Wikimedia software already does this, and for large magnifications the downsampled image would look terrible. -- RM 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree - while the quality of my images at 100% isn't as good as when I downsample, coupled with high grade lenses even my outdated 20D can get much better resolution at 100% than this. For example this image is a 100% crop of the original. And yes IMO if the quality is not up to FP standard then either it should be downsampled to correct this or it shouldn't be a FP. Simple. --Fir0002 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral for original, Oppose downsampled version - For ethical reasons. Author is around and perfectly able to edit his pictures if he wants to. For a question of courtesy, I don't think it is a sound practise to create new versions of the pictures nominated for FP without previous agreement of the author/nominator -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is sound. It is done here all the time. There is no problem with that Fir has done at all. Clegs (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a very dubious "ethical" attitude to have on a collaborative project like Wikipedia - images should be improved by the community as should articles. It is encouraged rather than being bad etiquette to create constructive edits. If you can fix it do it - that's a philosophy core to Wikipedia. --Fir0002 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's destructive because it removes information from a file and limits its general usage. It's optimized for a specific viewing scenario. It won't look the same on 72dpi vs. 100dpi monitors. The original looks fantastic at 180dpi, but the downsampled one would look worse. That's the ethical issue. -- RM 15:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Very good editing job! Highly encyclopedic. Clegs (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great quality picture, and as Clegs says, encyclopedic. Macy's123 (review me) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support “Original Edit 1 by Fir0002” Okay. —αἰτίας discussion 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose edit1. I agree with RamMan on this one. Plus the edit introduces posterization in the bg. A few months ago there was a picture exhibition in Berne and Zurich by WikiMedia Switzerland, whith prints of some selected swiss-themed images. The lesson to learn from those guys (by their own account) is: the original, no matter how bad it supposedly looks at 100%, will always yield better print results than any downsampled version. Plus on a more personal note I would find it sad/discouraging to see the efforts of a contributor to provide full size original files are somewhat tainted by featuring a downsampled version. --Dschwen 04:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original and Oppose edit1 per Dschwen. Lycaon (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support alternative 2, oppose others - why do people only want to see the sexual parts? Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Yellow Coneflower Echinacea paradoxa Twisted Pair Bee 2000px.jpg MER-C 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Seven Devils Panorama[edit]

Original - The Seven Devils Mountains in eastern Idaho. Please open all the way before reviewing.
The panorama has almost flawless stitching, vibrant colors, encyclopedic value, and beauty. This is one of only three pictures of these mountains on Wikipedia.
Articles this image appears in
Seven Devils Mountains
  • Support as nominator Adumbvoget (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - blurred, unappealing composition, bad colour fringing, JPG compression artifacts, washed out. Definitely not Wikipedia's best work. —Vanderdeckenξφ 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Regretful Oppose per quality issues. I've gone backpacking all through there, it's absolutely gorgeous. Clegs (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per above. Dengero (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral at dusk[edit]

Original - Chester Cathedral, England at dusk taken from the town walls at the south east of the cathedral.
Edit 3 Corrected perspective distortions.
Edit 4 Reassembled tonemapped image from different bracketed source files. Fixed ghosting and perspective distortion, removed lights to LHS
I think it may have 'the juice'.
Articles this image appears in
Chester Cathedral
Joopercoopers (talk)
  • Support as nominator Joopercoopers (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support A bit fuzzy, more apparent top left where the branches connects with the dark blue sky. Dengero (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, the thing that pops out at me the most is the glare from the lights on the structure itself, which could easily be edited out with a computer program. Second, the branches from the tree block much of the building, and it makes it difficult to see the structure as a whole. Third, the lights on the left corner detract from the picture. Juliancolton Talk 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll have a look at addressing your concerns regarding the lights to the left and toning down the floodlighting - the trees are more problematic - they're so close to the building that really shooting in December is about as good as we can get - short of them mysteriously being cut down in the middle of the night........any suggestions? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Lol. I didn't see anything, it must have been the wind ;) Anyway, you might consider cropping just enough to eliminate the tree trunk and some of the major branches. After that is done and the lighting is adjusted, it could be a good image. Juliancolton Talk 00:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok, how do you find edit1? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Weak Support Edit1 It looks much better, although the flood lighting in the middle is still slightly too bright. Give it one more tone-down, and it should be good. Juliancolton Talk 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lights are a tad too bright, and we also have compression noise in the sky. I suspect you edited this using curves. I wonder if we can recover some colour depth if you upload the original. I suspect, though, that the composition you have chosen is really HDR terrain, so you may not get the result we'd like without reshooting the scene with several different exposures. Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. If you use curves to stretch out the highlights, you'd be compressing the colour depth in the sky, and eliminating the artefacts there. However, I don't think anything will fix the blown out highlight in the lower centre of the image. Your time will be better spent just reshooting with a tripod if you can. If you don't have a tripod, this may help you. Regards, Samsara (talk  contribs) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Composition is awful as most of the subject is covered in tree branches. The main subject is far too dark. The overall quality is rather bad: the image is noisy, unsharp, and and muddy with artifacts. The angle is awful, it is fairly distorted... The list goes on. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Definitely not Edit 2, aside from the other issues, there is some sort of ghost image in the bottom right corner, and the whole structure seems distorted. vlad§inger tlk 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • to be perfectly honest, the bottom two are so many light years better than the first two (image quality wise), a small ghost and a some distortion pale in comparison. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I was just on the case....See edit 3 - I can sort the cropping and ghosting out if the consensus is that's the way to go. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And now edit 4 with cropping and ghosting sorted. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit 4 (the one whose image name ends in "edit 3.jpg"). Samsara (talk  contribs) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Edit 4 Juliancolton (Talk) 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all verticals verticals verticals Mfield (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well I could - but I'm not convinced making such an unnatural alteration will benefit the image or it's encyclopedic value - part of the perspective effect, confers height and depth to an image - why do away with that? If we get loads of opposes on that basis I'll do it, but for now I'd rather wait. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Closeup of the Mandelbrot set[edit]

Original - The boundary of the Mandelbrot set is a famous example of a fractal.
Edit 1 - Adjusted colors with Photoshop to give likeness to former FP.
The old low-resolution .jpg [4] used to be a featured picture, but was delisted for having jpeg compression artifacts and being at a low resolution.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Gopher292 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit: I support Edit 1 instead as it has much better colors.) Gopher292 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support if there are other alternatives This is very encyclopedic, but I hate the colour. A few more alternatives? Dengero (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong Support Since you gave the colours a nudge. Dengero (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What are you supporting? There are no alternatives.
  • There are, don't you know you can change the colours? Dengero (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I did heaps for my assignment when I was in high school. Like this. Dengero (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • neutralOppose this color map is much too dark, especially in the thumbnail. de Bivort 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Red is much nicer, but there are some aliasing issues in the detailed parts, and I'm nots sure how we should think about promoting an arbitrary number of mandelbrot views. de Bivort 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A much better version of the Mandelbrot set is already featured. - Goodmanjaz (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The red is nicer, but I still think the other set is much better. - Goodmanjaz (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Clegs (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Turned it red. Much easier to see than the original. We already have an FP of the Mandelbrot set but this fulfills the criteria as well. Reguiieee (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Love the new colours. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question, is that much blank space neccesary, or is there a way to manipulate it so that the subject fills more of the image?D-rew (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Mandelbrot set is just numbers, infinite numbers ploted on the graph. Except that the numebrs follow a certain pattern again and again smaller and smaller. So the blank spots are probably one big bandelbrot set, or we are looking at the set near its edges (1 if my memory serves me right). Dengero (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I recall we covered the Mandelbrot set on FPC with an illustrative series not so long ago. Pstuart84 Talk 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 The new colors are better; the red helps show detail a little better. SpencerT♦C 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every pixel is a different color. There's no way to make out the form and flow of the really small bits. And yes, the featured set that we already have is superior. Not that we can't have more, but because they set the bar real (really really) high.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo[edit]

Original - An adult Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo perched in a tree. Taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria in July 2007
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 - mid air flight!
A high quality image of an unusual species of cockatoo - I say unusual as I only ever see them once a year if that. Good technical and enc value = a worth FP candidate IMO.

Please Note: Do not judge the image by the picture on the image description page which has become oversharpened because of the media-wiki downsizing script.

Articles this image appears in
Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo
  • Support as nominator Fir0002 11:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Alternative 1, although it is a tad too sharp. Dengero (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • week oppose They are both indeed a bit oversharpened as they start sprouting halos. Lycaon (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reduced sharpening on both - this should correct your concern --Fir0002 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both - both look good. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three. Top one is an unfortunate angle, lower one shows too little of the bird. Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Flight picture does not lend itself to identifying the bird. We also already have a host of pictures showing birds in flight for general purposes, including several brilliant FPs. Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you elaborate on "unfortunate angle"? For a wild bird this angle is about as good as you'll ever get - normally they'd be more obscured like in the alt, but the original is exceptionally well composed as it has the tail visible as well as the body. Please make sure that you don't let past incidents affect your vote - judge the picture only and if you don't feel you can then don't vote. Note: I'm not accusing you, just giving you a suggestion. --Fir0002 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think this needs any further comment. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • An explanation of "unfortunate angle" would be helpful considering you're opposing on those grounds --Fir0002 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Level with the bird is always the preferred angle. pschemp | talk 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. Weird halo around bird. Sky looks artificial. --Janke | Talk 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Please remember that the angle (this bird was perched near the top of a medium size tree) this shot was taken at means the background sky is high above the horizon where the sky tends to be a deep blue - particularly on sunny days like this one --Fir0002 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but why the halo? Even looking upwards on sunny days, I don't see such... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • See below - I think that's what people are referring to in terms of a "halo" --Fir0002 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support with preference to the original. The sky looks like a wonderful sunny summer sky. What's wrong with it? Encyclopedic pose, and nice and sharp. Kudos! Clegs (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ha, interesting, seeing as these were taken in the middle of winter! : ) thegreen J Are you green? 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The smaller-radius halos are gone now, but there's still a large radius one around each bird, making the sky look off. thegreen J Are you green? 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My guess is that Fir selectively lightened the birds to accentuate the detail (if so, mentioning wouldn't hurt). That's probably not much different from using exposure blending or HDR, which both can result in similar halos. --Dschwen 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah you can think of this as a HDR; the new Camera RAW processor in Photoshop has two nifty sliders - recover and fill. These effectively bring back blown highlights and lift dark shadows in much the same way as a conventional multi shot HDR - except here multiple images wouldn't be possible since the bird is moving so instead I'm using the large dynamic range stored in the RAW file. Without this the parrot would be largely black without much detail - particularly in the tail. So I think the pros overcome the (minor IMO) cons. --Fir0002 09:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Hah, has Fir0002 decided to use RAW format now? I thought you could do everything you needed to with JPG? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I guess we live and learn ;-). JPG still does the job in virtually every setting for me but in bright midday sun there certainly is advantages to RAW's extra dynamic range --Fir0002 05:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support with preference toward the alternative. faithless (speak) 09:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both - The second one isn't showing the entire bird and so isn't encyclopedic enough and the first one still looks oversharpened, making the border where the bird and sky meet look un-natural. And the WOW factor is completely absent. pschemp | talk 01:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Come off it pshcemp - considering you nominated Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wild Boar which has far more of the animal obscured, saying that the enc of the alt is reduced by the tail being covered is completely unfair. And incidentally the boar suffers from over sharpening on the snout as well as offering little in the way of WOW. However with regrads I think I can help you with WOW in Alternative 2 --Fir0002 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Just once Fir, I'd like you concentrate on the actual picture being discussed but now twice here, you've resorted to a lame attempt to hint that people who don't support your pictures have bad judgement. So I have to say I'm sorry, I am entiteled to my opinion and to whatever extent I choose to explain it. A bird is not a boar. That picture was encyclopedic for other reasons, including habitat and the actions of the pig. In this rather boring picture of a bird, there is no other action going on so it needs to show the whole thing. I really can't take you seriously when all you do is lash out at anyone who disagrees. However, I have better manners than to dredge up past incidents as "proof" of your bad judgement. Cut the crap and focus on the task at hand. pschemp | talk 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Ugh this is frustrating. Can I ask you a question pshcemp? How do you judge your own photos - or the photos you nominate for FP? How do you judge wether you think they're worthy of being nominated? For me it is by comparing them to other photos which have passed through FPC recently. So, and lets take an extreme hypothetical, if I saw a panorama with fairly obvious stitching errors pass through this process with accolades, I would expect to receive a similar reception for a panorama of my own with stitching errors. So to apply that here: wild boar and cockatoo are both wild animals so the subject is similar. Both are in their natural habitat. So if I see that people are OK with most of the boar being obscured by it's natural habitat (the mud) in the linked nom I expect people to be ok with the cockatoo's tail being obscured by its habitat (the tree) here. I don't see any "action" in the pig photo giving higher enc value to it than the cockatoo. Boars wallow in mud, cockatoos rest in trees. Fairly straight forward I should think - and hardly deserving of the above tirade against my character. Think about it with this simple analogy: think of our (Aust) legal system - we have laws (our WIAFP? criteria) but we also rely heavily on judical precedents (how other photos are judged). So by questioning comments I see as having unsound basis I'm just focussing on the task at hand as you are urging. Feel free to similarly question my own votes if you feel it would improve the outcome of the nomination. --Fir0002 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Every picture is different. No two are alike and thus no two should be judged by the same standards. pschemp | talk 02:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't see that at all. True all photos are different (they wouldn't be much good if they were all the same) but they definitely should be judged by the same standards. Back to the law analogy - all crimes are different as they (usually) involve different people but they certainly are (and should) be judged equally. What sense would there be for WIAFP? to exist if not to try bring some standards to judging? How could we categorize images as Wikipedia's best if each image was judged with different standards? --Fir0002 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I think the general feeling was that the boar was running under a "typical behaviour of an animal in its natural habitat" banner. Since it was encyclopaedic of a behaviour, it didn't need to be encyclopaedic for the species. Samsara (talk  contribs) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Exactly. Let me be clear because you've misinterpreted my statement Fir. I always use FP standards, but that isn't the standards I meant. Since each picture is different, different considerations are made according to the standards due to the unique featuers. This means you can't compare the artistic elements 1:1 from picture to picture. (Technical one yes though.) pschemp | talk 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • OK, so long as we're clear on the need to have technical standards. And yes artistic standards are obviously very flexible, but to me the enc value (as a criteria in WIAFP?) falls more under the technical standards umbrella, in which case cross comparisons between other recent noms is useful. In response to the point Samsara raised I would submit that this also falls under the "typical behaviour of an animal in its natural habitat" banner - sitting in a tree is very much typical behaviour in a natural habitat for a cockatoo. --Fir0002 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • I think we can safely exclude "resting" as a behaviour, just as "death" is not usually regarded as a behaviour. Regards, Samsara (talk  contribs) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • I'm not so sure - if an animal spends a large proportion of its time doing a particular thing, I think it becomes part of its typical behaviour. And this is the case with the cockatoo sitting in the tree. I mean a koala sleeping is typical part of its behaviour, whereas this might not be the most enc behaviour for a different animal. From my experience (living in the country) I would say that the only time you don't see a cockatoo sitting in a tree (like this one) is when its flying past you. Hence photographing this cockatoo in this posture (or exhibiting this behaviour) is just as enc as a boar wallowing in mud. --Fir0002 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
                        • That's clearly false since they have to feed and mate to survive (as individuals and species, respectively). Let's not continue this line of reasoning. It's not fruitful. Foraging, mating, cleaning, nest-building, are behaviours. Resting is not. Wikipedia has no article on it, and until this moment just now, it hadn't occurred to you to add the picture to such an article. This is a dead duck, almost literally. Samsara (talk  contribs) 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original but would like to perhaps see a slightly tighter crop. There's a lot of tree on either side and a crop could perhaps leave a little tree to give context, but take out what I see to be excess. Neutral Alt1, its fine, but I like the original more since it shows the whole animal including the long tail. Weak Oppose Alt 2 because it is difficult to tell what is going on especially in thumbnail. Perhaps a brightening and a slight sharpening around the facial region would resolve the problem?D-rew (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose original and alt 1, neutral alt 2 per Janke. Following Fir's explanation, I can't help but think that the masking could have been done a bit better. thegreen J Are you green? 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Radar image of the 2007 Greensburg torndo[edit]

File:Greensburg Tornado Radar.gif
Original - A textbook example of a supercell thundstorm which produced the 2007 Greensburg Tornado. Notice the rotation at the back of the thunderstorm, which is known as a "tornadic hook echo".
I am nominating this for featured picture because it is extremly encyclopediac and very informative. This radar image illustrates a tornadic thunderstorm, microscale roation in all.
Articles this image appears in
Greensburg, Kansas, Tornado emergency, May 2007 Tornado Outbreak
Creator: NOAA. Uploader: User:Pjm34
  • Support as nominator Juliancolton (Talk) 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, I don't see whats going on. Where is that rotation? I just see flickering colors. IMHO a schematic illustration or animation (rather than a very abstract looking radar image) would much better describe that phenomenon. --Dschwen 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The rotation is at the back of the supercell. If you look closly, you can easily see it. Juliancolton (Talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dschwen. I can sort of see what's meant to be the rotation, but it's all pretty jerky and nothing much that's happening is particularly clear. --jjron (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. I wouldn't know what was going on unless someone pointed it out, and even then it isn't the clearest.D-rew (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't you people look at radar images? ;) (Just kidding). Well, would a still image be better? Juliancolton (Talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at and understanding are two different things =->. What I would like to see is anything to accent the spin, so tighter crop, and perhaps the next few images in the series (because it seems at the end of this image the spinning is only increasing).D-rew (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The large percentage of this radar, contains nothing but the supercell, then the tornado spins off in only the last 2 frames. Higher resolution imagery surely must exist. Seddon69 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - there's no source. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Fire Services Training Exercise[edit]

Original - A firefighter walks to the scene of a training simulation with her gear.
Although I preferred the photograph Image:TFS Firefighter.JPG, during its nomination - voters said that they would prefer to see this image nominated since it included full-body and gear. This image clearly illustrates a firefighter in full gear, in the uniform of the Toronto Fire Services, including SCBA (that article uses the same subject for photo), helmet, identity card, rapelling rope coil, &c. While the detail is not ideal when viewed at its full 3700 pixels, it easily compensates in its lower sizes. The composition also helps highlight the firefighter subject, while not providing distraction or giving it a "cropped" feeling.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose You might as well cropped right up to the firefighter, I have no idea what the background is meant to be. Dengero (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rather than helping the effect, the bright background is very distracting. Clegs (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Irritating background, and her feet are missing. Not FP material - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the background is mysterious: what is that? Galileo01 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's likely just a concrete wall. Not a very good background regardless - way too bright. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Cacophony (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Launch of Apollo 11[edit]

Original - The launch of Apollo 11.
a super cool pic. it should be on the main page :)
Articles this image appears in
Apollo 11, Saturn V, Prandtl-Glauert singularity, Technological and industrial history of the United States, Max Q
Hmm does resolution really matter? Σαι ( Talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just replaced it with the full size version as suggested in the original nomination discussion (yeah, go figure), so if anyone wants to work on denoising it again... Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) PS: It's a huge file, so people will probably appreciate if the denoised re-upload is at a higher compression (obviously, the denoising will also help with removing excess detail from the image...) Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Great historic importance, really needs denoising. I've got a couple of backlogged restorations of my own right now so would someone else help out? DurovaCharge! 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Made a start. Maybe someone else can take it from here. Samsara (talk  contribs) 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What software must i use to remove the noise? i dont quite know.. Σαι ( Talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think most people use GIMP or Photoshop. GIMP works fine, but Photoshop has a few more advanced features, e.g. ironing out jpeg compression, and addressing chromatic noise specifically. Samsara (talk  contribs) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spike. Despite historical significance of the event, it's unencyclopaedic (rocket itself is too small to see any detail) and horrifically noisy. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Technical quality is horrible, this is one of the noisiest pictures I have ever seen. Clegs (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Ditto. Galileo01 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hopelessly grainy - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Insanely noisy. Doesn't even look good as a thumb. Also appears to be scanned; several surface scratches are visible at full view. --Extr3me (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Noise is too bad. I don't much like the composition either--Trounce (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kutia kondh woman[edit]

Original - An Adivasi woman from the Kutia Kondh tribal group in Orissa
Unedited version (background and loose hair not artificially blurred).
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - edited from the original, NR and sharpening
Technical quality, encyclopaedic value
Articles this image appears in
Adivasi, Khonds
PICQ, crop by Kitkatcrazy, edit by Samsara
  • Support as nominator: original edit or unedited; Oppose edit 1, which makes her skin look dry, and gives her an unhealthy appearance not present in the original. Samsara (talk  contribs) 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DurovaCharge! 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original - Absolutely Oppose Promotion of Edit 1 - Beautiful. The blurred background really makes the face stand out and enhances the subject. This has a sensual softness that isn't present in edit one where the sharpness correction has made it harsh and less inviting. pschemp | talk 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support ~ need more people FPs. vlad§inger tlk 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Good quality, very well taken picture User:Smundra 04:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unedited. I noticed that this had been edited and went and looked at the original. I then noticed I preferred the original without the blurring done to the background, so I've put it up here as well as an option. My main area of preference is the loose bits of hair, mainly on top of her head, that have been blurred along with the background and thus look rather peculiar. If everyone else prefers the edited version though, then I'd go along with that. --jjron (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If you look at the file history, you'll see that the hair was actually not blurred *with* the background, but was given a much smaller blur (factor 30 smaller ;) ) later. You can verify this at Image:Kutia_kondh_woman_3.jpg#filehistory Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not that interested in checking through all the file histories to be honest, but I'll take your word for it. If that's right though, I'm wondering why you'd bother to blur the hair at all? The fact remains that it is blurrier than the original. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If you can show me how to perfectly cut a single hair out of an image without selecting each pixel individually and setting its opacity, and so that its anti-aliased areas match the background, I'll be very happy to hear from you. Samsara (talk  contribs) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • That's an easy one: Don't blur the background! :-). Lycaon (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
            • [5] Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
              • You're the one who says you blurred the hair differently to the background, so I assumed that's what you'd done, and had control over the blur. As has been said here, the background didn't need artificial blurring anyway. --jjron (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
                • I think your problems of understanding derive from the fact that you haven't presumably walked in these shoes (have you?). Because I couldn't perfectly isolate the hair, I had to anti-alias (or to be precise, Gaussian blur) it. Or it would have looked like crap, trust me. If you'd been willing to compare the three uploaded edits, you might have understood all of this. I'm sorry that everything has to be served to you on a plate. Samsara (talk  contribs) 11:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • I'm not spending my time picking through all the edits because I prefer the unedited version anyway. The blur was unnecessary. I've said it politely several times! --jjron (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • And you're failing to acknowledge that the edit was a courtesy to another editor, who asked for it. Do you read at all? Samsara (FA  FP) 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • I find your attitude and remarks rather offensive; it seems you are simply spoiling for a fight, as you have been doing recently with Fir. It seems that you are in fact mainly wanting to get your edit promoted here, rather than the photo itself. So let me be blunt - I don't give a damn why the edit was done, the unedited version is better. No further correspondence will be entered into. --jjron (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 It's a nice portrait in many respects - sharpness is very good. The "original" edit is fairly crude in the cutting out of the head from it's background. The blur too is largely unnecessary and is unnatural - nothing like the bokeh you get from a lens. Hence oppose original. --Fir0002 09:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If sharpness is already "very good", why did it need to be sharpened further? Your edit makes her skin dry up. Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 and unedited per Fir. Oppose original Lycaon (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original For me, the background blurring gives more 'punch' to the face (figuratively speaking!) --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support any. de Bivort 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support any H92110 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (Is it safe to support? It's only a head shot.) Good picture, truly encyclopedic. Muhammad(talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to this? :-) --jjron (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original The softer background gives the picture more depth; highlights her face more--Trounce (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unedited version. Matt Deres (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Kutia kondh woman.JPG MER-C 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky[edit]

Original - National Hockey League legend Wayne Gretzky in a New York Rangers uniform in 1997.
Edit 1 - Noise reduction
Taken from PPR as I was archiving. A good high-res shot of Gretzky, to the best of my knowledge the best ice-hockey player ever. This is most likely scanned from film; it has a bit of noise, but is reasonable, and I can't see anything else that even comes close in terms of overall quality (size, pose, action, etc). Some people may grumble over some parts being cutoff, but it seems to compare well to many other 'famous people' FPs.
Articles this image appears in
This is a noise reduced version of Image:Wgretz.jpg. I have nominated the improved version from PPR - obviously it will replace the original in all articles if promoted. Original is in Wayne Gretzky, National Hockey League, New York Rangers, and about seven other articles.
Original uploader was Hakandahlstrom; larger version uploaded by IrisKawling. Edit by Krm500.
  • Support as nominator jjron (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Noise everywhere (esp. on his face). It has other flaws, but noise is the one that will be difficult to get away from. You might be able to make a little bit of progress on the noise with a pseudo-posterisation technique, but I'm not getting my hopes up just yet. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly positive that what you call noise is actually film grain (that was before the digital cameras for those who remember ;-) ). And I'd strongly advise against any posterisation techniques to remove it. --Dschwen 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I tried to remove some of it, this is the edited version, the original file is in the peer review. Maybe someone can do a better job then me with it? --Krm500 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know how the cause being film grain excuses the fact that it compromises the quality of the image. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I like it. --Chinese3126 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit. per nom. Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs 22:56, 12 February 2008
  • Support edit 1...though I'm probably a bit biased, being a hockey fan. We need more sports images and this is a great shot. A pity some parts are cut off. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is the original photo from the author on flickr. As you can see I've applied general color correction to eliminate the yellowish hue, and a slight crop. So any further touchup attempts should probably be made using the original, no? However I'm not sure how much more can be done. IrisKawling (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment indicates the author licensed it as 'all rights reserved' was the license changed from Creative Commons, or was this licensing ever valid ? Shifthours (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable and the uploader appears to be the owner of the photo. Suggest sending a Flickr mail to make sure. MER-C 08:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hakandahlstrom uploaded the photo himself at my request, licensing it under CC. I just color corrected it for him and transfered it the commons. IrisKawling (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The uploader has worked as a professional sports photographer, and has contributed with many high quality images in the past. You can trust him regarding image ownership. I recently contacted him asking if he had a better resolution photo, he didn't want to upload any higher resolution or any new images since some of his work had been stolen here on wikipedia, but hoped the current size would be enough for a FPC. I think it's a shame that the image policy is the way it is, because many photographers stop contributing. I would gladly release my images for use by the Wikimedia Foundation and all educational use, but having to releasing them for any large corporation to use is bs IMO. --Krm500 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support good shot! H92110 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit 1. Composition is not the greatest, but the noise reduction has dealt with the major problem. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So does that cancel out your Oppose above? --jjron (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor composition - cut off arm and hockey stick. Sharpness is poor also after the noise reduction --Fir0002 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd say at least 70% of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People have cutoff bits (not including what is obviously cutoff in a head-and-shoulders portrait). You can pretty clearly tell he's playing hockey, and it's not like it's being used to illustrate hockey sticks or gloves. In other words, I don't think the cutoff bits are that relevant, which I said in the nom anyway. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It's the composition that kills it for me - I know portraits can be cut off at the shoulders, but for a hokey player's stick to be cut off just seems out of place. Pstuart84 Talk 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Composition may not be perfect, but this is high-quality and uber-encyclopedic, and it's not like we're going to get a better photo of the world's best hockey player ever playing hockey. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Wgretz edit2.jpg MER-C 08:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Butterfly vindula arsinoe.jpg[edit]

Original - Vindula arsinoe (The Cruiser) is a day butterfly from the family Nymphalidae.
Encyclopedic crop (996x1065)
Nice sharp image of the butterfly, shows the wing markings on the lower side of the wings clearly.
Articles this image appears in
Vindula arsinoe and Heliconiinae
  • Support as nominator Benjamint 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support - One of the best butterfly pictures. The only thing I don't like is the relatively small size. Was it really necessary to downsample? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This is a really stunning macro. you managed to what looks like back-light the wing, it looks stunning. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I really want to support, but it is really you have the original? pschemp | talk 06:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Its 1,667 × 1,250 pixels. Muhammad(talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks like a composite - the butterfly's been cut and pasted onto the background. -- (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Looks natural to me. Muhammad(talk) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support encyclopedic crop, size meets criteria. Samsara (talk  contribs) 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support crop per all above.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original. H92110 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support crop well done. Cacophony (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Butterfly vindula arsinoe.jpg MER-C 08:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Holbein's "The Ambassadors"[edit]

Original - The Ambassadors, a 1533 oil painting by Hans Holbein the Younger, is thought to represent Jean de Dinteville, French ambassador to England in 1533 (on the left), and Georges de Selve, a bishop, on the right. The bottom of the image also features a striking image of a human skull, depicted in anamorphic perspective, such that it is best observed from a viewer nearly to the side of the painting.
(1) Good scan of interesting Renaissance portrait; (2) dude-- what's the deal with that freaky skull.
Articles this image appears in
Hans Holbein the Younger, The Ambassadors (Holbein), Ushak carpet, Anamorphosis, Georges de Selve
Hans Holbein the Younger, ca. 1497-1543.
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Borderline on the res, but what an amazing painting. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For a painting which is more than 2 x 2 meters, this reproduction is really too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Gotta go with Alvesgaspar on this one. If you can get a larger version, I will definitely support. Clegs (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per freaky skull. :) As suggested above, would love to see a larger version. faithless (speak) 09:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support Could we get a larger file, please? DurovaCharge! 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
this is a larger scan, but I think it's more artifacted. Do you agree? Spikebrennan (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be a photographic issue of a file issue. I've never seen the original; is your nominated version a restoration? DurovaCharge! 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea; check the image page for clues. I am neither a photographer nor a photo restorer; I just troll Wikipedia for images that have been uploaded by others and nominate them if they strike me as worthy of nomination. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dang, wish I had time this week. The Navajo family took several days and someone asked me to work on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising for a Commons FP nom. Drop this into the workshop if it doesn't pass? Usually I work on photography, but I've done a few other media lately... DurovaCharge! 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, amazing painting but... it's the scan that matters. gren グレン 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Alvesgaspar and gren. Pstuart84 Talk 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Felbrigge Psalter[edit]

Original - The embroidery on the Felbrigge Psalter dates from the early fourteenth century.
The Felbrigge Psalter is the oldest book from England to have an embroidered bookbinding. The needlework on this mid-thirteenth century manuscript probably dates from the early fourteenth century, which puts it more than a century earlier than the next oldest embroidered binding to have survived. Both the design and execution depicting the annunciation are exceptionally high quality. Linen and gold on linen with later leather binding edge.
Articles this image appears in
Felbrigge Psalter
Anne de Felbrigge
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely brillant picture of a piece of history. The artifact age makes it even more of a treasure, because it could fall apart tomorrow, making this picture even more valuable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support How could any bibliophile not? faithless (speak) 09:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure whether or not you can verify this is the actual shape of the book. It's clearly longer on the left-hand side than the right-hand side, perhaps suggesting the picture was taken from the left. While it's possible that a book of this age could be a somewhat irregular shape, if it's really a standard rectangular book shape, perhaps some perspective correction is in order? --jjron (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This image was a plate from a hundred-year-old study of historic embroidered books. So in all likelihood it's a digitized file of a chromolithograph and photographic distortion isn't an issue. The study itself comments in a general sense that many of these rare books were subjected to badly done rebinding during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. My best guess is that the irregular shape is the fault of an inferior craftsman who tried to preserve this book about 200 years ago. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Weak Support per above discussion. Change to full support if we can get a verification that this really is the actual shape of the book (or if a better original is available per Jeff Dahl). --jjron (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose A modern photograph of the object would be more appropriate. To me, the odd shape looks like skew resulting from imperfect camera position when the original chromolithograph was done, and is a more likely explanation than bad bookbinding. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Chromolithography is not a photographic process, and this is a high quality public domain image. A modern photograph would be copyrighted. DurovaCharge! 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • So the chromolithograph is a printing process, but how was the image prepared for printing? It appears to have been photographed in preparation for printing by chromolithography. Anyway, the original object is impressive, but a modern photograph (why couldn't a free version be made?) would be a better approach. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 06:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Emboridered book, 1544
Embroidered book, 1545
        • Color photography of this order did not exist a hundred years ago when this image was made. This is a 650-year-old book with a partially reworked binding approximately 200 years old. As the two more recent examples show, minor irregularities in shape are normal for embroidered manuscript covers of such antiquity. These things are made of cloth and leather. Rare manuscripts of this sort are almost never made available to amateur photographers, except in a few instances where they are encased behind glass and subject to glare problems. DurovaCharge! 07:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The bottom line is that this is analogous to a hand-colored b&w photo of an artifact which still exists. The coloring has been added artificially in a separate process, and we can't trust it to be an accurate reproduction. Hand-coloring might be OK when the image can't be reproduced, such as a historical event. But even though rare manuscripts may not be made available to amateur photographers, they are routinely digitized, posted on the internet, and there are many ways to claim them as PD. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Due to the age of this book, it would be one of the things that I, if I were at the British Museum, would not digitize. This isn't like any other object and the risk of damage from digitizing is too great. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I examined a free picture of the Psalter and the quality is terrible. This chromolithograph is of far superior quality than any photograph. The artifact has deteriorated to the point where the cover is not very discernable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and I'm a fan of irregularity - we can't buy this book from Amazon and photograph it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Felbrigge.jpg MER-C 08:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bumblebee robbing nectar[edit]

Original - A buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) robbing nectar, a very common species in southern Europe. The animal uses its long and slender tongue to reach the space between the flower's calyx and corolla. These bees form annual colonies of which only mated queens survive the winter.
Edit 1 by Fir0002, lightened shadows and cloned out leaf
A high reslution and good quality photograph of a bumblebee in its natural environment, comparing favourably with the existing pictures. These are hard subjects to shoot due to being normally fast and restless when feeding. The picture is an improved version of this Commons FP.
Articles this image appears in
Bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, Nectar robbing
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
  • Support original, as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose edit 1 - not relevant -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Original Very Nice Dengero (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit1 Excellent image. Juliancolton Talk 00:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Edit 1 Sharpness is not great but it's an interesting scene which almost makes up for it. Weak Oppose Original shadows are too dark losing interesting detail and the leaf is annoying. --Fir0002 00:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support whichever :) -- Laitche (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC) both. (^^; -- Laitche (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. Good illustration of the behaviour. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bumblebee October 2007-3a.jpg MER-C 08:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Windsor Castle[edit]

Original - Aerial view of Windsor Castle
Good quality image showing Windsor Castle
Articles this image appears in
Windsor Castle
Mark S Jobling
It is aerial view. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Check out some other FPs of buildings.. 1 2.. 800x600 isn't nearly as high-res as it needs to be :D\=< (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Dengero (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per other opposes. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close terrible quality. Nominator: please familiarize yourself with the FP standards before any more clearly sub-par noms. de Bivort 15:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted Ineligible (too small) MER-C 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Female Pubic Hair[edit]

Good quality image showing female pubic hair
Articles this image appears in
Pubic hair

  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What is your standard of "good quality"? It's a half cut-off naked woman laying on a bed. Our actual articles on related subjects are very technical and have top-enc images.. do you honestly think that a naked woman on a bed offers nearly as much as those diagrams, which aren't even featured themselves? :D\=< (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The image is about pubic hair, not about nudity. It focuses on pubic hair. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing in hide box, see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Nude_images :D\=< (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose subject is no where near in focus. de Bivort 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This, while it is fine on its own article, should not be featured and listed among wikipedia's best imagery. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. As an illustration of pubic hair, far too little space is devoted to the primary subject. As a photograph of a woman, obvious problems with cut-off face (get a photograph of the model holding a signed release and show the entire face). Flat lighting, pedestrian composition. DurovaCharge! 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as ineligible - not in any article. It was in the gallery of pubic hair for about 14 hours before being reverted. I think it should be seen to settle into an article and receive concensus as being beneficial to that article for a while before being even considered for nomination as an FP. TSP (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheres the picture?

Soldiers having lunch[edit]

Original - Soldiers having lunch during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This is a good quality image showing soldiers having lunch during the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose snapshot, nothing exzellent to see Wladyslaw (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm sure we can get much better quality photos of people (or animals for that matter) eating. I have a photo of a frog eating another frog. --liquidGhoul (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have nothing to say, except that I think that "I have a photo of a frog eating another frog" may be my favourite reason for opposing ever. Rivalled only by the time that a photo of a grain elevator was not promoted for being too grainy. TSP (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wladyslaw. Samsara (FA  FP) 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose same reason as Wladyslaw.--Trounce (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wladyslaw makes a good point. A better quality photo would be better appreciated. SpencerT♦C 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wladyslaw, just poor quality snapshot. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. —αἰτίας discussion 12:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above Juliancolton (Talk) 15:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

London bombed during WWII[edit]

Original - Bombed buildings in London during The Blitz.
This picture shows a small amount of damage that the city of London received throughout the course of World War II.
Articles this image appears in
London, World War II, The Blitz, House demolition
  • Support as nominator The Emperor561 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • question it looks like it has been photoshop filtered. Those who know about old film: Any way that mottled look could be part of the original image? de Bivort 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know about old film, but I do know about Photoshop filters and this is obviously filtered. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the filtering is too obvious. Clegs (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per filtering concerns --Fir0002 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's an oilified world out there. Samsara (talk  contribs) 02:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to the weird filter effect--Trounce (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there an original, sans filter? faithless (speak) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - silly filter. Support a real original though. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose per above. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per use of Median filter — Bellhalla (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wok Cooking[edit]

Original - Cooking in a wok, at the London Mela 2005.
First of all its encyclopedic, showing the use of a wok and that it is moved while being used. The image is of good quality and res, and the motion blur only helps to show that the subject is moving, making it more enc.
Articles this image appears in
Wok, Stir frying, Wok hei
Jan van der Crabben
  • Support as nominator Yzmo talk 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unsharp, subject cut off. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unsharp throughout. Easily replicable. de Bivort 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. Makes me hungry, though. Maybe try a retake with a better background? Clegs (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very blurry. Also, the subject is not shown in full. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cycle rickshaw in Beijing[edit]

Original - Cycle rickshaw in Beijing
It is a high quality image showing a cycle rickshaw in Beijing, the subject is well-illustrative in this image.
Articles this image appears in
Cycle rickshaw
  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not meet size requirements. It's too snapshot-y for an FP. CillaИ ♦ XC 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Also: subject cut off. Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Samsara. de Bivort 20:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Clegs (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose See above Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor composition--Trounce (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Snapshot-y, per CillanXC. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Coromant Fishing[edit]

Original - A typical chinese fisherman with his two coromants.
Crop suggestion
It's a very important part of chinese history, and still is important to the fishery industry in china today. Although, I am not very sure about the quality. Decided to take it for a ride in FPC, peer review was too quiet.
Articles this image appears in
Dengero (talk)
  • Support as nominator Dengero (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the following reasons: main subjects too small, unappealing composition, messy background. Sorry to be harsh, but this is not FP material IMO. --Janke | Talk 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No need to be sorry, you're only judging the picture afterall. Dengero (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - messy background, noisy, dull (I don't mean the situation, the contrast isn't good enough). Not really FP worthy. Better luck next time, and give PPR a go, even if it is a bit slow. —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Added a more encyclopaedic crop, which btw meets the size requirements. Now, <devious>since the beach is not the subject of the picture, you *could* isolate bg and fg and pull the beach up over his head with an appropriate perspective correction.</devious> Then there's the option of background blurring, which isn't trivial to do. Either way, you'd have the monopo purists speaking out against you, and there's always the chance that some local person can upload a picture taken on a luckier day. Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This is taken in Guilin, actually famous for its foggy scenes if you look some of the pictures. And a clear in China these quite rare tbh lol. Dengero (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Distracting background. Clegs (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris from Maine-Montparnasse tower[edit]

Original - A Panorama of Paris, France is shows at dusk, taken from the Maine-Montparnasse tower.
This is a breathtaking image that shows Paris at dusk, taken from Maine-Montparnasse tower. It is extremely sharp, and clear.
Articles this image appears in
Paris, France
  • Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nice shot. - FF23 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • oo la la! support --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Obvious support - très bien :P hope i got the accent right --Hadseys ChatContribs 15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - oh wow. No technical faults that I can spot, very pleasing to the eye, nice curvature brilliant. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - very nice, valuable picture. Galileo01 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. What are the series of bright lights near the top left-hand portion of the city?D-rew (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • They are a bit distracting (for me at least) at high res. Could they be reduced if they turn out not to be significant?D-rew (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This would kind of ruin 'panorama of the center of Paris' thing. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Fair enough point I guess =-), though I still think the lights impair an otherwise awesome image.D-rew (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a stadium, the "Parc des Princes" -- Blieusong (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support as long as the fact that the lit Eiffel Tower in the image doesn't blow its PD status. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Incredible photo. My only two gripes are; it's another panorama (albiet an incredible one), and it seems subtly filtered - some of the lights seem 'blotchy'. But hey, it's fantastic. --Extr3me (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - great job with the Canon EOS 400D.--Svetovid (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

*Comment - This photo needs a copyright review. All pictures of the Eiffel Tower lit up at night are copyrighted by the company that operates the Eiffel Tower (The tower itself is in the public domain, but the light display was installed...and copyrighted... in 2003. See the Tower's website for details). As such, this photo might be ineligible for FPC because it cannot be free (it currently has a GFDL & CC-BY-SA dual license). This was an issue a while back when we had a positively astonishing picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, and when it went up for FPC, it actually had to be deleted from the Commons instead (See the nomination, which lasted almost 4 months).

There is a chance this might not apply, since the Eiffel Tower is not the only thing in the picture, and that the point of the picture is to depict Paris as a whole. However, I'm unsure if this will hold, because the Eiffel Tower is an obvious focal point.
I hate to be the one to bring up issues like these, but the goal here is a free encyclopedia, and I'm quite certain Wikimedia would prefer to avoid litigation wherever possible. tiZom(2¢) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, that comment was a big fat waste of time! Per Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims, as long as the image encompasses a larger area (in this case, the city), then operating company cannot lay claim to the copyright of the Eiffel Tower light display. Sorry!
And, support!!! tiZom(2¢) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wow......better than the Hong Kong ones. Dengero (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, now that's what I call a panorama! -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support enchanting H92110 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful smundra 08:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support excellent work. --Krm500 (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic photo. - Darwinek (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support amazing picture. Wow.   jj137 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Gorgeous lighting/scene and excellent sharpness however the distortion is pretty bad --Fir0002 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The distorsion is on purpose. Instead of setting the anchor point to somewhere on the horizon line and get everything straight, I set it a bit below, hence the curved horizon and hence the leaning buildings. -- Blieusong (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's quite odd - why did you want distortion? Can you please do a restitch without distortion? --Fir0002 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I wanted the curved horizon to "simulate" the round shape of the Earth (Also, I find the picture less boring that way) and translate the feeling you have when looking this scenery yourself. I'll do an "all straight" restitch ASAP, and add it to the "other versions" box. -- Blieusong (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Paris Night.jpg MER-C 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Machu Picchu Sunrise[edit]

Original - Sunrise in Machu Picchu, Peru
Seems like a decent candidate.
Articles this image appears in
Machu Picchu; Peru and others.
Allard Schmidt (The Netherlands)
  • Support as nominator Camptown (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This picture by the same author is labeled as a sunset, yet the shadows are pointing in the same directions... --Dschwen 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Same author description on both images says it was sunrise. I believe second image is just mislabeled, shots look like they were taken very close in time. Look at the EXIF data, shots from same camera 2 minutes apart. vlad§inger tlk 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this image is far too low a resolution and shows heavy JPEG compression. vlad§inger tlk 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The resolution's fine at 2,048 × 1,536 pixels. Well above the size guidelines. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose - blown sky. I suppose a request for reshooting is wishful thinking? DurovaCharge! 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I must admit, a better picture can be retaken. Dengero (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - noisy, unsharp, completely blown sky. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "grainy" look I see when I click on the thumbnail is not acceptable in an FP - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose picture with wow effect, but - unfortunately - in low resolution. Galileo01 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This is a pretty good picture and I think the resolution is sufficient, but it does have a grainy look at full resolution. (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Beautiful subject, but noisy and the entirely white sky is distracting. --Extr3me (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above, potentially beautiful, but the blown sky damns the picture.D-rew (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Again, a very nice photo, but grainy in a few sections. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anticolonial protest in Goa[edit]

Original - five thousand Indians protest against colonial rule in Goa, 1955. Twenty-two civilians were killed by Portugese authorities in this peaceful demonstration.
This was an important event in the history of the Indian state of Goa. It's good to counter systemic bias when possible, and fortunately this newsreel footage was released into the public domain in 1976.
Articles this image appears in
Political integration of India, Goa, History of Goa
Universal Studios
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting! de Bivort 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Ah, a bit of colonial history. Muhammad(talk) 11:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This video seems very artifacty. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, agreed, some of this Internet Archive stuff is not the greatest quality--and I have no reason to believe there aren't better versions of the stuff out there. I'm not sure why TIA doesn't host better versions because I'm sure they could get it from the original reels. gren グレン 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support truely encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talkcontribs)

Promoted Image:Goa 1955 invasion.ogg MER-C 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Spinning Dancer[edit]

Original - The Spinning Dancer, is a very bizarre dancer optical illusion. It appears to spin both clockwise and anti-clockwise, depending on how the viewer sees it. It is falsely labeled Right Brain v Left Brain test.
This image is very popular around the net and I was surprised not to see it on wikipedia. Thus I uploaded the image and thought it be good if it was a FP because it is a great optical illusion. It is also doing well at commons FPC
Articles this image appears in
The Spinning Dancer, Optical Illusion
Nobuyuki Kayahara
  • Strong Support as nominator Muhammad(talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support That is one of the coolest things I've seen in a while - you keep staring at it and then it'll suddenly change direction --Fir0002 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Not very encyclopedic, but too cool to not support. Dengero (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This may seem petty to some people, but I'm fairly certain that to anyone who has ever actually had to execute spins in dancing, the fact that this lady is really badly off balance will be such a major distraction as to nullify any other interest the image may have. Let me put that in plain language: if you applied gravity to her, she would fall over. I'm sure she could be animated to in balance without disrupting the illusion. Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, look where the image is used--two optical illusion articles. Who knows if it would even work if the dancer were on balance? gren グレン 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm puzzled that nobody seems to know how it works, and about 1/3 of people cannot make it work. I'm beginning to doubt that this is a proper optical illusion at all, and I certainly doubt our ability to write a coherent article about it. Most crucially, if we can't have a discussion about whether it is possible to create an alternative image that addresses certain criticisms brought up in this discussion, then we should not promote it at all. Additionally, show me how an image that you don't understand can be encyclopaedic. Samsara (talk  contribs) 11:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe it works because the image is a silhouette. Thus when the lifted leg passes the standing leg, it may be passing either in front of or behind the standing leg. Depending upon which your brain settles on (for want of a better phrase) you will see the woman rotate either clockwise or counterclockwise. Pstuart84 Talk 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's too vague a description of the mechanism to allow us to produce an improved variant. Samsara (talk  contribs) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No need to bite. Incidentally, the effect is taking place at the same time in relation to the arms and the pony tail. Pstuart84 Talk 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm finding that the only way I can get it to spin the other way is to cover up everything but to the lowest foot, then get it to rotate the other way, then uncover everything. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 16:29Z
  • Comment That's just sick, mostly spins counterclockwise for me but if I look away it can change. --Krm500 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I probably am not normal. I stared at it several minutes and for me she just keeps spinning clockwise. -- Darwinek (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Try doing what I suggested above. The key is to cover everything up except the bottom foot, and then imagine that rotating the other way. The rest will "magically" accommodate this new direction. I'm at the point now where I can get it to switch back and forth at will. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 23:58Z
Huh, I do it by accident when I read a comment and look back at the picture. vlad§inger tlk 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I find that when I look at it, it gets "stuck" in one direction, either counter or clockwise, but then if I look at it out of the corner of my eye it "switches" to the other direction and then gets stuck in that. Try looking at it, turning away so that it's in your peripheral vision and see if it changes then. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. --Camptown (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose- You canna' change the laws of Physics, Jim! pschemp | talk 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is unlikely to count unless you provide a reason to oppose. de Bivort 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I did provide a reason. It isn't encyclopedic because it is breaking the laws of physics...gravity being the major thing here. A real person doing this would fall down. Just because its "cool" dosn't mean its FP material, especially since it isn't scientifically accurate. It also isn't the best example of an optical illusion since not everyone can see the direction change. pschemp | talk 06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's absurd - this isn't a scientifically accurate image on the far simpler grounds that it's bobbing up and down without any upward movement/thrust. But it's not illustrating anything scientific and therefore doesn't need to be scientifically accurate any more than this does. It's an illustration for a noteworthy Optical Illusion not an illustration for dancing --Fir0002 06:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Its a crappy optical illusion, much better ones exist that illustrate the concept. It is extremely important that it doesn't work for everyone, that reduces its encyclopedic value down to zero when we are talking about the concept of an optical illusion. The title is the spinning dancer, yet doesn't show an accurate spinning dancer, since that movement isn't possible in life so even the name is misleading. Also, just because it illustrates an article about itself, doesn't mean it FP worthy either. It is nothing special, misleading and a poor example of an illusion. People who vote for it because it is "cool" or "amazing" are the absurd ones. Find a real reason - one supported by FP standards. pschemp | talk 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, its status as an important optical illusion is an issue to be discussed in the optical illusion article or in an AfD for The Spinning Dancer. But it is quite relevant in its own article. Being nothing special is another story. gren グレン 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Every picture in every article is "relevant". That doesn't make every picture on WP FP worthy. This is simply not an example of Wikipedia's best owrk and no one so far has supported it for any reason related to FP standards. pschemp | talk 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1) Yes, it does make them worthy, provided they meet the FP standards. We aren't here to judge article notability. 2) Your assertion that people haven't supported it for FP standards violates the Good Faith assumption. 3) You see the figure as rotating in three dimensions right? That's part of the illusion whether you can switch directions or not - after all, there is no depth info here. 4) I suggest you take a breather and reconsider your whole approach to this nomination. de Bivort 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That it has 2 3d interpretations (CW and CCW) is what I was referring to. Like a Necker cube. Your examples of depth-conveying images are not considered illusions because they are typically perceived in a single way, rather than in one of two ways. That some people cannot easily switch the perception from the CW mode to the CCW mode does not reduce the extent to which this is a classified as an illusion. de Bivort 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's the exact opposite of your earlier comment. Returning to the original issue, it's not a very good illustration, because it seems to spin invariantly clockwise (I assume the reference point is above the figure) for three people here - Pschemp, Darwinek and myself. I'd hope we can produce a better version of it so that it works for everybody. That failing, I have a difficulty with recognising its notability as an optical illusion, or its encyclopaedic value on such a basis. Samsara (talk  contribs) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom de Bivort 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • support amazing -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting User:Smundra 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
  • Comment and no vote. To me, she always moves clockwise; no illusion. I've tried the suggestions mentioned above. I guess my brain is just wired a certain way. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Just block out the top part from around the waist and imagine it spinning the other direction. (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Like apparently some other people before, I've tried all the various bits of advice and it still turns the same way. This is not a very convincing "illusion". Or perhaps it is just that.</sarcasm> Samsara (talk  contribs) 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see this as particularly notable or encyclopedic, sorry. It's popularity on the web seems to be based on the notion that it represents some kind of personality test, which has been conclusively determined to be false (as the article on it says). As an illustration of optical illusion, it's no better than any of the others in that article. Chick Bowen 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chick Bowen. And it only spins clockwise for me. CillaИ ♦ XC 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I believe this illusion is not concerned with physics, rather it is supposed to demonstrate the confusion caused by what the eyes see and what the brain perceives. This is exactly what the image does. The mechanism of this illusion is described here. This I know, is not hoax. Those who have opposed because they can not see it spinning 2 ways should kindly read what I have provided. H92110 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of errors in the animation. A rotating wireframe cube gives the same illusion, by the way. --Janke | Talk 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What errors are you referring to? Can you fix those errors please. Muhammad(talk) 10:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Since you ask: there is a constant left-to-right jiggle, best seen in the "center" leg (very apparent below, with the stationary "R"; also the distracting up-and-down movement. --Janke | Talk 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The images which explain this illusion are uploaded and linked on the image page.Image:Right spinning dancer.gif and Image:Left spinning dancer.gif --Muhammad(talk) 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Well executed illusion, fascinating when it works. vlad§inger tlk 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ADDITIONAL INFO and help to "reverse" can be found here - this site states it's indeed "difficult" to get reversal. Also, note that the "floating" has been corrected - but in b&w, it doesn't look as good... --Janke | Talk 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. DurovaCharge! 11:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Funky! I had to view the image out of the corner of my eye to get it to switch directions. howcheng {chat} 08:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm just not seeing the illusion. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Outstanding! This is the coolest image I have seen here all year. Its an excelent find. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't like how she bounces up and down and disobeys the laws of gravity. (Yes, yes, I know the picture is illustrating the illusion and not the laws of physics, but it bothers me nonetheless.) I also don't like the asymmetric background gradient. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Moderate Support I see it now. If you stare at it long enough, it will just change directions. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the article used as the first ref on The Spinning Dancer article, all of those who see it as spinning clockwise have "got excess spleen qi in your left frontal crockus. This means that you’re a vibrant personality whose passions are apparent to everyone around you, but sometimes you are indecisive. If you see her spinning counter-clockwise, the right ascension of your natal chart lies in your sagittal broab and there are Fire humours dribbling out your left nostril. You should see a doctor as soon as possible." LOL --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It's on commons and an FP already, it shouldn't even be here on as it's a dupe! It should have an NCD tag. RlevseTalk 11:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For those having difficulty seeing the illusion:[edit]

Concentrate on the spinning dancer on the left and the one on the right should spin in the same direction

Spinning Dancer.gif Right spinning dancer.gif

Before Closing Nomination[edit]

This message is for the one who closes this nomination. I would like to point out that many people have opposed simply because the illusion "does not obey the laws of physics". This image is demonstrating a biological phenomenon and not something concerned with physics. Others have opposed because they can not see the the 2-way spin. This too, I believe is not a sufficient reason, as it is possible to see it spin both ways with a bit of concentration. Muhammad(talk) 10:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Spinning Dancer.gif MER-C 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - A Brolga (Grus rubicunda), sometimes known as the 'Native Companion' or 'Australian Crane', Victoria, Australia. This individual is approximately 1m in height.
Edit 1 by Fir0002
Edit 2 by Fir0002 - cloned out distracting grasses on the middle RHS
Nice full picture of this rather large wetland bird in an attractive setting, clearly showing all the key markings. I also like the way this image almost perfectly reflects the brolga's pose in the classic (though slightly inaccurate) 1865 brolga illustration John Gould Australian brolga.jpg by John Gould.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator jjron (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Although it illustrates the bird well, the lighting is not the best, and at full size it is slightly blurry. A quick edit and a cropping could improve this image. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I disagree with Julian. I think this is as close to perfect as it gets. Shame it was moving its foot at that exact moment, but on the up side, at least we have one foot in full view. Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I think its a good picture and I love the background. It gives it a natural feeling. Muhammad(talk) 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - picture looks too normal - this argument seems stupid even to me, but it's true. Galileo01 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Fails to impress. vlad§inger tlk 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Juliancolton...its the lighting.D-rew (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lighting and composition could do with improvement. BG is not so good as well. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can maybe understand people grizzling about the lighting, especially if they haven't bothered to look at it full size, but honestly, the background is excellent, and composition does a great job of illustrating the bird. --jjron (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked at it at full res, and it is quite nice and sharp. That said, the background is a very slightly muddled, green, patchy mass that spoils some enjoyment of the image for me. And the light is (both at thumbnail and full res) is not the best wiki, and certainly you, can do. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh, fair enough. The background is a sort of swampy lake, which to me was pretty nice for a wetland bird picture, but perhaps all FPs should be done against a clear blue sky. Sure it would theoretically be possible to get a brolga in better lighting, but this was taken in dappled shade on a very bright day, which is always tricky; I didn't want to blast away with full flash, preferring the natural lighting, but trying to avoid overexposing the sunny bits. I agree the overall lighting looks a little murky at thumbnail, but I liked the lighting at fullsize. The birds aren't especially rare, but going on the article, apparently not that easy to get decent photos of, given they're quite well known. BTW, haven't you railed against people using the "we can do better" argument when used against your noms? ;-) --jjron (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. de Bivort 15:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • weak support It's not as flashy or clear as maybe some of our other bird FPs (which have had the bar jacked up repeatedly over the last few years), but it illustrates the bird clearly and in a natural-looking environment. Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Please consider this a Support for either of Fir's edits. I have no preference between them; the grasses didn't distract me ;-). Matt Deres (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support per nom H92110 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 or 2, Weak Oppose Original- original is pretty flat and lacks wow, but it's a good depiction of the brolga despite the motion blurred foot. The edits give it the necessary punch to bring it to FP level IMO --Fir0002 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite decide what to do with this nomination. Either way, I'd like to know which of the edits is preferred. Thanks. MER-C 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Brolga-1-Healesville,-Vic,-3.1.2008 edit.jpg -- due to a unanimous consensus for promotion of an edited version of the image, as comments in opposition refer to the original image, and raise issues, such as lighting, remedied in the edited version. John254 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - Jalebi, an Indian food
Good quality image showing Jelabi, an Indian food
Articles this image appears in
Original uploader was Haroldandkumar at en.wikipedia
Can you please tell me what you point out by saying "blurry" and "noisy"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Blurry means the image is blurry. Noisy means it is grainy, or there are spots on the camara's lense, or something similar. The word Noise implys unwanted or excess'. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"Noisy" never means there are spots on the camera's lens. Nor does "noisy" imply "excess," though for FPC purposes it is undesireable. Dust or spots on a camera lens are much too far outside either focal plane to show up as such in the photo. "Noise" is non-image data, typically , a characteristic side-effect of many image sensors. That said, I agree this image is flawed and not FP-worthy. -- Moondigger (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry. I can not call myself an expert at imagery, and you know better than I do what the term implys. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How you are saying this image blurry? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Its hard to explain. If you look at the image, it is "blurry" around the edges mostly. I don't know how else to explain. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought you were making a DOF statement, refering to the fact that the subject isn't all in sharp focus.
  • Oppose I could go on, but the worst part is the amount of flash reflection.D-rew (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose on technical grounds. Oversaturated, blown highlights, etc. -- Moondigger (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Óppose- 19 failing nominations should be a clue here. Please stop nominating things until you understand the criteria. It is pretty clear that you don't at the moment. pschemp | talk 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - poor composition, obtrusive flash; not of a high technical standard. TSP (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Moondigger. Cacophony (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close no chance of promotion. Muhammad(talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. Please please please browse through some of the current feature pictures. Try to get a sense of their clarity, artistry, and encyclopedic relevance. --Bridgecross (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close As per speedy above Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. —αἰτίας discussion 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close As per speedy above. Dengero (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose :D\=< (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Green tea ice cream[edit]

Original - Japanese green tea ice cream with anko sauce
Good quality image showing Green tea ice cream
Articles this image appears in
Ice cream
Terence Ong
  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please stop nominating so many poor images. This is blurry, very noisy, and way too dark. Also, it is too much like a snapshot. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Poor composition, background, and too much noise. The subject is tilted, too dark, and has portions cut off (especially the spoon.) Maybe edits could help, but I suggest reshooting.D-rew (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Parts of the subject cut off, bad contrast with the background, murky lighting. TSP (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Juliancolton. Cacophony (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close no chance of promotion. Muhammad(talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close - as per above Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. —αἰτίας discussion 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Original - Nude woman tanning herself at a Formentera beach front.
Naturism or Nudism is a lifestyle in harmony with nature, expressed through social nudity, and characterised by self-respect of people with different opinions and of the environment. It can also be called a cultural and political movement practising, advocating and defending social nudity in private and public spaces. This image is showing a naturist, showing naturism and non-sexual nudity.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Horizon tilted, not very appealing pose, looking straight into armpit... A good nude shot needs some pizzazz. (BTW, Flickr is not "creator" so please refrain from using that.) --Janke | Talk 08:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is naturism. Pizzazz is not applicable in naturism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
But it is applicable to FPC! ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No. It is not applicable to FPC. You are mixing naturism with nudity. Naturism is a form of nudity, but it is non-sexual nudity. Naturism is opposed to clothing, and tells that not wearing clothes is natural. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please let me clarify: I was not talking about "nudity vs. naturism". To get a support vote from me, any image needs some "wow" i.e. pizzazz - regardless of subject. That "wow" can be either visual, or encyclopedic. This image has neither. --Janke | Talk 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurry at full resolution, unappealing composition. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing in hide box, see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Nude_images :D\=< (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Janke. If he finds a wow, the pic gets a support vote from me as well. Dengero (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Cacophony (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close no chance of promotion. Muhammad(talk) 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close per above. Dengero (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Baga beach[edit]

Original - Baga beach in Goa
A touristy image of Baga beach in the Indian state of Goa.
Articles this image appears in
Tourism in India, Baga, Goa, Goa, Tourism in Goa.
  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What exactly is the subject of this picture? It's too cluttered. This is just a snapshot from someone who didn't really bother to compose the scene. Also, the creator is not "Flickr"; it's McKay Savage. howcheng {chat} 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Could be practically anywhere. Snapshot-like, no wow. --Janke | Talk 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The image is of nothing in particular, and is just a cluttered mess of people's backs. The composition is not the best, either. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose No picture subject. Boring. SpencerT♦C 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Cacophony (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close no chance of promotion. Muhammad(talk) 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close per above. Dengero (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke/per above. —αἰτίας discussion 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanchi Stupa[edit]

Original - Sanchi Stupa
Good quality image showing the Buddhist Stupa in Sanchi
Articles this image appears in
Religious violence in India
  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor lighting and sharpness --Fir0002 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - poor lighting, unsharp, completely blown sky on left. Sorry, doesn't meet technical quality requirements. Subject is also cut off, and the angle isn't that pleasing. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Mario1987 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for technical reasons mentioned above. de Bivort 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per technical issues. Clegs (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Clegs/Debivort. —αἰτίας discussion 23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurry, poor lighting, and highly tilted. Also, what is that on the ground on the right? Juliancolton (Talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanderdecken. Cacophony (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara[edit]

Easily one of the most iconic photos of the 20th century. The technical specs are less than ideal, but the photo itself has arguably become more widely recognized than the man. I'm surprised it's not already featured.
Articles this image appears in
Che Guevara
Alberto Korda
  • Support as nominator Matt Deres (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Never heard of him but- the pirate bay? :D\=< (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support Could we get a better scan? DurovaCharge! 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support Iconic picture of Che, and the highest quality version of this picture I've seen; but saturated and aged. Still, it's not like sufficient technology for a better photo existed at the time. --Extr3me (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Try Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19.jpg, from 50 years earlier... By 1960 pretty much every development in modern photography save the digital camera had been made. Not to say this isn't a worthy photo given its historical significance, but you should be aware that technology for better images was very much available at the time (and, indeed, there are much higher-resolution pictures of Che, and in colour, just not with the significance of this one). TSP (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Last time i checked, this image is copyrighted, which was why I couldn't display a similar version of it on my userpage. :) 8thstar 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Request This image has been recently uploaded and tagged as PD, and it seems that the reasoning is correct (the uploader cited the actual law). I just created this PD tag for Cuba, which is correct to the best of my knowledge (see the text of the law on the talk page). I think the reason this hasn't been nominated is there's been a lot of uncertainty regarding the state of the law in Cuba previously. But can people double-check this reasoning and confirm that this was published in Cuba, not in compliance with US formalities? I don't know how important the photographer was before this photo (i.e. how likely he would have been to have done this). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This image is also present as Image:CheHigh.jpg, with a very different (and nonfree!) license attached. According to Che Guevara (photo), the photographer sued for copyright infringement in 2000, which makes the copyright status even more murky. I am planning to nominate this image on WP:PUI after I get a chance to research and write a very detailed nomination. I think it would be prudent to postpone this nomination until the correct license is established. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That fact on the photo page isn't right; the case settled before trial, and there was a moral rights claim that was probably stronger than the copyright claim. See [6]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course an out of court settlement can't be used as evidence for anything, especially when it's for a small amount of compensation, since a prudent lawyer might recommend settling even if there is only a low chance of losing the actual suit. But I think it's worthwhile to settle the license question in a forum dedicated to that sort of thing, rather than here. If the image is actually under a free license, that would be great, but it seems unlikely to me, given the explicitly stated desire of the artist/family to control its use. If they had believed it is freely licensed, presumably they would not have pursued the lawsuit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm This is not at all what I was expecting, but it does solve my question as to why the nommed image had no pages linking to it (except the Che Guevara article itself) and why it hadn't at least been nominated before. Based on what's been said here, it seems unlikely to me that the copyright issues will be resolved in a reasonable amount of time, so I suppose the nomination should be considered withdrawn and then re-nominated if usage rights permit. Sorry folks; I should have more thoroughly checked the image history on this one. Matt Deres (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment are these the highest-quality versions we can get? This image shows Korda with what looks like a high-res poster-sized original, with a good dynamic range, which suggests that the image is not really this small or this washed-out; we just need to find a better copy of it (which would have no more or less legal issues than this). TSP (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn per licensing concerns.

White Pelicans at Pelican Island NWR[edit]

Original - White pelicans gather at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge.
good picture
Articles this image appears in
American White Pelican
Gentry, George
  • Support as nominator Chuck Marean 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although there are instances in which extraordinary circumstances cause us to set aside the image size criterion (or at least to promote images that aren't quite 1000 pixels on at least one side), this image is certainly not so significant as to merit our overlooking its being just 380x200. Joe 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. This is ridiculous - please read the criteria! de Bivort 22:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. —αἰτίας discussion 22:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted Ineligible (way too small) MER-C 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Group sex[edit]

Original - One of a series of paintings of the Karma Sutra at Kuchaman Fort.
A good image showing group sex.
Articles this image appears in
Group sex
  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image quality problems: dark, uneven exposure, tilted. --Janke | Talk 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tilted, figures cut off. Surely there's old pornography better than this. (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose not encyclopedic. Muhammad(talk) 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
All the people opposed this image because this image has technical problems like dark, uneven exposure, tilted etc. But could you please explain how an image of Kama sutra is "not encyclopedic"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. Sexual intercourse and its portrayal in art are perfectly good encyclopaedia topics. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An image may be encyclopedic, however this one isn't. An encylopedic image should be one from which one can learn something. This image does not do that. Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, not everybody is as good at group sex as you...--Svetovid (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This image is about sexual intercourse and Kama sutra. So you are saying Kama sutra and sexual intercourse has nothing to learn? Kama sutra and sexual intercourse are not encyclopedic topic? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if this image would be in Kama Sutra, then it would be enc. As now, in group sex, I certainly agree it's not - because the group is cut off... --Janke | Talk 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Would support if significantly better quality and not cut off. Samsara (talk  contribs) 12:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while there is no reason to delete this image, the lack of copyright information makes me wary about featuring it. It's obviously not his own work and it might very well be PD through age but... also, it's not a very good reproduction. gren グレン 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per quality problems identified above. A pity-- this would look great on the main page. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Cacophony (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close not going to get promoted. Dengero (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The photography is not satisfactory. нмŵוτнτ 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Six-spotted tiger beetle[edit]

Original - Cicindela sexguttata, the six-spotted tiger beetle, is a common North American species of beetle in the Carabidae family.
encyclopaedic, quality photograph
Articles this image appears in
Cicindela sexguttata
  • Support as nominator Samsara (FA  FP) 13:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor sharpness and harsh lighting --Fir0002 10:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose harsh light - and this is a regretful vote. Tiger beetles are probably my favorite insect. de Bivort 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Can be retaken with better quality. Dengero (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fir0002. —αἰτίας discussion 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fir0002. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Caligo memnon[edit]

Original - Owl butterflies, of which there are around 20 different species, are members of the genus Caligo, in the brush-footed butterfly family Nymphalidae. They are found in the rainforests and secondary forests of Central and South America.
Edit 1 Sharpened.
Quality, enc
Articles this image appears in
Owl butterfly
  • Support as nominator Samsara (FA  FP) 14:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both - Not good enough photographic quality: too noisy and unsharp -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Too noisy. SpencerT♦C 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems motion blurred. de Bivort 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose both per above. The “sharpened” one is even not sharp enough. Sorry. —αἰτίας discussion 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak to moderate oppose per above. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A poster of Asteraceae flowers[edit]

Original - A poster with twelve different species of flowers from the Asteraceae family. The two most representative subfamilies were included: the Asteroideae (about 70% of all known species) and the Cichorioideaea. (14%). Individual photos in full resolution can be accessed through the links in the picture file.
Cutting out issues - poor cutting out resulting in the background showing through
Cutting out issues - poor cutting out resulting in a loss of detail
Alternative - A new subfamily, containing about 11% of all Asteraceae is now represented by #6 - Galactites
A high quality and detailed depiction of some well-known flowers, in the style of the old encyclopedias. This time, almost all images are FP or Quality Images. Let me answer two questions before someone asks: the disposition of the flowers in the poster was driven by aesthetics only; and yes, it will be nice to have a poster with all Asteracea subfamilies if and when there are suitable pictures available.
Articles this image appears in
Asteraceae, Poster
Alvesgaspar. Photos by Alvesgaspar, Tony Wills and Dori
  • Support as nominator (prefer alternative) Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that this will be nice to do when those pictures become available, and when that time comes, I hope it will be possible to use Latin names rather than numbered labels, for usability. Meanwhile, I'm sure this will do well on Commons, but I'm doubtful of its encyclopaedic value, just as I was of the other recent nomination (Syrphids, iirc). Specifically, this one is not comprehensive as an illustration of Asteracean diversity because it doesn't show a variant lacking ray florets altogether. I also suspect (without checking each one) that this poster includes only species growing in Mediterranean climates (of which admittedly there are many more than in other climates), so it would seem more suited to articles about Mediterranean Asteraceae, or perhaps, at a slight stretch, Mediterranean flora as a whole. I'm also surprised that the Glebionis has only been keyed to genus level. Is it a troublesome taxon? What I do like is that the flower colours seem roughly representative of the family (lots of yellows, quite a few whites, other colours possible but rarer). Samsara (talk  contribs) 11:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, let’s try to defend my lady. First, I’ll answer the questions. Yes, most of the flowers are growing wild in Mediterranean climates, but not all. For example, #8 is from Central America and #12 from South Africa. That is right, I could not get a complete identification for the garden cultivar Chrysanthemum in #4, maybe someone will be able to help. Yes, I could have included a flower of the Carduoideae subfamiliy, but I wasn’t able to adapt the available photos (like this one) to this kind of representation, with a black background. And now for the enc value of the poster. I think there are various levels of enc interest in a picture, from the “entry level”, where the main objective is to catch the attention of the reader for the most relevant aspects of the subject (just like with the coloured plates of old encyclopaedias), to the “specialist level”, where scientific accuracy and fine detail should prevail. In the entry level, aesthetics, simplicity and high graphical quality are important elements. And I really believe this poster is among the best “entry-level” illustrations Wikipedia can offer. I’m sure it is possible to design a poster, or a set of posters, which show the family in a more comprehensive way. But, as I said above, we are here limited by the available good quality photos, and the oportunity of doing it might never arrive. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe this will help. You may have to recover some of the green parts of the flower. Samsara (talk  contribs) 15:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Samsara. I have arrived this far, but the quality of the masking is not as good as the other ones -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I found it helped me to create a duplicate of the original layer that had the green channel blacked out. Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - nice masking etc. As for conveying the full diversity, I don't worry too much. It is reminiscent of the Haeckel posters that show morphological diversity rather than cladistic diversity. de Bivort 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I respect your opinion. I still think if morphological diversity is the point, we should include a flower that lacks ray florets. Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Something like Carlina vulgaris might be a reasonable compromise, which has bracts instead of ray florets. Samsara (talk  contribs) 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - very enc. An image like this can never be comprehensive - but even in thumb size, this has the eye-catching effect that I feel is one of the most important features of a FP. And WOW, it looks good in full size! --Janke | Talk 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Alvesgaspar defending his lady. Lycaon (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pretty and encyclopedic what more could you want from an FP support --Hadseys ChatContribs 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Better than your last composite but still not up to scratch IMO. Some of the flowers exhibit very good sharpness however there are several with poor sharpness; #1 in particular, and to a lesser degree #3, #4, #8 #9 and #12. Also though the black background is a good idea, a lot of the cutting out is shoddy - this is detrimental to both aesthetics and enc. In particular image #11 (no. 6 in the examples file) is terribly cut out with the background strongly coming through, and #6 has lost a lot of hair detail resulting in an unenc representation of the flower. --Fir0002 01:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the hard work in noticing those masking impefections. They are now corrected to the best of my skills. That took maybe less time than doing all those nice illustrations of the flaws -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fir, well done for examining the detail of the cut-outs and noting the loss of hairs in #6. This is an encyclopedia not a picture book, so the detail, even at the level of the hairs, should be accurate. So, reluctantly, I oppose - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agree this is not only a picture book. That is why all high resolution versions (with the "fundamental" hair details) are easily available through the links in the picture file. According to my reasoning above, that is what I would call a "second-level" enc layer. With such a negative comment, one keeps wondering if the oppose vote (sorry, "opinion") was indeed reluctant... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Info - Alternative added, with a representative of the Carduoideae subfamily, containing about 11% of all Asteracea plants (special for Samsara) ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ooooh, you removed the only bright spot... :-( Seriously, I support either version per consensus. Re. small technical errors vs. enc: This is a compilation, the originals are available - so what's the problem? --Janke | Talk 07:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem is that as a compilation it isn't very good and hence shouldn't be an FP IMO --Fir0002 11:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I dont like the black background otherwise great work :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously a lot of work gone into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samasnookerfan (talkcontribs) 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all. Very nice image. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support alternative. Samsara (FA  FP) 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either image, whichever most editors prefer. I think they're both great. нмŵוτнτ 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Asteracea poster 3.jpg MER-C 06:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Black fly with parasite[edit]

Original - Black fly (Simulium yahense) with parasite (Onchocerca volvulus) emerging from the insect's antenna. 100x magnification by scanning electron microscope.
A clear and sharp electron microscope image of a parasitic worm emerging from the antenna of a black fly. 18 million humans worldwide are infected with this worm and 300,000 people have been blinded permanently because of it. Slightly smaller than usual for a featured picture (I've looked for a larger file and couldn't find one), but strong on encyclopedic value and heebie-jeebies.
Articles this image appears in
Onchocerciasis, Black fly, Parasitology, and Nematocera.
Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 08:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My-skin-is-crawling support - The image is below 1000px in size, but not by much. Given that the parasite is nicely highlighted, there seem to be no problems with coloration or artifacts, and the subject is clearly visible in all its gruesome detail, I think it can be given a pass for resolution. --jonny-mt 09:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm vaguely supportive of this, especially because we have far fewer EM pictures than we should. However, I do wonder whether Onchocerca should link somewhere, perhaps a short article based on species:Onchocerca? Samsara (talk  contribs) 11:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I hacked up a quick stub. MER-C 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Let's face it, we're not going to ever get another one with the worm crawling out of the antenna. Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose until clarifications made. Is it normal for the worm to come out of the antenna? According to the article, it's normally transmitted through fly saliva. The image also doesn't tell us if this is the larva coming out of the antenna, or the fully-developed worm. Is it that the larvae inside the fly have fully developed and are consuming the fly? If not, what's happening here? So, while it is interesting, is the image encyclopedic? In other words, does it explain anything? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-14 17:07Z
Life cycle Onchocerca volvulus (provided for background).
    • Emergence from a segmented antenna is one of the few locations where the infection would be visible and demonstrable in an arthropod. It wouldn't be feasible to attempt scanning electron microscopy of a transmission; see Scanning_Electron_Microscope#Sample_preparation. According to the Onchoseriasis article, young larvae inhabit the fly's thoracic muscles and migrate to the head and proboscis as they mature. Some of them transfer to a new host when the fly bites a human. For illustrations of human infection, see Google images. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, having nominated several SEM images for FPC, I know a little bit about how the specimens are prepared. That is why I want to know if it is normal for the worm to come out of the antenna like that, or if it is simply something that they set up to happen, or if it started to come out of the antenna as they were preparing the specimen for the SEM. If it's just a random shot of little relation to anything that normally happens, this would be comparable to an image of a person with a tape worm coming out of their nose for no real reason whatsoever, and then putting that image in the tape worm article and calling it encyclopedic. Bottom line: was this situation manufactured, or is it something that normally happens. If it's manufactured, it's not encyclopedic and is misleading to the reader. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 13:55Z
        • If you find a citation for this suspicion I will withdraw the nomination. Since it's normal for these worms to emerge from the head of a black fly, I'd say the better analogy would be of a tapeworm emerging from a person's anus. That's very encyclopedic and if I find a high quality image of that I'll certainly nominate it too. Now excuse me while I open a soda and get some pretzels. This conversation is whetting my appetite. DurovaCharge! 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
          • It's normal for the worm to come out of the mouth, not the antenna, correct? Or am I missing something not mentioned in the article? And if it's not mentioned in the article, how is the image illustrating anything discussed in the article? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 19:42Z
            • I doubt a roundworm has enough of a nervous system to realize it's taken a wrong turn and the proboscis is thataway. DurovaCharge! 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Nor does a tube worm know where he's going particularly. That was the reason for my comparison. It's not encyclopedic. It depicts no process described in the article. If it is meant merely to illustrate the worm, a much better image (comparable to other FPs of animals) would be necessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 23:21Z
  • Support Yuck. Can I stop looking at it now? Highly enc. Clegs (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Good image but it's too small --Fir0002 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Well highlighted Smundra (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As to size, I would like to invoke two cherished principles, WP:IAR and the law of I Don't Give A Shit. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Jonathan Swift: "So, naturalists observe, a flea/Has smaller fleas that on him prey;/And these have smaller still to bite 'em,/And so proceed ad infinitum." --Janke | Talk 08:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Brian is right, and my support above is conditional - i.e. that this is not "manufactured". OTOH, why would any scientist do that? (I assume few non-scientists have access to SEMs... ;-) One possibilty is of course that the caption is misleading; the parasite is not emerging, but was only residing in the antenna, which was broken during preparation. --Janke | Talk 14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you Janke for this explanation. I was wondering about the worm emerging while there is still a piece of antenna on the end. Shouldn't this be clarified in the caption? Mkruijff (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Freaky, and very nice. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Onchocerca volvulus emerging from a black fly.jpg MER-C 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Navajo family, 1873[edit]

Original - Navajo family with loom. Near Old Fort Defiance, New Mexico. Albumen print photograph, 1873..
A high resolution photograph of daily life from 135 years ago. Restored version of Image:Navajofamily.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Navajo rug
Timothy H. O'Sullivan
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Lots of detail for such an old photo. de Bivort 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Debivort.D-rew (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Debivort.Bewareofdog (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Debivort/high encyclopedic value. —αἰτίας discussion 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Supoort per nom, Debivort and Aitias. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support High encyclopedic value, very interesting shot. This photo would definitely make me want to read about the subject. faithless (speak) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very impressive restoration, potentially useful in a number of articles. - PKM (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a nice photograph, but I don't like this caption. "traditional" is a relative term, and the caption doesn't say much else. The caption at Navajo rug is much better: "Navajo family with loom. Near Old Fort Defiance, New Mexico. Albumen print photograph, 1873." It explains that it's a loom, and suggests they are one example of a Navajo family, not the photographed essence of "traditional life among the Navajo people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talkcontribs) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reasonable point. I've changed the caption per feedback. The reason I hadn't originally used the same caption at this nomination is because, as PKM points out, this is more than a photograph of a family beside a loom. It also depicts hunting equipment, maize drying, and other aspects of Navajo daily life from 135 years ago. DurovaCharge! 05:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - as per above. TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Debivort. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support its all been said. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support-- nice work, thanks! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support it's a nice photo. SpencerT♦C 02:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support historical and compelling. Modernist (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Navajofamilya.jpg MER-C 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Praying mantis[edit]

Original - A praying mantis (Mantis religiosa) wainting for prey. Notice the perfect colour camouflage
High quality picture of a Mantis religiosa and an encyclopaedic example of a predator's natural camouflage
Articles this image appears in
Praying mantis
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
  • Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor sharpness/lack of definition --Fir0002 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Washed out colors/detail by unfortune directed lighting --> result: lacking plasticity --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • neutral I don't mind the colors or lighting - this is how praying mantises typically appear - very camouflaged. That said, for such a large insect there could be more detail. The bar for insect shots is so high. de Bivort 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Fir0002. —αἰτίας discussion 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per above. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rome travel poster[edit]

Original - Travel poster for train service from Paris to Rome, depicting the Temple of Saturn at the Roman Forum, 1920
Unedited version, for reference.
Early twentieth century color advertisements had gorgeous tones. I've fished this travel poster from the Library of Congress archives and tried to give it back the luster it had in 1920. The classical setting doesn't hurt for encyclopedic value.
Articles this image appears in
History of rail transport in France, Temple of Saturn
Geo Dorival
  • Support as nominator DurovaCharge! 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Bewareofdog (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • weak support very nice scan - technically great - but doesn't really seem to illustrate either of those articles particularly well. The history of rail, sort of, and the temple article less so. de Bivort 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support per nom. —αἰτίας discussion 11:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Debivort. I actually have a bunch of posters in my house with very similar images-- I love that style of graphic design, but I agree that this image is of limited encyclopedic value for the two articles mentioned in the nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Moderate Support per nom. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Romea.jpg MER-C 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama[