Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2006

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

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
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Cello bridge[edit]

Cello bridge
Edit 1
Edit 2; please judge it on its own, without comparing to the other versions; BRIAN0918

This is a good picture of the cello's bridge, mute, and f-holes. I acknowledge that it is slightly out of focus near the edge, but I really like the views; "Image:Cello bridge.jpg" appears in Cello, and Turidoth created the image.

  • Nominate and support. - Tewy 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The highlights on the strings are blown, the bright white blob to the left is distracting, what appears to be a table leg blends in with the body of the cello, the background on the right is distracting, one of the f-holes is cut-off, and I think that it could be better lit. --Pharaoh Hound 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: I think the complaint about the strings being blow is a bit silly, but the rest is spot on. A shallower DOF would be preferable. --Gmaxwell 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment gees, they're harsh! :) It's a pretty good photo of the bridge, but the cropping of the shot as a whole isn't the best. Is the black thing that the strings are attached to supposed to be in the photo? If so, it shouldn't be cropped out like that. On the other hand, the table leg to the right, and bright glare to the left are, as mentioned, a bit annoying. The colours and detail of the strings is really pretty good though. Agree with comment about blown highlights on strings though - particularly the thickest string. Stevage 08:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit 1 is too dark on the knobs, compared to the original. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 12:57
  • I've attempted to fix the problems with the image, including the blob on the left, the table on the right, and the strings. Of course, getting rid of the table required some major retouching of the floor, but the floor isn't important to the image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 13:41
Very nice, but the white space on the left is very weird - there's a kind of diagonal strip texture running through it, but only for a small part? What's going on there? Stevage 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed it too... it might be wood grain.. not sure. I don't think it's any more distracting than the wood grain on the other side. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 17:12
Ok, I really like this edit (2), how might the picture look if the "white blob" became the same color scheme as the floor on the right? Might that balance the picture out so the focus could be put on the cello itself? Tewy 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ok, I dont know about the technical attributes of the picture (neither do 80% of wikipedians I bet) but I find it incredibly boring, along with the subject. It's not that I don't like cellos, but what is interesting about a cello bridge in particular? 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Featured Picture isn't about choosing pictures beautiful in their own right, but about choosing images which very nicely illustrate a given topic. Given that we want a photo of a cello bridge (just as we want photos of everything), could you do much better than this? Stevage 15:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) and i smell like monkeys
  • Oppose, there's nothing really eyecatching in this photo since the bridge isn't a particularly detailed piece with parts to be illustrated. Night Gyr 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose edits 1 and 2. Edit 1 has all the problems of the original. And in Edit 2 in the place table where leg was removed there are obvious cloning marks, and the white to the left is still distracting. --Pharaoh Hound 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The cloning marks aren't obvious unless you compare the image to its original form, which I suggested you don't. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 00:09
  • The cloning marks are glaringly obvious, regardless of whether one compares it to the previous versions or not, as the amount of blurriness doesn't match up with the depth of field of the rest of the image. --Pharaoh Hound 12:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I really have to disagree there - I struggle to see anything that is obviously "cloning marks", even when comparing directly to the original version. On the other hand, there are jpeg artifacts on the dark wood (the side of the cello) next to where the table was. Hmm. Stevage 13:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess the term "obvious cloning marks" is rather individual interpritation. I can see what I think is siginificant differences in texture of the fixed and not-fixed wood, and there' a part of the fixed area that looks very strange to me, sort of a weird bulging effect, though I will admit that they are fairly faint, but it just looks fake to me (for some reason). For me it looks more fake when I look at the whole image, it blends fairly well if you scrutinize the image at full resolution looking for one little part that isn't right. Agree about the JPG artifacts. --Pharaoh Hound 14:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if this is proper Wiki format, but can I request that someone edit this photo to remove the white, probably replacing it with that floor theme? I would like to see how this picture does without all of the talk about the background. Thanks. Tewy 01:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2 The colors seem better in this edit. R'son-W 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The bridge is the most important part! It holds the strings up for goodness sakes. ... I like all the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Coal-fired thermal power station
Version with integral key
Version with larger labels
Final version

I created this and uploaded it to the Commons, and thought it might be worth a try here. The images is currently in use at Fossil fuel power plant and shows the components within a typical (single generator) coal-fired power station.

  • Self-nomination. --BillC 23:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Cavenba 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, labelling within the diagram is not supported by facts in the article. This would appear to violate featured picture criteria 6. 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Support, now that references have been provided. 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If the image page cites its references, it would be alright. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 12:51
    • I have now added my sources to the image description. If those are not accessible, these two images on generating company websites, though not so suitable for direct reference, are very similar: [1], [2]BillC 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Support Integral Key Version This is very encyclopedic, and a well done picture, but the fact that it needs a key on the description page just makes me uneasy about having it as a FP. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well done and informative. A lot of FPs need keys on the description page, so that's not a big deal. howcheng {chat} 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Version added with integral key, if people feel this is an improvement. BillC 21:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose original, oppose "integral key" version, for visual reasons: Clicking on the thumbnail, I get to the image page, where the wiki server has sized the image to almost fill my screen. Still, the numbers (and text) are too small to be readable. So, I'll support when you put bigger numbers on the drawing, and the legend onto the image page, a bit like this: [3] (Also, there's no explanation of the 3 (4) electric wires - I know they're 3-phase, but does everyone? This is not my reason for opposing, though...) --Janke | Talk 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Support larger label version (no. 3). --Janke | Talk 20:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- cool diagram, need more of these -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even with the "integral key" I get dizzy looking back and forth between the key and the diagram. Why not integrate the labels themselves, replacing the numbers? It isn't just my opinion that this is better, it has been studied and shown people absorb more information if the labels are actually on the diagram itself rather than in a key. (I wish I'd bought the book I saw this study in just so I could reference it). —Pengo 03:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with integrated labels is this: What language to choose? Remember that wiki is multi-lingual, and putting English labels into the image will hamper its use in all other wikis. Better to have the labels editable, on the image page. --Janke | Talk 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia - that's not our concern. By all means, keep the version with the numbers on it to make it easier for other Wikipedias to copy. But we should make also an image as good as possible for *our* Wikipedia, and if that means putting labels directly in the image, then so be it. We should intentionally *not* be judging an image on how useful it is for purposes other than English Wikipedia. Stevage 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I seem to have had commons thoughts... --Janke | Talk 10:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Any consensus as to where we want to go? I tried adding replacing the numbers with text on the diagram itself, but there just wasn't room for it. I can easily add a key with slightly enlarged text (so it's readable) to the 3rd version. BillC 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a crap load of white space to put English labels, just perhaps not exactly in the spots the numbered-labels currently sit. Also, being an SVG file, changing the text to another language is relatively easy, even if there wasn't an original to work from. —Pengo 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's really not very eye-catching, and I think if it were to go on the main page it would probably look quite imposing, even. Plus, it's too boring! Arco Acqua 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: With the smoke at the right of the image, there's a lot of white space. Can this be sorted out? Other than that, it's a fine and informative diagram. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fourth and final version uploaded. I have tried to address as many comments as was possible. BillC 08:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support final version. I don't like the whitre space, but there is not enough of it to oppose. say1988 13:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support final version per above comment. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:PowerStation3.svg. From what I can make out this one seems to be the most popular. Raven4x4x 07:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ten Pin Bowling[edit]

Ten Pin Bowling, in Albury

Good illustrative power, and works well for me aesthetically.

  • Support Self Nom --Fir0002 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have no idea why you would put such a boring image (IMHO) up on FPC. Not FP material. Not all the encyclopedic either. Froggydarb 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your frank comment, I too was a little unsure as to if it was suitable. It was actually my brother who was really keen on it. Don't get me wrong I thought it was OK too, but my brother was sure it was FP worthy so I put it up on the strength of that. --Fir0002 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you care to nominate a FPC sometime, to show us just how non-boring and encyclopedic images can get? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 12:55
      • Sorry? --Fir0002 03:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I thought you were referring to me! --Fir0002 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Brian, he did here and here. However, it does seem that he could use some lessons in tact.. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I also have a featured picture.... Any way it is MY opinion, you can't say that MY opinion is wrong just because you disagree with MY opinion. Nominations are based on peoples opinions, just because you might not agree with a persons opinion doesn't mean that you should disregard it. Clearly you didn't look all that hard for pictures I had nominated seeing one of them you edited. Froggydarb 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Settle, petals, please. We're just here to pick out the most appealing, most encyclopaedic pictures from Wikipedia. Let's try and leave our egos out of it, but we should feel free to be as nit-picky about these images as required. Stevage 08:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Froggydarb, what you said was more than just your opinion on the image itself. You said "I have no idea why you would put such a boring image (IMHO) up on FPC" and that borders incivility. I agree with Stevage, chill winston! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- It just that I was shocked when Fir put this up, I've seen picutres that he hasn't put up on FPC that are much better. Froggydarb 22:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's relatively encyclopaedic, and relatively pretty (the strong vignetting actually works - was that deliberate?), but I find the dirty pins really off putting, and the bright pink markings don't help much either. Love the reflection of the ball on the polished boards though. A great photo to come out of a trip to the bowling alley, but not "pure" enough for FP, IMHO. Stevage 08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah the vignetting was delibrate - photoshop actually. Understand your sentiments on the aesthetics of the actual pin. I almost went and cleaned them in the name of wiki and a good pic! :-) --Fir0002 11:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do agree with previous comments. It is reasonably illustrative but very unappealing looking and not the sort of impressive image you usually associate with a featured picture. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Basically agree with above (well obviously not Froggydarb), but I think it may be up to scratch. I find the ball quite amazing, it looks like it's just sitting there, and has very pretty colouring. Reflections are also really nice. The only thing that puts me off from full support are the dirty pins. --jjron 11:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Don't get me wrong, it is a good, sharp pic with a high resolution etc, but it just isn't all that interesting. Froggydarb 05:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I like the picture, I find it encyclopedic and well taken. The dirty pins accully more accuraitly portray a regular bowling alley. The thing I dont like about it though, is the border around the picture (I think this is the "vignetting" that people are refering to, but I have never heard that word before so excuse me :D). xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, speaking of which, this image would make a great contribution to vignetting, perhaps replacing fir0002's previous "artistic" image on that page (which is not as heavily vignetted). Stevage 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Vignetting is generally regarded as true light fall-off due to physical phenomena (eg obstruction of lens, etc) though, not a darkening of the image periphery in photoshop. I know the end-product is basically the same visually, but I think a real-world example of vignetting is more appropriate for the article than a synthesis. Also, it is not the best image to demonstrate it because, at least to me, it looks like someone is shining a light into the centre of the frame. A better example would show that what would otherwise be an evenly-lit scene will be darker at the edges due to the phenomenon of vignetting. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per above comments. Doesn't look like a very good strike ball either:-) --Nebular110 13:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support, would much prefer an action shot, like taken just after all the pins were struck. --Golbez 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no sense of motion, it looks like the ball is just sitting there on the lane. Doesn't convey action. Night Gyr 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • weak oppose. I don't like the black perimeter. To demonstrate bowling I would like it to at least show the entire lane (accross, not neccesarily length). Also as stated above the ball just looks like it is sitting there. say1988 01:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No action, the vignetting is too dark, no sense of motion. Not FP quality. Morgan695 03:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a very exciting picture, isn't very informative and doesn't really grab the eye. The perimeter is too dark... it's simply not a great photo. OldMajor 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It almost seems like good image for glaucoma, but it isn't in that article. I'd also like an action shot instead, so perhaps leave the shutter open a little more? Titoxd(?!?) 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per all oppose --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuernberg football globe[edit]

Nuernberg football globe.jpg

I found this picture while reading 2006 FIFA World Cup and was suprised it wasn't a featured picture. It a picture of The Football Globe on the Hauptmarkt in Germany; it was created by Magnus Gertkemper on 24 Augest 2005.

  • Nominate and support. - Dark jedi requiem 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Cool shot, but I find the flag with the corporate sponsors in reverse to be distracting. SteveHopson 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all it's not in an article, which is a requirement for a FA. Second, its not that great of a picture; the moving people are distracting, its blurry, tilted, and not very encyclopedic. Sorry, it's a cool picture, but not a featured picture. Spizzma 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. To be fair this was in the article suggested when it was nominated, because I saw it there the other day. It was removed by Batman2005 with the following statement: "removed photo in scorers section as it was messing up the format of the content". --jjron 10:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That subject could make a good FP, but this particular example isn't up to standards. The thing that's most lacking in this photo is good composition, there's a banner in front of the subject, and the background is very busy. --Pharaoh Hound 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • weak oppose I really liked this picture when I saw it too, but the minor details like blurred people are distracting --Astrokey44 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mites massing[edit]

Mass of unidentified plant mites (initially feeding on Solanum americanum) massing on a nearby log for reproduction.

Nice colorful image of Mites reproducing. It's hi-res, encyclopedic, and interesting.

  • Nominate and support. - larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly is interesting, it looks like an orange blob until you zoom in and see their all bugs -- BWF89 22:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Makes me itch...I like this picture because of the high resolution and overall "look", as well as the color and the fact that it grabs my attention. However, is there any chance at all of identifying the species, or are they all pretty much the same? That would put it into the "encyclopaedic" category even more so and I think we'd have ourselves a FP. And also, I notice a glitch of some kind in the photo, about two thirds of the way down on the right. I'm not sure what that is, but at full resolution it's easy to see and definitely distracting. That could possibly be edited out, or the original image could be uploaded again (if the line was a result of an information transfer error) to fix the problem. (Of course, this could just be my computer; I'm not sure) --Tewy 05:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Lack of identified species. Image doesn't clearly identify what it depicts (i.e. mites massing for reproduction), though I can't quite say how one would go about visually demonstrating that. A nice novelty perhaps, and interestingly encyclopedic, but not FP to me. –ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 06:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - how can "mass of unidentified mites" be encyclopaedic? Eh? :) It's really not sharp enough though - the top left quarter of the image is a blurred mess, and I can't work out what's happening in the bottom right - are the mights falling through the air? Is that water in the air? The bottom left is also very out of focus. FPs should be exceptionally clear, which this isn't. :/ Stevage 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Iolakana|(talk) 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all oppose votes. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Tewy --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted . Quite close though. Raven4x4x 07:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

WW2 Allied Axis[edit]

File:Ww2 allied axis.gif
Animation of alliances during the Second World War. *Blue = Western allies *Red = Soviets & communists *Black = Axis including Vichy French *Grey = Neutral

This image is pleasing to the eye, informative and compliments the pages Axis Powers and Allies of World War II nicely. It adds information that is hard to understand in text form. This image was created by Astrokey44.

  • Nominate and support. - Zepheus 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very informative. Good idea for an animation. Spizzma 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This was nominated and not promoted in May 2006 (see failed nom). -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: darn. - Zepheus 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I had made a month by month version based on the comments at the last nomination, which has more detail such as different colors for colonies, and less saturated colors overall, which I was intending to renominate but there are problems viewing the thumbnail. --Astrokey44 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • neutral to both. First one is the same as last time.
  • The second one is just too long, and I think speeding it up would make it worse. It takes nearly 2 and a half minutes to get through. Maybe every third fram would be better, but I am not sure. And it seems to work fine for me in all sizes.
  • 01/1940 has a large black line on the bottom.
  • A list of each frame (as on the first one) would also be neccessary.
  • Rename USSR & communists to Eastern Allies (sure some countries, ie Ausralia and China, are in the East too, but are typically included with WEstern Allies in everyhting I read/see.
  • As stated on its (commons) Talk page, Italy is neutral until June of 1940.
  • I wonder about adding Pacific Axis and European Axis, but this may make it just too complicated, it is getting bad already.

Overal, both are very useful and informative, but with serious flaws, although version 2 is the beter of the pair.say1988 03:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

01/1940 is the frame that it stops at on the 800px wide version for me - it gets to that and it goes back to the start - I dont see a black line there though, but a transparency (ie the grey grid) at the bottom, this must be related to why you see a black line but Im not sure what is causing it. I can change Italy, if you think of any other things which should be changed could you note here or at the commons talk page as it takes alot of time to put together and I the file is too large to save as separate layers so I have to open them all and do it in one go. --Astrokey44 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Animated image not a good vehicle for this information. Mildly confusing to try to keep track of each change on each frame, especially as the format precludes the user from navigating between frames: a two and a half minute wait? The innumerable dots on the map, though they are accurate depictions of islands, are also distracting. Interesting, but poor conveyance. –ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of the dots change color such as in the pacific though that is fairly hard to see because of the size. Do you think the separate files should go on commons? The animation could be an overview which has a template below it that links all the files - that way you could navigate between them. They take up about 50kb each so thats 3.5mb overall. --Astrokey44 06:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, same reasons as last time. Animated gif just isn't the best medium for this information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can AVI files be uploaded here? I saved it as that and you can move between it a little better in a quicktime or whatever viewer --Astrokey44 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What we really need is a flash interface, so that users can move at their own speed. It might also make sense to break the images out into a series, and then link from each to the next in a standardized way, so people can click through and see the progress of the war over time. You can also create one image that places several maps side by side, to view progress that way. As for video, wikimedia only takes free codecs, which means ogg theora. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What about open-source GPL codecs like x264? 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
ive put them up as separate maps now linked by a template, so you can click on any one you want. --Astrokey44 11:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. Same reasons as last time. Very illustrative. This is definitely featured picture material. Mikeo 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - I still support this excellent picture. --Xtreambar 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As I suggested during the last nomination, a smooth transition between the images is necessary. It is difficult to catch the subtle changes as the map progresses because they occur instantly. A fade effect between shots would make this image nearly perfect and earn my endorsement. mcshadypl 20:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as last time. I just don't think an animated GIF is the right way to convey this information. User-controlled Flash movie would be far better. howcheng {chat} 06:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is just not a fruitful way to display this information. It's great that these maps have been so well-researched, but I think that a series of static maps would serve better in any article. If you're looking to develop a more "creative" format to portray the war, I suggest looking at this for broad inspiration.--Pharos 22:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruby-throated Hummingbird[edit]

Male Broad-tailed Hummingbird 1.jpg

A male Ruby-throated hummingbird. Subject matches the article's description of the species. High resolution displays remarkable plumage detail, particularly around its namesake feathers.

Slight subject blur is acknowledged. However, given the difficulty of photographing this notoriously small and speedy bird, the blur may be excused under the exception rule of the Featured Picture Criteria.

  • Nominate and support. - –ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 02:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I understand the difficulty, but there's a lot of blur from camera noise, not just from a lack of focus, especially on the back. We can get a clearer picture. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Difficult perhaps, but the ruby-throated is common enough to have another try without blur. — Vildricianus 15:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment What Blur?Nnfolz 07:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The blur isn't so obvious in this one, but it's still not as good as some of the other already featured bird pix. Take a stroll through Mdf's gallery for starters... --Fir0002 12:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's really not sharp at all (probably taken from too far away?), and it's just not a great shot. The angle of the bird, the plastic ledge it's sitting on, the mediocre lighting. Have a look at some of the existing bird featured pictures (such as Image:Rooster04 adjusted.jpg and Image:Sitta-carolinensis-001 edit.jpg. Stevage 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The real problem with this picture is that it is not a Ruby-throated Hummingbird at all. It's a Broad-tailed Hummingbird. CowboyinBRLA — Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

THIS IS A BROAD-TAILED HUMMINGBIRD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruby-throated Hummingbird feeding[edit]

Male Ruby-Throated Hummingbird 2.jpg

Another male Ruby-throated hummingbird. This particular image is used in the Hummingbird article to demonstrate the use of nectar feeders to attract the birds. However, the high-resolution also provides high detail of the bird's plumage, particularly the anatomy of the spread wing.

Slight subject blur is acknowledged. However, given the difficulty of photographing this notoriously small and speedy bird, particularly with spread wings, the blur may be excused under the exception rule of the Featured Picture Criteria.

  • Nominate and support. - –ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per this picture currently not being included in any articles.

SorryGuy 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Apologies for the confusion, I had included another similar picture in the article. This image is now present at Hummingbird#Hummingbirds_and_people. –ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 02:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay I will go ahead and support now. While the feeder is a little distracting the image is very high res and the difficulty of taking such a picture is understandable. SorryGuy 02:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Edit 1
  • Oppose, the motion blur is just too much. It doesn't feel right looking at the bird in full res. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I acknowledge the difficulties of taking this shot! However, the garish red and yellow feeder is really unattractive. A terracotta pot or something would be ok, but not this. And (not surprisingly), yes, it's blurry. A crisp image of a hummingbird with wings folded is preferably to a blurry image of one in flight. It really is a good photo, but doesn't quite meet our standards for FP, I believe. Stevage 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, since the photo doesn't actually show the bird feeding, would a crop improve the composition?--Peta 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hmm, this is a very good shot with the bird in a nice position, but the blur is really a pity. Edit 1 provides a better balance, which I'd really like to support. However, I want to encourage the photographer to retry, as a picture like that without blur would really be something to be proud of. — Vildricianus 15:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. (On the non-edited, even!) Honesly, I fail to see the blur you're talking about. o_O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur, 1/60 sec - what do you expect? --Fir0002 12:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you know it's 1/60? I don't see the EXIF info? Stevage 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Essaouira Street[edit]

Essaouira, the resort town in Morrocco.

Very interesting to look at, full of contrast. Appears in the article Essaouira, and created by a Daniel Csörföly, who has given the permission to publish it

  • Nominate and support. I simply love this image simply because of the amount of activity in it. As a picture, it is, I think, undeniably pleasant. But I think it also fits in well with the criteria: it is encyclopedic, it is interesting and will draw in a viewer, and is of reasonably high resolution. The only fault I see with it is the sky becomes slightly vague and washed out. Perhaps someone with more editing skills could remedy this. - OldMajor 02:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blown out and slanted. - Zepheus 04:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't like the angle (picture taken from side of street). Sky is far too bright, and distracts the eye. The contrast between the sun on the right and the shadow on the left also detracts from the image, I believe. –ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Leaning. This should have been obvious to the uploader - Adrian Pingstone 19:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose slanted. There are too many people and can be distracting. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose All of the above plus it's unclear exactly what the subject of the photo is. --Nebular110 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but it doesn't help the article that much. It is simply a street in Essaourira. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose bad angle and not that interesting of a pic Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinning HDD[edit]

The inside of a hard disk displaying the read/write head traveling over the platters

This image shows a spinning hard disk, and is intresting to look at. Appears in the article Hard disk and was created by "Alpha six",, who has released it under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 CC license.

  • Nominate and support. - Mwhorn 06:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'm split on this one. It's blurry, it doesn't include the entire drive, and there aren't very good visual cues to indicate that the disk is rotating. It's a good illustration of the arm's motion, but I feel like it doesn't convey lots of information at a glance the way an FP should. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the idea is great, but the execution is a little weak - should show more of the whole hard disk, and as noted, more visual cues about what's going on would help. Stevage 09:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As mentioned above, this is a good idea, but the image itself is just too poor for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the picture doesnt display a hard drive well it does however portray the read/write head moving over the platter very well. I have updated the caption to reflect this. -Ravedave 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good action shot. -Ravedave 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a very good idea, the rationale behind this picture, however at the moment the picture simply doesn't work (it isn't very nice to look at). You need the whole of the hard disk in shot, simply no question about it, and the lighting in the shot could be better. The composition for me is currently a bit too weak, however would love to see a similar thing in the near future, just with that extra layer of deatil and style. --Wisden17 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The nature of the device, of course, excuses the motion blur of the servo, ribbon cable, and read/write arm. But the blur of the chassis and other components disqualify the image, as do the image noise visible on the platters. –ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 04:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 19:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Great photograph but blurry. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose seesm to plain to me--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Love how the arm itself, in the two positions captured are quite crisp. You can see the effect of shine lines on the metal at the center of the plate which indicates its spinning. But the mount for the arm and the PCB I see on the left are blurry. If those were in focus as well this would be a very nice action shot, and I think it'd do a lot better if those were clear as well. Kevin_b_er 07:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Salzburg Panorama[edit]

The old town of Salzburg as viewed from Hohensalzburg Fortress
Edit 1 by Fir0002

This is an old panorama of Salzburg, Austria that I took back in 2004. It is a panorama of 4 segments taken with my Canon 10D. Thought I might give it a run through FPC.

  • Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great detail, very interesting. --Pharaoh Hound 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; well lit, perfect stiching: another great Dillif panorama! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent set of pictures used to create a brilliant panorama. --Wisden17 22:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. beautifully illustrates the layout and setting of the town. Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 23:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful clarity. Strong support if this shows most or all of the town (I don't know if it does). Tewy 01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support gorgeous -- Samir धर्म 06:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support great composition --Astrokey44 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Majestic shot with a lot of detail. — Vildricianus 15:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very good job of stitching what must have been some difficult photos. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent! --Nebular110 02:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent panorama! Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Either, with preference for my edit. Lovely countryside --Fir0002 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original since I don't see any clear difference, and no explanation is given for the edit. --Janke | Talk 19:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Orig, for all I know he could have hidden Waldo in the edit...:p-Ravedave 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Haha, thats what I was thinking. He has a habit of making unnecessary changes and doesn't always disclose them - people may be supporting an edit that contains changes they're not even aware of and that bothers me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I can see a slight increase in color saturation... --Janke | Talk 08:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And the prize goes to Janke ... --Fir0002 08:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I could see it too. ;) As I said, its what I can't see that bothers me. I may inadvertently support an unwanted change that I'm not aware of if it is not disclosed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either great picture--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful all-encompassing view. Joe I 13:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either. Having been on that very fortress a week ago, I can attest that this picture captures the view very well.--Eloquence* 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I like these ones. - Darwinek 21:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Salzburg panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 07:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bruno Senna[edit]

Bruno Senna drives a Dallara F304 Formula Three Car during a support race at the 2006 Australian Grand Prix
BRIAN0918 rotated, changed white levels and contrast
Edit 1
User:windsok edit: Straightend version, processed from RAW image
Edit 2
BRIAN0918: Auto-levelled from RAW edit above
Edit 3

Taken by me at the 2006 Australian Grand Prix. I think it illustrates a Formula Three car quite well, and gives a good sense of speed. It is being used in Bruno Senna, Dallara and Formula Three.

  • Nominate and support edit2. - Windsok 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a version. Support either. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 02:32
Comment You should not make edits from a jpeg file, as it is already compressed, and when you recompress even more quality is lost. I have uploaded a straight version if that is preferred, processed from the RAW uncompressed image. The colour in your edit looks totally wrong, I believe the colour of my image is more accurate, though I have toned down the saturation slightly. --Windsok 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Original is better (edit is too bright, too yellowy, etc.), but neither is great. I think a picture with a higher viewpoint - more above the car, say - would illustrate it better. How is a Formula Three car different from, say, a Formula One car? From this picture, I (very much a non-expert, non-fan, little-interested) have little idea. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment The obvious visual differences are the small front and rear wings, and the fact that there are no fancy aerodynamic devices all over the bodywork. --Windsok 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit When I think about it, I can't say that I've ever seen a photo of this quality this close up of a speeding race car. You have to admit that the photographer has both talent and a steady hand...I think it's a great photo that meets all the criteria. Nilington 05:11 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. It's not even just a "steady hand" - you have to quickly track in the direction of the car to get it still like that (notice the blurred background). Either of the edits is ok, probably prefer something in the middle (not as garish as the first edit, but brighter than the second). Stevage 09:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Preference for Edit 3. Stevage 09:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Original - Straighening the thing out makes it less appealing. - Hahnchen 10:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've held off on voting for a while to see if the image (or edits) would grow on me. I'm impressed by the good job done panning as you shot, but it just doesn't have that 'wow' factor for me. (Side note: Can somebody comment on the legal issues surrounding the presence of trademarked corporate logos in an image that is freely licensed without permission of the companies? Maybe there's no issue, but I think there might be.) -- moondigger 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's alright because it's a photograph of a 3D object, not a scan/screenshot of a 2D image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 21:07
  • Support second edit (straightened from raw).Changing my vote to Support third edit, Brian's. Very nice. --Golbez 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 2nd edit nice work. chowells 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2. Very nice. howcheng {chat} 22:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 2nd Edit 3 (though origional and seconds edit I would support as well. I wouldnt mind it a bit brghter, but the first one goes too far.say1988 23:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded an auto-levelled version of the 2nd edit; it's not as bright as the first edit. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 23:19
  • Support Brian's fourth edit is nice. --Mad Max 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like them all but I think the original is the most interesting. -Aled D 12:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg Support Brian's Edit I now change my preference to the last edit(Brian's). -Aled D 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Brian's edit (2nd one - ie the pic at the bottom) --Fir0002 00:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Brian's second edit. The greens and reds look just right. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Either 2nd or 3rd edit, slight pref for 3rd. There's not much wrong with this, and the Formula Three article definitely needs some good pics. --jjron 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

*Support high quality photo, must have been hard to take. 2nd edit as it is flater and brighter.--Childzy (Talk|Clarets) 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Original I actually like the fact that the first image is titled to the side (it makes it more interesting). A brighter version of the titled image would be better, but if no one wants to then the original is still good.--SomeStranger(t|c) 12:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT ANYJosen 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd rather see a picture with a more front-on view, it's hard to identify the distinctive features of this class from the side. Also, I feel the angled version works better at conveying the speed and action in the event. I'm not too hot on picking any of these for the first reason, but if we do use any I'd like it to be at the original angle, tweaked if necessary for levels and such. Night Gyr 04:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2. Better colors and more appealing. Advanced 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2. Brian's are too bright. — Vildricianus 14:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2.--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Cut Original with colour Edit 3 THEPROMENADER 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bruno_Senna_2006_Australian_Grand_Prix-3.jpg. Edit 2 definately seems the most popular to me. Raven4x4x 08:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Amphiprion percula[edit]

Clownfish in an aqaurium setting.

The fish is very clear and sharp and the background does not compete; the picture is in Clownfish, and was created by User: Arpingstone.

  • Nominate and support. - Dark jedi requiem 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Great photo, but it's too small. --Pharaoh Hound 12:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At full resolution, purple fringing is prominent and distracting. Grossly oversharpened -- so much so that it looks like the fish was pasted into an aquarium background. Doesn't meet resolution requirements. -- moondigger 18:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose (and I took the picture!). Only 750 pixels wide and not my best work (it's not pasted in) - Adrian Pingstone 19:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it was pasted in, only that the oversharpening (and characteristic halo) make it look like it was pasted in. In any case, it's hard to take pictures of fish inside aquariums. The best approach, if we're talking about a home aquarium, is to use a lens with a flat-front lens shade that can be rested against the aquarium glass, and a flash on an off-shoe cord held over the top of the water pointing down into the tank, combining apertures in the f/8 - f/11 range with zone focusing techniques. For commercial aquariums, it's even more difficult, since you have little control over lighting and camera-mounted flash doesn't work well. About the best you can do in those situations is to shoot without flash at high ISO and hope the interior of the tank is lit much better than the outside area you're standing in to minimize reflections. -- moondigger 02:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Your hints on aquarium photography are appreciated. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above --Fir0002 12:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Froggydarb 05:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Toothbrush in stomach[edit]

Ingested foreign body (toothbrush) seen in stomach on gastroscopy.

Well, it's the best quality I could get with the gastroscope and the stuff on the side and bottom is added automatically by PACS when downloaded. It probably won't fly, but, when else will you see a picture of a toothbrush in a stomach? -- Samir धर्म 06:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Samir धर्म 06:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • when else will you see a picture of a toothbrush in a stomach? - Hopefully, never. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. —Vanderdecken ξφ 14:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, there are no other endoscopy WP:FAC's and this is probably the best we can get in terms of interest. I'm assuming no one wants to look at ulcers and polyps and stuff. It's different than the usual panoramas and the like -- Samir धर्म 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Not all articles, and not even all featured articles need a featured picture. Maybe this is just one subject that won't have a featured picture.say1988 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I think it's interesting. I like the way it's got information on the side and the clipped corners, it feels like it's being presented in the right context, because it feels real, rather than all prettied up. I also like that you've got two pictures of the event and that it shows the inside of a stomach, because not even the stomach article shows an actual stomach. The only slight problem I have is the lack of information about the picture. For example, what is that black thing with '20' on it? What does the 20 mean? How did the toothbrush get into the stomach? If you add some details to the page for the image I'll happily change my vote to a full support. Icey 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's mildly instructive. But even if I ignore the fact that it doesn't meet minimum resolution requirements, it doesn't have what it takes to be a featured picture, IMO.
  • Support Highly interesting -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too small. Even with 2 pictures it doesn't make the size requirements. I can see good things in the picture, but nothing to change my vote. say1988 23:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having two pictures of a similar thing is a little redundant. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the image is interesting, it is of low quality. It almost looks bleached, like if it were taken with a flash that is too hot, and it doesn't render well as a thumb due to the text that overlaps the image. Titoxd(?!?) 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Titoxd he said it was taken with a gastroscope so how can you complain on quality???
  • Support very interseting and something a bit different, love to see this on the main page!!!--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it really does a does add a lot to foreign body. However the resolution is on the low side. Also, it would be much better without the "released into public domain by patient" line - that info should go in the description, not on the image.Stevage 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - yuck. --P199 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see the encylcopedic value of this image. I would support an image of ulcers or polyps or something "medical" from an endoscopy, assuming high quality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly interesting and adds to the Foreign Body article. Sotakeit 13:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Froggydarb 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Castle Hill New Zealand.jpg[edit]

This image shows a striking view of boulders found in the mentionned area of new Zealand. It verges on the limit for size, but uploader User:JShook appears to have left the project in early may, and willprobably not be available to provide a higher-res version.

  • Nominate and support. - Circeus 02:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like the picture, but it could be larger and in more detail for me. It's almost Friday
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slightly small, a little too unremarkable IMO --Fir0002 11:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too small... it was originally taken with a Nikon D70! ~MDD4696 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Froggydarb 05:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Interior of the National Archives


Interior of the National Archives
Edit 1 by TSP

Add your reasons for nominating it here;

Just thought this is a picture that would make someone want to learn more.

say what article it appears in, and who created the image. Kelvin Kay

  • Nominate and support. - Kkmd 04:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The image does appear to be slightly tilted to the left to the plain eye... it's slightly unappealing, but fixable. Titoxd(?!?) 05:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surely a picture gallery would not allow a lighting which makes all pictures orange? - Adrian Pingstone 07:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Low resolution, bad colour balance, poor framing. Is tilted and could be corrected but it just isn't really worth it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
...and it would probably come out something like Edit 1. Which is, of course, even further under size. (And is it still tilted? I can't decide what to use as my tilt metric - the floor? The pillars? The plaque? Is this better?) What's really needed is to move the photographer a few yards to the right.... - TSP 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Diliff --Fir0002 11:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose not the best pic and even though edit 1 is much better its just not big enough--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A panorama would probably be better for such a scene. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 21:01
  • Oppose but only for the framing/lack of panorama. The location is very dimly lit and the original better reflects this than edit 1. While trying to compose the same shot myself I was extremely annoyed at some yahoo with a point and drool camera with auto flash firing. So were the guards.--J Clear 02:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uninteresting shot- pictures are cut off, backs of people are unphotogenic, and it seems to me that there is a tilt. I suppose only a panoramic shot would be interesting enough to become featured. Sudachi 08:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Froggydarb 05:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower Lightning[edit]

Lightning strikes the Eiffel Tower 1906 - one of the first images of lightning in an urban environment

Not the biggest of images, but it is both a visually striking and historically interesting photograph. Already featured on the Commons.

It's a Commons FP - my understanding is that they're different processes and images can be separately considered for each. TSP 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. Commons and Wikipedia FPs are seperate, as they are judged on different criteria. Raven4x4x 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even though this is a rare, historic shot, the quality is simply horrible - it is a scan from a printed magazine page - a color scan of a B/W image, to boot! There should be a better quality lead image for lightning... --Janke | Talk 05:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason I opposed in vain on Commons -- it's too grainy and there's too much dust in the pic. howcheng {chat} 06:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support For me the encylopedic value outweighs the technical oppositions. --Mcginnly 11:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because encyclopedic value to lightning article is marginal. This picture is more about the ET than lightning. --P199 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The picture is scaned from a printed media, that makes it grainy and with low quality.LadyofHats 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Oppose The historical value to ET and lightning is not significant. I'm not sure how significant this is to the history of photography. Can someone clarify this point? Witty lama 12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an iconic photograph (I've seen reproductions of this photograph all over the place) and the original is stunning. There are some very large poster reproductions of high quality; the reproduced image here is awful in comparison. If somebody can find a higher quality version, I think that it would be a very good addition to the main ET article. It is one of the iconic representations of it. TheGrappler 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Poster makers are often very liberal with processing techniques. One question would be which level of editing we consider acceptable for Wikipedia.--Eloquence* 09:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too grainy.: Cab02 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - the subject of this picture is stunning, though I think the image needs additional processing. If anyone can clean up the image or find a higher resolution version, then it will be a far more suitable candidate for featured picture status (though I don't suppose photographs produced in 1906 will be too heavy on detail). Andrew (My talk · World Cup) 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Parc Güell Bench[edit]

Bench at Parc Güell in Barcelona

I nominate this image of the bench at Parc Güell. It is a panorama created with several images stitched together. The only flaw I could find is a minor ghost crop mistake around the end of the second third of the image. The picture shows the fine details of the bench, and it is also makes fun looking at the persons relaxing on it. Slight bokeh adds to the quality of the image.

The picture is used on the Park Güell article. It was shot by User:Mstroeck

  • Nominate and support. - Abdull 10:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's so crowded that I can hardly imagine any of the people actually relaxing. But most importantly, all those people obscure the real subject of the image. I've been there, so I know how busy the place is, but I'm positive an image with less people can be taken. (In fact I might have one stashed away somewhere. I'll see if I can find it). - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice as a panorama but gets a very low score for encylopaedic value. Is also extremely soft and blurry at 100% res. Could be downsampled significantly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can an image with people in it that haven't signed releases be licensed for commercial use? -- moondigger 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Good question.. I don't know, but I think that as long as they're not the focus of the image, they can be (although this is clearly dubious, as the bench is mostly obscured by these people). It seems to be a similar issue to the Eiffel tower at night image... Since the tower is the focus of the image, the copyright can be enforced...? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all oppose (you cant even see the bench much)--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too many people as has already been said. It is nevertheless a pretty impressive panorama and might be worth submitting on Commons FPC, where encyclopedic value is of less significance.--Eloquence* 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, my favourite park in the world, so I'm biased ;) IMHO it's very encyclopaedic - it captures perfectly the atmosphere of the park, but doesn't quite do justice to the size of it - it must stretch for 50+ metres, all the way around the plateau. Totally disagree with comments about "too many people" - that's a "can't see the forest for the trees" comment to me. The park and its "bench" *is* the people. However, the image *is* extremely soft at close zoom, and should definitely be downsampled, and possibly sharpened. There is also a significant stitching issue (disembodied arm in centre) which could be fixed with photoshop. Hmm. Stevage 09:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, you're right, there is a stitching issue. I specifically scrolled across it looking for stitching faults and missed that one. I suppose you are right that it is encyclopaedic, but it could do with a bit of context. The panorama didn't have to be ultra-high res - the people might be relevant to the scene but we don't need to see the pores on their skin. The resolution is not necessary.I'd prefer a wider view (both horizontally and vertically) that was lower resolution and sharper. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the main object of the picture is not visible. one needs to have "been" there to recognise it. LadyofHats 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Oppose as others above. Morganfitzp 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Shaklee Terraces San Francisco[edit]

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill's Shaklee Terraces in San Francisco

My impression is that Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is one of the more significant architectural firms in America, although I don't know much of their work personally. They are particularly known for designing glass walled skyscrapers in Chicago and elsewhere, so this image is probably a good illustration of their work (although individual architects and styles have changed over the years). It will probably come down to whether you love or hate the unnatural colour shift, but the dramatic angle is effective and the curves are quite inviting. But mostly, the couple of times I've come across this picture, its made me want to know more.

  • Nominate and support. - Solipsist 08:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. While it is pretty, the image does not give you an accurate idea of the building. The unnatural colors distract from the building. Sudachi 08:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ruined for me by the weird orange - Adrian Pingstone 10:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose its hard to tell what it is from the pic, looked like a terracotta roof to me !! also the orange haze is not a good look.--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Made for FP, if you ask me! --James 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As for the "look", I really like it. The quality is excellent and the color (for me) isn't bad. But the encyclopedic value is hurt by the fact that it only shows part of the building, as Sudachi said. --Tewy 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This is of course an illustration of the architecture of the firm, not an illustration of the Shaklee Terraces building. As such an illustration that emphasises the impression of a skyscraper whilst showing the facade detail is arguably more important. -- Solipsist 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's true. --Tewy 09:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no encyclopedic value LadyofHats 16:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Weak Oppose. Although it's a pretty and interesting shot, I don't think it's very encyclopedic. Beautiful colors though! : Cab02 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a nice shot, but to me the orange sky is unnecessary and hurts the picture. -Salur 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Jizos[edit]

Red bibbed Jizos in Nikkō, Japan. Initial nomination.
Second version.

After trying three or so times with unsuccessful picture nominations (and reading all the comments about them) I think this one is a much stronger candidate. The picture is large, sharp and very detailed. The subject is interesting (at least to myself) and I believe it does the Jizos justice. The background doesn't compete, allowing the subjects to illustrate the concept in the article; The picture is found in Ksitigarbha and Nikkō, Tochigi and the picture was taken and uploaded by User:Fg2

  • Nominate and support. - Dark jedi requiem 07:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the very dirty red bibs detract from it a bit, and the blob in the extreme bottom right foreground is very distracting - definitely worth cropping. I'm not sure it's hugely encyclopaedic in the sense of adding a lot to an article. The image it the top of Ksitigarbha is much better from that point of view. Also, the image is not "large" as you say - it's a bare minimum for FPC. 2000 pixels or more would be better. Stevage 08:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with the comment above. the color red is just too "burned" the picture is too saturated. LadyofHats 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cropping is definitely necessary, a bit of another Jizō statue is in the foreground messing up the picture. Color balance seems like it could be of better quality, and I do not see how this adds much to the article Ksitigarbha, or Nikkō, Tochigi. Small details of a particular area or an often seen statue do not lend towards being of encyclopedic value. Consider this type of photograph to be better suited for a travel logue or travel guide. Also, I think a more classical image of Ksitigarbha (one holding the jewel ball and staff while standing) would be a much better contribution. Sudachi 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've uploaded a second version. Cleaned the bib a bit. Cropped it, and did not increase saturation. Larger dimensions. Fg2 11:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What it adds to the article on Nikkō is a look at something many tourists are unaware of. The World Heritage Site is justifiably famous, with Nikkō Tōshō-gū deserving its own article. The nearest temples and shrines get busloads of visitors. People also see the switchback roads, the Kegon and other falls, Lake Chuzenji, and Oku Nikkō. The Jizo statues along the river, as well as the graveyard above them, are less known (especially among non-Japanese) but are an interesting sight, and well known in Nikkō. Fg2 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I prefer the second, as the red is no longer "too burned" and the blob of whatever it was is no longer there and distracting. Dark jedi requiem 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I support the 1st edit, the second washes out the contrast and originality. : Cab02 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's an OK image, but to me nothing more. --Fir0002 12:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


El Pilar, Stone Bridge and Ebro river in Saragossa, Spain.

Came across this and, apart from the little speck in the river, seems like a perfectly beautiful image. Portrays both the enormous basilica of El Pilar, and the river.

  • Nominate and support. - Golbez 17:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Beautiful composition IMO. Do you have a higher resolution version? It would be nice if one could see more details of the basilica. Good job capturing the sunset sky without underexposing the buildings. -Tokugawapants 20:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not make this, so I cannot have a higher resolution version. --Golbez 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The sky is okay, but the Basilica is unsatisfying due to a lack of detail and the scaffolding surrounding the tower on the right. The bushes on the left detract from the composition. Also, the image is dominated by greys, and the file is unsharp (not out of focus). Overall a nice image, but not up to FP standards, IMO. -- moondigger 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A better quality pic would be better, but to be honest it nees to show more of the Basilica. Also the spec in water needs photoshopping out then maybe id give it a support.--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was in two minds but decided to oppose. A nice picture, but not a featured one. Either it is a wide view on the basilica, bridge and surroundings, but then it should be broader and bigger. Or it focuses more on either the basilica or the bridge, but then I'd like to zoom in. This is a kind of way in between which doesn't really satisfy. When I saw the thumbnail I expected a bigger shot. — Vildricianus 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it is a beautiful scene, I don't feel that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Is the focus on the basilica or dusk? Would not the same picture taken at noon reveal more of the basilica? I think consideration about the purpose of the picture is necessary. Sudachi 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose a nice photograph but doesn't really pass my FP criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Impresive picture, but i dont see its encyclopedic value. LadyofHats 17:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Support. I love this picture! Beautiful sunlight too! : Cab02 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)



This is an edited image of Image:Nectarines summer 2006.jpg. Colors and fruit look great. The tree is a semi-wild one (it grew from a pip) so I can't identify the species. Nevertheless I think it displays a good generic image of a nectarine, and is thus encyclopeadic.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't like the fact that the fruit are so covered with leaves - it gives a messy, snapshot feeling to the picture. A shot from another angle, perhaps? --Janke | Talk 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Browsing through Fir's numerous images, I'm struck by the difference between those that are merely competent (properly exposed, good color, in focus, etc) and those that have that something extra that makes them stand out and demand to be featured. Unfortunately this one falls into the "competent" group -- good, but not FP material. -- moondigger 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. as above --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above -- GarrettRock 23:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above but also I feel like I'm looking at the "back" of the fruit, however bizarre that sounds. And somehow, I don't get a good feeling for what these fruit actually look like. They do look like nectarines, but apparently with pointy bottoms? You'd like to be able to see where the stalk joins the fruit to the branch. It's just not very satisfying. I should also point out that it's not used in any articles. Out of curiosity, is the photoshopped leaf the one in the extreme bottom right? Stevage 08:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentYeah i get what you mean, its like its the wrong side!!--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Stevage says: not used in any article (which I thought was one of the requirements for a FPC?) - Adrian Pingstone 10:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess I should have pointed it out earlier, but the original (the image this is derived from) is in an article. I was hesitant to replace the original in the article till I had a little confirmation that the edit was better. --Fir0002 12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Leaves in the front are distracting. Boring framing- not the best picture of nectarines I've seen. Cab02 19:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sedona Mountain Biking[edit]

Mountain biking in Sedona

A year or so ago, the mountain bike page had a picture request for an image that was better than a photo of a mountain bike lent against a wall in somebody's back yard. That request was answered with nice image of a mountain bike in a wood that has since been replaced. More recently, I noticed this photo added to Mountain biking that is much more active and rather well handled. The copyright status of this upload was non trivial, but it looks like a good job. Image:MountainBiking MtHoodNF.jpg, also found and uploaded by User:Howcheng, is rather dramatic too and another worthy contender. -- Solipsist 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Solipsist 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not very good resolution, background is blurry. The glare in the sky is distracting. I would probably support the other photo though. It has a much more unique perspective and is in the public domain. --Nebular110 00:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I obviously like this image but it doesn't quite meet FPC standards. The blown-out highlights on the biker's hands are the real killer. A deeper DOF would be nice too. howcheng {chat} 06:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sometimes an off-focus background looks good but not in this case. I'd like the whole pic in focus - Adrian Pingstone 07:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Completely disagree with you on that one Adrian, the focus is what makes the pic look good. --Fir0002 12:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, the depth of field is too deep to really pull the subject out of the background. At first glance, the background is in focus...then you realise it's not, and have to go wandering around trying to find the subject. If the background was totally blurred, that would be fine, as it is, it's just uncomfortable. IMHO, a landscape oriented photo would have worked better - the rocks in the background, while pretty, end up just being distracting. Stevage 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak suppport. Gorgeous scenery, encyclopedic for Montain biking. The only problems I have with this photos are: I'd really like a higher resolution version (even if it is "technically" big enough), and I'd like the blown highlights on the arms and in the sky fixed. --Pharaoh Hound 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The source has a bigger image that I cropped to put the biker at a hotspot; otherwise he was dead center. I don't think we'll be able to get a higher resolution version. howcheng {chat} 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Well, it's certainly a good image for its article, but the DOF runs it for me. ~MDD4696 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the mountain biker is the main subject, the out of focus background is distracting, as mentioned above. Somewhat small resolution, but that's not why I'm opposing -Salur 16:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Flood Comparison[edit]

On the left is a photo taken during the 1998 floods in Swifts Creek, on the right is the same location 8 years later

Pretty dramatic difference. Sorry if the quality of the flood pic isn't that great as it is a scan of a none to carefully preserved 6x4

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: In flood-comparison photos, don't they usually compare before-flood to after-flood? This is comparing during-flood to long-after-flood; it doesn't seem as useful, but others may disagree. I still like this comparison though. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:23
  • Oppose Flood picture is fuzzy (as you say), right image has a severely manipulated sky, causing haloes around the trees. Also, not very encyclopedic - before/after would have been better. --Janke | Talk 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the sky has not been manipulated. The second image is actually a HDR, which may make it look a little "fake". But it was the only way to capture the scene, without HDR it would have been impossible not to have burnt out areas or deep blacks. --Fir0002 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose they should be from closer times to give a better representation of the difference Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the longer time difference because it shows the amount of flora which has grown after the area was flattened by the floods. You can see that grove of medium size bushes was not there at all during the flood. --Fir0002 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I see what you are saying but i think to give a comparisson the pics should be from only a matter of weeks.--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I don't actually get what it's trying to say. "One day there was lots of water. 8 years later, the water had gone away"? It's fantastic that you found the exact same POV, but there's nothing particularly surprising or unusual about what's happened in 8 years. Immediately after a bushfire then 8 years later would be more interesting, or as mentioned, immediately before and after a flood. And more concretely, this image really brings very little to flood. You really couldn't say "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." Stevage 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know what these guys are talking about... They show the moment of destruction and how nature rebounds. The image that would be useless would be the flood and then the ground there destroyed. The only thing I would say is it would be nice if you could work it into the Creek article (potentially with an expansion about the flood). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I just don't see any "destruction" to speak of. There are some shrubs in the photo to the right, but you can't tell if there were any shrubs before the flood or not - all we know is that during the flood, there weren't any. Other than that, it's not particularly rare for an area to survive a flood with minimal damage, even after being buried under several metres of water for a couple of days. I'm seriously looking and I just don't see "destruction", but if anyone can point it out....Stevage 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (edit confl.) Not a very good composition. Doesn't show much except half of two trees and some grass in the background. If this were a broader landscape it would be better. — Vildricianus 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 8 years is just too big of a gap. say1988 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Blah blah blah this and that, the picture might not be the best but still beats most other featured pics, plus it forces people to think in the way other pics do not. Kokot.kokotisko 10:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Maybe it's not the most technically astounding photograph, but the concept is a unique feature that all other featured articles just don't have. This image shows time. The way the trees in the two photographs match up almost exactly even after eight years is quite nifty. --Cyde↔Weys 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Given the tendency of trees to uproot and walk great distances, I will have to agree! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 01:18

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

USS Constitution[edit]

Version 1:USS Constitution under sail in Massachusetts Bay, July 21, 1997
File:USS Constitution.jpg
Version 2: USS Constitution under sail in Massachusetts Bay, July 21, 1997
Edit 3, by Pharaoh Hound, removing the purple-and-green discolourations in the rigging, and slightly upping the contrast.

A photo of USS Constitution, the oldest commissioned warship afloat, underway for the first time in over century. There are two seperate version presented here: the first is the one that currently appears in the article, and the second is the High Resolution version I uploaded for the FPC run.

  • Nominate and Support TomStar81 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Version 1 is too small, and for now Version 2 is inelligable as it does not appear in an article. If the second one is added to an article. Even if those problems were fixed, I still oppose. The background is horrible. All those small boats just destroy the image. I haven't looked for other problems, but these are enough for me to oppose. say1988 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't appear in an article because I did not want to upload the the hi-res version over the one currently there. If the hi res one ends up promoted then the current image will be switched for that one. TomStar81 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Support: I happen to be one of the dots in "those small boats". I found the whole event to be an amazing display of support for this grand dame of the sea, and the picture reflects that. If you check my user page, you'll see that I might be biased though.--J Clear 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Terrible quality, look at the strange green and purple colours among the rigging - Adrian Pingstone 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sigh, I never noticed that before, and it seems to be in the USN original. I think you just ruined one of my favorite images for me.--J Clear 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry to have been rather harsh in my "terrible" comment but FPC standards are very high - Adrian Pingstone 11:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • You were accurate, I just never noticed the artifacts before, now I can't miss them :-( --J Clear 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Those are only discolorations, and can be easily fixed. The main problem with the image is the blurriness / lack of detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:25
      • The discolourations are not "easily fixed", the green and purple blotches cover most of the rigging (below those two horizontal spars that seem to join up). It would take tens of hours to correct so is a valid reason why the pics are not acceptable as FP - Adrian Pingstone 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Tens of hours? Maybe an hour to get it looking really nice. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-28 00:56
        • I beg to differ on the discolourations being hard to fix. True, fixing them wouldn't be a stroll in the park, but it wouldn't take "tens of hours". However, I don't see a lot of point in fixing them beacause of the blurriness, which would be extremely hard (more like impossible) to fix. --Pharaoh Hound 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • There, I've done an edit to remove the purple and green discolourations. (by the way, it took me less than 30 minutes, not "tens of hours") --Pharaoh Hound 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Humble aplogies, I'll try to keep my mouth shut on subjects I'm not familiar with in future (like retouching) - Adrian Pingstone 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Do I detect the absence of an emoticon in the previous? Thanks Pharaoh, I'll be updating my background image at work in the AM, even if it doesn't qualify as FP. For those interested, my roughly reverse image here (not nearly as good quality, alas).--J Clear 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose poor quality and not big enough Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional Comments: There is some historical uniqueness to this shot, so give it some credit there. She hadn't sailed in over a hundred years, and may not again. I'm pretty sure the sailor who took it was in a helo, which is not the best camera platform. There is an 1124 px wide version available to meet the size requirement. I even dropped the Constitution's PAO an e-mail today to see if they can come up with an image without the green and purple artifacts (not holding my breath).--J Clear 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose all versions - not sharp. --P199 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Suppose you're on a Navy helicopter with a circa 1997, Navy issue digital camera. IIRC, there is supposed to be some quality "leeway" given to photos of historical significance. --J Clear 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The historical significance of this image is low. Yes, it is of the boat's "first" voyage, but I'm sure everyone on those boats behind it were also taking pictures of it. Now, if this were an image of a one time event that there are few images of, like it's re-christening (it must've had one, right?) then the historical significance would be high. ~MDD4696 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, the historical signifigance is quite high. I would suggest/recommend that you read the article before passing judgment on the photo, since the article does a much better job of explaining the rarity of the photo. TomStar81 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I've been on that boat dozens of times and the photo doesn't do it justice. Morganfitzp 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anvil Shaped Cumulus[edit]

Cumulonimbus capillatus incus

Amazing cloud, and surprising that the stitching worked out ok - it was moving fast!

  • Support Self Nom --Fir0002 11:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is excellent! Good quality and resolution, nice subject. Mikeo 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great quality and what an amazing pic.--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I have not seen clouds like that in several monthes, although monsoon season is set to begin soon... TomStar81 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wow! - Adrian Pingstone 21:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support You're darn right wow! --Nebular110 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Woooow!!! Froggydarb 03:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No need for my support, is there? --Janke | Talk 08:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, great encyclopaedic image, although the image seems a bit suspect as the blending between the sky and landscape seems a bit false and lacking contrast, with haloes on the horizon. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're asking if I dubbed the sky on I can say that I most certainly did not and I'm a little disapointed that you would insinuate that. The only time I uploaded a photo with a dubbed on sky I made very clear what it was. --Fir0002 12:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No, my thoughts were more that it was the result of bracketed exposures that were not blended as well as they could be, I didn't insinuate that the sky was dubbed on. My other thought is that it could be the result of the shadow/highlight PS tool with a large radius, as this can leave haloes in areas of high contrast. Can you explain the haloes on the horizon? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure how it looks to you, but they're not really that visible on my monitor. Yes they could be a result of shadow highlight as I applied that, but not much, not what I'd expect to have a high impact. The shots were not an exposure bracket. Only other explanation is either sharpening or compression. Sorry if it is bothering you. --Fir0002 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Vertical perspective makes one feel trapt like an ant under foot, great contrasting landscape underfoot. Joe I 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great picture! Interesting shape with the clouds, too. G.He 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there compression artifacts in the blue part of the sky? Mainly the top right section. --liquidGhoul 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see them too, but they're not strong enough to be distracting, IMO. --Janke | Talk 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, with a comment. A great image, but I don't think it belongs in the cumulonimbus or cumulonimbus incus articles. Those cloud types are characterized by flat tops, giving the cloud an anvil-like appearance. This one has towers and a cauliflower-shaped top, which is characteristic of a cumulus cloud. I'm not a cloud expert, but the descriptions in the articles are pretty specific. -- moondigger 20:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The anvil shape is there... Check out the 2nd pic at stormwiki - Ravedave 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the link you provided doesn't look anything like Fir's pic to me. Check this picture, which clearly shows the anvil shape: [4]. Fir's image is excellent, but I really think it's in the wrong articles. -- moondigger 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome work, Fir0002; love your cloud pics. -- GarrettRock 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Cool cloud and a great pic :D. -- Darwinek 21:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Kokot.kokotisko 10:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry Fir, but I agree with Diliff about the haloes around mountains and trees - looks like classic over-use of the shadow-highlight tool which, while it has certainly added to the 'wow' factor, has also lent the sky a false look and introduced those haloes. I'm sure you've got the original so I'd prefer to see another attempt with less 'shopping. --Yummifruitbat 22:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Ah, good old cumulonimbus capillatus incus, my favourite type of cumulonimbus capillatus. Wowlookitsjoe 20:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a very nice photograph.--Tnarg12345 02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. What a great picture! -- Underneath-it-All 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Three thumbs up. Froggydarb 11:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, and congratulate the photographer - What a cool picture! Great work, Fir0002. Andrew (My talk · World Cup) 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Anvil shaped cumulus panorama edit crop.jpg Raven4x4x 07:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunny sky made with photoshop[edit]

Sunny sky made with Photoshop

I made this image with Photoshop, I didn't take a picture of the sky or anythign like that, just simple filters.

  • Nominate and support. - mo-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not encyclopedic, unless a description is added of how it is done, what filters and settings are used - but that's an article, not a picture... --Janke | Talk 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This picture is used in the Adobe Photoshop page as an example to show some stuff you can create with photoshop from scratch, anyways I thought what's being looked at is the picture it's self not how it was made,, --mo-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless it was created with some revolutionary new filters, this image is nothing notable. --Pharaoh Hound 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not FP material - Adrian Pingstone 07:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is quite odd. On the same day this nomination had been posted, an anonymous user signing as User:Cornell010 replaced the text of the nomination with their own nomination. After Janke's comment the anon then blanked the page, and nobody noticed until now because the blank page didn't show up on the FPC main page. I'll archive it now with the anon's text copied below. Raven4x4x 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornell Pictures[edit]

Baker Lab
Goldwin Smith Hall
Schoelkopf field
Cornell Law Tower

  • These are some pictures from Cornell University. I was just wondering if any of these pictures are featured worthy.User:Cornell010 09:17, 19 June 2006
  • Nominate and support.
  • Comment You've put this in the wrong place. They should be in Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review, not here. If you ask me, no, they're not FPC stuff. --Janke | Talk 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

See the explanation above. I assume that blanking the page was the anon's way of withdrawing the nomination.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Panorama of Porto[edit]

Panorama of Porto
Edit 1 by Fir0002. Lightened shadows, removed pink poles at water's edge
Edit 2 by Diliff. Alternative to those who do not like the unnecessary removal of content from the image. Lightened shadows only and left the two pink poles alone as I don't feel their removal was justified

This image appears in the article Porto. It was created by Olegivvit.

Those who haven't put a preference for an image please do so.Froggydarb 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Olegivvit 17:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Although the shadows on the boats on the left are a problem, the building-covered hills in the background easily make up for that. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:54
  • Wholehearted support for edit 2. I'm a big fan of well executed panoramas and this is one of the best I've seen on wikipedia. Very nice framing (aside from the unfortunate cropping of the oars) and a beautiful city. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Making panoramas with moving water is tough, and this one is very nice -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for edit 1 Image appears somewhat blurry to me. I suppose this could just be me though considering that no one else has mentioned this. --Nebular110 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, the thumbnail does look blurry (problem with MediaWiki's downscaling method), but the actual image is perfectly sharp. What a downer. Stevage 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think it look blurry. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Either, with preference for my edit. --Fir0002 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're going to use the "Edit <x>" format, you should refer to it by that number in your support too... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, great shot, slight preference for the version without the pink poles, but don't think it's worth getting excited over. Stevage 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2. Subtle enhancement of the original. Very good shot, well-balanced and detailed. — Vildricianus 10:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2. Pan-tastic! --Janke | Talk 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2- great panorama you cant even see the pink pole at normal size so leave it.
  • Support Edit 2 - TomStar81 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original (or if that doesn't get support, Diliff's edit. There's no need to remove items from the photograph which are there in real life. They don't hurt the image at all. I also don't see the need to edit it to begin with. Shadows are supposed to be dark. Why lighten them? - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well thats true, but shadows have a habit of appearing as a chunk of black in a photo due to the camera's inherent lack of dynamic range compared to the human eye. The goal of photography, particularly encylclopaedic photography, is to portray the subject as accurately as possible. Thats why I'm happy to support changes such as saturation and shadow enhancement but not removal or otherwise changes to the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2. Great panorama shot. Now all I need is a widescreen monitor! :P G.He 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original first, then edit 2 - I was going to nominate this picture! Nice work! Afonso Silva 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2. Wonderful city and also this photo. - Darwinek 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for Edit 2 Amazing panorama. Beautiful. Sotakeit 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Porto3flat-cc-contr-oliv1002_edit2.jpg Raven4x4x 07:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

American Buffalo Proof[edit]

Modeled after the early 1900's Indian Head nickel, this 24-karat, .9999 fine, gold coin is the first from the US Mint.
Modeled after the early 1900's Indian Head nickel, this 24-karat, .9999 fine, gold coin is the first from the US Mint.
File:2006 American baffalo proof.jpg
Edit 1 by Pharaoh Hound, combining the two images
File:American buffalo proof vertical.jpg
Edit 2 by Pharaoh Hound, combining the two images vertically
File:American buffalo proof diagonal.jpg
Edit 3 by Pharaoh Hound, combining the two images diagonally
Edit 4 by Fir0002 - sharpened/removed noise

American Buffalo (Coin) is a well developed page, but all you seem to be able to look at are the two pictures to the right. Nothing like seeing the buffalo and Indian head adorning a huge gleaming gold coin. This will mark the first time the US Mint has produced a .9999 fine gold coin. With other denominations to follow soon, this will be a Very popular coin.

I wasn't sure which side to pick, although both would be best :)

This picture(the reverse, specifically) is featured on Template:Did you know. Joe I 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Joe I 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great detail. --Pharaoh Hound 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Few images perfectly capture the past mistakes of the U.S. After all, we killed off the reverse to starve the obverse, to get access to the mineral that constitutes the coin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 14:01
lol, oh my, very realistic you are :) Joe I 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sharp images. Either or both would be great featured pics. perhaps a montage of them side by side as one image? Support ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've wanted to combine them, but I lack the computer technology. Can ya'll point me to someone who could. An example is here, but with alittle to much overlap I think. Joe I 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There, I've done a quick edit and here's a combination of the two. I wasn't sure if the obverse should go on the left or not, or if they should be stacked vertically, if either (or both) of those is the case I can fix it too. --Pharaoh Hound 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Very good. :) I actually think it would be nice to have them stacked vertically so that they display bigger as a thumbnail, though. Its worth adding to the nomination and we can vote which orientation we prefer. It looks like it will sail through and its just a matter of which version we like the best. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Pharaoh Hound 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made another edit. Joe I requested it on my talk page. --Pharaoh Hound 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I like it, but Per Lar with the combining idea (just for easier access, so they're grouped together). I don't think they should be split; keep them grouped because they're equally important. Tewy 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Both They should each be featured, as both sides of the coin are equally important. TomStar81 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ammending my vote to Support Fir0002’s edit. Of the present versions his, IMO, looks best. TomStar81 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support each of the two separate images. –ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Image:United States penny, obverse, 2002.jpg is the only current featured coin picture that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what standard we use for coins and how it applies here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, according to the mints site "The United States Mint may own copyright by assignment, as permitted by 17 U.S.C. §105. In fact, the United States Mint owns copyright in several commemorative and circulating coin designs." What research has been done to determine if this design is acutally copyright free?--Peta 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The original designs (on the Buffalo Nickel) were made before 1923. These are just copies of those original designs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 02:28
  • Support edit 2 Anonymous__Anonymous 21:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for edit 2. Would have been nicer to have them a bit closer together though. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Either Edit 2 or Edit 4 --Fir0002 12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose its a coin--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a valid rationale. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:58
    • This is a coin, and its still featured. -- TomStar81 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment These coins are brillent, superb pictures, iconic, and elevate thier articles, and are extremely pleasing to the eyes. Criteria - met. Joe I 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • in my opinion i dont believe it meets criteria 3., be wikipedia's best work to me its a shiny coin and is not an example of wikipedias best photo.--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 13:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • These photos are very well executed, very pleasing to the eye, illustrate their article in a way that no other images could, and are free-lisensed. How can this not be some of Wikipedia's best work? --Pharaoh Hound 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Personnally, I support edit 3 most, and edit 4, second...either way. I can also redo the captions to reflect the engravers, buffalo nickel, or bullion coins as ya'll see fit.Joe I 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • OpposeThe face of the buffalo just doesn't look sharp to me.--J Clear 03:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Requiring more input. There's certainly support for it but I really can't decide which version is more popular. I'll move it here for a while. Raven4x4x 07:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support version 3 although it seems version 4 is most popular Joe I 09:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support version 4. --Randy Johnston () 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support version 4. It doesn't overlay (as opposed to 3). --Tewy 00:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support version 4 per Tewy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with the dullness of the buffalo face. And what's up with that dark patch on the left? Morganfitzp 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg Raven4x4x 07:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Petrified Forest log[edit]

A petrified log in Petrified Forest National Park.

I took this picture while vacationing with my family last summer. It appears in Petrified Forest National Park, and a cropped version appears in Fossil. It's a good image to show the results of the permineralization process, though Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article specifically on permineralization. Somebody on Commons liked it enough that he made it the Commons POTD for July 31, and nominated it for featured status there (which it attained). It has also been picked up for use in the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia in the article Fósil.

  • Self-nominate and support. - moondigger 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest cropping the image in order to eliminate the sky. It certainly provides for an interesting background but is rather unnecessary and does not enhance the object of focus. 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The cropped version you suggest already exists -- it's the version in the Fossil article. However I think the full frame version with the sky is more useful and aesthetically pleasing in the Petrified Forest National Park article. (It demonstrates both the primary attraction in the park and the scenery.) -- moondigger 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - leave the background in, thats why that pic works in Petrified Forest National Park, because it shows the log and the park in one pic. -Ravedave 21:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, leave the background in. I think it does add to the picture. --Nebular110 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, leave the background in. That way it also illustrates the park article instead of just the log and it adds to the aesthetically pleasing-ness. - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice job...and precedence for support as well due to that status already attained at commons.--MONGO 07:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is already one picture of petrified wood in FP. Olegivvit 11:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely beautiful. I went to a petrified forest which had been blown over by a volcano, but it was nothing compared to this. Wow. I no problem with having two featured pics of petrified wood, it becomes a problem when there is four or five. --liquidGhoul 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great shot. No EXIF info? What was the focal length? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 10mm, on a camera with a 1.6X crop factor = 16mm equivalent. It lacks EXIF data because Photoshop's "save for web" command strips out all non-image data (including metadata) to minimize file size and allow for faster downloads. -- moondigger 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very fine - the sky adds colour harmony and contrast, plus sky cloud and stone/wood texture. Great colour! - Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
  • Support The park inclusion makes the background worthwhile, though the clouds are a bit dark for my taste. The subject is fantastic, however. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support cool passes in my book--Childzy talk contribs 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support exactly as it is, that makes an amazing addition to the article. --Cyde↔Weys 02:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great picture. I love the sky in the background. -- Underneath-it-All 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice pic, better than the existing image: Image:Petrified wood closeup 2.jpg which I think should be delisted as it has been superceded. --Fir0002 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment i see what you are saying but to be honest i think they should both be kept as Image:Petrified wood closeup 2.jpg shows the tree in immense detail, whereas the pic here is good for seeing the complete effects.--Childzy talk contribs 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support That's awesome. Barnas 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Petrified_forest_log_1_md.jpg Raven4x4x 07:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Scheme ant worker anatomy-en.svg[edit]

Integrated Key: the main morphological characteristics of an ant.
Numerical Key: the main morphological characteristics of an ant.

The image is one of the best i have done. so i believe it deserves it. the image is also already featured on commons; it apears on the artice Ant, and I, LadyofHats created the image.

  • Nominate- LadyofHats 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Integrated Key version. Excellent diagram, but I'm wondering what the purpose of the white box and orange text are. I suggest eliminating the white box and making all the text black, unless there's some particular reason why it can't be done that way. -- moondigger 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
the reason for the white box is to join elements together, the orange text, is the title and the black text inside the box are the different elements of the "metapleural gland" LadyofHats 19:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just figured that out. Maybe there's a different way to convey the same information? I don't like that the metapleural gland text is the same color as the body segment titles, and still find the white box a bit distracting. -- moondigger 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
One other suggestion, which probably borders on being too nitpicky: The background color for the HEAD and GASTER sections should be different from each other, and the color for PETIOLE should be something a bit easier to distinguish from the color backing ALITRUNK. I realize they are different hues, but they are close enough that they don't contrast well. I suggest a pastel blue for one of the sections and a pastel green for another. Maybe HEAD and PETIOLE could retain their current colors, and make ALITRUNK and GASTER blue and green respectively. Apologies if I'm being a pain... I think these suggestions would improve the diagram. -- moondigger 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, with integrated key. This is an excellent example of wikipedia's finest work in illustrating, in this case, ant anatomy. The one nitpick I have is the white box--it's too attention grabbing and looks like a legend. Could you replace it with a dashed line box around the two items, so that they're not so prominent? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but will change to full support if the graphic design is slightly improved: Some of the labels are bunched too tightly together for comfort, there's room to spread them out a bit. Also, something should be done about that white box, looks too crammed-in. Also, change one of the yellow bars to a different color, and the different height of the bars seems unlogical (the lower edge should be either straight, or regularly descending towards the right, conforming to the outline of the ant). The best work of Wikipedia needs to look better than good, too! --Janke | Talk 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment i have changed the image, removed the white box and spread the labels ( even when there is not that much space as one would think, since the lines tend to cross quite easily. and making too long lines makes a diagram harder to read). On the other hand i have to disagree on the color change. the bloks on the back are there to mark diferent segments of the ant, the diferent segments are now apart from each other, noone that has seen the image has confused the head with the gaster, not thought they are one and the same part.The blocks are also there to compensate the composition of the image. without the blocks the image would tend to the right. that the first and last block are from the same color "encloses" the image. so that there is balance even when the ant form is so unbalanced. and Yet Another reason why i do not change it, is because the color scheme of the image. Having too many colors is as bad as having too few. the image is made in grey and warm "orange-like" colors so that making one blue and another green as Moondigger suggested would not only include 2 colors more ( without adding meaning or making the diagram simpler) but also move the whole scheme to the cold colors....I hope you can understand my reasons, and apologise my lousy English LadyofHats 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Support edit 1. Highly informative and encyclopedic -- Samir धर्म 08:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. Very encylopadic, detailed and interesting diagram. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Great work, we need more diagrams like this. --liquidGhoul 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a support for edit 1. --liquidGhoul 00:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Wonderful -Ravedave 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This picture does not have the value it seems to have. Latin names of the exoskeleton segments can perhaps put laymen in awe, but convey zero information on the ant biology. Thus, the only possible value of the picture is either artistic, inciting the (fake) feeling of complexity through the many lines and unfamiliar words, or demonstrative value, demonstrating existence of a particular kind of images if they are underrepresented in WP featured pictures. In that case, this picture is not even the best in its category. To be more constructive, I would replace it with a picture of an ant carrying some information on their biology, such as leaf cutter ants with their leves, or floating nest of fire ants, or queen laying eggs, or scheme of ant development stages or something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kokot.kokotisko (talkcontribs) .
An unusual opinion, I have to say. Would you like the full text of an article in the picture perhaps? -Ravedave 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The diagram shows the morphology of an ant naming its elements. the names were taken from scientific references a myrmercologist would use and recomend.

LadyofHats 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The objection is not only unusual, but completely invalid. The image's purpose is not to provide information about ant biology, but to give names for the various components of the exoskeletons—something that is near impossible to do using a text-only description. [5] doesn't give any details about how a computer works, it is nonetheless a good diagram because it allows "laymen", as the objector calls them, to learn exactly how the different components are named. As such, it is a perfect companion to an article in which specific jargon is used. FP on Wikipedia should be an "add value" to the corresponding article; this diagram is; the objection is ludicrous. Phils 10:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. --Randy Johnston () 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Request for clean-up - Would someone mind cleaning these up in the edit:
  • making the coloured bars all the same height
  • it's a pity that in the rendered version (ie, on the image preview page) the labels are pretty messy - often the red lines overlap the legend text.
  • doing something about this 3 sided red box around the "Metapleural gland".
  • there seems to be missing a Petiole (I)? There's a II, III...VII...shouldn't there be a I?
  • "anepisternum" isn't capitalised. Should it also perhaps be "antepisternum"? "sting" also needs a capital.
  • I don't like the way that "tibial spurs" points to two of them, while "tibia" and "femur" only point to one each. It's not clear from the diagram whether all the legs have tibias and femurs. By contrast, it seems redundant to point to *both* "scapes" - one can safely assume that symmetrical parts of the body share the same name.
  • If any of these terms have common English names, they should be included, perhaps in brackets. Like, maybe the "occiput" is also just referred to as the "cranium" or something.
  • Can't really tell what "scutellum" is pointing to
  • It would be good if pairs of labels could be somehow brought together to show the contrast better. Eg metanotum/mesonotum, mesothoracic/metathoracic spiracle. Stevage 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
i will not chnage the height of the bars becouse of how i already said they are there to balance the ant.
i just noticed the problem with the rendering. i will change the text into vectors to fix it
the tree sided box is there to substitute the white box.
The petiole can have one or 2 segments depending on the ant specie. [here] there is an example. the numbers on the Gaster remain the same always.
i checked the book again and Anepisterum is right. I jus Capitalised it together with Sting
Tibia, femur, tibia spurs all point two. only tarsus points just one, and that is becouse of space. i can not point all legs without having more lines than diagram. "i honestly dont get how do you understand that every scape should have the same name and not that every leg has the same segments. -one can safely assume that symmetrical parts of the body share the same name...look at the diagram you will realise all legs have the same amount of segments."
there are pointed lines on the diagram dividing the segments. scutellum is the segment just after the hole "Metanotum". why does this piece has a name in special.. I have no idea... Why do i place it on the diagram ?. Becouse it was marked in the book. is there a simpler name in english for it? must probably, but i will not change them until someone shows me a real source for them. the ones i used were taken from the must specialized book i could find.
if you find a way of making pairs of names without crossing lines, please let me know.
other changes have been made.

LadyofHats 10:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

  • Support - Great illustration, adds very good value to the article. --vineeth 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ant worker morphology corrected.svg Raven4x4x 07:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Plovdiv[edit]

A street in Plovdiv, Bulgaria's old town part

Perfectly captures the atmosphere and characteristic architecture of the city's old town part. The street in the photo is one of the main streets in Old Plovdiv that is often frequented by tourists on their way to St. Constantine and Helena church. I believe the colours and the framing are great, and while resolution could've been better, the current one is good enough. Photo taken and uploaded by Jeroen Kransen and used in several articles, including Plovdiv, Bulgaria and Bulgarian National Revival.

  • Nominate and support. - TodorBozhinov 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just don't feel that the framing is interesting. I'm also not getting a really good sense of the buildings' architecture. Zepheus 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Zepheus. Alr 17:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Plovdiv is way more interesting than this. Can't see much here, can't see the gate clearly, nor the houses, nor the street itself. — Vildricianus 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not all that interesting. --Geoffrey Gibson 22:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice, but "artsy" as opposed to "encyclopedic". Try FPC at Commons. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • support Agree with Todor Bozhinov--Givern 07:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just don't think it's that interesting (though I've never been to the city in question). It's just a picture of a street. Is the gate tilted somewhat, or am I being very stupid (the drainpipe looks fine)? -Salur 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Calvary Cemetery, Queens, New York[edit]

Calvary Cemetery in Queens, New York. The tall building on the left is the Empire State Building; the tall building in the center is the Chrysler building
Edit 1 Contrast and noise adjusted.

High quality picture, of high resolution, in the public domain, visually striking. Nice composition with the city of the dead in the foreground and the city of the living in the background, under a golden sky. Appears in the article Calvary_Cemetery, Queens; it's the best part of the article at present and will no doubt prompt the expansion of the article soon. Gives a good idea of the scope and size of the cemetery.

The image was created and uploaded by User:Plowboylifestyle.

  • Nominate and support. - Nunh-huh 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. At thumbnail size, the original looks okay, but at full resolution it looks veiled. Since fog is not evident in the image, I adjusted noise and contrast. At full resolution I think it is a noticeable improvement. -- moondigger 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1, encyclopaedic, quite artistic, and a lot better than many of the images nominated lately...The composition and colours don't totally grab me, and the yellow grass(?) is a bit odd. Would support further colour corrections. Stevage 09:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Interesting colors Brighter than original. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. Encyclopedic, attractive, and interesting. --Pharaoh Hound 12:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. as above--Childzy talk contribs 12:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 LadyofHats 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment. I'm in two minds. Is it me or are the scycrapers slightly inclining to the right? Also, the tombstones in the front are too close. I may change my mind but right now something's not right about this picture. I don't really have a good view on the graveyard. — Vildricianus 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. Reasons stated above--Geoffrey Gibson 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blah! This photo is ugly! And all I know about this cemetary now is that you can see the NYC skyline from it... what's the encyclopedic value here? ~MDD4696 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Support edit 1. Cab02 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I question the encyclopedic value of this image, although I admit the composition is compelling. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The encyclopedic value seems obvious to me. There is an article about Calvary Cemetery. This is a picture of that cemetery. It doesn't get more basic than that. And the information in the image is good for two reasons; it not only shows us the cemetery, it also gives us an idea of where it's located, within sight of the famous Manhattan skyline. -- moondigger 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it shows us a "portion" of the cemetary, yes... My point is that I'm not sure this is the most encyclopedic way that the shot that could be taken. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree it's possible that a picture more thoroughly representative of the cemetery might be taken, perhaps from a crane or other aerial view. For that matter, it's possible that more representative images could be taken than most of the current featured pictures. But what we have right now is this one -- and it's pretty good, IMO. If another picture of Calvary Cemetery comes available that's superior than this one, we could promote it and consider whether this one should be delisted then. -- moondigger 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Excellent photo. On a personal note, it was really freaking riding a bus past this massive cemetry as the sun was setting a few weeks after 9/11. Because at a distance the skyscrapers started blending in with the tombstones. Bwithh 02:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tres evocative. Prefer edit 1.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I actually find the image too cluttered. A single carefully picked tombstone I think would have been more effective. --Fir0002 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. Very nice. Morgan695 02:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueens_edit.jpg Raven4x4x 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Adelaide Panorama[edit]

File:Adel panorama.jpg
Panoramic view over the Adelaide Parklands of the Square Mile (central business district) from Montefiore Hill in North Adelaide. The historic Adelaide Oval is visible in the centre foreground.

Beautiful image taken from that masterplanned town of Adelaide, Australia. Quite striking.

  • Nominate and Support. Political Mind 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the first page of says the images are 'copyright-free', their terms say otherwise, with things like "The SATC has provided a selection of copyright-free images for use, at no charge. These images are to be used solely for the positive general promotion of South Australia as a destination. They cannot be used for commercial, business or corporate purposes or for paid advertising without the written authority of the SATC." The image's copyright status is dubious, very dubious. Kevin_b_er 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just like to point out that it is not being used for commercial, business or corporate purposes. Political Mind 02:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. Wikipedia and Commons are commercial uses, and require free commercial licensing. This image should be deleted. -- moondigger 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can I just point you to the Wikipedia article, where it distinctly says in the box at the top right "Commercial: No". Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, and a charity, therefore it is not commercial. Aside from that, the picture is WAY too small, positively tiny for a panorama, so you have an Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me. —Vanderdecken ξφ 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is a good explanation of why we don't accept non-commercial licences. This photo is not elligible for FP. --liquidGhoul 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia print editions are considered commercial use, even if the online version isn't. Regardless, all images used on Wikipedia and Commons are required to have free commercial licenses, with the exception of those that meet certain requirements and fall under fair use. This doesn't meet those requirements. -- moondigger 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose not big enough either --Childzy talk contribs 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Way too small. Aperent copyright issues. --Pharaoh Hound 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and delete. Even if Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, re-users are allowed to use Wikipedia content commercially. The image's copyright is not compatible with the GFDL. - Mgm|(talk) 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, incompatible with GFDL - and why so small? --Cyde↔Weys 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A very attractive and well composed image. Unfortunately, Adelaide comes across as nothing special. --Philopedia 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted - removed as this is ineligible for promotion. Raven4x4x 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Scissors[edit]

Rock, Paper, Scissors chart

This image struck me in its effective presentation of the basic concept behind the game Rock, Paper, Scissors.This diagram's circular geometry juxtaposed with the asymmetry or the icons, depicted both in their manual and iconographic forms, conveys an almost tactile sensation. Looking at this picture one can imagine the dense weight and rough texture of the rock in contrast to the lightness and flexibility of the paper, threatened by the cold sharpness and mechanical action of the scissors. Many of us are already familiar with this popular game whose rules and equipment are almost universal, and most of us can configure our hands into the three simple gestures representative of these common objects in less than the time it takes to finish this sentence. The picture appears in the article Rock, Paper, Scissors, and seems to have been crafted by Horst Frank

  • Nominate and support. - Morganfitzp 06:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a note, the size is only 500x400. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too small. In fact it is just half of the requirement. Even if that is fixed I see nothing special about this image.say1988
  • Oppose A nice image, and thanks to whoever created it. However, not special or striking enough for FP (IMHO). I don't think the size matters much in a diagram so I would not think that alone should rule it out -Adrian Pingstone 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the diagram is nicely done, but I think it's too simplistic to be a featured picture. Andrew (My talk · World Cup) 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, someone could make an interesting diagram on it, even though it's just a cycle as such. Resolution is too low here. Phoenix2 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose nice but no Childzy talk contribs 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice, but just not enough to reach featured status. G.He 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I like the diagram, although it is quite boring... Cab02 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. With a universe of phenomena to chose from, you focus on rock, scissors and paper?? Of possible use a a marketing gimmick ("hey! i konw what that is!"), I suppose. but we really ought to aim higher. --Philopedia 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunset HDR[edit]

Comparison of normal exposure and a tone mapped HDR image
A HDR sunset
Normal Exposure

A beautiful image which illustrates HDR page well.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this picture would illustrate HDR better if it had the picture with standard exposure aswell as this picture side by side (like your flood pic). Froggydarb 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Weak oppose - Neutral. I find most HDR images unnatural looking when converted for display, as this one is. (Technically speaking, that means this is not an HDR image, but a 'normal' image derived from HDR imaging techniques. A true HDR image cannot be displayed as such on a computer monitor.) So while I recognize the time and effort that went into making this image, I don't think it does a good job of demonstrating HDR imaging in the article. This is not meant as a knock against your work, Fir0002; it's a limitation of what can be captured in HDR images vs. what can be displayed. No image displayed on a computer display can accurately represent what HDR is supposed to do. -- moondigger 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • So your opposing because your monitor can't handle the image, that doesn't make any sense. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I'm opposing because NO monitor can display a true HDR image, and this is not a true HDR image. It is normal image that is composed of three exposures tone-mapped into a dynamic range that can be handled by computer monitors. Such images do not demonstrate HDR; they demonstrate tone-mapping or dynamic range compression. This isn't Fir0002's fault... it's a nice enough sunset. But illustrating HDR in an article viewed on a computer screen is nearly impossible. The more range-compressed images people see in an article that's supposed to be explaining HDR, the more likely people are to make the wrong association.-- moondigger 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Hang on, I'm confused now. If a HDR image can never be displayed correctly, what's the point in making them in the first place? I've read the article but I still don't fully understand the point your making moondigger; it seems strange to me that a whole imaging technique would exist if the images can never ever be displayed correctly, or am I misunderstanding you? Is there any way that they can be displayed properly? Raven4x4x 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think we're getting outside the scope of the discussion of this image. A good explanation would take some time to compose, and when I do it I plan on integrating it into the article text. The very short version is that HDR means high dynamic range. i.e., more dynamic range than our capture media (film, CCD, or CMOS sensor) can handle in a single frame, and often more dynamic range than our output devices (computer monitor, printer) can display in a single frame. This is a limitation of the technology we're working with. (Also, due to the nature of digital capture technology, information in the highlight areas is more accurately described than information in the dark shadow areas.) So when we're presented with a scene that exceeds the number of stops of luminance that we can capture in a single frame, we have to make multiple exposures, each one adjusted to capture the maximum detail. Photoshop then allows us to combine each of these exposures into a single file that accurately describes the full range of the scene. The problem is that no monitor can display it all, accurately, at one time. What HDR techniques have done for us is that we've accurately captured and stored all the information in a scene. That doesn't mean we can display it or produce output that matches what we've captured. Now if we want to produce output, we must change all the tonal values from their original, accurate values to new values that fit within the capabilities of our output device by doing tone-mapping or dynamic range compression. When you do that, the result is no longer HDR. Sometimes this process will result in something that seems natural to the eye; more often, it will result in something that doesn't resemble reality as we normally perceive it. This "HDR sunset" falls into the latter category for me; the original base exposure looks like something I might actually see in the real world, while the tone-mapped version, however interesting it might be, appears unnatural. Ditto with the HDR church interior we saw here a few weeks ago (also in the HDR article).
Look, I'll withdraw my opposition to this image. When I have the time, I'll write up a longer article, complete with sample images, and integrate it into the existing article. -- moondigger 14:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A nit, your statement "information in the highlight areas is more accurately described than information in the dark shadow areas" is factually inaccurate. While brighter content suffers less competition from noise it suffers much more quantization noise because of the perceptual compression (gamma 2.2 curve) applied by LDR capture and inverted by our monitors. Also, most sensors go somewhat non-linear as their photon wells fill up. See Steve Mann's work on comparametrics [6], his work demonstrates that maximum information content is actually found in the mid-tones. "Expose to the right" makes sense for a lot of reasons, but the claims that it maximizes the recorded information with a normal photography process do not stand up to scientific analysis. --Gmaxwell 01:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't read Steve Mann's work, so thanks for the link. However, my statement is not factually inaccurate. Information in the highlight areas is more accurately described than information in the dark shadow areas - at least during capture, which is what I was talking about. The quantization noise doesn't come into it until we actually do something with the captured data later on when we manipulate it for output. But the whole point of HDR is to take multiple exposures and combine them prior to doing any perceptual compression; Photoshop HDR works with RAW files that have no perceptual compression applied. At this stage all we're doing is capturing data in multiple stepped exposures so Photoshop's HDR routines can pull the maximum information from each file for a given set of tones in the image. For that purpose, exposing to the right makes even more sense. (BTW, if I'm missing some obvious point here, please correct me.)-- moondigger 05:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – beautiful! Morganfitzp 03:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very nice image. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What's HDR about it? Looks like its just two seperate exposures for foreground and sky. Rather boring and not particularly illustrative of either sunset or HDR. --Dschwen 06:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
HDR is a method whereby you take seperate exposures and combine them to produce an image without blown higlights or underexposed areas. --Fir0002 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, no, you are describing exposure blending. --Dschwen 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support comparison- I have to agree with Dschwen, it is a beatiful image although I don't think it demonstrates HDR very well. I look at this image and see a sunset, if there was another image with a standard exposure next to it I would change to full Support (or even better, the three images you used to create this image and the standard exposure image). Froggydarb 11:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Fir0002 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand me (or I didn't explain myself properly). I meant: have the two pictures together, like the before and after flood picture you put up on FPC a week or so ago. This way it doesn't just look like a sunset, because you have something to compare the HDR picture with. If someone that didn't know what HDR was looked at the image they might think it's just a sunset, even if it had a caption noting that is a HDR image. Froggydarb 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK how about that? --Fir0002 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's good. Froggydarb 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is much more to featured pictures than just being a pretty photograph or diagram. You cannot apply criteria that one would use to judge whether or not one would hang a picture up in one's own house to judge candidacy for featured pictures. In terms of composition, the subject matter is uninteresting, there is nothing being done by taking a photograph of random clouds in a sky that is approaching dusk and labeling it as a 'sunset.' If someone looks at the image the immediately cannot recognize what the purpose is (which is not always a bad thing, but in this case it makes the feel lacking in composition). This image just do not lend itself to improving the HDR article, especially when the other pictures in the article are much more dynamic and have more dimensions, depth, and illustration of what HDR photography is. Sudachi 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Groovy photo man! Keep on truckin’! TomStar81 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with moondigger. We need something else to illustrate HDR. All the examples (except perhaps the Grand Canyon one) result in a low contrast, murky image. If there are bright highligts in a scene, I want them bright on my screen, and I want the shadows dark, but with detail! So, I'll probably never get what I really want... --Janke | Talk 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • A lot of my photographs are tonemapped HDR, since I usually shoot on a tripod it doesn't take me any more work to capture that way, and I've setup scripts to automate my processing. When it is done right they just look normal and natural to the eye (and a lot like the scene actually looked). The advantage of doing HDR photography and tonemapping is that you can capture difficult scenes without being unrealistic (I don't know about you, but I can see shadow detail fine without highlights clipping), this is possible because your instantaneous perceptual dynamic range is not that huge, so with the right compression an LDR image can look a lot like the HDR scene. In any case... --Gmaxwell 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the scene is especially informative on the subject.. The classic "bare lightbulb in a desklamp" picture would be better. Perhaps an image of a desk with a bright light on top and a candle underneath. :)--Gmaxwell 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferrofluid in magnetic field[edit]

Alternative images (By GMaxwell, currently unused):

A superparamagnetic fluid, otherwise known as a ferrofluid, in a dish over a neodymium magnet. The image acts as a very good illustration of the peculiar way that such liquids react to magnetic fields. Original uncropped image is located at Image:Ferrofluid in magnetic field original.jpg if anyone wants to get more creative. Image created by Steve Jurvetson, uploaded by myself.

  • Nominate and support. - GeeJo (t)(c) • 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Oppose. This is a very interesting concept, but the quality of the photo is lacking. A large portion of the fluid is featureless black (basically, the opposite of being blown out -- and conveys equally little information). The lighting for this image should have been very different, to better show the shapes that the fluid takes on. The metadata indicates the image was taken with a point&shoot. Any chance somebody with a camera that has full manual control over lighting and exposure could re-take the picture? -- moondigger 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have ferrofluid, rare earth magnets, and considerable camera gear. I've previously taken pictures which I think are somewhat better than this, but none that I really this do the subject justice. The stuff is *black* and if you do bathe it in too much light it will get ugly specular dots even with a large light source. Oh, and it has infinite mess making potential, it's hard to get off of anything it touches. .. Shooting it again has been on my todo list, but I want to build a jig to hold and move my magnets in fixed steps so that I can make a nice animation. --Gmaxwell 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You need diffuse lighting to avoid the blown highlights, preferably positioned a couple feet above the 'peaks' of the ferrofluid. Maybe a second diffuse light source behind and to the right or left, to backlight the peaks a bit, give them some dimension. I'd want to play with the lights to find what works best, which means hotlights would be preferred over flashes. Then meter from a gray card, and overexpose by 1/2 to 1 stop. Take one frame with the gray card in the shot to use for manual white balancing in post processing. Check the histogram for each exposure to make sure you're not totally blowing the highlights. It's okay if it just touches the right side, as long as it's not too much and as long as you shoot RAW. With that kind of RAW file the post-processing could bring everything in line. Another advantage of hotlights is that you could use the same setup for video. -- moondigger 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd be very interested to see the effect with top-down diffuse lighting, South-East position diffuse lighting, and a spotlight from below. —Vanderdecken ξφ 09:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Snazzy. Iolakana|T 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 04:28
  • Support I've seen similar images before, and this is just as cool and HQ. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as ridiculously awesome. Alphachimp talk 07:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Cool picture. Also, that may be a silly question, but can we add color to the fluid? Maybe a liquid that is lighter than the fluid and will "float" on top of it? But anyway, Support. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although the cropping could have been done a little better...--James 10:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's why I provided a link to the original photograph. I cropped the image as large as I could while keeping it fairly symmetrical and without catching whitespace on the corners from the dish itself. If you can find a way to crop it better, it'd be very much appreciated. :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 11:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Supportooooh wow--Childzy talk contribs 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting! Cab02 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while the concept of a ferrofluid seems interesting, this picture doesn't convey it to the full extent. The caption states there is a magnet hidden somewhere. A setup where the magnet is above a pool of FF with some FF on the magnet would be much more illustrative. You'd have the skikey pattern on the FF on the magnet, and at the same time the attraction of the FF below would be visible. Furthermore the dirty plate background is just plain unappealing. Reshoot! --Dschwen 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    So I've got better pictures, there are actually about 200 in my collection. But I'm not sure if I'm going to release them under a free license and upload them, because I'm getting pretty tired of MediaWiki thumbnailing

making my images look like crap... especially on the image pages. I've thrown up some small sized examples on the right, Cheers. --Gmaxwell 06:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose I have seen better photos of ferrofluids. This is rather ugly... --Janke | Talk 17:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I actually think having a magnet visible would distract from the cool part. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Samir धर्म 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Even though the picture is ugly, it shows the intresting property of ferro fluids. The image would appear better if the container is a clean one and if the peaks stand out clearly.
    Note that it's pretty difficult to get a clean container with these fluids, as the effect demonstrated tends to push some of the liquid across the surface, resulting in the brown streaks you can see on this photograph. GeeJo (t)(c) • 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    Not difficult, just takes time... I used a cotton swab with solvent on it to clean up the glass after moving it around in my pictures linked above. Although if you drip it straight on there is no initial mess and it's fun to watch the fluid jump out of the pipet. :) --Gmaxwell 15:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Most interesting phenomenon. If you don't get it in this time, try renominating under the heading 'blueberry pie'. --Philopedia 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The background is distracting. Gmaxwell's photos show the spikes better. --Pharaoh Hound 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support needs to be a bigger pic on Ferrofluid Joe I 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the dirty plate. Would support the last alternative image, though, as the background isn't blank but isn't dirty either, and the ferrofluid aligning at the poles is perfectly illustrative.
Me. Damn. Suntiger 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor quality image, and I doubt it will be used in the article after someone gets around to putting the replacements I made in... --Gmaxwell 01:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose So close, but it has some quality problems. -Ravedave 03:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I really like the image and think that for images of this kind the technical quality is less important that it may otherwise be. However, the reason I am only showing weak support is because the darkness of the image and the perspective used does not portray the ferrofluid as clearly as it could be. --Newton2 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We now have a number of new images, see Talk:Ferrofluid. I hope you find those more informative. --Gmaxwell 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Although this was very close. Even counting the nominator there were 14 supporters and 8 opposers, which just isn't enough of a majority to call it consensus. The existance of Gmaxwell's images is another factor. Once they've been added to the article I'll nominate them myself if noone gets there first. Raven4x4x 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Huntsman Spider[edit]

Huntsman Spider, White Background
Huntsman Spider, Grey Background
A similar FP
A similar FP

Good sharpness, reasonable DOF, and I like the white bg. Really hard for me to pick from the different versions. Please have a look at these: Image:Huntsman spider white bg04.jpg, Image:Huntsman spider white bg02.jpg and see if one of those looks better to you.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't like the unnatural white or grey background. Froggydarb 08:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. Was it shot against seamless background paper, or has the spider been pasted there? --Pharaoh Hound 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer The spider was on my window (probably hunting flies attracted to my light. So I got my brother to hold up a A2 piece of paper as a good backdrop (much better than the inside of my room!) went outside and took the photo with a flash. Turned out well IMO. --Fir0002 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question weird looking, it looks 2D and strange
  • Comment. It looks a little strange with the background being bright white. I don't know... Cab02 16:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Why do you let these monsters near your room?! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 04:30
  • Oppose Unfortunately, the burned-out background makes this look like a cut-out. --Janke | Talk 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)7
  • Oppose. The white background is unnatural. Cab02 19:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose A good enough picture, but not really featured picture material in my opinion. Agree with above comment about the white backround. Cfslattery1 23:39, 7 July 2006 (GMT)
  • Oppose indeed we have this white-backgrounded snail as a FP, but the above out-of-nothing spider is far more unnatural.--K.C. Tang 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Week Support IMO the change of color in the backround improved the pick a lot. I would like it to be a bit darker though.Nnfolz 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Done, using the "darken" layer style in Photoshop. --Fir0002 08:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. The darker background looks much better. Cool spider, makes me want to visit Australia even more (that was not sarcasism, by the way). --Pharaoh Hound 12:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is already a featured picture of a huntsman spider here: [:Image:Huntsman_spider.jpg]
  • Support The darker background looks a lot better. Cab02 14:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know why, but the white background gives the impression of a plastic option. --Philopedia 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Preference for original (white bg). Edit 1 arguably looks better in thumbnail, but white bg looks better at full size. This is better than current huntsman FP. --jjron 10:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • DoubtNeutral So there's already a pic of this creature that has been featured. Do we really need another, though every image should be considered seperately?--K.C. Tang 07:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose good pic, but it looks like its floating. -Ravedave 03:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't matter to me that there's another similar FP. Each image should be judged on its own merits, for better or worse. The existence of another similar image should have no bearing. However, this type of image is of academic interest only. The composition, lighting, etc almost don't even matter. The point of the image is to accurately illustrate the spider. It serves that purpose, but I don't think it's FP-worthy on that criterion alone. I doubt there are many such images I would support for FP status. (FWIW, I wouldn't support the existing FP either, if it came up for vote today, for the same reasons.) -- moondigger 04:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Page 1 of the United States Constitution[edit]

The first page of the United States Constitution.
Edit 1 Contrast, levels and noise adjusted.

A photo of the first page of the United States Constitution. This page contains the preamble to the constitution, including the famous phrase "We the People".

  • Nominate and Support TomStar81 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, with a comment. Its historical significance is beyond question, but I think the scan needs just a bit of tweaking. Subtle contrast/sharpening, maybe some levels adjustment. Not too much of any of them. -- moondigger 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per Moondigger Political Mind 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per everyone above me. Imaninjapirate 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Totaly ilegible, and I have 20/10 vision. Tobyk777 04:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to view the image at full resolution, not the large thumbnail size on the image page. AND, you have to make sure your browser isn't shrinking the full resolution image to fit into the browser window. It probably is. You can turn that option off in Firefox. In Internet Explorer I think you have to click the icon in the lower right of the image to expand to full size. -- moondigger 13:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It looks more like a dirty piece of paper than an historical document.Nnfolz 05:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Tobyk and Nfolz, have you looked at it in full size? We don't judge images based on the thumbnails, nor the reduced version on the image page - you need to click your mouse a couple of times to get to the maximum resolution. --Janke | Talk 07:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, i actually downloaded (and looked at) the full version before voting. To actually see what it is you have to zoom in a lot. That and the fact that i dont find it strking were the reasons for my vote. Still i'm new here and correct me if I'm wrong, but i think my objections can be forgiven due to the high historical value of the image. What do you think? Still i find it ugly.Nnfolz 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Your objection can be forgiven due to the rarity of the photo. In this case, since the historical assessment of the image is a very large part of the vote, one can forgive some of its shortcomings. In addition, there are users (Moondigger and Fir0002, to name a few) who execel in the art of restoring or improving upon images that get cycled through here. In fact, by the time this reaches the bottom of the page a version may emerge that is both readable and historic. TomStar81 08:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tom, I've actually had this image open in Photoshop for the past 2 days, unsatisfied with the edits I've made. (I've set it aside and gone back to it three times.) The original suffers from some compression artifacts around the text, which are pretty subtle in the original but get more visible as the text is enhanced, no matter what method I use to tweak it. Maybe somebody with more Photoshop expertise could do something better with it, but I suspect the real solution would be to get a higher-quality original to start with.
In any case, my edit is now posted, more legible than before, but the artifacts still bother me. Its historical importance is significant enough for me that I won't withdraw support, but I do wish a better original could be found.
BTW, the differences are much more visible at 100% than in the thumbnails shown here. -- moondigger 22:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Historically significant, but not a particularly striking image. Just looks like any other old document. ed g2stalk 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Maybe try again with a blow-up of the opening ("We the people..") This would lead to a quicker, more visceral recognition; especially for those of us whose eyesight is starting to deteriorate :-) --Philopedia 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nnfolz. Also a deceitful piece of paper. - Darwinek 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How is it "deceitful?" -- moondigger 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • My friend, student of political sciences, wrote very nice essay about this. How freedoms "ensured" in this constitution applies only to some groups of people. And that it was always like that. -- Darwinek 08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I can't address particulars as I haven't seen your friend's essay. But whatever his argument, it's not the document that's deceitful, but those charged with enforcing the ideals. Deceitful or not, it's not a valid reason to oppose FP status for the image itself. Leave the political opinions out of it and judge the image based on the FP criteria. You might well still oppose, but FPC isn't a place for political debate. Judge the image.--moondigger 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's visually uninteresting. Featured picture candidates that are documents should Morganfitzp 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Houses of Parliament[edit]

The Houses of Parliament, seen across Westminster Bridge.

I nominated this as I think it satisfies all the criteria of a featured picture. As a daytime picture, I think it is nicer, as the Houses of Parliament are not thoroughly illuminated at night. It also includes a few other London icons (e.g. the red double-decker bus). I think that the current featured picture of the Houses of Parliament is not as pleasing as this one. It appears in the following articles (not an exhaustive list):

  • support. great pic--Childzy talk contribs 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, I didn't notice that minor tilt when I uploaded it - Adrian Pingstone 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurry.Nnfolz 05:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The image is blurry, but otherwise acceptable.--James 10:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • support. Certainly among the world's most impressive parliment buildings; and, because of its relative high age, a viable symbol for modern democracy. Also, a decent, if not spectacular image. --Philopedia 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought FP images were supposed to be spectacular? I asked on FPC talk page if my image had a chance of making it or not, and they said probably not because it just didn't have that WOW facotr. Hbdragon88 20:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two problems: Major tilting and blurring and it just isn't spectacular. Political mind 03:29, 23 April 2019 UTC [refresh]
  • Oppose Tilted and distracting. Cab02 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose A more illustrative picture could be easily taken. The bridge cuts off the building and half of the picture is the Thames. Can't we have one that is "straight on" or taken from the air (prehaps from the London eye)? Due to the ease with which a better pic could be taken, this should not be featured. Witty lama 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others - tilting Hbdragon88 19:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The colours do not seem very saturated and an image taken on a clearer (less hazey) day would be far more appealing in my opinion. --Newton2 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

South West Wilderness, Tasmania[edit]

The spectacular and isolated Bathurst Harbour, South West Wilderness, Tasmania, Australia
Edit 1

Nice informative panorama of Bathurst Harbour in the remote South West Wilderness of Tasmania. A rare fine day illustrating the remote area well, the typical and essentially undisturbed flora found there, and the dolerite and quartzite rock which underlie the region clearly show through the sparse vegetation. The yacht in the centre of the image adds further interest. Appears in South West Wilderness, Tasmania, Southwest National Park, and Tasmanian Wilderness articles. Created by nominator.

  • Nominate and support. - jjron 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose. its a nice picture but to be honest i dont think it is detailed enough.--Childzy talk contribs 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It's an excellent picture with good contrast and resolution but for some reason it just doesn't seem spectacular enough for me. --Nebular110 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Either, with preference for my edit (Edit 1). Faultless stitching, good composition. --Fir0002 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I like both, but edit 1 brings out more colors. Cab02 22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Boring. zafiroblue05 | Talk 15:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bland. --Philopedia 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it. Preference for second version -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Edit 1. Beautiful color, interesting-looking place. Morganfitzp 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Josefina with Bokeh[edit]

Bokeh on a photo shot with f/1.2 aperture

This picture beautifully illustrates the bokeh effect produced by large apertures in out-of-focus areas. Readded nomination because the author has changed the license to BY. The original nomination was closed because the license was non-free.

  • Nominate and support. - – (), 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I haven't yet decided whether to support or oppose this one. It does help demonstrate the concept of bokeh, but some of the out-of-focus highlights are blown. That's not such a big deal, and I might just overlook it... but I'm vaguely uncomfortable with the idea of featuring a picture of a person who isn't a public figure. It may be used to demonstrate the concept of bokeh, but the subject is clearly not the bokeh. I think I would prefer something more "encyclopedic" for the task of illustrating bokeh.-- moondigger 03:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm. I don't like the subject myself (and the shadow from the front facing fill flash kills me), but I don't think I'd oppose because of it. I'm glad to see that the image is now free content :). As far as the blown highlights go, there is an advantage: You can clearly see the shape of the aperture. Compare to the picture I added on bokeh. --Gmaxwell 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the shape of the aperture in this particular case is round, given that it's an f/1.2 lens used wide open. I'm not sure that'd be all that obvious to somebody unfamiliar with the lens or the concept of bokeh who was looking at this picture. Some of the highlights look elliptical... However my greater concern is the idea of featuring this particular subject. After thinking about it, I've decided to oppose. == moondigger 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The highlights become elliptical due to the effective shape of the aperture being angle dependent on the angle of the passing light because the aperture is not infinitely thin and the angles involved are fairly great, i.e. it's a case of true optical vignetting. In any case the article would benefit more from a good/bad comparison. --Gmaxwell 23:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you uncomfortable with the subject because she is a child? --Oldak Quill 11:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if your question was directed at me, but in case it was... I'm uncomfortable with the idea of having a featured picture in which the main subject is not a public figure, no matter whether a child or an adult. Has the subject (or her guardian) signed a release form to allow free commercial use of this image? Would the subject or her guardian be unhappy to find this image in a print ad for a commercial product? What if that product was something they might find objectionable?-- moondigger 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above discussion. -- moondigger 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would it be inappropriate to question whether someone is trying to slip a family picture in on us? --Philopedia 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You have to admit the girl is really cute though (please dont take this comment seriously).Nnfolz 19:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me! Love the bokeh --Fir0002 09:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Striking image, fantastic compostion (and no, I am not related to the girl in the photo). Morganfitzp 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Very nice image. However, for FP status, dont we all want pictures that are the best of the best, not just what we had to settle for. Thanks. AJ24 02:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama Bridge[edit]

NOTE: Chancellor Alt, you can't make the image bigger by changing the size of the thumbnail. It's only 350 pixels wide, and can't be bigger than that unless the original photographer supplies a bigger version. I made the thumbnail 250 pixels again to match the formatting of the rest of the FPC page. When people oppose the image due to size, they're not basing their opposition on the size of the thumbnail.

A beautiful shot taken of the Portuguese bridge at sunset. Good quality, encyclopedic, pleasing to the eye. I can hardly see a reason that this should not be featured.

  • Nominate and Support Truly stunning. Chancellor Alt 16:54, July 13, 2006 (UTC).
  • Speedy Remove / Object to small this cannot pass so might aswell be removed from candidates. Also problems with image tag, pos copy vio.Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy remove per Childzy. —Keenan Pepper 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I assume the uploader had no idea that such a tiny pic would be an automatic failure - Adrian Pingstone 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How about the larger one I just made? Chancellor Alt 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The minimum size requirements for FPs is 1000 pixels. Your's is far less than that size. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strongly Oppose - Some people really don't read the FPC criteria, do they? Chancellor Alt (or PoliticalMind as we knew him before he changed his name) has already had a failed nomination or two on FPC. I would assume that most people would learn what image size meant before they posted an image up here. Far, far, far too small! The FP criteria state that the image must be at least 1000 pixels in its largest dimension. It tells you on the image page that the picture is only 350×250, so how is this eligible? I really do support the modification of the Featured Picture Candidates page to have six-foot-tall red lettering at the top: 'READ THE FPC CRITERIA BEFORE EVEN READING THE PAGE, LET ALONE NOMINATING AN IMAGE.' —Vanderdecken ξφ 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Pretty picture- too bad the size is a problem. Cab02 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose beautiful but too small --Vircabutar 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amaizing pic, to bad its too small.Nnfolz 23:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Besides being too small, it's probably a copyvio. It appears to be taken from here:, where it says "PHOTOGRAPH FOR TIME BY CHRISTOPHER PILLITZ" --Davepape 14:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. It's copyrighted by Christopher Pillitz and TIME Magazine. Sheesh. Good catch, Dave.-- moondigger 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed - non-free image. Raven4x4x 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, UK

I took this image myself at the end of 2005. I feel it is a very clear and atmospheric view of the facade of this wonderful building and therefore that it meets the standards to become a featured image.

  • Nominate and support. - Newton2 12:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unfortunately there's a lot of distortion. Also, a farther photo would probably be more encyclopedic. --Pharaoh Hound 13:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The perspective distortion doesn't bother me. I don't think most viewers really notice it, since it applies to normal vision too. (i.e., if you look up at a building from below, the sides converge as you look up, whether you're using a camera or not.) However this would be more encyclopedic if it included the entire building, rather than the severe crop we see here. -- moondigger 14:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, while what you say is true it is also not true: Your FOV is not nearly as wide as the camera, and were you to stand far enough back to see that much of the building, you would not see anywhere as much perspective distortion. If I ever walked around and saw a buildings that looked like that, I'd likely head to a doctor. :)
      • I can see an entire building from right in front of it; I just have to move my head around to see all the detail. The sides of the building still recede as I look up, but the effect is not as apparent since I'm not seeing both sides in the same 'frame.' However most people with normal vision have a wider FOV than any rectilinear camera lens; it's just indistinct and blurry on the periphery. In any case, perspective distortion is a result of differing distances from subject to eye or lens, not FOV. In truth the FOV has no effect on whether the "distortion" is occurring or not; it only masks it by cropping (literally, by not showing as much "image" at one time) at longer focal lengths. We are both saying essentially the same thing, but coming at it from different perspectives.
The point remains that most people (non-photographers) do not notice or comment on perspective distortion in photos of buildings, unless it is particularly severe. For images like this one, I have only ever heard comments about it on photography forums -- especially for mild wide-angle photos like this one. -- moondigger 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Distracting perspective distortion. --Gmaxwell 17:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. screws with your eyes -- 19:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)- erm.. that was me, i wasnt logged in Childzy talk contribs 10:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neither building nor photo are especially out of the ordinary. --Philopedia 15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm afraid I cannot agree with you when you say that the building is nothing special - even if the photograph is not as good as it could be. --Newton2 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's okay, but seems a little slanted. Cab02 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --Fir0002 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Construction of the Panama Canal[edit]

Construction of the Panama Canal, likely at the Culebra Cut, ca 1913

Interesting image, and the only panorama on the Library of Congress site depicting construction of the Panama Canal.

  • Nominate and support. --BRIAN0918 00:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)0
  • Weak oppose I see no action - was this taken on a Sunday? ;-) Sure, historically significant, but there must exist better quality images than this, even if not panoramic. --Janke | Talk 06:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like the idea of featuring the Panama Canal. Unfortunately this image dosn't convey anything beyond an ordinary building site, maybe for a railway. It is also unusually ugly. --Philopedia 16:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a unique photograph, although it's not the best quality. Cab02 22:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Kind of interesting, but not much happening. --jjron 10:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support i agree with cab02 Childzy talk contribs 15:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A very interesting shot, and I do say that you might classify this as "semi-rare", since you can no longer go and take a picture of the construction. However, the resolution isn't amazing, but the overall uniqueness makes up. Political Mind 02:37, July 12, 2006 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Not very encyclopedic. Interesting topic, but the picture could as well have been taking in my backyard. Yes, I do have a canal in my backyard :-). I don't get an "overview" here. Can't really link the shapes to the canal. — Vildricianus 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for me the quality is worse than the historical value. That and its boring... -Ravedave 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the image is extremely distorted. Titoxd(?!?) 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --Fir0002 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Hydrogen bomb[edit]

First Soviet test of a thermonuclear device.

Not the biggest of images, but it is of large historical significance. This is a picture of the first Soviet test of a hydrogen bomb. To top it off, it is a jaw-dropping image in its own right: if Stanley Kubrick made Independence Day, this is what it'd look like.

  • Nominate and support. - zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not believe the historical value overcomes the many faults of the shot. What at first just looks like some black and white blobs. It is poorly framed and cut-off. As well as the very small size. Yes I redognize historical photos are given some leeway, but we have to draw a line somewhere, and not just feature every picture of any historical event. say1988 02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Compare to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zuikaku sinking. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
a) I see that as much better quality. b) I am on the fence as to whether I actually would have supported that or not. say1988 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm in agreement with Say1988 about the particular qualities of this image. I want to add something as well. Photos such as this one need not be featured pictures to confer value on an article. It has value even if it doesn't end up featured. Photos that truly add nothing to an article will be culled over time, or replaced with photos that do add value. So the choice isn't between "featured" and "worthless." It's a choice between "featured" and "valuable but not featured." -- moondigger 03:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Say1988--K.C. Tang 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm uncomfortable promoting an image to Featured status when its licence is in the process of becoming deprecated. GeeJo (t)(c) • 09:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I like it. --Golbez 08:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's a neat picture, even if it's not perfect. I imagine it was difficult taking such a shot. Cab02 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Unless there is a better picture of this event, this should be featured. I'm a strong believer in the "Historical significance" argument. Judging solely on aesthetics is what Commons is for - we should take greater account of the importance of the shot (so long as it meets the requirements of size, rez...). Witty lama 13:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too small and per all oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childzy (talkcontribs)
  • Support per Witty lama. --Nebular110 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per Witty Lama. Political Mind 02:38, July 12, 2006 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Sure, it's a balance between historicity and aesthetics. But it doesn't need to be featured to add value to Wikipedia. In this case, the historicity doesn't quite outweigh size and aesthetics issues.--ragesoss 03:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - disputed copyright status. Jkelly 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with ragesoss. -Ravedave 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --Fir0002 05:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Combined Task Force[edit]

The multinational Combined Task Force One Five Zero

I feel that this picture really captures the Navy in action, has a great widescreen view, and has a good resolution for its size. This picture appears in the Navy page, and the creator of this image was Photographer's Mate 1st Class Bart Bauer and it is in public domain.

  • Nominate and support. - Swantoon 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Really great picture! Cab02 20:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support not the best resolution but i think to is a powerful pic --Childzy talk contribs 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The resolution is adequate; try clicking on the image again on the image description page to see it at full size. Redquark 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Per Childzy. Chancellor Alt 03:29, April 23, 2019 (UTC).
  • Oppose. None of the ships are illustrated very well due to poor angle and image quality. Ugly smoke, boring composition. Redquark 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Image:Pennsylvania Lingayen.jpg is a much more captivating and powerful shot of ships in line. These ships don't even keep in line properly, and yes, the smoke spoils the image. Lupo 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That smoke is really quite unappealing, even in thumbnail. The 'line' of ships is too jagged, otherwise would be more effective. --jjron 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the superior image and smoke. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I see what you are getting at but I still think it is worthy. The older image listed above shows a better "line up" but is not nearly as clear a picture due to its age. The composition is good, adequate size and rez, and the smoke I find more illustrative than unattractive. Witty lama 13:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Smoke is bad. I see relatively little encyclopedic value. This could be helped by stating what the ships are (name/class/country). Being in a straight line would be much better. You should try to identify the ships, it would help greatly. say1988 14:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per users above. -- Darwinek 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The smoke is really distracting. Except for that, I think it's a great picture. --Nebular110 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leanning towards support The picture looks great for the most part, but what kills it for me is that you can hardly see any details of the ships. The smoke... it dosen't bothers me that much, as a matter of fact, i think it raises the level of aunthenticity (did i spelled that right?) of the picture. I much rather have one very details picture of one ship.Nnfolz 07:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cropping on the RH ship is a bit close for my liking --Fir0002 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It's just ugly. Morganfitzp 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this would make a great photo on the sadly nonexistent Combined Task Force article. The fact that that article doesn't exist, and that there's no information about it at Navy makes the image of dubious (current) value - it's illustrating an entity that we don't apparently cover. That said, really like the photo (and I don't in general go for these "glorifying our armed forces" type shots), hope it can find a better home soon. Stevage 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An amazing site to see, but the fleet's pollution makes the image look dirty (not opinion) and there seems to be very little significance to the array of ships, unless there is some underlying reason which the photo cannot relay. Thanks. AJ24 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Banksia rosserae[edit]

Banksia rosserae flower spike

Banksia rosserae was only recently discovered and named, and until very recently no-one had ever seen it in flower, and no-one even knew when it flowered. The species occurs only in a few small populations in an unpopulated and arid area of Western Australia, and the exact locations are kept secret for conservation reasons. For these reasons, there were, until today, no photographs of the Banksia rosserae inflorescence anywhere on the web, under any licence at all; and there was virtually no prospect of a Wikimedian successfully seeking out such a photograph. User:Casliber uploaded image supplied under CC-by-2.5 from Mark Ross the successful photographer and has upload this image

  • Nominate and support. - Gnangarra 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good shot. Cab02 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support i know its not a big pic but still, given the reasons above this is definately good enough for FP status--Childzy talk contribs 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Snottygobble 23:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting picture... I have never seen anything like that before... Meets all the requirements... And it looks cool to me. Chancellor Alt 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Way too small. This is a valuable addition to Wikipedia but in order to become an FP it should meet the guidelines. The photographer should be asked if a larger version is available. Redquark 00:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Redquark. Valuable and interesting though. I would support a larger version, preferably without the leaves hanging over the flower. --jjron 10:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Are you kidding? Waaaaay too small. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Just read the intro the guy wrote, I mean this is one of the only pictures that exsist, it is quite small but when balanced against the background of the photo I believe it is FP. Childzy talk contribs 15:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nnfolz's comment makes a nice response. The rarity of the image makes it valuable to the encyclopedia, but quality and resolution are major factors in a featured picture as well. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very valuable picture, but imo its not FP quality. Agree with everyone else about size.Nnfolz 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've missed something here I thought the value the picture brings to the article and by association wikipedia, is paramount. I thought the my ones bigger than yours is, isnt this pretty was the domain of Commons FP where they go out of the way to tell you that encyclopedic value is not a consideration. Gnangarra 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: Comment The way I see it, is that those two things (encyclopedic value & picture quality) don't always go hand to hand. A picture can have high encyclopedic value (like this one) and really help the article, but not be of high quality (like the one on articles about a movie star for example), and vice-versa. IMO the backdrop that you gave about the picture is quite interesting and proves its encyclopedic value, i just dont like the picture thats all.Nnfolz 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Joe I 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose I really don't want to oppose such a rare and great photo. If it were a little bigger, but still under 1000px, I would be happy, but it is just too small. There are some great Banskia photos on Wikipedia, someone should nominate them for FP. --liquidGhoul 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support If what is said about the rarity is true, the image quality isn't bad enough to oppose--Abdominator 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose agree with liquidGhoul. -Ravedave 03:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low res. It's really great that wiki is fortunate enough to have this rare image, but the dimensions are just too small. One of those photos which are good but not quite FP --Fir0002 09:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Valuable to the article, but not so much that it can override my concerns about image size and quality for FP status. Images of this particular species may be rare at this moment, but probably won't be for long. -- moondigger 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. In my opinion the information value wins it from the quality in this case. We've also had historical photos featured with crappy quality for their historical value. This has historical value even if it's only in biology/botany. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not historical. There will be other Banksia rosserae (though rare). -Ravedave 14:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Worcester Cathedral at Night[edit]

Photograph of Worcester Catheral with reflection in the River Severn.
Worcester Cathedral - version at daytime for reference

This photograph appears on the Worcester page. I like the composition because of the reflection of the lit cathedral in the river Severn. Also, the rich colours really make the cathedral stand out. This imaage has been on the Worcester page for quite some time now and I believe it is of good enough quality to be a featured picture. For the record, I took the picture myself in 2004.

  • Nominate and support. - Newton2 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The Picture is beautifull, I'm just not sure if I like having the trees in the way of the subject (covering more that half of it).Nnfolz 16:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yes it is true that the building is partly obscured by the tress. However, the defining features - namely the main west window and cathedral tower are still perfectly visible. The spot from where this picture was taken is the best point from which to photograph the cathedral. --Newton2 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reasons above. Cab02 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have also added a photograph taken from the same spot during the daytime for reference.
  • Weak Oppose. The subject matter is too small and inconspicuous. The picture is good but hardly informative - I doubt if I will be able to identify the cathedral after looking at this photograph. I actually prefer the one taken at daytime. - Cribananda 01:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose i just dont like the way the trees cover it Childzy talk contribs 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The picture is tilted, and you are not sure what you are looking at. However, I do like the comparison picture. The white stuff in the water is rather distracting... The trees are distracting in both pictures though... Political Mind 02:34, July 12, 2006 (UTC).
Comment "The white stuff in the water" which you point out is not really optional since it comprises swans! Although the daytime comparison image is not the one up for normination, it would be nice to see a modicum of common sense when commenting on images. --Newton2 09:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think that having the trees and swans, so eloquently described as 'white stuff' above, really captures the nature and setting of the cathedral. --Wisden17 14:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please see Newton's comment above. That is not the image up for nomination. - Cribananda 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

York Minster[edit]

York Minster

Here's a shot of York Minster that I took. I thought it might be worth putting it up for nomination. I think it demonstrates clearly the beauty of the Minster.

Support, self nomination - Self nomination for this image. Xtrememachineuk 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose the sunlight glare (whatever it is) on the right side of the photo really kills it for me. Hbdragon88 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Hb, the far right hand pinnacle is too pale and spoils the pic for me (this is FP so we have high standards) - Adrian Pingstone 08:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reaons. Cab02 14:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Subject to close up, distracting lamppost, glare, Black and White isn't attractive here. Sorry. Witty lama 13:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a good photo per allreasons--Childzy talk contribs 15:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Due to the blown highlights and the rather uneasy composition --Newton2 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

India's growth[edit]

The new highway in Nagapattinam a coastal fishing town, with old fishing boats

This picture clearly shows the rapid growth in India. The highway bridge being built across the backwaters is an infrastucture development project undetaken by the government in the hope that India's rapid growth will reach its poor. The outdated fishing boats in the foreground show how fast the change is .

The picture above is my creation and it appears in the article about nagapattinam.

  • Nominate and support. - TinTin 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't meet minimum resoution guidelines; sky on left side of image blown out. -- moondigger 14:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Try it now... —Vanderdecken ξφ 15:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I didn't want to revert the original uploader's file. He must have had some reason why he didn't want the high res version included. In any case, the sky (and parts of the bridge) are still blown out badly on the left. Also, I don't think the picture "clearly shows the rapid growth in India," as the nominator claims. As it stands, the image is simply a picture of an under-construction bridge. Bridges can be built (in fact, they usually are built) for reasons other than rapid growth.-- moondigger 15:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per moon diggerChildzy talk contribs 16:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bridge is leaning heavily, those construction guys had better put it right real soon! - Adrian Pingstone 16:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurry, tilted, poor resolution, boring doesn't really illustrate India's growth, left of the image is blown out... Political Mind 03:29, April 23, 2019 (UTC).
  • Strong Oppose. Very poor quality. And why isnt it the photo of the completed bridge, instead of the under construction image. Also, the sky is blurred and of poor quality. Thanks. AJ24 02:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wanderer above a sea of fog[edit]

The Wanderer Above a Sea of Fog by Friedrich (1818)

As per my previous accepted nomination for Dante and Virgil in Hell, this is a beautiful painting, lovingly photographed. This came from Commons where it will be featured shortly. It can be seen at Caspar David Friedrich.

  • Nominate and support. - Witty lama 14:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • support - nice picture and very good quality scan--Childzy talk contribs 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Joe I 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful artwork --Abdominator 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent. One of the most valid nominations I have seen in a long time. Chancellor Alt 03:29, April 23, 2019 (UTC).
  • Support Oppose, per color concerns below--ragesoss 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Janke | Talk 05:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A photo of a painting - hardly unique on the Internet (refer to FP Criterion 3). Try a Google search on it to see what I mean. Colour reproduction is also questionable compared to other versions. --jjron 08:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per jjron. I did a google image search and noticed that there is a great deal of variation when it comes to representation of the colours, but this one seems too orange compared to other photographs of the same painting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per jjron, also I don't find the painting all that special either. -Ravedave 03:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I understand what you guys mean about it not being particularly interesting, nevertheless it is one of the most significant paintings by aguably the best romantic painter. I personally find it very inspiring. That's what makes art interesing - the different reactions people have to the same work. Witty lama 11:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I googled the image, and the colors vary- this particular color is too orange and the painting itself is boring. Cab02 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per jjron. -- moondigger 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Montauk Point Sunrise[edit]

The sun rising over the horizon at Montauk Point State Park

Updated! - new Picture from Different Camera, Same Day

A very early morning sunset that shows the sun just peeking over the horzion. I took a photo of this image when I went home for the weekend, and I released it into the Public Domain. The "trees" as you are not allowed to leave the visotrs "area". *sigh*

  • Nominate and support. - Bugs5382 11:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would prefer more saturation of the colours. A large, featureless black blob of land takes up most of the foreground. Somewhat blurry. This image is pretty, but not exceptional. --Pharaoh Hound 12:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too blurry and there are much better pics of sunrise. --Floyd the mule 12:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Note this is Floyd the mules only edit on wikipedia--Childzy talk contribs 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for blur, superior pics, and style (the sun and the light beams making up the rise are only a small piece of this photo). Staxringold talkcontribs 13:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reasons above. Cab02 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I ahve re-uploaded a new version from my D-60. the other one was from my friend's camera, that I took it from. Couldn't find my photos until just now... :) Bugs5382 13:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all oppose Childzy talk contribs 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC
  • Oppose Not special enough for FP - Adrian Pingstone 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with above. There has gotta be better sunset photos than this! --Abdominator 01:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose WAY to generic. There are better pictures of sunrise, and it is way too blurry for FP material. Political Mind 02:31, July 12, 2006 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Sunsets require something extra-special to have any hope of being featured. This one looks like literally thousands of others I've seen. Not particularly encyclopedic, either. -- moondigger 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for reasons stated above (very common sunset, nothing extraordinary in pic). Thanks. AJ24 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Grand Central Station[edit]

Grand Central Terminal, one of the two busiest train stations in the country

A 4 segment panorama of the Grand Central Station Main Concourse in New York City. in my oppinion, an excellent shot of grand central station. appears in "New York City" and "Grand Central Terminal" article

  • Nominate and support. - Vircabutar 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • whoops, my bad. How do i withdraw the nomination without completely erasing it?

This is already a featured picture. See: Image:Grand Central test.jpg --Fir0002 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination removed, another version is already featured. This is partially my fault; when I promoted this image I forgot to replace the original with the promoted edit in all the articles. Raven4x4x 03:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cajun Sunrise[edit]

Cajun Sunrise, Albury Botanic Gardens
Edit 1
Edit 2

A great photo of a beautiful rose. Taken in the Albury Botanical Gardens in February 2006.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that not all of the petals are in focus so I am inclined to oppose, could you tell me if they are ment to be like that?? Still a nice photo --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, I tend to like a relatively shallow DOF --Fir0002 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support then Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Great composition. However the highlights on some of the petals are blown, and I would like a slightly larger DOF. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually they're not. See Image:Pink rose albury botanical gardens edit02.jpg which has had extreme shadow/highlight applied to demonstrate that there is plenty of detail there. --Fir0002 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Very well. However I am still opposing because of the small DOF. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned to Moondigger, I'm just wondering how exactly the DOF is affecting the encyclopaedic value of the pic. Is there a vital part of the flower for example blurred? I'm just not seeing how the DOF is spoiling the value of the pic. --Fir0002 12:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I just want to be able to see all of the petals clearly. I also find the blurred petal in the foreground a bit distracting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suppport Blurry ALL over (or my eyes need servicing!) Since Fir0002 is a very respected photographer on WP, is such an overall blur likely? - Adrian Pingstone 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you looked at it in full res? Mediawiki has a bad habit of losing sharpness when it resizes the image. --Fir0002 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded a sharpened version anyway --Fir0002 22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Much better sharpness on the sharpened one (surprise, surprise! so now I support - Adrian Pingstone 10:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Background is very noisy, and there's a small creature (an aphid?) on one of the petals at the front left. It's a good photo, though I can't say I find this particular rose particularly attractive - don't like the pale petals with dark rims much. Both the original and to a greater extent, the edit, have major, show-stopping JPEG artefacts in the dark background towards the right hand side. Is my monitor just too bright? They look really awful to me. Stevage 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally can't see anything in the shadows, but I've uploaded an edit in which I've "fixed" the problem by clipping the black highlights. Tell me if that helps. --Fir0002 12:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting - I'm at work now, on an LCD screen and a different version of FireFox. Can't see the original JPEG artefacts. Will check at home again. Stevage 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose To blurry for my taste (the edit is a HUGE improvement though).Nnfolz 23:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, at home, the second edit is much better. Stevage 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit Your FPCs always seem to get massive amounts of rather minute scrutiny.. I don't know what "blown highlights" there are, white parts of a flower are going to look white. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment That's probably 'cuz he already set the standard so high, not abad thing IMO.Nnfolz 04:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Staxringold, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who'd noticed that. And I dont follow your logic Nnfolz, as I can't see why an otherwise featurable image should be opposed because it is "not one of your [the photographer's] best". AFAIK that's not a criteria to judge FPC on. Not to mention the fact that it has the net result of disheartening the photographer. --Fir0002 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! Hold it there, I meant that as a compliment. The reason for my oppose is not that it isn't your best work. It's just that I agree with Pharaoh Hound (talk) and i too would like to see all the petals clearly.Nnfolz 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Joe I 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A nice artsy image, but I think it would have more encyclopedic value if it had more DOF. Also, there's a difference between "white" and "blown." (Blown highlights contain no image data, or image data in only one or two of the three color channels. There is no separation between two of the petals near the center of the blossom.) This is one of the more attractive images on the Rose article, but doesn't quite make it over the featured picture 'hump' for me. -- moondigger 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity/interest to improve, in what way would a deeper DOF have improved the encyclopaedic value? Like is there anything missing as it is? Not sure what you mean by "There is no separation between two of the petals near the center of the blossom". Also, if you look at the histogram, it's actually pretty good (see [[:Image:Pink rose albury botanical gardens edit blown.jpg|this) Also "white" areas are not blown, but are just that, white. See Image:Pink rose albury botanical gardens edit02.jpg which has had extreme shadow/highlight applied to demonstrate that there is plenty of detail there. --Fir0002 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Fir, don't be disheartened. Besides having more FPs than anybody else here, I'd dare say your images that aren't featured are better than many that are. I believe that good images can be valuable to articles without having that small something extra that makes them FP material.
That said, let me address the specific questions you asked me. An image that shows the entire subject sharp (deep DOF and correct focus) is more encyclopedic than one of the same subject with shallow DOF, simply because the entire subject is sharp. That doesn't mean it's more aesthetically pleasing; many flowers look more attractive if part is in focus and part is slightly soft, outside the DOF. However, information/detail is lost in those areas, making it slightly less useful as a reference in an encyclopedia than one that shows all parts of the subject sharp.
Near the center of the flower two petals seem to be melded into one due to both being (nearly) blown out; there's no (or very little) separation between them. Blown areas need not have a 255,255,255 value; they can technically be "blown" if one or more color channels are now or previously were at 255 prior to being darkened later. It looks like that happened to a few small places in this image. If I'm wrong and that didn't happen, it is nonetheless the case that certain areas look that way to me. In any case don't take my comments too harshly; I'm kind of a stickler and I don't think I'm any harsher when evaluating your images than anybody else's. Besides, mine is only one vote. -- moondigger 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose nice rose but the DOF/focus issue is distracting and unnatural looking. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I support edit 2. Cab02 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This definetly has a "wow" factor. --Abdominator 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above-- 20:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty, but just another flower picture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with literally millons of diverse subjects. I'd rather have FPs represent that veriety than feature countless coffee-table-book illustrations of flowers, sunsets and clouds. --Dschwen 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that diversity of FPCs is to be encouraged (although the current selection is doing pretty well on that account) but with 250,000+ species of flowering plants and unknown millions of subspecies and cultivated varieties, Wikipedia has a big task ahead to document even a fraction of these, and photographers who help with this effort should be encouraged, whilst of course having their photos subject to constructive criticism like everything at Wikipedia . This picture, beyond being "just another flower picture" has particular encyclopedic value because the name of the plant cultivar is identified and its location, within a recognised and publicly accessible botanic collection (i.e. Albury Botanic Gardens) is also identified. One small improvement to its value would be to add the date it was taken to the summary on the image page.--Melburnian 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Melburnian, that's pretty poor reasoning Dschwen. I mean simply because it falls into the category of so called "coffee table illustrations" does not make it illegible for FP status. "Just another flower picture", try at least come close to objective criticism. Also, AFAIK there is no limit to the number of FP's wikipedia can sustain. --Fir0002 07:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Again you bring up that pointless no-limit argument (understandable, if your sole goal is to get as many self noms as possible featured). Pointless since nowhere I want to impose a limit on FPs, I just want the crossection of FPs be as diverse as the encyclopedia itself. FPs will reflect back on Wikipedia, and if people only stumble across pictures of sunsets, clouds and flowers what impression will that leave? --Dschwen 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What's with the "again"!? It's the first time I've mentioned it. And lets examine WP:WFP?, hmm? Be of high quality, be of a high resolution, be Wikipedia's best work, have a free license, add value to an article, be accurate, be pleasing to the eye, have a good caption, neutral. What?! No "must-be-the-only-FP-of-this-subject"?! No "must-not-be-coffeetable-style-subject"?! Can't be! Whoops, Dschwen, I think you've made a mistake! If you want to make personal attacks like "your sole goal is to get as many self noms as possible featured" either restrain yourself or do it on my talk page. Stick to actually analyzing the image on FPC. FYI, my personal goal is not to get as many self noms featured as possible, it's to provide half decent images to the project and actually do something constructive. --Fir0002 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm no rose expert but I was wondering about the identification of "Cajun Sunrise". Doing a brief search of the internet on Google's "pages from Australia" "Cajun Sunrise" gets only 1 hit (a hibiscus) [7] and I can't find it on Australian rose growers websites. On U.S websites it is described as similar to the cultivar Peace [8], a rose cultivar which is common in Australia. Do you have a positive ID from the gardens or elsewhere?--Melburnian 10:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I was going to say that it looked very similar to Peace, a Hybrid Tea variety. -- Marumari 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Baths, Virgin Gorda[edit]

File:Virgin Gorda12.jpg
The Baths, Virgin Gorda

Excellent shot portraying the stunning beaches found on Virgin Gorda in the Caribbean; found under Virgin Gorda, taken by Henry A-W.

  • Nominate and support. - Henry aw 06:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose IMO there is nothing really especial about this pic. To me it doesn't ilustrate the subject clearly (the beach) as the rocks ocupy the mayority of the space in the picture. If you could manage to identify whatever type of rock is ilustrated in the picture and uploaded the picture into that article i would totally support, but a beach subject... Nnfolz 08:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlights, poor subject matter. --Fir0002 09:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Gorda: "the beach shows evidence of the island's volcanic origins, as huge granite boulders lie in piles on the beach, forming scenic grottoes that are open to the sea."

  • Oppose not really focusing on anything and not big enough, if it was the same size and picked out a point it would be good or if it was much larger and saw all points but as it is its just bland --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful! Cab02 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pretty beach, but it's the wrong angle for the time of day. —Keenan Pepper 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find the sky too washed out and the rocks too dark (but nice pic all the same, just not FPC standard) - Adrian Pingstone 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all oppose --Nebular110 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks like somebody just dropped a nuclear bomb somewhere off the edge of the image. -- Marumari 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sidi Saiyyad Ni Jaali [edit]

Taken from peer review,Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Sidi_Saiyyad_Ni_Jaali.

Sidi Saiyyad Ni Jaali.jpg

Taken from that page: I (L1CENSET0K1LL ) took this photograph on December 2005 of the Sidi Saiyaad Ni Jaali at Sidi Saiyaad masjid in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. It appears in the English Wikipedia for Ahmedabad as well as the Gujarati Wikipedia for Sidi Saiyyad Ni Jaali and Ahmedabad. I would like to eventually nominate it for featured image of the day and seek your input before doing so.

  • Nominate and support. - Ravedave 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, amazing detail! —Keenan Pepper 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Not much to say here.Nnfolz 08:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice detail etc, but to me it's just a fancy wall - not FP worthy IMO--Fir0002 09:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A clear FP. Witty lama 10:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amazing pic but it is not sharp enough quality, if you compare it to one of Fir0002's FP then you will see its blurry in comparrison. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful picture, and I think the very large version is fine on focus - Adrian Pingstone 10:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK doesnt = FP, focusing needs to be perfect. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 09:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Slightly out of focus. Purple/blue fringing upper right. Distracting object behind designwork at lower left. -- moondigger 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reasons above. Cab02 15:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I reaaaally like it. Renata 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. --Abdominator 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the end, it's a pretty average photo of a nice carving. Being able to see some background in the lower part of the image is distracting. The lighting isn't great - too harsh. I'm sure someone could take a much nicer photo of this same artwork, maybe in the evening, from a slightly different angle, and get a nicer result. So I'm opposing as I would a bad quality scan of a great painting. Stevage 08:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An unimpressive photo of a really cool subject. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support we need more encyclopedic photos and less pretty pictures -- Samir धर्म 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose --Vircabutar 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - chopped off top pattern is annoying.--Deglr6328 01:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Horseshoe Canyon pictograph[edit]

This portion of the Great Gallery, found in Horseshoe Canyon, is an example of a Fremont pictograph (painted rock art). The full panel is 200 feet long and 15 feet high, and the paintings are life-sized human figures. The largest figure pictured is about 7 feet tall.
Edit 1
Edit 2 (Moondigger) - color, contrast adjusted, plus sharpened

Taken from peer review,Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Great_Gallery

This is the text from that page:

I (Zaui)took this picture, it appears in Pictogram, Fremont culture and Horseshoe Canyon. I think it's a pretty good detail of the gallery and a good example of a Fremont pictogram.

  • Nominate and support. - Ravedave 03:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I do realize that it does ilustrate the subject clearly, but I find it rather boring.Nnfolz 08:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Nnfolz --Fir0002 09:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Does opinion count on FPC??? (per above) The photo is large, high quality and historical. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either Edit 1 or Edit 2, but prefer Edit 2. -- moondigger 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Striking, unusual, fascinating. It makes me want these hues in my life more often. Morganfitzp 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. High resolution/quality and historical background. However, image is not uncommon or extraordinary. I am sure there are much more elaborate pictographs than these. But if it must be added to FP, Edit 2 would be best choice. Thanks. AJ24 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support for edit 2.Stevage 08:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose in my oppinion, there's nothing special about this image--Vircabutar 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support It would be great if there was some kind of object in the image for scale so people would be able to easily visualize just how big these paintings really are. --Nebular110 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Van Gogh's Starry Night[edit]

Van Gogh's Starry Night
Edit 1, by Fir0002

This is the highest resolution of any Van Gogh's photograph-paintings I have ever seen. It beautifully captures the impastos (well, almost)

  • Nominate and support original. - Vircabutar 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support really great resolution, really close shot. --bdude Talk 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Cribananda 06:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wow! Nnfolz 08:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My edit. This is a good rendition of a painting I'd hang on my wall --Fir0002 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Joe I 09:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this is the sort of stuff we need on the main page, not crappy clipart pirates :-) Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent representation of a very famous painting. I wish it was bigger (even if it's above the guidelines), but it seems like I say that about almost every nom. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Reasons above. Cab02 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Perfect. Pleasing to the eye, encyclopedic, high resolution, high quality, in good standing copyright position... Chancellor Alt 03:29, April 23, 2019 (UTC).
  • Oppose. I love the painting but the color balance of this photo appears to be quite a bit off. Somebody with a gray card and the knowledge to use it properly should take a new image if possible. -- moondigger 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment There are a wide variety of images of this painting on the internet, but I think this one [9] is closest to reality in terms of color balance. Many images of this painting have the color balance completely wrong, either because they don't know how to manually set white balance or because the images were shot on film in mixed lighting. -- moondigger 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per moondigger. I felt like something was off with the colors before I read his not, and comparing the linked version, it's clear that this version is way too red.--ragesoss 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The image that moondiger provided [10] was very blurry and rather un-clear ( i don't understand this "red" thing that you guys were talking about). The nominated image is so much better; it's clearer and it's high in resolution.--Popcorn0189 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Popcorn0189 is a new user, has only two edits, both to this page, and no talk or userpages. Editing structure/pattern identical to Thomasgre231 further down the page, in that he voted and forgot to leave his signature, and immediately edited the page again to leave his signature. —Vanderdecken ξφ 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting that image as a better choice. I'm referencing it to show what the color balance should be. This one is way off, from what I can tell, and I think it would be embarrassing to those of us who vote on FPC and to Wikipedia in general if one of the most famous works of art in the world showed up on the main page or had a "featured" tag looking like that. When Ragesoss says the image is too red, he doesn't mean that the image looks red; he means the color balance has too much red in the mix, making the blues look purple. This is not uncommon when shooting in incandescent light without properly setting white balance. This is not something that can be fixed satisfactorily using regular Photoshop tools, since moving the hue slider causes the moon (and other yellows in the image) to change too much w/r/t the blues. Adjusting it other ways yields other problems. For this image to look right, it should be re-shot by somebody with cross-polarized flashes or in ambient light with properly-set white balance. For the time being, I'd ask that those who supported it reconsider your votes, given the problems with color balance. Obviously it's your choice, but I really think it would reflect badly on us to present such a famous work of art with the color balance so far off. The colors Van Gogh picked were carefully chosen; Wikipedia should present it as accurately as possible. -- moondigger 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I've uploaded an edit which I feel has addressed the color balance issue.--Fir0002 23:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Moondigger. I like Van Gogh as much as the next guy, and this is one of his best, but personally I don't like this nominating of great artworks as FPs, regardless of how well the pic/scan is captured. --jjron 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I could have painted that. No, seriously, as per Moondigger. Stevage 09:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Moondigger. Certainly seems to have a red balance issue making it not a good representation of the painting. This is obvious in that all of the greenery is displayed as brownery --Peripitus (Talk) 12:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • support beautiful depiction. image is perfectly fine--Thomasgre231 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Thomasgre231 is a new user, has only two edits, both to this Van Gogh FPC page, has no talk or user pages. Editing structure/pattern identical to Popcorn0189 further up the page, in that he voted and forgot to leave his signature, and immediately edited the page again to leave his signature. —Vanderdecken ξφ 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose original nom, Symbol support vote.png Support Fir0002's edit. —Vanderdecken ξφ 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, colors are off. I fear supporting fir's edit. How do we know those colors are right? I've seen good reproductions, though, and fir's is much closer (so weak oppose that one). BrokenSegue 16:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem with images of paintings is that the paint itself is three-dimensional, especially in the case of Van Gogh's work. Anyone who has seen Mulberry Tree knows what I'm talking about. Furthermore, no reproduction can capture what is essentially the interplay between the pigments and illumination sources. There are ways of getting close, and if we are to accept any paintings as FP, we have to be willing to accept limitations in capturing what are essentially blobs of paint. If you look at this image [11], open it in Photoshop, and correct for the pink-yellow cast, you will find that the result is actually somewhere in between what was originally submitted and the subsequent edit. On the basis of the corrected linked photograph (because it is shot in context), I am more inclined to support the original rather than the edit. --Wickerprints 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not inclined to support either, though Fir's edit looks closer to reality to me. That this painting is usually displayed under artificial light does not sway me; I'd prefer an edit that shows what it would look like by window light or daylight, which is (probably) the kind of light Van Gogh used while painting it. That's why I'm wishing for an image shot with cross-polarized flashes (to simulate daylight) or with white balance set by a gray card. -- moondigger 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This raises some questions you have not addressed. First, have you seen the painting in person? Even if you have, how do you know your color perception is the same as other people's? How could you anticipate what it would look like under natural lighting? How can you assume Van Gogh intended this work to be viewed in window light or daylight? Did you do your own corrections on the snapshot I linked to? Why be so strict about the question of precise color accuracy--to the point of disallowing FP status to a good capture--when there already exist significant deviations in all manner of printed reproductions? Have you Googled for various reproductions online? Personally, from all the images I have been able to find in various art anthologies and online, I must insist that the edit is far too cyan, and that in fact it is the original image that is the closer (but yet not precise) color match to the original. After all, how do you know that the original image was not in fact taken under the conditions you described, and that the other variants are in fact wrong? By no means am I suggesting the image should be given a free pass; indeed, I have not yet come to a decision about it. But I find that the issue of its color accuracy is not being treated objectively. -Wickerprints 03:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Answers to your questions. No, I haven't seen it in person. But the wide variety of reproductions I have seen in print (in my college art history book, for example) reproduce it with the sky in various blue hues, not purple. Your question about color perception is a philosophical one that has no bearing on this discussion... it's entirely possible that you perceive "blue" differently than I do, and that we both perceive it differently than a third person. That is irrelevant. Color perception is a subjective thing; color balance is not. Colors (paint, crayon, whatever) are defined by the wavelength of light they reflect when displayed in 'white' light. That's why a gray card would be useful here; because it is equal parts RGB, light reflected from it should be equal parts RGB. In white light, that happens. In artificial light, the reflections might be too yellow, red, green, etc. So you use the gray card as a reference for neutrality, eliminating (as much as is possible) an off-color cast. The gray card should appear gray in the image. If it does, then you know the color balance is correct. I assume Van Gogh intended it to be viewed in daylight because he didn't paint it in artificial light. There were no fluorescent or incandescent lights in common use in 1889. Most paintings were painted by windowlight or in daylight in the late 1800s, even night scenes. It is possible that he painted it by oil lamp light or firelight, though I have never seen any reference to such a claim (which would be required to accept anything other than the default). I did do my own corrections on the image you linked to, and depending on what particular tiny area I assume should be neutral, the supposed "neutral" color balance varies widely. Unless you can point me to a gray card hidden in the image somewhere, you can't assume that any particular area is a reliable neutral reference point. We should be strict about color accuracy for paintings because color is such an important aspect of those paintings. Frankly, I don't consider any capture, however good from a resolution and sharpness POV it may be, to be a "good capture" unless it presents accurate color. Your claim that printed reproductions vary widely in color balance is not born out by the printed reproductions I have seen in reference books, though there is indeed a wide variety in online reproductions. This is not surprising, given the widespread misunderstanding and/or misuse of white balance tools by the vast majority of the snapshooting public, and even some professional photographers I have met. Photographers who have the job of photographing works of art for reproductions in reference books must understand lighting, color, and white balance or they don't get the work. To address your last statement - the implication that I'm not treating the question of color balance objectively - all I can do is insist that I am. As I stated previously, I am unlikely to support any particular version of the image unless I have some objective assurance that the color balance is correct. I'm advocating standard methods of accurate color reproduction -- cross-polarized flashes, gray cards, etc. -- moondigger 14:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Well just tell me what picture you want to reference your color balance from. I based my image off Moondigger's original link--Fir0002 06:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Just a quick comment, Fir. The sky in your edit looks closer to what I remember, but I have no assurance that it's correct. As I indicated previously, the color balance can't easily be adjusted using normal Photoshop tools. Or rather, it can -- but doing so means picking what areas you want to be accurate and what areas won't be. Notice that in the first version the moon demonstrates good contrast with the moonglow that surrounds it. In Edit 1, the moon contrasts less with the surrounding moonglow. This is because when you adjusted the color balance to make the sky less purple, the relationships of the other colors (yellows, oranges) change w/r/t each other and the blues. See also the relationship of the stars to the surrounding sky; it changes somewhat depending on the color balance. It's these kinds of uncertainties, plus an inability to find an online version of the image with confirmed-correct color balance for comparison, that makes me want to wait until somebody can photograph it with proper lighting and white balance. -- moondigger 19:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Acutally the moon stars etc contrast are no problem at all. I purposeless reduced the contrast to simulate the version you should me. Just choose a reference photo that you like and I'll edit it to look like that. Photoshop is plenty powerfull enough (if you know how to use it) to handle color balance issues. --Fir0002 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Oh and on another point, moondigger, do you konw how to use a gray card properly? Because what I'm gathering from what you wrote above is that you use the gray card as a reference which you can visualy see if it is "gray" if the wihte balance is correct. That's not how it works at all. Here's how to do it: take a photo of a gray card in the scene you are photographing (make sure you are shooting in RAW). Take the shot of the scene. Load up your RAW image processor - in this example I'm using DPP. Selected your gray card image and the image you want white balanced. Choose the "click white balance tool". Click on the gray card, and this will adjust the white balance on all selected images. --Fir0002 07:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Yes, I know how to use a gray card. The gray card is a neutral reference point. If it isn't gray (i.e., if it doesn't have equal RGB values in the image) then the white balance is not correct. When you 'click the gray card' using the 'click white balance tool,' you're telling the software that this particular spot in the image should have equal values for Red, Green, and Blue. i.e., you're telling the software that this is a neutral reference point. The software then adjusts the color balance to give that particular spot you clicked equal RGB values, and all the other values in the image are adjusted accordingly to correct the white balance. That same adjustment can then be applied to other images shot in the same lighting without a gray card in the frame. -- moondigger 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. --Abdominator 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. I assume thats the correct colour Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Here is the painting's image from the MoMA website(and it seems to me that the original nominated picture is a better representation of the painting).MoMA's Starry Night. Edit one seems very artificial. No other photograph of van gogh's painting, in my oppinion, have captured his impastos as beautifully as this image--Vircabutar 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The MoMA image seems to be between the original and Fir's edit in terms of color balance. No guarantees that it's accurate, but I'd trust it more than most online sources. I wish I lived closer to NYC... I'd check it out for myself. -- moondigger 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I am visiting NYC in mid-August. If I can, I will view the painting in person and take a gray card shot. But even so, this doesn't address the concerns about light source. --Wickerprints 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Do you guys even know how a gray card works? See my comments above. You can take a photo under any light source and get a proper white balance that way. --Fir0002 07:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually this would only be true if the gamut of your camera was unlimited, try whitebalancing candlelight shots and you see what I mean... --Dschwen 20:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
            • And it only works with lightsources emitting roughly a black-body spectrum. Anyway there probably is a reason why high quality art reproductions cost a fortune... --Dschwen 20:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Fir, I've been using gray cards for the past 20 years, with film and digital. I know how they work, and never said there would be a problem with light source. -- moondigger 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I had also seen the MoMA image. One thing that immediately struck me was that the FP submission is noticeably more saturated. But in any case, I still maintain that the edit is too cyan. But the only way I'm ever going to know for sure is if I see the original painting with my own two eyes. --Wickerprints 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I have seen the one at MoMA, but I don't think I can be of much help with my colour-blindness, sorry :-( - Cribananda 05:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • We have a good (poster) reproduction of it in our living room, which looks much more "3D" than either of these images. In any case, the original image looks way too purple, and the edit 1 looks a bit too teal to me. Our poster looks like a neutral blue, much less saturated than Edit 1. --Marumari 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, I suppose. I really wouldn't know what is proper not having seen the original in many years. Maybe someone could make gray card if that's warranted or at least explain a little. gren グレン 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we're going to worry about colour, then from this and various reprints I've seen, neither version looks right. At the end of the day, it depends on your monitor, which is likely not calibrated. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Regardless of the color, someone needs to fix the tilt. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Castel Sant'Angelo[edit]

Castel Sant'Angelo

Castel Sant'Angelo as pictured from Ponte Vittorio (Vittorio Bridge), Rome,Italy.

  • Nominate and support. - Vieux Lyon 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't like the positioning- but if you cropped it, it would be too small. Cab02 00:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find it somewhat blurry at full res. Also don't like the huge shadow in the left side of the pic.Nnfolz 07:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this photo does not fully capture the subject. A panorama I feel would have been a huge improvement. --Fir0002 09:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurred Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Leaning slightly to the right? - Adrian Pingstone 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have this problem all the time when trying to take similar subject in France or nearby. Lovely bridge, lovely river, nice historical building nearby - totally ruined by pig-ugly bike path and neglected riverfront. It's also an uncomfortable composition - why do we have half the bridge? Is this a photo of the castle or of the bike path? Why is the absolute dead centre of the image a piece of ugly graffiti on a dirty wall? :) Stevage 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Beyond excellent background (picturesque historical setting and thunderstorms gathering in the far right). Foreground is darker, yes, but effect adds serenity. Eyes drawn to background not foreground. Perfect photo resolution, large size, and bright background from the setting Sun... the image should be reanalyzed. And concerning the grafiti near the centre of the photograph, most of Europe has the uncontrollable problem of grafiti on or near historical locations, ex. Eiffel Tower, Reichstag, Wawel Cathedral, et al. Note: this would not be the first photo added to the featured list with a dark or murky foreground. Thanks. AJ24 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose per Stevage--Vircabutar 20:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mount Bromo[edit]

Mount Bromo and the Tengger Caldera.
Edit 1 by Fir0002

Taken by User:Ravn for the Mount Bromo article. Looks surreal: at first I thought it was a painting. Cropping might improve it, but I like it the way it is.

  • I support this one, nice shot! // Vieux Lyon 23:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Cropping would be necessary to remove the tree top (or whatever it is) which can be seen on the lower left corner of the picture. -Glaurung 05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Support Edit: 1 Edit 1 to me looks so much better.Nnfolz 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As per request, here's an edit. Not sure on my vote yet however --Fir0002 09:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose just doesnt look right its grainy and stuff Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice shot, a little too grainy. --Oldak Quill 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support I like it, but something seems strange about it...Cab02 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support Excellent subject matter but I don't really feel drawn into the image hence the weak support. --Newton2 22:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel drawn in. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, based on technical considerations. Fir0002's edit demonstrates improved contrast, eliminates some of the boring sky and the distracting object (tree top?) in the left foreground. I'd be tempted to do an even more severe crop, eliminating more of the sky but leaving as much of the foreground as possible. However the high level of noise (everywhere but the sky) is very distracting at full resolution. This one would have benefited by 'exposing to the right.' -- moondigger 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think I see what you mean. The We don't have an article on exposing to the right. Is there an existing article to which it should redirect or should I start a new one? —Keenan Pepper 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Keenan, if you want to put together an article that covers the basics, I would be willing to do some editing on it as time permits. Exposing to the right can help minimize noise in shadow areas, and profers other benefits as well. The following link covers the basics: [12] The next link talks about one of the pitfalls of overzealous use of "expose to the right," and how to minimize the damage. [13]. -- moondigger 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Haziness in background makes the latter volcano appear to be added into the photo or not actually in the original photo (awkward). The fog or cloud cover diminishes the photographic impact and does not seem fit to be admitted into FP. Note: Volcano background is interesting and formidable, but the plain sky, haziness of the fog/cloud cover, and the overall blur, outweighs my reasons to support. Thanks. AJ24 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either. Captivating image. Preference for Edit 1. --jjron 06:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. There's just too much noise, especially on the front mountain. enochlau (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support preference for original. The thumbnail really does not do this picture justice. If you view the high res image it's just amazing. --Nebular110 22:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stockholm, Sverige[edit]

Stockholm Port

Stockholm is the capital of Sweden, located on the south east coast of Sweden. Stockholm is reputed for its natural beauty, owing to its location at the mouth of lake Mälaren and its adjacent Stockholm archipelago. The ancient origin is also evident; the city has politically and economically essentially been Sweden's most significant city since the 13th century.

  • Nominate and support. - Condor Patagónico 19:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not in an article (a requirement for featured pictures), and rather generic looking. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Generic image (i.e. nothing special), low resolution, not in an article, bad filename (generic Canon filename), user's only edits are on FPC and the image in question. Sweden has only two E's. —Vanderdecken ξφ 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - I've already added the picture to the Stockholm article and changed it's filename. // Condor Patagónico 19:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Leaning to the right, especially on the right hand side of the picture - Adrian Pingstone 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Boring, and the boat on the right is cut off. Cab02 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is this a Tourist snap-shot? Nnfolz 08:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite a nice shot, but a bit low on res and the boat is cut off --Fir0002 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actias luna caterpillar[edit]

3rd instar of American Moon Moth (Luna moth)

Author: --Kugamazog 14:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Article: Actias luna

Reasons for nomination: I think this image shows quite clearly all the morphological characteristics of moth caterpillars and is in focus rather well.

  • Nominate and support. - Kugamazog 14:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Distracting upper edge (can of course be cropped out), but I would prefer a head shot instead of the tail end... --Janke | Talk 15:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The white spot is distracting. Cab02 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, the over-exposed white spoils the pic for me - Adrian Pingstone 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 16:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Janke. Also, blown white area. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much overexposure! Marumari 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Distracting background. If that were fixed, I might change to support. Viva La Vie Boheme 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Lyapunov fractal[edit]

Generalized Lyapunov fractal for the sequence BBBBBBAAAAAA, with growth parameter range (a,b) in [3.4, 4] x [2.5, 3.4], generated with Mathematica 5.
Recomputation with a C program by Bernard. Downsampled from 9000x6000 to 3000x2000.

Author: --Wickerprints 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Article: lyapunov_fractal

Reason for nomination: I feel that this image is a particularly good example of this type of fractal, and has aesthetic as well as technical merits.

  • Nominate and support. - Wickerprints 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting...Cab02 13:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Are all those little black dots along the light ridges part of the fractal, or are they artifacts of the rendering process? —Keenan Pepper 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer Some small black regions are rendering artifacts due to the fact that the associated logistic map corresponding to those pairs of values are right on the boundary between order and chaos. With greatly increased precision (and computing time), some of those dots will go away, but in practice it isn't possible to remove them all by further computation, unless you have an infinite amount of time to compute the iterates. I could Photoshop out the more obvious ones, but this raises the question of whether you're really seeing the result of the computation. --Wickerprints 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So they correspond to real features of the fractal? In that case, I support. —Keenan Pepper 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you give the source of the Mathematica program (perhaps in the image page), or at least the precise settings for the number of iterations and the generation of colors? Thanks. --Bernard 22:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    Answer Done. Does anyone with a really fast computer want to change the "200" to a "2000" and recompute the image? Or does anyone with more Mathematica experience want to optimize the code? It'll take a few days to compute as it is written. --Wickerprints 21:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. enochlau (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Flashback Support Joe I 16:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are thousands of beautiful fractals out there and even powerful fractal screensavers (cf. Electric Sheep). In order to be featured, a fractal should possess extraordinary aesthetic qualities -- which is, of course, very much a matter of personal taste. This one does not appeal to me at all. While it may represent the type of fractal well, neither the choice of colors (blue/yellow) nor the structures shown (particular in the upper center) seem particularly visually impressive to me.--Eloquence* 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your argument, if it simply amounts to personal taste, or that many other fractals are beautiful, can't be rebutted; yet it isn't, in my opinion, sufficient. Why is the Mandelbrot set a FP? It's (1) a canonical image and (2) has illustrative merit. If we're to say that "thousands of fractals are beautiful," then none of them would be allowed FP status, because there will always be a "more beautiful" fractal out there. Indeed, there are only 3 mathematical images that have been given FP status, two of which are related to the M-set. It's like saying, "millions of other photographs are more beautiful," and as a result, none of them are exceptional. The argument for opposition, it seems to me, seems to reflect a lack of understanding of the significance of this type of fractal, which demonstrates that the set of parameter values of a driven logistic map that lead to chaotic behavior is itself fractal. This is not merely another "pretty picture" with some creative coloring scheme; it conveys real information about an important aspect of chaos theory. --Wickerprints 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Possibly. For me, personally, it does not meet Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? criterion 7. Certainly, one can always argue "it could be prettier"; however, any picture should at least cross a certain threshold of beauty. This one does not cross mine and I'm certain that the same information could be conveyed in a way which does. YMMV.--Eloquence* 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Eloquence. I could imagine this being on the main page as an 'invitation' to check out an article on fractals. However, there are many images I could imagine doing that, some (perhaps) a better introduction than this one. -- moondigger 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Aesthetic value, as well as significance explained by Wickerprints. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-16 21:09
  • Support per above--Vircabutar 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here
  • Support Wikid! So often fractals use dodgy color schemes. This one looks good. --Abdominator 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support my edit. Recomputation with a C program. I tried to keep the same colors; I notice they are a little different but I could fix that. Downsampled from a 9000x6000 image to 3000x2000, still 4 times bigger than previous one (has the file become too big?). Also I increased to 10000x12 iterations maximum (compared to 200x12), but I have optimizations to stop before most of the time. I kind of like the colors of Wickerprints, but something like in this page might be more impressive. I particularly like the second, where the color transition between order and chaos is smooth, and the picture looks like a landscape. Maybe we could adapt this, I'm not sure. --Bernard 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support edit Wow, nice job! You and I need to have a discussion about how you did that. Truly, I would like to know as much as possible about how you implemented this image. I know Mathematica isn't the fastest way to do this, but you totally blew me away with your version! Regarding your comment about the color palette, I chose a sharp boundary because it reveals the fine details in the structure, and this is qualitatively important. But you're more than welcome to select alternative color schemes. --Wickerprints 05:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I more or less fixed the color difference problem. It was a sad story of PNG gamma correction. I don't know if it is the best solution, but I just modified the gamma value in my file to match the value in Wickerprint's file. --Bernard 07:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Eloquence. Dionyseus 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While interesting, not exceptional. Are there better specimens? AJ24 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, I'm using this one as my new desktop background. Does anyone else see an old sailing ship on the right engaged in a arrow battle with another one on the left, which is mostly obscured by the waves crashing around them, or is my imagination too wild? And kudos on the colour scheme, per Abdominator. --Aramգուտանգ 08:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the second version (the C program is a nice bonus) BrokenSegue 17:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - While it is cool-looking, I've done a lot of fractal work, and this one doesn't especially stand out. --Cyde↔Weys 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This image is not iconic for Lyapunov fractals in the same way that the "bug" pic is for the Mandelbrot set. Aside from that, it's not particularly compelling compared to any of the 10 bazillion other large "pretty" fractals that one can generate quite handily. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jon Fishman[edit]

This is a picture of the drummer from Phish, John Fishman. I like this picture, I think it looks great and would be a good edition to the feature pictures.

  • Nominate and support. - AFL45 10:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Invalid nomination due to license. enochlau (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Not only does it have an invalid license, but it doesn't meet most of the FPC requirements. --Marumari 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. --Golbez 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Per Marumari. Viva La Vie Boheme 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed - invalid license. Raven4x4x 06:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Legionaries[edit]

Legio III Cyrenaica of New England (United States) in a 1st century A.D. portrayal of a legion. Photo taken by user Caliga10's wife.
Edit 1 by Fir0002. Sharpened, contrast/color adjustments

My wife took this photo so yes, it's a self-nom, but I think it's pretty darn good. It's both pleasing to the eye and educational, as it's a group of re-enactors in accurate period garb.

  • Nominate and support. - Caliga10 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I like the image. I wonder if you have another where we can see the full outfit.Nnfolz 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have many more I can upload, yes.--Caliga10 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Nice image, but there are significant problems... The foremost being that the crest on the soldier's shield is an image "cut off" (see FPC). Another being that the image does not show the entirety of the main subject, the soldier. Also, soldier on the far right (partial view) is also a textbook case of image cut off, and the steel-topped building to the far left is also in the frame... Again, very nice image and Im betting the reenactment has an enormous historical background, but not suitable for FP status. Thanks. AJ24 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good colors, focus. Unfortunate that a single entire soldier is not shown but partial soldiers at edges are to be expected to illustrate close order formation. Also there is no steel topped building in the photo. Rmhermen 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. sorry about that, soldier's armor looked like dome of building, it looks more like a white tent really. AJ24 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's the edge of another legionary. In fact, I have another photo shot at a wider angle in which he is visible in his entirety.--Caliga10 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The image quality is excellent, its just the subject. If you had another photo showing more or a complete photo of the reenactment with the same quality, im sure it would make FP status. -- AJ24 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a pic of a entire soldier would be better Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Childzy. Would support version showing the whole soldier. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Take a look at this photo:

This was taken at the same event but shows the entire rightmost legionary, in an (almost, sans legs) full body shot. Do people think this is a nicer photo? I preferred the one I originally posted, personally.--Caliga10 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally I want to see as much of the soldier as possible, thus I prefer your first version. As I said, I would support one showing the whole soldier (including legs) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I do in fact have a full body shot (omitting just the caligae (sandals)) of one of the reenactors. The problem with that shot is that there are cars, power lines, and the like visible in the background and thus I feel it detracts from the immersion, and wouldn't even consider it a great photo for that reason unless I or someone else take the time to airbrush it.--Caliga10 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Most Wikipedians would probably say that such intense editing is undesireable. It's annoyingly hard to get really good photos at festivales and parades because of the crowds :(. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see the FPC example of a subject "cut-off". -- AJ24 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Edit 1. Personally I don't find the cut off too bad. A little extreme perhaps, but helps centre the focuse of the object. --Fir0002 07:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would probably support a version with both the left and right "half-soldiers" cut out. ie, you would see three main soldiers, and the head of the fourth. -- Marumari 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't exactly seem illustrative of real legionaires. I know it's impossible to get an actual photo, but the fact that it's modern day lacks any genuine-ness of "real" roman history. Also don't like so much the fact that it's only a few individual soldiers, rather than a whole group in formation, and the photograph itself doesn't strike me as anything special. -- 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Vircabutar 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They aren't real Roman. – Morganfitzp 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yellow mite[edit]

Yellow mite magnified 850x
Edit 1, by Fir0002. Sharpened/resized from original 70mb tiff

A striking, very high resolution, high detail scanning electron microscope image of a yellow mite, magnified about 850x.

  • Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. —Keenan Pepper 17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is actually in the public domain. Oftentimes, the original image would be, but the colorization would not be. Confirmation that this specific image is PD is needed before I could support. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone please clarify this. Can the colorization of an image be copyrighted while the image isn't?Nnfolz 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's PD. I've explained on the image page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-16 20:58
  • Support I will change my vote if it's found that the image doesn't meet the copyright criteria.Nnfolz 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Weak support Besides the copyright question Zarifoblue05 mentioned, it's unnecessarily large to no benefit. I support high-resolutions and large file sizes when it's merited, but this appears to have been an 1800 pixel-wide original upsampled to 3500 pixels, maybe to make it easier to provide the false yellow color. Once that was done it should have been downsampled back to 1800 pixels. I would support a downsampled version that comes in under 1 MB... if done correctly no detail would be lost and it would make for an easier download for those with slow connections. I will provide a downsampled version myself if the copyright concerns are addressed. -- moondigger 20:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And you are wrong. The original is a 73mb file, about 5000x5000 in size, that came from here. And of course it is public domain, as are the numerous other featured pictures from the exact same group within ARS-USDA. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-16 20:50
      • The full-resolution image (as well as this crop) display a certain softness that looks a lot like it was produced by upsampling/interpolation. I pulled the image into Photoshop, and one of my image analysis tools indicated it had been upsampled from an 1800 pixel-wide original. When I downsampled the image to 1800 pixels, it looked a lot better, no longer displaying that softness but without losing anything I could detect in the way of detail. The link you provided shows three versions of the mite, all already colored. How do you know they weren't upsampled from smaller originals prior to being colored and posted? I never said you did the upsampling.
        • You are wrong. I downloaded the 73mb file today. I resized it from 5000x5000 (or whatever the enormous resolution was), down to the current, final result. The reason it looks soft is because it's a high magnification SEM image; they all look like that to some degree; the higher the magnification, the softer the image. I don't know or care what you think you've found in your "image analysis tools", because it's wrong. The coloring was done by someone at the USDA (Chris Pooley), not someone on Wikipedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 00:03
          • Let's try again. How do you know it wasn't upsampled prior to being posted on the site you got it from? -- moondigger 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Because that would make no sense. The site I got it from is run by the USDA. Are you suggesting that they took an 1800 pixel image, and resized it to 5000 pixels, increasing the file size and necessary bandwidth by almost 100 times, and for what purpose? If they say that the ftp server hosts the high-res versions of their pictures, I'll trust that they're telling the truth, mostly because nothing else makes sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 00:19
              • I suggested a reason for upsampling in my first post: because it makes applying false color easier. Again, if that's how it came out of the SEM, then fine. The analysis tool I used is designed for satellite imagery. It might well be wrong. I still think the lack of single-pixel detail justifies the bandwidth savings that would be seen with a downsampled image. -- moondigger 00:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Regardless, even if it came out of the SEM that way, the softness/lack of single-pixel detail is still there. I'd suggest downsampling it to reduce download times... there really isn't any loss of detail that I can see. Glad to see the copyright concerns have been alleviated. Based on that, I've changed to weak support. I'd fully support a downsampled version.-- moondigger 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd rather keep it at high resolution, so that the image would be more usable for a future print version of Wikipedia. That is, after all, the main reason that we are requiring higher and higher resolution images on FPC and elsewhere. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 00:08
          • That's like saying "expensive food tastes better, so I'd rather pay $30 for this hamburger". If there's no extra detail in the extra resolution, there's no point keeping it big. But it's no major harm either. Stevage 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see anything wrong with it, unless the copyright issue is a problem. Cab02 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My complaint is only that it's unnecessarily large, and artificially so. A downsampled version could provide the same level of detail without the expense of long download times. I like the image overall, and will support a downsampled version if copyright questions are resolved. -- moondigger 20:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • See above. You are incorrect about it being artificially enlarged. It was downsampled from an even larger version, as I explained above. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-16 20:51
        • See my reply above. -- moondigger 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Vircabutar 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support That's insane level of detail! -- Abdominator 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Definitely bound for FP status. -- AJ24 13:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support scary --Nebular110 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's absolutely hideous!! (how many FPCs could you say that about in a "support" vote?!) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How about this one? :) Raven4x4x 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • hahahahahahahah! -- AJ24 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very nice image and definitely FP material. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Either, with preference for Edit 1. --Fir0002 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1.-- moondigger 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Either version is fine, as long as it isn't 70MB to download, yeesh. -- Marumari 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Samir धर्म 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's version, very nice. --Cyde↔Weys 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I usually hate the excessive editing that goes on around here to alter really minor points about an image, but this edit improved the focus a lot and the image itself is striking and illustrative. Major support from me. - Mgm|(talk) 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Daĉjoпочта 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I haven't seen such a valid nomination in a long time. Viva La Vie Boheme 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User has 8 edits outside user page.BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:59
      • Brian, just so you ought to know, I have been editing Wikipedia for a LONG time. You cannot judge from my edits. I did a lot of work under just my IP, and I had a user name a long time ago, however, I forgot the password. I recently picked up three years later, and I just recently created an account. So stop judging me! 10 edits or 10000 edits, my opinion is valid. I also had two successful FP's on the old account. Viva La Vie Boheme 21:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 02:50
  • Support, either image.--ragesoss 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Wonderful, I like both images. HighInBC 16:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Yellow mite (Tydeidae) Lorryia formosa 2 edit.jpg Raven4x4x 05:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

E. coli[edit]

1. E. coli magnified 10,000 times
2. Original larger image

Interesting and detailed 10,000x magnification of E. coli using a scanning electron microscope. The image is used in the subject's article.

  • Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 14:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks cool! Hole in the wall 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Needs a more detailed caption. —Keenan Pepper 17:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This one isn't quite as sharp as it could be, despite having been previously sharpened in such a way as to create halos. However that's not enough of an annoyance for me to oppose. Overall I like it. -- moondigger 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think at that resolution it could really be "sharp" in the same way as normally-photographed images. For comparison, see the second-to-last image in the series of this featured picture. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-16 21:02
      • Agreed that it can't be sharp the same way other images are. However I have seen subjectively sharp SEM images that don't have the characteristic USM halos. -- moondigger 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
        • And they were probably at a lesser magnification. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 00:11
  • Support.Keenan Pepper 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Blurry- but for being that close, I assume it would be. Cab02 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per above--Vircabutar 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support blur lets it down but obviously not an easy pic to get Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neutral. While Brian0918's photo of the yellow mite hit a home run, this photo didnt even make it past first base... -- AJ24 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Err.... What does that mean? Does the image have any problems that can be fixed? What exactly is your reason for opposing? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-18 01:04
    • Err... baseball analogy. In depth, I find the E Coli imagery to be of the same category, type as the Yellow Mite. The Yellow mite image was beyond excellent (the detail), but the E Coli image does not have anywhere close to the same degree of excellence. If it is possible to get an image of the E Coli with greater detail or clarity, then im sure it would receive the same praise the yellow mite photo has recently seen. Thank you. -- AJ24 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The detail on the mite image looks much greater because the magnification is much lower on the mite image. If you want to compare them side-by-side, you are getting much more detail in this image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-18 05:19
  • I've found and uploaded the original larger image that this image was based on. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-18 05:14
    • Much better quality and imagery, thank you. Even though I personally am not too fond of it, Ive changed my vote to neutral for a better chance of a consensus. Good luck. -- AJ24 05:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • weak wupport. Either, but I prefer the original. Per above.say1988 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support larger version. Very nice and otherworldy - most people haven't really seen photographs of stuff this close-up before. --Cyde↔Weys 17:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either -- Samir धर्म 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I really can't decide... It is very exncyclopedic, meets resolution/size requirements, but it just doesn't seem like a great picture to me... Viva La Vie Boheme 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User has 8 edits outside user page.BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:58
      • Brian, just so you ought to know, I have been editing Wikipedia for a LONG time. You cannot judge from my edits. I did a lot of work under just my IP, and I had a user name a long time ago, however, I forgot the password. I recently picked up three years later, and I just recently created an account. So stop judging me! 10 edits or 10000 edits, my opinion is valid. I also had two successful FP's on the old account.Viva La Vie Boheme 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 02:51
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - fascinating image. Jono (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - It does not strike me as interesting. Little lumps. HighInBC 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that no photographs of bacteria that are shaped like "little lumps" should ever become featured? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-23 19:58

Promoted Image:E_coli_at_10000x,_original.jpg Raven4x4x 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


This photo was taken by Jeannie at Madison Square Garden in NYC on JULY 19th. Madonna's final night at the garden on her Confessions Tour. Please credit, the only place to get the latest news on the worlds greatest artist. Thanks!

hi lawrence, thanks for the heads up, some people are just so immature! lol

Puerta de Alcala[edit]

Puerta de Alcalá, outside Retiro Park, was the gate used by merchants to enter the city to sell their goods at Sunday market.
Edit 1: Contrast/Exposure/Gamma changes, despeckle sky, slightly sharpened. — BRIAN0918

I think this is a high quality photo of Puerta de Alcalá, one of the main tourist attractions and historical sites in Madrid, Spain, and also a fine example of Spanish architecture; this photo appears on the Madrid and Puerta de Alcalá pages, and it was taken and uploaded by E.Goergen in July 2006.

  • Nominate and support. - VisiGrad 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - They both seem grainy and blurry. Viva La Vie Boheme 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User has 8 edits outside user page.BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:59
      • Brian, just so you ought to know, I have been editing Wikipedia for a LONG time. You cannot judge from my edits. I did a lot of work under just my IP, and I had a user name a long time ago, however, I forgot the password. I recently picked up three years later, and I just recently created an account. So stop judging me! 10 edits or 10000 edits, my opinion is valid. I also had two successful FP's on the old account.Viva La Vie Boheme 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 02:49
  • Comment The image definitely looks like it could use some additional resolution. That said, I like the original image better than the edit for the building, since the details look less washed out. The edit 1 has a much more realistic (ie, normally-saturated) sky, though. --Marumari 14:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just too small, nice otherwise. HighInBC 16:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do no think that this photo adds significantly to its accompanying article. The existing image on the article is aesthetically better as well.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Indonesian refugees gather under an approaching U.S. helicopter to receive food and supplies after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.

This is a rather stunning photo of people devasted by disaster reaching for the sky asking for help, and catching it as it falls on them. There's quite a range of facial expressions visible - gratitude, anticipation, physical exertion, alarm, and what looks like desperation. There is some motion blur, but that may actually add a bit to the dramatic and dynamic feel. Caption says this is a U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate Airman Patrick M. Bonafede.

  • Nominate and support. - Beland 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there must be some sort of copyright issue here, wouldnt those people have to had signed some sort of form (which i doubt they did) Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks like it was taken by a photographer during the line of duty, which would make it public domain (I assume?) The original photo on the Navy website is 2100x1500, shouldn't that image be used instead? --Marumari 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The people can be said to have been out in public. Although I agree that it is generally ethical to get permission, we should also recognise that this is documenting events in a historic context that cannot be recreated in a more ideal world. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Consent is not a copyright issue. It's possibly a legal issue in other contexts, but not copyright. As a photograph of a newsworthy event, I doubt they would apply either. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It looks like there's already a featured image on that article - I don't know what the policy is about having two featured images from the same article. --Marumari 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's any policy against it, but just as a point of information the other photo is actually a Commons featured picture, not a Wikipedia one. It might be worth nominating the other picture as a Wikipedia FP; it's certainly an incredible shot and more illustrative of the article than this image (its resolution is a bit low, and the composition isn't what it would be if the shot had been planned; but its significance might be enough to overcome these). TSP 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Weird - I also see it here, so maybe it was a FP in both Commons and the general Wikipedia? --Marumari 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh! Yes, you're right. It's also on Wikipedia:Featured pictures; there's just no Featured Picture label on the picture page itself. On a quick browse, there seem to be quite a few FPs (most, possibly all, from Commons) without the FP label on their own pages. TSP 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it just doesn't seem to have that featured picture quality about it. Also, I know it's an action shot, but there's still a lot of motion blur. --Cyde↔Weys 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Slightly underexposed? - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks more like it reached the dynamic range limit of whatever camera was used. There's blown highlights (a little bit) in the white t-shirts, as well as black blacks in the image. --Marumari 14:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. This image doesn't strike me as especially noteworthy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do no think that this photo adds significantly to its accompanying article.--Pedit 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ɗ===Mexican Wolf===

A critically endangered Mexican Gray Wolf is kept in captivity for breeding purposes.

After spending much time reading the previous and existing FPC candidates, and on Fir0002's advice, I've decided to have another go at a nomination.

This is a photograph of a a critically endangered Mexican Grey Wolf. It's very subject focused, sharp throughout the entire image, and neither over, or under-exposed. Caption updated on July 20.

  • Self-Nominate and Support. -Marumari 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support i see no probsChildzy (Talk</fouytnt>|Contribs) 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Oh, man... I was thinking of nominating your Zebra heliconian shot; I like it a lot and think it's a shoe-in for FP. But this one I'm not a big fan of. It's a typical zoo shot. Competently photographed, but the subject is clearly captive, even without the caption to say so. -- moondigger 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is a typical zoo shot, which is why I didn't nominate this one first. That said, there's less than 15 Mexican Grey Wolves (MGW) in the wild, so it is very hard to get a picture of a non-captive MGW. P.S.: Go for it, on the Zebra Heliconian. :) --Marumari 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand it would be nearly impossible to get a shot of one in the wild, especially in Minnesota. :) I only wish it looked less like a zoo shot. I'll nominate the Zebra heliconian picture sometime soon. -- moondigger 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Support. I like the image a lot despite the drawback of it being obviously in captivity. Have you uploaded it at 1000px wide to make it scrape through the minimum resolution guidelines? ;) They may be the minimum but that doesn't mean automatic qualification, particularly if the author has been stingy in providing detail! ;) I'd like to see a higher resolution version of this and would probably support it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Nah, mostly because Wikipedia seems to be the land of Unexplained Errors, and it was much quicker to upload a bunch of images that way. Plus, my screen is only 1280 pixels wide -- without the photoshop floaty things visible. Okay, a version 2.5x larger is now up there. Personally, I think the lower resolution image is easier to evaluate. --Marumari 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, its only 2.5x larger in terms of pixels, not width, but thanks. As has been discussed previously on FPC, the highest possible resolution is always prefered, up to the point where additional resolution provides no additional detail (ie usually, images straight out of a digital camera can be safely downsampled slightly as well as recompressed to make the image dialup-friendly without sacrificing detail or quality. I can see in this image that you are starting to reach the limit of the detail at 1500x1000 so I'm happy to support it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Why on earth do we care about making images dialup-friendly? The software takes care of downsizing the image to whatever size you specify in the article, and even if they click on the thumbnail, they'll get another downsized version at the preference size they've chosen. Only if they click on *that* image do they get the full thing. A non-issue. Stevage 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I find it a total pain in the ass to evaluate an image that's eight times larger than my screen, and takes forever to download and manipulate in Photoshop. --Marumari 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, nice, clean, encyclopaedic image. Could be a little sharper, but really, this is the minimum standard that most FPC's should be aiming for. Stevage 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the other picture of the Mexican wolf (in the article) is better. I might support if this image was on captivity (animal) instead. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I added the image to captivity (animal) as well as updated the caption and description to explain why it looks like a zoo image. Now you can have your cake, and eat the frosting too! --Marumari 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A good, encyclopedic photo. I don't have problems with "zoo-ness" so long as it isn't distracting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A+ composition and well done technically. The fact that it's a "zoo shot" actually ADDS to the value of the image, as it is a commentary on the endangered status of the species. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The fact that it's obviously a zoo shot says nothing about the Mexican Wolf's endangered status. There's no reason to assume that animals photographed in zoos are endangered; the vast majority of zoo animals are not. -- moondigger 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what the caption's for! Weeeeee! --Marumari 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Uhh.. right. :^) I just meant that such information isn't inherent in the image itself. It's the caption that tells us the species is endangered, not the fact that the image is a zoo shot.-- moondigger 22:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • The caption and the article explain why the animal is really only seen in zoos, the image simply captures that fact quite well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Encyclopedic photo. Good background (it means that no background). Andrew18 @ 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an excellent photograph. It's not as flashy and exciting as other photos, but it clearly belongs on an encyclopedia. ♠ SG →Talk 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. —Aiden 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent pic. --Billpg 10:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - good focus, decent resolution ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Why do these endangered species (or subspecies in this case) always look so doleful? It's like they know. Although, as per Samsara, I actually also prefer the other pic in the Mexican Wolf article. This pic is informative in a different way though. --jjron 08:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This photo indeed illustrates the article more.

Promoted Image:Mexican_wolf_lounging.jpg Raven4x4x 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Floating on water[edit]

Floating on water

I spotted this image while browsing trough Commons and it just amazed me. I find it artistic and striking. I uploaded it to the Sepia tone article and I think it really adds a lot to it showing that a -not so rare scenario- can look beautifull with the correct editing and such. It was uploaded by User: Test-tools in commons.

  • Nominate and support.Nnfolz 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: is the nudity really necessary to illustrate sepia? -- 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia is not censored Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Hope you don't mind Childzy, I indented your comment to make it clear that it was in response to 128.'s comment. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good photo Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral There are several issues with the image that stop me from supporting, one is the fact that it's slighly blurry at full size which can be easily fixed by downsampling which would probably be acceptable considering the original image size, the second is jpeg artifacting most notably on the upper left quadrant of the image. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't feel that this image does a particularly good job of illustrating sepia tone. It could very well have been taken on color film and left untouched, given that those are fairly easily reproducible skin tones and lighting conditions. In fact, the only real visual cue (to me) that it's sepia tone is that the "black" background has a brown tint to it. I think the image would be better suited to a page like diffraction. --Marumari 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Nnfolz - with regards to your question, I would use a caption like "Water defracts sunlight shining on a sunbathing woman". I would check on the diffraction talk page, though; I am not a physicist. That said, I can't say whether or not I would support it in that usage, either. --Marumari 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooo, toplessness is even better than diffraction. --Marumari 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment It is already in the toplessness article as well.Nnfolz 06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per >BRIAN--Vircabutar 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. As Brian mentioned, it could be useful to the toplessness article, but I don't think it's FP material, primarily because of the composition. -- moondigger 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Brian. Schizmatic 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral although I do I like the floatation devices. Joe I 01:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • They are rather nice to have - I've always enjoyed my floatation devices. :) --Marumari 02:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some of you are really sick. There is absolutely no encyclopedic value to this picture, and I think the only reason some of you would support it is because of the fact that the woman is naked. Just because Wikipedia is not censored, we do not have to make it pornographic encyclopedia. Cab02 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Judging from the unprovoked hostility and personal attacks in your comment, I'm guessing that the only reason you're opposing the image is because it's a woman naked. Now, that's just ridiculous. Please try reading and grasping Art (although, there is a "pornographic" image at the top of that page too, so you may not be able to handle the subject). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 05:48
      • Hear, hear. Count me as a Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, but only because of poor image quality. This is not pornography, just a pair of impersonal (as the head is missing) flotation devices (@Marumari's comment - Tee hee hee!). This is not in any way sick, is not damaging to minors (almost every child has seen an ordinary pair of these before, and this photo is not at all sexually suggestive), and Wikipedia is not censored, expecially for something as non-provocative as this. If the subject was not wearing anything to cover the lower genital area, then I would agree that it was slightly pornographic, but this is hardly offensive. Like Brian so excellently said - try to grasp art before you oppose on the grounds of jugs. —Vanderdecken ξφ 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, so what's so good about this picture again? - Cribananda 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose a clearly artificial sepia effect is a terrible way to illustrate sepia tone. For pretty much any other use, the cut-off head ruins the composition. Also, I'm not really fond of the way the subject is topless, but not bottomless - it's like the image is hedging its bets between art and pornography. Can't really see what this image has to do with an encyclopaedia. Stevage 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The fact that the head is cut-off is one of the things i like. The woman has no identity that way. It could be anyone anywhere.Nnfolz 06:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an artsy nude study photograph, yes (not pornography in any definition of the word as I see), but as said, it doesn't really illustrate the article well. --Janke | Talk 05:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it works for the toplessness article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 05:52
      • I don't agree that it is a great picture to illustrate toplessness either (the first pic in the article does a much better job). You cannot even tell where the woman is (in a pool or a lake or a bathtub). The term typically refers to toplessness in public. Somebody on her way to the shower would be a bad example to illustrate toplessness. - Cribananda 05:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find the cropping to be conceptually undesirable, as it raises the question of why the image deliberately cuts off the woman's head. Unless such a decision was made as a social commentary on the objectification of the female nude, I find this depiction to be a devaluation of the subject. In plain language, I find the cropping places this image in a strange half porn, half art category, and it makes me uncomfortable. The cropping seems to have been done as if the subject was nothing more than some Barbie doll. If the woman's head were included--even if we could not clearly see the face--I would reconsider. Aesthetically, I have no significant objections. But on a conceptual level, I think there are real issues regarding the appropriateness of granting FP status to an image that can be interpreted as an objectification of women --Wickerprints 10:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As somebody who does erotic/BDSM photography from time to time, my guess as to the reason why the woman's head is cut off is that the artist wasn't able to obtain a model release form. If I were Wikipedia, I would be loathe to publish this image as a FP *with* her head, but *without* a model release form. --Marumari 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's unlikely that the photographer would have a photo session with a model and not have a signed model release form. Seems more likely the decision to keep her head out of the frame was an artistic one, though a misguided one in my opinion. Edward Weston's nudes often were shot in such a way that the model's face was not visible, but his incredible eye for composition never resulted in anything as garish as to simply lop off the head at the neck with the edge of the frame, as this one does. (Nor did he ruin the concept of a 'nude' by having his models wear bikini bottoms, but that's another issue.) That's not to say he never had parts of a model's body outside of the frame; he did that often, treating the body like a landscape photographer treats a nature scene. If the model's head was outside the frame it was because the photo was a study of a particular contour of her body. Often the model's head was in the frame, but hidden artfully, as in my favorite Weston nude, seen here: [14]. Sorry, I've veered off on a tangent. The point is that I don't think this particular photo is anything noteworthy, whether the photographer had a model release or not. -- moondigger 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The reason why I say is that there's no model release form is that I followed it back to the original source, and it said that it's a picture of young women skinny dipping in the Gulf of Mexico. It *could* be a photoshoot, but it could just be someone taking pictures at a nude beach. Oh, and the page says there's no model release available. Either way, I think we can both agree that this image isn't FPC material. --Marumari 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see. It struck me as a poor attempt at a (partial) nude, not a vacation photo. -- moondigger 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the woman is cut off on both sides (bad composition). While Wikipedia is not censored, I don't see the need for nudity in an article on flotation, diffraction or sephia (supposing that's were the article would be put). It's logical to assume an article about autofellatio isn't worksafe. We should be able to safely watch any other article this image has been suggested for without getting fired... Just because Wikipedia isn't censored, doesn't mean this image should be used on anything else than topless related articles. - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think that this illustrates any of the articles particularly well. Great shot though, very artistic. It might stand a chance on the Commons FPC. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Head missing. Iolakana|T 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - It's a nice picture and demonstrates the subject well, but there's something bizarre-looking about the breasts being the only part not submerged. I can't look past that, but yeah, it's a good picture. --Jono 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing extra-ordinary about the picture (=No positives for me). Cut off head a distractor for art. Doesn't provide any significant insight to the topic it is used on. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for the Caustic (optics) article HighInBC 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The image is not used in that article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose While perhaps this photo could be in another article (though I'd rather not have it there either), I don't think we need nude photos as featured pictures.--Joniscool98 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:. Can you elaborate which article this image would be more suitable for. For your second point, please go through this. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:. I quote from wikipedia's policy: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." I do believe one would be able to find (or make) an image that is nonoffensive to people. Offensive pictures and photographs are allowed, but only if there's not an alternative that's as good, and in this case, I think an alternative can be found.--Joniscool98 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a difference between you imagining that a better image is available, and there actually being one currently available. The policy says "no equally suitable alternatives are available", it says nothing about your imagination. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-26 07:36
      • Yes, that true. But in order to replace the image, we need a better image. If an alternative is available, the image would be replaced in the article the new image proves better. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- poor framing. Image is cut off at bottom. -- Longhair 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Headless. --Billpg 23:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Grauman's Chinese Theatre[edit]

Grauman's Chinese Theatre
Edit 1 by Diliff. Removed noise and dust from the image
Edit 2 by Diliff. As with edit 1, but with less noise reduction on the subject and straightened image.
Not for voting - illustrating the difference between Flextight and sRGB profiles. Flextight is the original profile and sRGB is how most web browsers display the image. The Flextight version has been converted to sRGB for easier side-by-side viewing

High resolution, high detail, public domain photograph of the Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles. And for those of you who hate people/cars, I challenge you to find one in this picture. :)

  • Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. (almost neutral). Excellent quality, nice location, and of a somewhat historical content, but I do not believe it to be exceptional. In addition, the photo is only portraying the structure's façade. A hard call to make. -- AJ24 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Are there any problems that can be fixed? You were a little vague about what is specifically wrong with this image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-18 01:09
    • As for the content of the image, the facade is iconic, and is the popular depiction. Would you oppose this image of the Taj Mahal because it doesn't depict the inside? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-18 00:52
    • "Iconic"? lets not go too far. Concerning the facade, my argument was that it is the only thing featured, whereas in the Taj Mahal picture, the surrounding landscape and scenery is depicted. However, that is neither my real argument or concern... it is just one of those images that is too plain and unextraordinary. If we admitted every image upon the basis of being iconic and of high quality, then FP would be filled with tens of thousands of images that wouldnt be exceptional. That is my real concern. But it is only my opinion, so I'll wait and see what others' concerns and comments are. Thanks. -- AJ24 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The image looks like it's a bit crooked. Perhaps a .1 - .3 degree CCW rotation would help a bit... although that would mean cutting off even more of the edges of the image. Weak Support for edit 2. Otherwise I would say it was a technically beautiful but somewhat uninspiring photograph. -- Marumari 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it. It has "Flextight 646 & 848" color profiles embedded, rather than the more common sRGB. Browsers that obey color profile tags will display it correctly, though most don't understand color profile tags. It's not a radical difference like Adobe RGB would be, but should probably be converted all the same. The sky between the facade and the building on the right is blown out, but I don't think anything can really be done about that. The tilt is very minor, and probably shouldn't be messed with. One negative is that it's a long download for those with slow connections, at 5.8 MB. Maybe a smaller version could be made and listed on the image page as an alternate. -- moondigger 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Edit 2 Great detail. Original colors (those displayed on my browser - ie not the embedded profile) look better IMO. --Fir0002 06:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What browser are you using? If it understands profile tags, the image should look good either way. If it doesn't understand profile tags, then it will look slightly different. -- moondigger 11:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2. Agree with Fir0002 completely, the image displayed with sRGB profile looks better than with the embedded profile. Not sure what is going on there, but the sky looks decidedly cyan with that profile. I've added an edit which removes the image noise and all the dust in the sky (and it took me a good 30 minutes so don't you dare not support it! ;) ). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If your browser doesn't understand profile tags, then of course it will look better as an sRGB image -- it's the default, lowest-common-denominator profile. It should always be used for web images (at least, as of 2006) because the majority of web browsers won't display anything else. When an image with a different profile is displayed in a browser that doesn't understand the profile tag, the browser just puts the image up on screen without any adjustment for the profile in use, rendering the colors inaccurate. The more a given profile's gamut differs from the sRGB gamut, the more pronounced the difference will be. This one is subtle, as apparently the Flextight gamut is pretty close to the sRGB gamut -- but others can be much more noticeable. For a more dramatic example, see Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Okefenokee. -- moondigger 11:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand colour profiles... I wasn't specific when I mentioned it before, but I was saying that the image looks better in my browser than when opened in Photoshop using the correct colour profile. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • What browser do you use? In any case, "better" is subjective. Perhaps you just don't like the original color balance, and the slight discrepancy between Flextight and sRGB (while less accurate) is more pleasing? -- moondigger 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm using Firefox. You're right. Thats what I, and I assume Fir0002, were suggesting - that our personal preference is for the 'incorrect' colour profile, as the sky seems to look more natural and pleasing, whereas when viewed using the Flextight profile, it has a cyan tinge. I've opened the original using the Flextight profile, then converted it to sRGB and cropped it side-by-side with a version opened using the sRGB profile. You can see the difference quite clearly and to me, and using the colour eye dropper, it appears that, for example, the 'white' wood has significantly more green and blue in it in the Flextight profile. Same with the metal dish hanging down. I'm not saying it is therefore objectively worse than sRGB, but to my eyes, it just seems too cyan tinged. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, when I say the Flextight profile is more accurate, I'm only saying it's more accurate to the original, since that's the profile it has embedded. It's possible that the scan had a color cast that (by coincidence) the difference between the Flextight and sRGB gamuts inadvertently corrected. At the moment I'm viewing this page in Firefox, but in Safari (understands profile tags) both the Flextight and sRGB versions looked good. -- moondigger 14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
              • I think it's a sad, sad world where most JPEG libraries still don't understand color profiles... in 2006! I shoot all my images in RAW, so there's no color profile per se, but I still hate how my images look when I have to convert them (down) from 16-bit Adobe RGB to 8-bit sRGB. *sobs* --Marumari 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                • For the record though, you shouldn't REALLY notice any significant difference when converting from 16bit AdobeRGB to 8bit sRGB. AdobeRGB merely allows a wider gamut of colours to be captured. Once they make it to your display, the absolute saturation of a colour is determined more by the limits of the display than by the gamut - In other words, a red pixel at the saturation limit of the gamut will likely be at or beyond the limit of the monitor already. Also, 16bit to 8bit conversion merely makes posterization etc more likely if additional editing of levels is performed as there are less possible values per pixel - the act of conversion shouldn't actually result in a visible difference as 8bit = 16.7 million colours and beyond the limits of the human eye to differentiate. Thats why its recommended that conversion should be the final step in any post processing as it lowers the ability to perform further editing - it shouldn't result in a visible difference to the image alone. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Agree with Diliff. Do you "assign" a profile or convert? If you convert to a profile you will seen no difference whatsoever --Fir0002 22:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • No, I convert, not assign. I sell my images on websites, and the thumbnails/small images that they use to demonstrate the image are based off of the original image. Thus, I have to upload the image in sRGB 2.1 so that people viewing the image will see things correctly. Prints from those, compared to an original 16-bit Adobe RGB print from my local printing place (using similar quality printing gear), are noticably worse. --Marumari 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • Ah, well thats different. If you have a medium capable of displaying a wide gamut (eg a professional printer), then images in the wider gamut will always have a more vivid look as they exploit that greater range. But from what you were saying, it sounded like you were saying that they looked visibly different on screen, which would not typically be the case. Regardless though, unless you compare using identical printing gear, you can't say for certain that the difference you see is related to the colour profiles. Too many variables. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Know exactly how you feel :-) However I think you blurred some detail unnecessarily, I'm thinking mainly of the roof palings - noise was OK in original, edit has a "plasticine" look. The gold carvings bottom center were good in the original and now look worse. Also not sure how this happened, but the palm leaves on the left hand side of the left hand gaurdian lion have become over sharpened. Still there are signficant improvements in the sky etc. It'd be good to get an edit which has the advanatage w/o the disadvantages so I'll wait for that. If you don't fell like doing it I'll try do something tommorrow --Fir0002 11:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I've uploaded a second edit, fixing (hopefully) the problem you mentioned. I've kept the dust removal and noise reduction in the sky, but softened the noise reduction over the theatre detail, so it retains some of the noise. Also, I decided to go ahead and rotate it using the base of it as the guide. I'm not sure if it is perfect but it seems better than before. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Good job, Diliff. --Fir0002 08:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I've never heard of these "color profile tags". Are they inside the JPEG file? —Keenan Pepper 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Take a look at Color management. It's embedded in TIFF, JPG, PNG, and many other formats. If the color profile isn't there, it defaults to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (for web images, at least.) -- Marumari 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Support edit 2. Cab02 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)\
  • Support. Support whichever version gains Fir and Diliff's support. ;) The location is iconic, and capturing it in daylight with no people/cars is no mean feat. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edit two - love the symmetry and the colour. --Jono 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cut off at sides for starters. Personally I also find the image unappealing (and as mentioned by Moondigger, file size is unnecessarily big). --jjron 09:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2, I love the super high res, you can see all the details in the doors and on the roof. Next best thing to being there. -Ravedave 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support any of the above versions. It' pulls me in. Morganfitzp 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Vircabutar 06:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 06:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not that interesting of a picture. RyGuy17 20:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you looked at it at full resolution? You can see the details on the doors and all the other carvings. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-27 21:42

Promoted Image:Image:Grauman's Chinese Theatre, by Carol Highsmith fixed & straightened.jpg.JPG Raven4x4x 09:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dryadula Phaetusa[edit]

Self-nominated. Created by Marumari; thought I'd take a shot a getting my first featured picture. Shows a lot of closeup detail, with a very pretty contrasting flower background.

Appears in Dryadula phaetusa and Wikipedia:List_of_images/Nature/Animals/Insects.

  • Support. Self-nom. --Marumari 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pretty composition, but problematic with macro shots at close range is the extremely shallow DOF. It's too bad the ends of the wings are out of focus. A higher resolution pic would be preferred as well. howcheng {chat} 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Higher resolution can be done. DOF and perfect sharpness is nearly impossible to get right for a butterfly - it was already shot at f/13, 1/500 sec. They rarely keep their whole wingspan in the same plane as their body. Besides, with more DOF, there would have been a lot more of the flower in focus, which can be really distracting. -- Marumari 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, wings out of focus. —Keenan Pepper 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo. Would like it in higher res though. --Fir0002 06:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll upload a higher resolution GFDL photo, if it ever ends up getting selected. -- Marumari 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Cab02 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The out of focus wing tips are too irritating, even if it is technically hard to get then in focus - Adrian Pingstone 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Vircabutar 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I agree that getting this kind of subject fully in focus is difficult. It's that difficulty that makes such images worthy of FP status IMO. A tip -- next time you have a chance to make a similar photograph, move back a bit from the subject for one or two exposures (assuming the subject doesn't fly off). You'll get more DOF, and you can crop out a 1000-pixel long chunk of the center to get the same kind of framing you have here. -- moondigger 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Alternately, you could use a point & shoot. Their tiny sensors and correspondingly short focal lengths make for much greater DOF for macro- and close to macro photos. One of the few advantages they have over SLRs. -- moondigger 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I've been a photographer for a long time, I know all of these things. I took the photo this way for artistic purposes, and I thought it would make a good FP candidate. I only had one moment at this shot, I don't regret how I took it. More DOF would have made this a worse shot, not a better one. If the butterfly was on a plain-colored surface or something, I would have shot in such a way to increase DOF, but not with such a possibly distracting background. I appreciate the advice, though. :) --Marumari 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • No offense intended with the tips -- I had no idea what your experience was. However I disagree that more DOF would have made this a worse image... the background has little to do with it. The wing tips are in front of the plane of focus, not behind it... the center of the flower is further away from the camera than the butterfly, and it's in focus along with the rear wings. Whatever increase in DOF was required to get the front wing tips in focus was required in front, not back. Still, all of this is easy to assess post-exposure. It's a lot harder to do in the moment, when the butterfly could flit away any second. Overall, nice capture, and better than any butterfly shot I've ever attempted. -- moondigger 01:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Agree with Marumari, the DOF is much better this way --Fir0002 08:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Stupid art - it makes everybody feel like they get an opinion! It's just not fair, that's what I say. --Marumari 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
              • But that's the wonderful thing about opinions: you're free to ignore any you don't agree with. :^) Seriously, I've checked out your other images on your user page and I like a good many of them, this one included. Please don't read too much into my comments about DOF. It's a beautiful image, even if I would have preferred the wing tips in focus. -- moondigger 15:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a great picture. The tips of the wings are very slightly out of focus, but I've seen pictures become featured for less. Schizmatic 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The butterfly is just a little blurry... It is a nice picture, but there are a few tiny flaws... I just can't put my finger on it. Viva La Vie Boheme 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The blurriness doesn't bother me quite as much as the low res... can we get a bigger shot? The "interesting" portions of the anatomy are just a bit too small to see clearly. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - size.--Deglr6328 01:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely pic. Also illustrates camouflage. Can we have the higher res version please? --jjron 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support more butterflies and fewer battleships. Morganfitzp 01:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Trap shooting in Ohio, c. 1939. A puller works the trap machine that launches the clay pigeon while the shooter prepares aim.
File:Trap Shooting.jpg
Edit 1 by Vanderdecken, 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
Edit 2 by Postdlf 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC). Highlight problem corrected.
Edit 3 by Postdlf 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC). Rescanned at higher resolution.

My grandfather took this photo of men trap shooting in Ohio. I've dated it to 1939 based on the handwritten dates on other photos that were stamped with the same development batch number. It is possible that this was at the Grand American which used to be held in Vandalia, Ohio, because I've found several photos from later years that were identified at that event, though the setting doesn't look quite the same. I think the composition is rather amazing, both at illustrating the activity, and the dynamic formed by the diagonals (such as the angle of the wood plank on the ground lined by the empty ammo boxes joinging with the trap machine and cords). Not the best exposure, but what can you do; it was kind of hard to use the zone system with a Brownie.

  • Nominate and support. - Postdlf 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose its nice that your grandfather took it but there is no need for this photo, it offers little historical content and is quite small and black and white, sorry. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Re "little historical content," the once-common practice depicted of using a human puller to launch the target by pulling a lever is now obsolete; most trap shooting clubs now use voice-activated launchers, or ones that release the target by a mere push of a button. It is still a tradition for the shooter to shout "pull" when ready because of the prior role of the puller. Re: "no need," it's the lead (and only) image in its parent article, and it illustrates the old practice well in what I believe to be a very well composed image (particularly for a snapshot). I didn't post it because of who took it, though I'm glad you think that's "nice." Postdlf 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And as for Childzy's comment that he's opposing 'because it's black and white' - I think you fail to understand that being black and white, sepia toned or a colour photograph has almost no bearing on whether a picture survives the FPC process. There are many reasons why a picture might not be in fantastical modern colour - not least of which this photograph was taken in 1939 on a less than state of the art camera. If you think it detracts from the photograph that it's monochrome, we'd love to see you tint it for us. —Vanderdecken ξφ 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Shut the hell up you, have you honestly got a problem with me. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Historical and informative. Cab02 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Useful to the article, but its minor historical value is not enough to override its technical deficiencies. Blown highlights (puller's shirt blends with the sky), resolution below FP guidelines, slightly odd composition. -- moondigger 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of course FPC is not restricting to black and white photographs, but this photograph is only significant or historical to the family of those in the photo, nothing more. FP is not a family album. -- AJ24 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What a remarkably condescending comment. I stated the family connection just as a fact of authorship to explain why I have the right to post it. This is not a picture of anyone in my family, just a picture that happened to be taken by a family member that I've used to illustrate the article on trap shooting. I certainly understand if someone disagrees that it meets FA criteria, but your comment was carelessly made and insulting. Postdlf 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If my comments came off to you as "insulting", then I most definitely apologize. -- AJ24 03:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that a lot of the comments above appear incredibly condescending, belittling and insulting. He only mentioned that his grandfather took it in passing, and the 'Wikipedia is not a family photo' album comment was completely uncalled for. Credit to AJ24, though, you did apologize. I can find only two points wrong with this photo - one, blown highlight's on the puller's shirt; and two, that its longest dimension is 800 pixels. Although FPC criteria state that a picture should be at least 1000 pixels down its longest side, this is not a set in stone requirement, especially for historical photographs where it may not be possible to acquire a higher resolution scan. Therefore I give you my Symbol support vote.png Support, and I may have an edit up in the next few hours. And I would like to remind all future voters on this pic that we are not commenting on the uploader, nominator, or their way of phrasing the nomination. We are trying to acheive consensus on whether this image is decent quality considering its origins, whether it adds to the articles that contain it, and whether it qualifies as one of Wikipedia's best examples of how a picture can paint a thousand words. —Vanderdecken ξφ 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What little historical significance this picture has is not enough to overcome faults.say1988 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although if you could re-scan at a higher resolution that would be useful. Wholeheartedly agree with Vanderdecken's comments - all too often, the tone of responses on FPC is unhelpful and condescending. There also seems to be a tendency only to ascribe 'historical significance' to images of wartime or disasters - we could be missing out on a lot of great illustrative, encyclopaedic images if we equate 'Featured' with 'Dramatic'. --Yummifruitbat 17:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit 2 submitted, also to fix the highlight problem. I'll see if a higher res scan will improve it, but the original print is rather small. Postdlf 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I like Edit 2 better, since the sky no longer blends with the white shirt. That makes it a better image to illustrate its article, but it still isn't FP material for me. -- moondigger 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Higher resolution edit 3 submitted. Postdlf 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't show what he's actually shooting, and is not the best demonstration of trapshooting that could be found. Schizmatic 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the image doesn't substantially enhance trap shooting, and in fact, if we had a more recent photo, that would be better. Here, the age of the photo is a definite minus. And it's not especially informative - being able to see the device that actually launches the clay pidgeon (or even some clay pidgeons on the ground) would be better. And I haven't even gotten to the blurriness yet...Stevage 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support, probably mostly because we don't have a plethora of images on trapshooting. I don't think old is worse...but... I would probably delist if we got a much better photo. gren グレン 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can anything be done about the "stuff" in the sky on edit 3? I can't quite tell if it's film grain or artifacting, but it's distracting. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Vircabutar 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Space Shuttle launch plume shadow.jpeg[edit]

Space Shuttle Atlantis launches at sunset. The sun is behind the camera, and the shadow of the plume is cast across the vault of the sky, intersecting the rising full moon. The top portion of the plume is bright because it is illuminated directly by the sun; the lower portions are in the Earth's shadow.
Edit 1 - Noise reduction performed by Diliff. Slight artifacts remain.
Edit 3 by Fir0002. Retained warmess of other versions, but used moondiggers higher res image. Further smoothing has all but eliminated JPG artifacts

This image, originally photographed by NASA and edited by Balster neb, is an interesting picture of the a shuttle launch. The multi-colored sky, sunlit smoke, shadow being cast toward the moon, and interesting subject matter all lead to an outstanding picture. The image appears in Space Shuttle program, the page Space Shuttle redirects to.

  • Nominate and support. - Miguel Cervantes 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Grainy at top and of poor quality. Nice image, but not accepting with FPC. AJ24 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Support edit 3! Good picture Cab02 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 by Diliff. This has the "wow" factor I've been missing lately. Incredibly many things co-operate to make this a stunning image. --Janke | Talk 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
My support still is for edit 1 - the better resolution of edit 2 brings out the noise & compression more clearly. --Janke | Talk 06:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 great pic, amazing aswell. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support The quality could be much better. My thinking is that there has to be similar image of better quality out there somewhere. After all, this is NASA. The image itself is quite amazing so despite the resolution issues, I have to lean towards support. --Nebular110 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support for edit 3. --Nebular110 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 by Diliff with noise reduction. Could still use a bit more noise suppression, though. Support the edit by Fir0002, it's definitely the best of the bunch. Marumari 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support for Edit 2. The compression artifacts bother me in all versions. However it is a terrific image, so I decided to support it. I found a higher-resolution original on the NASA website and prepped it for use here. The color balance is closer to the NASA original, and this one tops out at 1539x2200 pixels. (The other versions are 1111x1587.) -- moondigger 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: The original I found was even bigger, at over 2700 pixels tall after cropping out the distracting stuff at the bottom and left side. However the compression artifacts were just too distracting at that size. After cropping and reducing to 2200 pixels, it looks about as good as I could hope for. An original that was saved with higher-quality JPEG settings would be ideal. -- moondigger 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For anyone hunting for a better version of this image, this is a picture of the launch of STS-98.--Miguel Cervantes 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Where is the picture? You linked to the STS-98 article on Wikipedia, not an STS-98 launch image. -- moondigger 23:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that was slightly murky wording. I probably shouldn't have linked to STS-98, come to think of it. Let's try this again: For anyone hunting for a better version of this image, this is a picture of STS-98. A GIS of that, however, doesn't turn up any good results. My apologies for the confusion. --Miguel Cervantes 23:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, I get what you're saying. You're informing us that the mission was STS-98, so that we could use STS-98 as a search term. I knew it was STS-98, so misunderstood "...this is..." to mean you had found another, better image, and were providing a link to it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.-- moondigger 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Concerning Edit 2: The upper portion of the image is still very grainy and of poor quality (along the fire trail). AJ24 00:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is. I don't think it's any worse on an absolute scale than the other images, though the increased resolution makes it slightly more visible. I've been browsing through some of the images on NASA's site, and it seems the majority I've found all suffer from compression artifacts... we're talking about 2000x3000 pixel images compressed so much they're less than 2 MB! I wish somebody would have provided versions with lower compression values for those of us who don't mind the longer downloads and want to do something with them. Noise reduction techniques work a lot better when an image isn't filled with compression artifacts. -- moondigger 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Edit 3. That is amazing. Talk about once in a lifetime. --Fir0002 07:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 3 Joe I 09:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.png Support Fir0002's edit. Great pic, and interesting phenomenon. Symbol oppose vote.svg Strongly Oppose all previous edits other than Fir's.—Vanderdecken ξφ 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir0002's edit. As per Vanderdecken.Nnfolz 10:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. All edits blurred and grainy at top. -- AJ24 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's Edit. TomStar81 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Really nice subject matter but the image quality sucks. I wish we could get a hold of the film original and re-digitize it in a better way. --Cyde↔Weys 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose - Awesome picture, but the compression artifacts are really blatant in all versions of the image around the moon and along the edges of the plume. Just ruins it for me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm going to oppose this one on the grounds that it's really a curiosity rather than encyclopaedic. It's spectacular, but I don't think it can "help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not". Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I doubt mentioning this will sway your opinion, the picture shows the flight path of the shuttle following the launch, while the rest of the pictures show shuttles heading straight up. When it comes to demonstrating the pitch and roll, what other picture could do such a good job? For reference, the picture appears next to this paragraph:
      "Shortly after clearing the tower the Shuttle begins a roll and pitch program so that the vehicle is below the external tank and SRBs. The vehicle climbs in a progressively flattening arc, accelerating as the weight of the SRBs and main tank decrease. To achieve low orbit requires much more horizontal than vertical acceleration. This is not visually obvious since the vehicle rises vertically and is out of sight for most of the horizontal acceleration. Orbital velocity at the 380 km (236 miles) altitude of the International Space Station is 7.68 km per second (27,648 km/h, 17,180 mph), roughly equivalent to Mach 23. For missions towards the International Space Station, the shuttle must reach an azimuth of 51.6 degrees inclination to rendezvous with the station." --Miguel Cervantes 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting view of it, and I agree that's worth illustrating. But I'm afraid I still don't consider that this is the picture to illustrate that, because in that case the shadow pointing at the moon — which is just an artifact of launching at full moon — is too distracting. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quality is just not there, even in best edit. Poor focus. I find it hard to believe that that blue thing going to/from the moon is a shadow as claimed. --jjron 09:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose i agree with jjron's and Stephen Turner's reasoning --Vircabutar 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Atlantis launch plume edit.jpg Raven4x4x 09:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I think it is a good picture, interesting colors and lights.

  • Nominate and support. - Viva La Vie Boheme 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Way too small. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. doesnt meet size requirments. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose nice pic but WAY too small. --Nebular110 20:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hopelessly too small. Please read the FPC rules - Adrian Pingstone 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh wow! What an amazing view! I would seriously like to see a higher res version, which I would most gladly support. --Fir0002 23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too small. Also I don't like the over exposed lights in the middle. A trick I do on motionless items is this: You take 1 picture with a long exposure, then another balanced for the bright lights. Then you can take everything overexposed from the first and replace it from the second. Of course the camera and the subject cannot move at all. This is a wonderful view and I would love to see a better picture from this vantage. HighInBC 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose would have gotten my support if the image was larger; way too small at present. --Tim1988 talk 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose --Vircabutar 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the above reasons. Great view, but sadly not up to standard - Jack (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but I really wanted to support, because of the amazing view, but it's just too small...--Joniscool98 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Kahriman 17:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC), picture is bigger now
  • Weak Support new higher res version. Only problem is now it's a bit blurry which you didn't see in the smaller version, but I like it. Perhaps it could be sharpened a bit. --jjron 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Mallard ducks[edit]

Two Mallard ducks, a female (left, brown) and a male (center).
Edit of the original with different levels.
Edit #2.
Edit #3. Slightly cropped, various tweaks.

Found this gem while just browsing around. Another amazing piece of work by User:Diliff. Appears as the main image for duck, and also in Global spread of H5N1 (though, I highly doubt that these two in particular are carriers).

  • Nominate and support. - ♠ SG →Talk 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support if a version that corrects the lighting/coloring is uploaded. Very illustrative. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-22 18:34
    • What exactly is the issue that you have with the lighting/colouring? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The whole thing looks rather dark. The water looks off-color, and the white stomach of the male is off-white. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-23 00:05
    • Well, I've made two edits to the image. Are either better? ♠ SG →Talk 17:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pretty uninteresting. Additionally, the lighting is poor: the stone is the brightest part of the image. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bad lighting and the female is out of focus. —Keenan Pepper 02:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This image has an odd colouring but I can't work out what the problem is - Adrian Pingstone 07:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose yea, female duck is out of focus,odd coloring, and i doensn't really have a WOW factor --Vircabutar 18:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support for good encyclopedic value. As noted, female is a bit out of focus. Caption on image page should be expanded too. --Davepape 02:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Female's a bit out of focus, and what's the dark splotch by the female's beak? --Joniscool98 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Edit #2's color levels look good and image is very beautiful. —Aiden 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I made an edit that I like better than the others, but none of them stands out as FP material for me. -- Moondigger 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If it wasn't for the fact that this illustrates the male and female plummage I wouldn't mind that one is partially out of focus. As it is, that really bugs me. --Fir0002 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rio Negro Province[edit]

Bariloche on the shore of Nahuel Huapi Lake, Río Negro Province, Argentina

Beautiful view of landscape in Río Negro Province, Argentina. Photo shows the town of Bariloche on the shore of Nahuel Huapi Lake. It appears in Nahuel Huapi Lake and Río Negro Province articles. Photo taken in 2003 by User:Xmort. Probably will need cropping. -- Darwinek 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Darwinek 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's over-exposure in the mountains, under-exposure in the tree on the left... and the image has that vague, ugly look that cell phone pictures do. --Marumari 13:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose blurry --Vircabutar 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stitching faults and very poor detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Diliff. --jjron 09:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose ack Diliff. This isn't even stitched just blended across. I doubt any attempts at projection and lens correction were made. --Dschwen 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


View of Bernese Alps from Mount Titlis

Spectacular view of Bernese Alps from Mount Titlis in Switzerland. It appers on Titlis article. Photo taken by User:Lemon ho. Maybe will need some editing.

  • Nominate and support. - Darwinek 10:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It's a pretty picture, but it definitely needs some color balance adjustments, and fixing of the vignetting. Would probably support it with those fixes. --Marumari
  • weak oppose per Marumari --Vircabutar 17:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Per Marumari. Viva La Vie Boheme 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. It's not vignetting, it is a pano shot using a polarizer filter. But there is too much sky in the pic. --Dschwen 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It is vignetting, regardless of what caused it. --Marumari 21:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • No it isn't. a) it only affects the sky. b) the dependence on distance to the image center is purely coincidental. It is the angular dependence of the polarization in the sky. --Dschwen 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Definitely polarization not vignetting. Ericd 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pretty, but boring - Adrian Pingstone 15:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice picture and the minor flaws aren't enough to disqualify it in my mind. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - like looking through a letterbox. Cropped would be better, but still its one of too many mountaintop shots - Jack (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • support Amazing view. I think that the different shades of blue really make this picture--Joniscool98 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks like it was stitched together from several exposures; stitching bands are visible at full resolution. Color balance is too blue due to high altitude; could have used a skylight filter or mild warming filter. -- Moondigger 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's a great view! --Fir0002 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stitching artifacts. --Davepape 02:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose. Oppose only if the stitching artifacts are not fixed. Other than that, Support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stitching artificats (repeated patterns) through the closest rocky outcrops (approx 750px from left at full-res) spoil an otherwise nice image.Halsteadk 21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise’s Island[edit]

Enterprise’s island

This is a photo of the aircraft carrier Enterprise returning from a naval exercise. I feel that the picture does an excelent job of depicting the "island" of an aircraft carrier — the part of the carrier that is visable above the flight deck. For this reason I am nominating ti for featured status. TomStar81 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. TomStar81 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not centered (some of left is cut off), not sharp enough, hazy... not the best day for a picture of it. gren グレン 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tilt needs to be fixed, poor contrast. I think that a diagram or techinal drawing of an aircraft carrier "island" would be better at illustrating the structure. Sudachi 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Grenavitar JFace-grin.svgrcoga! 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agreed, lack of contrast (hazy day) - Adrian Pingstone 07:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much of the ship missing. For gosh sakes, tip the camera sideways. Sideways! --Marumari 03:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, it is meant to be the island of the ship only... so, it was the author's intent to keep it narrowly focused. gren グレン 08:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ship cut off, boring, contrast, tilt... Viva La Vie Boheme 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if this were only a picture of that one area of the ship it' still not centered and the left side is cut off. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- poor framing. Image is cut off at left. -- Longhair 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do no think that this photo adds significantly to its accompanying article.--Pedit 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There are a couple of accompanying articles that this image is used in, the nomination is for its use in the article aircraft carrier, where it is the only picture that really focuses on the island. TomStar81 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)