Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured Picture Tools

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

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


Aerogel with Peter Tsou[edit]

This is a little undersize for a normal FP, I know, however, Aerogels are not available in any quantities outside of NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and related agencies, so the image is essentially irreplaceable. This is one of my favourite science images, and I think well-deserving of an FP. Vanished user talk 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Proposed caption
Peter Tsou of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory holding a sample of aerogel - an extremely lightweight substance created by replacing all the liquid in a gel - usually silica gel - with gas, by means of supercritical drying, a process similar to freeze-drying. This creates a nanofoam, a foam with most of its bubbles under 100 nanometres in size, giving the aerogel its unusual properties: Silica aerogel is the lowest-density solid yet created, actually lighter than air when in a vacuum (outside of a vacuum, air fills the pores, upping its density to slightly greater than air). It is also the best insulator known. Due to its unusual appearance and light weight, it has gained the nickname "frozen smoke".
Articles this image appears in
Peter Tsou, Aerogel
  • Support as nominator Vanished user talk 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose resolution is too low to see if the Guy has some hair inside his ears. Ericd 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • ...That is a truly unique oppose. Vanished user talk 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • ...My pleasure is to watch hirez pictures a full-rez. No matter of the topic ;-). Ericd 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I stop joking, in fact I think the other one is better. Ericd 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - This other aerogel FP shows the transparency just as well, but also demonstrates its amazing strength. This non-FP also shows its transparency but also its amazing thermal insulation properties. I'm just not sure what this nom demonstrates that those others don't. The only reason I might consider it is because it is rather a famous image of the stuff. --Sean 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know - the matches picture is confusing, as it has the glass disk atop the aerogel, and the thing holding it up is hard to spot. And the Brick one doesn't really show much of the Aerogel, just a glimpse of it under the brick. I suppose the one with crayons might work, but.... Vanished user talk 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not as good as the other aerogel FP and I'm not sure why you think it's irreplaceable when we already have an existing FP and other pictures besides. This picture shows none of aerogel's interesting features (strength, insulation, etc); it might as well be a cube of jello. Matt Deres 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a nice picture, but the other two Sean linked are both far more encyclopedic. Since this one is too small, it doesn't really seem up to the FP level. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose What with there being another FP of the subject material that showcases its characteristics a little bit more. SingCal 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sun and VY Canis Majoris[edit]

PNG version
SVG version
"If our sun were replaced with such a star, its surface could extend to the orbit of Saturn." That pretty much sums it up. Fascinating! Especially after an appreciation of just how massive the sun is, and the staggering volume within saturn's orbit.
Articles this image appears in
VY Canis Majoris
User:WindAzure (png)
User:Mysid (svg)
  • Support as nominator frotht 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wow, I didn't imagine there could exist stars that large: the stats are truly staggering. But I dont see how the image contributes to the article: it adds nothing that isn't already summed up verbally in the second sentence "the radius of VY CMa is between 1800 and 2100 solar radii". I don't see that the image itself adds anything to the article at all. ~ VeledanT 03:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Many people can't translate words into images in their heads; poor imagination if you will.--Svetovid 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • support--Mbz1 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support SVG Wow, that's a big star.--HereToHelp 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support SVG I don't understand the size at all - think you can stick a person in for scale? :) thegreen J Are you green? 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • He'll be a pixel if the image was blown up to be the size of a billboard. The earth might be a pixel if the image was the size of a large poster.--HereToHelp 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I want a quark for scale. ;) Jumping cheese 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If all I had nominated was the SVG, would you still be awed by the star's size? I think the effect is greatly reduced if the sun and the big star aren't compared side-by-side.. it's difficult to visualize the difference (which is the whole appeal of the image) with that "magnifying glass" trick that IMO gives you very little perspective. Go png! --frotht 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose SVG - undecided on the PNG, for now - the SVG renders differently for me in the thumb and the full size. For instance, in the thumb, the font is something like Arial, but at the full size, it is a typewriter font, moreover, all the gradients disappear at the full rez. SVG is just too flaky in this case. FWIW, I'm running updated firefox on Mac OS X 10.3.9. Debivort 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose - it doesn't make me want to know any more about the article, it doesn't even make want to click on the image, because there's nothing you can't see from the thumbnail Mcrawford620 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose both Not very interesting. I though I was looking at some random orange circle at first. Even after I clicked the image, I wasn't that impressed. It'll be much better if VY Canis Majoris actually looked like a star (with pretty solar flares larger than the sun and stuff), instead of a perfect circle. The SVG version is a bit better...since there's some color variation, but not by much. Sorry. Jumping cheese 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose a circle and a dot? It may be technically accurate and informative, and a great addition to some articles. But there's just not much information being conveyed here. —Pengo 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose though it does aid with the articles its appears in the quality of the image is not featured --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Childzy. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose PNG - it's a long way short on the aesthetics side of things. Also, I just don't think it's practical to attempt to use a single pixel to illustrate something. The SVG version is more informative. Stevage 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support SVG - Several reasons, but probably the strongest is its combination of simplicity and clarity. It just illustrates the point without frills. The inset is nicely done so that it's not showy, but clearly represents and expanded view. Nicely done. -Harmil 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth wanted poster[edit]

Alternative 2

Historic 19th century wanted poster.
Proposed caption
Broadside advertising reward for capture of John Wilkes Booth (the assassin of United States president Abraham Lincoln) and his co-conspirators John H. Surratt and David E. Herold.
Articles this image appears in
John Wilkes Booth
unknown. Source: Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division. Uploaded by User:Davepape
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan 17:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC). Also Support alternative 1. Spikebrennan 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. No reason it should be this blurry, but great historical value. I wonder how they possibly found anyone with such generic pictures on the wanted posters? --frotht 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just having photographs was an enormous advance. Also, Booth was roughly the Brad Pitt of his day. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There must be a better version.--Svetovid 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    Support alternative 1 - and the caption should note that two names are spelled incorrectly - Surrat instead of Surratt and Harold instead of Herold.--Svetovid 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very interesting, but size / quality not good enough for FP in my opinion whether or not there is a better version in existence. ~ VeledanT 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • support--Mbz1 13:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support if replaced with this --NauticaShades 00:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I concur.--Svetovid 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I concur as well. Jellocube27 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Would anybody mind if the image on was just uploaded over the current picture? Thats what the upload new version is there for afterall, i'd do it now but i dont want to suffer a backlash for being bold.. --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The version is not just the same poster, it's the same physical document. (The wrinkles and tears are in the same places). I would support the version being uploaded over the existing one (even though it's in BW and not a sepia-tint). Spikebrennan 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC). I just also noticed that the poster spells the name of "John Surrat/Surratt" two different ways. John Surratt is presumably the correct spelling.
  • Oppose, somewhat dramatic, somewhat historic, but poor quality negates its value. BTW, the image is a cleaned-up version of this presumed digital original, and is probably much closer to the appearance of the physical original (unlike the parchment-paper ones you can get at museum shops, such as the one I worked in as a kid). --

Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Alternative I uploaded the other one instead, decided not to upload over the original so that people can see the contrast --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Rant Does noone bother to check the sources? The one is from the Library of Congress. Which also have a much better version of the colour one, where the Surrat image is much more visible than in the b&w. [1] Adam Cuerden talk 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Alternate 2 Adam Cuerden talk 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose not as large and it isnt straight --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Alternative I like the sharpness on this one. Alternative 2 is a bit blurry. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Alt#1 fascinating. Debivort 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Alternative 1 The text and images are easier viewed on the black and white version. --Puddyglum 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Alt. 1 - best is viewed on the black and white version and the sharpness is much better than on the other two. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. By the way, can someone fix the tilt on the B&W version? NauticaShades 12:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose All The two alternates are good, but Alt 1 has been converted to B&W from the original sepia while Alt 2 is not straight and is smaller resolution. Normally, I'd support either one of these images, but the fact that they both exist (plus the original) means that a full colour version of Alt 1's resolution is not asking too much and in fact is probably out there somewhere (eg. whoever scanned in Alt 1). Why not wait until it turns up? Matt Deres 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:John Wilkes Booth wantekd poster new.jpg MER-C 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Blind-Man's Buff[edit]

A different subject matter for a 19th century newspaper engraving
Proposed caption
Cartoon criticising the police for their inability to find the Whitechapel murderer. From Punch, 22nd September 1888, page 134. Artwork by John Tenniel.
Articles this image appears in
Jack the Ripper
John Tenniel

* Support as nominator Spikebrennan 15:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose Sorry but I really don't think this one is of sufficient quality or size or encyclopedic value. On a wider issue, we've had many 19-century newspaper engravings nominated recently and I'm wondering whether a few (including ones I've supported myself) have benefited unduly from the relaxation of quality rules for historic, irreproducible images. After all, pretty much every 19th century newspaper is available on microfiche and perhaps we should be demanding the same standards we do of contemporary photographs. Just a thought. ~ VeledanT 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it should really be remembered that there aren't usually a large number of engravings of any one subject. I'm all for raising the bar a bit, but we should be reasonable, and consider how many illustrations of a certain subject there are likely to be. That said, I think this scan is a little small - I think it's reasonable to expect to be able to pick out all lines in an engraving. Adam Cuerden talk 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too small, scan quality subpar, and I just don't think it's an interesting or important cartoon. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn and move for speedy close. After reconsideration, I agree with the oppose votes. No reason to have this one clogging up the queue. Spikebrennan 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Scene from "The Princess"[edit]

I think it's a nice engraving, the play is relatively important given what it later developed into, (and after 6 bloody hours fixing all the printing errors, I want everyone to see it.)
Proposed caption
In 1870, W. S. Gilbert's musical farce The Princess premièred, a parody of Tennyson's epic poem The Princess: A Medley. Tennyson's tale of a prince cross-dressing in order to get access to a princess who shuns the world of men proved fertile ground for satire, and the cross-dressing prince and his companions, portrayed by women pretending to be men pretending to be women, added another layer of silliness to Gilbert's play. Though some elements of the farce have not aged well - Tennyson's poem is now forgotten, and Gilbert's satire of women's education is no longer politically correct - the play lives on in a later comic opera revision: Princess Ida, the eighth Gilbert and Sullivan opera.
Articles this image appears in
The Princess (play); Princess Ida.
D.H. Friston, with rather extensive retouching by me to fix a rather abominable printing (Alas! The only printing! One does wish that newspapers could make sure the six blocks that make up their woodcut image were positioned properly so that researchers a century and a quarter later wouldn't bewail their fate.)
  • Support -- Ssilvers 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think you went too far in your editing. Those white lines delineate the separate, but probably glued-together pieces of wood that build up the woodcut. Removing them alters the historical original, and that is unacceptable, IMHO. If the lines were there in 1870, they should still be there! --Janke | Talk 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's always hard to judge these things, and it'd be reasonable to go either way. Hence why I provided both versions. But for simple illustration of the play, the lines are distracting. Adam Cuerden talk 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support despite my string of opposes today on 19th-C engravings: this one is of good quality and compelling composition. When I started typing this I couldn't quite support, per Janke, but on reflection I think that neither the articles it illustrates nor the subject would benefit from reproducing the printing errors, and the fact that the image page clearly describes the amendments made is sufficient in my opinion. If it were nominated for its contribution to an article on printing, I'd think differently. Compliments on the excellent caption by the way. ~ VeledanT 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Aye: It seemed more useful, given where it's being used, to go with a version that removed obvious flaws, even if they're interesting from a typographic point of view. But I did provide an unedited version as well, since it has historical significance. I just don't think it's as useful for illustrating the plays. Adam Cuerden talk 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - good, clear, high-resolution engraving of a very interesting subject. I also agree with Veledan, nice composition. -- Chris.B 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:The Princess - W. S. Gilbert.png MER-C 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Portrait of George Washington.jpeg[edit]

Alternative by User:Chris.B. Wider crop, more colour vibrancy. Stiched together from another source.
Alternative2 by User:Chris.B. Tweaked colour.
Striking, near-photographic portrait of Washington, much better in these 2 regards than the existing portraits of him in uniform currently in use on Wikipedia or on Commons, which are full-body; resolution is 972 x 1184, so it still fits within the size guidelines.
Proposed caption
Porthole portrait George Washington in military uniform, by Rembrandt Peale
Articles this image appears in
George Washington, Man, Revolution, 18th century, 1789, Continental Army, Rembrandt Peale, among many others; this portrait is used in Template:US-poli-bio-stub, so it appears in more articles not directly relevant to Washington, albeit drastically reduced in size and at the bottom of said articles
Rembrandt Peale

* Support as nominator BrokenSphereMsg me 07:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Question - has it been cropped, or is it the painting? As it is now, the crop is rather tight I think. -- Chris.B 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
That's how it is from the source, but that version is a crop; the original is wider and taller. This is a 1200 x 1200 version, but isn't as rich in color and seems to lack the vitality of the nom; it may be possible to get the full version from here, but I can't figure out how to seperate the image URL from the Flash/Java coding, if that's possible. Otherwise, other copies I've found of this portrait are lower res and not as good. BrokenSphereMsg me 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, here is an alternative. It has taken me about an hour to do, but I think it's ready now. I have stitched, piece by piece, the whole portrait from the last source you provided. The colours are amazing and it's far better now. And unbelievably all I have used is print screens and good old Microsoft Paint. -- Chris.B 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I support alternative support alternative2 -- Chris.B 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I know it's the same painting, but is it just me or does it look like Washington's expression is softened and not as severe/dour looking in the alt? Still, Peale's intent was the porthole effect, which the original doesn't convey adequately because of the crop. Therefore, unless a better 2nd alternative/version can be provided I'm going to switch my support to the alt for now. BrokenSphereMsg me 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose both for now - the color ballance in the second is far too yellow for me, but its cropping is good. Debivort 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC) This color is better, but I would still prefer a less saturated version. That said there is a greater problem I didn't notice earlier - jpeg artifacting in all versions, particularly in the lower parts of the oval, one can see checkers and stripes. Debivort 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose both the colour looks wrong on the second and the frames being cut in such a way look distracting --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the yellow/green colour. -- Chris.B 11:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose all The first has problems as above, and in the others the skin looks rather jaundiced. I find ther colouring of the original version more believable. Adam Cuerden talk 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So basically a non-cropped version of the original showing the porthole surroundings. BrokenSphereMsg me 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
....and no jaundice or anti-wrinkle cream either. :) -- Chris.B 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, you do lose all the wrinkles on the alternatives. That's bad. Adam Cuerden talk 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Idea Would it be possible to blend the original nom into the better porthole of the other scans? Adam Cuerden talk 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the original's porthole colors have to be replicated as well? BrokenSphereMsg me 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it'd be easier to get the porthole colours right than something tricky like skin tones. Adam Cuerden talk 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

NASA Shuttle Transport[edit]

Clearly shows the operational use of an intriguing aircraft
Proposed caption
Space Shuttle Discovery leaves Edwards AFB on the back of a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (Boeing 747) on its cross-country trek to its home at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Articles this image appears in
Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jet Fabara
  • Support as nominator Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - low technical quality - out of focus and grainy.--Svetovid 11:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, a much better picture could be taken --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Doesn't look grainy or out of focus to me!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose. Free image, but is hardly the best one available of the SCA. Compare results (not free), or all the other NASA images you can Google up. Scrape around for a better one and nominate that instead. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Interior of the Neue Wache in Berlin[edit]

Edit1, slight rotation and CA reduction
The picture is of sufficient technical quality and depicts the interior of the Neue Wache like no other picture in the article before. I chose not to concentrate on the sculpture alone but to use a view from the back of the room back toward the entrance to incorporate the spectators into the image, which I feel helps to put context to the minimalistic stlye of the memorial. The skylight is open and exposes the sculpture to the elements. It's high exposure is inadvertant due to the low light conditions in the interior, but it helps to emphasize the brightness contrast to the outside world. The picture is part of a series linked on the image page (in case you are interested in a close-up of the sculpture).
Proposed caption
Interior of the Neue Wache (new watchhouse), the central memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany for victims of wars and tyranny.
Articles this image appears in
Neue Wache
  • Support as nominator Dschwen 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The skylight is a bit blown out, but the image is sharp and informative. Personally, I like this version: [2], though it doesn't show as much of the room. vlad§inger tlk 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Well done. I also like #3 better in terms of aesthetics, but this one is more encyclopedic. Cacophony 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • questions - what is the geometry of the room like? It looks pyramidal because the "verticals" aren't vertical. Also, how about a bit of sponge tool to reduce the purple fringing on the skylight? Otherwise fantastic aesthetic. Debivort 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it is not a pyramid. I was kneeling in order not to look down on the sculpture, and I pointed the camera upwards for compositional purposes. It looks pretty natural to me, and I also tried perspective correction, but that looks wrong. The line of sight is almost the spacial diagonal of the room, vertical verticals should not be expected. --Dschwen 07:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Support - thanks for the fixes, I'm completely satisfied. Debivort 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either with slight preference of the angle of the editted version. Technical quality is good; I like the perspective; you captured the mood quite well. Makes you want to read the article. – sgeureka t•c 10:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • RequestCould you upload a version with a slight clockwise rotation? I think it's the non-horizontal eye-level which is screwing with people's perception of "natural" perspective. mikaultalk 11:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree. The corner in the wall should be the reference vertical in this photo. Maybe perspective correction is in order? --Janke | Talk 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • As I mentioned above, perspective correction creates a very unnatural look. Not the corner should be vertical, but the edge of the doorframe which is horizontally centered in the frame. That will take a minute CW rotation. I'll upload an edit later tonight. --Dschwen 16:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I wouldn't worry about the convergence in this shot, it adds a bit of drama without losing any enc value. If it comes to what's vertical, a properly corrected horizontal will always give you a true vertical at the mid point of the frame, so that corner should probably have a tiny slant to the left. jeez, what a pedant... mikaultalk 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Neat idea, well taken. I love the reverence of the visitors and the serenity of the room. mikaultalk 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good, attractive shot IMO. -- Chris.B 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The skylight is distracting. I do not see any use for having that in the picture. I like the idea to capture the visitors as well. Mikeo 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The open skylight is a central element of the room, it exposes the sculpture to the weather outside. --Dschwen 23:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either, with preference for original. Excellent shot. Schcambo 13:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:B_Neue_Wache_interior_1b.jpg MER-C 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Ivan Shishkin's Rye (1878).

Ivan Shishkin (1832-98) was a leading Russian landscape painter associated with the realistic Peredvizhniki movement.

Proposed caption

The painting represents boundless rye fields in the forest steppe region of the Central Black Earth Region. Acquired from the painter by the merchant Pavel Tretyakov, the canvas still hangs in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow.


A high-resolution scan of the iconic Russian landscape.

Articles this image appears in
  • Nominate and support. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This attractive image (in contrast to the also-recently-nominated "The Ninth Wave"), has much clearer encyclopedicity. Spikebrennan 15:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What is meant by encyclopedicity? Do you mean the ability to reuse this painting in many different articles? Encyclopedias are collections of information useful for knowledge of a subject. These paintings have an intended artistic purpose, rather than to give people useful information. I'm struggling to understand what truly made this painting seem more encyclopedic than "The Ninth Wave".--Puddyglum 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's a quality scan of a painting, but if it were a larger scan it would be more feature-able. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddyglum (talkcontribs) 17:56, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. It should be quite larger, but this is quite sharp as it is. And it falls within reqs. vlad§inger tlk 01:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support- An amazing composition, and a good reproduction.--ragesoss 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very sharp scan. And that's really, really realistic. Jumping cheese 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Clear, crisp scan and very realistic subject indeed. (I thought it was a photograph!) -- Chris.B 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above, really good painting =] (and scan) --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Rozh.jpg MER-C 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ninth Wave[edit]

Ivan Aivazovsky's The Ninth Wave (1850).

Ivan Aivazovsky (1817-1900) was a Russian-Armenian painter who spent his entire life in the port town of Theodosia, in the Crimea. Along with the more innovative J. M. W. Turner, he is regarded as the great seascape painter of the Romanticism. His output is enormous and includes more than 6,000 artworks.

Proposed caption

One of the highlights of Aivazovsky's oeuvre is The Ninth Wave, a 1850 painting now in the Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. Described as "an ode to human daring in the face of the elements", the canvas depicts a handful of men clinging to the mast of a sunken ship amidst the boundless tumultuous ocean. The dramatic effect is heightened by the striking effects of light and shade.


I believe the quality of the newly uploaded scan does homage to this painting.

Articles this image appears in

The image is used to illustrate the article Shipwreck and the section of the article Storm touching upon the 19th-century seascape.

  • Nominate and support. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support--Mbz1 13:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Comment. Gorgeous painting, but is it encyclopedic? Compare this (non-nominated) shipwreck painting. Spikebrennan 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Vernet concentrates on the detailed and highly anecdotal action, while Aivazovsky concentrates on the essentials. The Vernet painting illustrates Shipwreck, while the Aivazovsky painting illustrates the heyday of the 19th-century seascape in Storm. They are both encyclopaedic in their own way. It's a shame that the scan of the former is of comparatively inferior quality and resolution. P.S. Talking about shipwrecks, you may like Image:Aivasovsky Ivan Constantinovich Moonlit Seascape With Shipwreck.jpg. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mainly because it's on the small side for a painting reproduction. The artist's signature is also totally illegible (possible because of too much contrast enhancement), and it looks like some of the border may have been cropped out.--ragesoss 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. There is no better painting of this prolific master that illustrates better his renowned mastery of the seascapes. The quality of the scan is amazingly good. Unlike in commons' FPs, the WP' FP are based not entirely on the aesthetic beauty but also fitness and usefulness of the image to illustrate the text. This is just perfect. --Irpen 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose As an illustration of storm, the image is not accurate. Waves in storms do not look like that - the water roughens but this water remains glossy. They also don't stack up vertically unless the depth of the water is something like less than twice the height of the wave. Look at forces 9-11 in Beaufort scale. Maybe if it were used to illustrate the painter's article. Debivort 05:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, a very famous and beautyful painting. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support it is on the small side but it doesnt detract at all from its value, the picture really caught my attention the first time i saw it --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Debivort - not illustrative for the articles that use it. thegreen J Are you green? 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, not good for those two articles or the little thumbnail on the creator's page. gren グレン 00:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Debivort. Matt Deres 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Diet Coke and Mentos Geyser[edit]

An absolutely beautiful, high resolution photograph of the Mentos and Diet Coke eruption.
Proposed caption
The eruption caused by the chemical reaction of mixing Diet Coke and Mentos.
Articles this image appears in
Diet Coke, Mentos, Diet Coke and Mentos eruption, Steve Spangler
Michael Murphy
  • Support as nominator Prezboy1 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support lol. Debivort 04:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not encyclopaedic, not Wikipedia's best.--Svetovid 08:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm sorry but i was skeptical but upon viewing full size i saw a picture with great technical quality. Add to say it is not encyclopedic is not a fair rationale as it is used in this encyclopedic article Diet Coke and Mentos eruption. --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You failed to understand what 'encyclopaedic' means in this case. Inclusion in an article(s) is not the sole criterion.--Svetovid 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well then what does an encyclopaedic picture of this subject look like? Saying something's not good is not a very constructive criticism. --antilivedT | C | G 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a single picture can describe something like this in the first place. You need a video for that.--Svetovid 11:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments. I like it, but a couple of things if someone could clarify. (i) Is there any copyright or similar issue with using the clearly labelled Coke bottle in such a prominent situation? I guess it would be regarded as irrelevant anyway. (ii) I would prefer if there were some Mentos included in the picture beside the bottle to help with encyclopaedic value. --jjron 09:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'Coca-Cola' logo is trademarked, but the copyright expired (published 1885) also it's just a common typeface so it can't be copyrighted Bleh999 12:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
So what if it's trademarked? We're not starting a competing cola product called Coca-Cola, we're taking a picture of a bottle! What does trademark have anything to do with it? This is backward legal nonsense- instead of thinking "well the law is probably crazy enough to forbid us from doing this", think "We're uploading a picture of their product, a picture that could have been taken on any store shelf across the world, to the internet. How can that possibly be legally ambiguous?" --frotht 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I was just posing the question. I don't have that legal knowledge, which is why I asked. I assume you do to be answering. --jjron 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well not really :/ Just ranting! --frotht 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Are those blown highlights that I see? What is the dark streak to the right of the bottle-- a big blob of flying liquid? It seems to me that better lighting and a background that doesn't obscure the details would improve this reproducible photo. Spikebrennan 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose. I'd actually considered nominating the image myself back in June, but decided against it for the technical reasons Spikebrennan gives above (well, aside from the background - I quite like it). The image is very good, but given that anyone with a few pounds/dollars/etc could reproduce the effect, the image really needs to be flawless. GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    A few dollars worth of groceries and a few thousand's worth of camera equipment, yes…--HereToHelp 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support High quality, does a good job of illustrating the subject matter. Jellocube27 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Slightly noisy, with some blown highlights here and there, but overall a good quality image that illustrates the subject well. NauticaShades 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The tech/aesthetic sides are borderline; it's a good shot, but there's no reason it can't be perfect (some presumably motion blur, some DOF lack of clarity, nothing too bad). Frankly, what turns me off is the use of a globally recognized trademark when there's no reason at all to use it. The effect occurs with any kind of cola - a similar picture could be taken with the label removed or with the cola in a generic container. As is, does this picture meet criteria 4 (free license)? I bet the good folks at Coca-cola wouldn't think so, but IANAL. Even ignoring that issue the, well, blatant use of the Coke logo is actually distracting to me. Matt Deres 02:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, "Diet Coke" is in the article title, so the photo adheres pretty strictly to that. Debivort 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't tested this myself so am happy to be corrected, but I have been told by others that while this works with other colas to some extent, there's something with Diet Coke that makes it react so much more vigorously. Having said which, I'm a bit iffy on the label too. --jjron 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I have struck-through my opposition to the picture; according to the comments above and below, the use of a registered trademark does not affect the picture's qualifications for FP status. I only have it as weak due to some minor tech issues and because I find the brand use distracting. Matt Deres 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It would be better if the logo is wrapped around with some black paper or something, but it's good enough right now. --antilivedT | C | G 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Why? Just becuase they do that in TV shows and things to avoid giving a brand free advertising? There's no reason we should have to do that- in fact I think it's a mark of quality that we use "the real thing" in our images to be as encyclopedic as possible rather than a generic version for petty reasons that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia, like economics or even copyright. The image is for the DIET COKE and mentos phenomenon's article, it should feature diet coke. --frotht 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well it's certainly doable with some generic diet cola instead of diet coke, but this is more of an issue on the name of the article than the picture. --antilivedT | C | G 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Svetovid. -- Chris.B 08:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a diet COKE and MENTOS fad, there's no taking coca cola out of the equation any more than it would make sense to use a generic mentos. Also even if we have to technically claim this as fair use, this is exactly the purpose of fair use.. there's no reason we should have a rule that we can't assert our right to use the image. --frotht 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So, are you asserting that the photo is in fact free license as per the GFDL the photographer released it under? I freely plead ignorance on the whole trademark thing, but surely there's a bit of difference between a photo that happens to have a Coke can in it or something and one with literally nothing in it except an exploding Coke bottle. The use of Mentos or some kind of equivalent is irrelevant since you can't see the candy anyway. You may also want to read WP:FP? where it specifically states that FPs cannot be fair use. Matt Deres 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not fair use, it can be freely licensed, a trademark is different than a copyright, the copyright has expired for the coca cola logo, also it is a generic typeface and cannot be copyrighted, it was designed by Frank Mason Robinson 1845 - 1923 Bleh999 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of the rules and I'm just taking the opportunity to call that one out as irrelevant. We have just as much legal right to assert fair use as to assert a free license (as long as it really is fair use) so there's no reason we shouldn't. Seems like something someone years ago thought was a nifty idea, and we're all just following it like sheep because it's a rule. well we make the rules, and it's a stupid rule. --frotht 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - It's cool, its sharp and it makes me want to know more about it, heck, it even makes me want to try it, so, i guess that enough for an FP, Also, i even think its good to see the "Coke" label in the picture, as this clarifies the COKE and mentos eruption, and, really, the Coke logo is so widespread, u cant say i has to be fair use. Yzmo talk 08:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    • I don't see how widely use a logo is affects its copyright status - it is either fair use or free. And, is the "Coke" logo (as opposed to the Coca-cola logo) no longer copyrighted, as Bleh999 said? thegreen J Are you green? 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Awesome, well taken. Inklein 00:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I actually quite like this shot - and the quality is good even at 100% --Fir0002 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - per Svetovid. Looks a little tilted too. Schcambo 13:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I seriously do not understand what people mean by "not encyclopedic." We have an encyclopedia article on Diet Coke and Mentos eruption, and the picture clearly helps to illustrate what the article is about. Are you saying that the whole article should be deleted because it is not something that should be in the encyclopedia? Because I do not think that you can argue that the picture does not help readers to understand the article. Mcrawford620 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Not encyclopedic but the eruption and composure are incredible. -Henry W. Schmitt 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support A YouTube phenomenon last summer, well captured. Weak s. because there are no mentos positioned in front :-/ ~ VeledanT 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 09:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Kasa de la Muntanya", Barcelona[edit]

Heeding calls for more noms by Wikipedians... for me, this photograph evokes the scale of the housing crisis gripping not just Barcelona but most Spanish cities. For Squatting, it illustrates a topical reaction to the crisis and depicts Barcelona's most famous squat in the context of the City's sprawling metropolis.
Proposed caption
Squatting in Spain is a highly politicized activity as much as a way of living, with political slogans and symbols often visible on occupied buildings, which range from small houses to abandoned factories. Influenced by the British Levellers, the okupa movement began during a housing crisis in the early 1980s and grew during the 1990s, due to the urban regeneration surrounding the 1992 Summer Olympics. Property speculation, gentrification and house price inflation continue to catalyze okupa activism.
Articles this image appears in
Mick Stephenson
  • Support as nominator mikaultalk 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Adam Cuerden talk 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment it doesn't really illustrate Squatting they way I would expect, such as an image like this one does. That house looks pretty well kept. Debivort 04:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support >meh< it illustrates very nicely an aspect of squatting I didn't appreciate. Debivort 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not illustrative. And the caption is an original research/POV rant.--Svetovid 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not illustrative of Squatting in general, which is why it appears at the Spain section of the article. It illustrates squatting in a uniquely Spanish context. There is, at least, one English-language secondary source to back up the section (which is the basis for the caption) and the rest is derived from es: and Spanish news sources. I guess these should ideally be sourced in English, but there's no OR in the caption at all, that I can see. mikaultalk 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Svetovid, nothing jumps out and says im the part illustrating squatting --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this is an example of Wikipedia's finest. Also, the caption needs to at least explain the image, as it currently just gives information about Okupa activism. After looking at the picture I honestly was left with the impression that Squatting was either setting up a shooting range on top of a building, or else using a building to display activist messages.--Puddyglum 17:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe I should amend the caption, but it's already very long. As I stressed above, the image depicts Spanish squatting, which is a highly politicized activity as much as a way of living. A distinctive part of that involves daubing political slogans all over occupied buildings, which can be the size of entire factories. Other examples of this appear in a gallery in the article section. So the impression you were left with was exactly the one I was hoping for. The shooting thing is typical okupa humour, contra-culture, contra-tourism, contra-you-name-it.. mikaultalk 09:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • "[This] image depicts Spanish squatting, which is a highly politicized activity as much as a way of living. A distinctive part of that involves daubing political slogans all over occupied buildings, which can be the size of factories." That seems like a start for a better caption, IMO.--Puddyglum 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, I've found a reasonable source for that, added it to the article and amended the (shortened) caption. mikaultalk 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. This is the best illustrative image of squatting I have ever seen. We see the Squat itself, and then the sprawling urban mass of Barcelona behind it, essentially cause and effect in one image. The large Spanish cities are very crowded, and squatting is a byproduct of this. The quality is fine, although the caption rather long. I don't see any POV in it at all, though. NauticaShades 02:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Though, "can be the size of factories" is kind of midleading, as the reason for the size, is that they ARE (former) factories. Murderbike 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Noted: caption tweaked. mikaultalk 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support EllenS 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would just comment that this image is very easy to replicate. Whenever you visit Parc Guell, you walk past a little lookout which is the exact viewpoint shown in this image. Looks to me like someone just took a panoramic view of Barcelona then afterwards decided it illustrated squatting well. Otherwise I don't really see the need for so much background and relatively little emphasis on the building itself. Stevage 07:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • While I value your opinion on the enc value of the image and its background, I'm not sure your second-guessing my inspiration or motive behind the shot has quite so much value. Nor do I think replacability is a major criterion for this kind of shot – or at least it's never been an issue in the past – unless the tech quality is poor. Incidentally, the shot I have from nearer street level doesn't provide anything like the relevance and context of this more elevated viewpoint. mikaultalk 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't take so much offence. Replaceability is an issue whenever the photo is of a major landmark, like the current Whitehouse nomination. Anyway, it's interesting comparing your image to an almost identical one I have from when I was there:
        • They've repainted the roof: in my one there is no red outline around the letters Okupa Y Resiste, and the white is more faded
        • They've painted over a mural: in mine, there is a mural on the wall behind the word Okupa showing what looks like a tree with some teeth like a mouth over it. In yours it's been whitewashed over.
        • The "tourist season" sign is new.
        • The wall behind the tourist sign, with the green shadecloth has been painted. In mine it is grey cement with some graffiti, including an A in a circle and what looks like the words "funf air far..."?
        • You've used a bit more telephoto, which is good.
        • The actual image quality is better on yours, which you'd expect from the D70s vs my compact.
      • Overall I'm still not that convinced about the composition of this image illustrating "squatting" as well as it illustrating "Barcelona". Stevage 06:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ha - they keep themselves busy alright! No offence taken, just surprised at your reaction. The painting and stuff is fairly unique to the okupa squatters (and hence practically all Spanish squatting) as they're primarily anarchists with a point to make about property and ownership. The roof is where most of the slogans are. That was the real motivation behind the shot; the okupa HQ overlooking the urban sprawl, forcing some realism on the otherwise rosy view of the city. That and the witty "tourist" banner, truth be told. I've found several similar shots while I was researching the article, not surprising given the location; really more surprising that such an illustrative scene wasn't already in the encyclopedia. mikaultalk 08:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps there should be an article on the squat itself? It must be pretty famous. Incidentally, do you know what the phrase means exactly? Is it an imperative (with deliberate misspelling), as in "Occupy and resist!"? For that matter, is it Spanish or Catalan? Stevage 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It is definitely an imperative, and the misspelling is intentional as well. Anarchists in Spain often use "K" for any spellings that would otherwise require a "C" in solidarity with the Basque language and its intentional use of "K" to separate itself from Castillian. And the word "Okupa" goes for Castillian and Catalan, but the phrase itself is in Castillian. The Catalan would be "Okupa i resisteix" (with the misspelling). Murderbike 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Flammarion Woodcut[edit]

Widely known piece of art, high quality image
Proposed caption
The Flammarion Woodcut is an enigmatic woodcut by an unknown artist. The woodcut depicts a man peering through the Earth's atmosphere as if it were a curtain to look at the inner workings of the universe.
Articles this image appears in
Flammarion woodcut, Camille Flammarion, Flat Earth
  • Support as nominator -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support The caption needs a lot more work, since most of the interest of this image is in the history and usage: The image itself is actually rather confusing and odd. Vanished user talk 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Crop out the French-language caption (there is an alternate version so cropped on the image page), and improve the Wikipedia caption per Vanished user. Spikebrennan 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see any reason to remove the caption - it's not like it's a great deal of French, and it's important context, as it evidently is one of the things wrong with a 16th century attribution: It's a reference to Voltaire. Vanished user talk 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Is the top edge tilted like that in the original? vlad§inger tlk 01:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd be willing to believe it was: Parallell lines do not seem to be among very many engravers' strengths. That said, this is excessively unparallel. Presuming that's not a really hideous artefact of reproduction, it's yet another reason why the caption is so important: The image itself is actually only really about average quality or so, given the generally high level of engraving technique. Intentionally so, no doubt, as it's meant to impersonate an average engraving of a few centuries older, but even still... Vanished user talk 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (My) Translation: "A missionary from the Middle Ages claims he found the spot where the sky and the Earth met..." NauticaShades 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, I Support. NauticaShades 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. The caption doesn't deal enough with the content of the image itself. The translated caption should also be in the Wikipedia caption. I agree with Vanished user that the original caption should not be cropped out.--ragesoss 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Flammarion.jpg. There's plenty of caption on the image page. MER-C 09:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Field Marshall Keitel signs the German Act of Unconditional Surrender[edit]

Important, hi-res historical image.
Proposed caption
On May 8, 1945, German Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel signed the German Act of Unconditional Surrender at the headquarters of the Russian army in the Karlshorst district of Berlin. Also attending the ceremony were Georgy Zhukov representing the Soviet Union, Arthur William Teder representing the United Kingdom, Jean de Lattre de Tassigny representing France, and Carl Spaatz representing the United States.
Articles this image appears in
Wilhelm Keitel, Victory Day (Eastern Europe), German Instrument of Surrender
Lt. Moore (US Army). See National Archives and Records Administration: (ARC Identifier: 531290)
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support Highly significant but I do wish there was a version that didn't chop everybody's heads off. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 20:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Mbz1 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support I agree with CillaИ X&diams that the heads being chopped off are slightly distracting but still his point that it was a highly significant moment means I fully support--Childzy ¤ Talk 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Poorly framed, poorly executed snapshot of a highly significant occasion = oppose. --jjron 09:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with jjron. It feels like a snapshot and the image itself is neither important nor a feature-worthy illustration of an important event. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Poor framing. Mikeo 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yellow-Bellied Marmot[edit]

Edit 1. Sharpened and curves adjustment by jjron
Edit 2. Sunglasses
I think it a good picture of a marmot, and well fits the criteria.
Proposed caption
A Yellow-Bellied Marmot. Yellow-Bellied Marmots live in the western United States and southwestern Canada, including the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada.
Articles this image appears in
Yellow-Bellied Marmot
  • Support original as nominator Inklein 23:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support Weak support original Edit is a bit too contrasty for me. It's a pity so much of it is overexposed, but it illustrates the animal and its habitat well. thegreen J Are you green? 01:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I like the pose of the marmot. hike395 03:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think the angle adds quite a nice asethetic quality which compensates for the over exposure, besides, better over-exposed than under-exposed. The background is nice, makes a change to the usual close ups. All in all quite a cute photograph, would go nicely on the front page. It would be hard to get it back into that '!pose' again.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. How could I oppose a marmot? Anyway, could someone sharpen it a little (on the edges).--Svetovid 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Autumn must be approaching, judging from the size of size of this marmot (Back to school, damn it). I must say, it is a shame about the road in the BG, I don't mind the exposure. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, very striking shot. The marmot is nice and sharp and somehow the super-bright sun on the rocks doesn't kill the photo. (edit, I keep forgetting to sign) Mcrawford620 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. All around quality shot. What a pose, what a great angle. If this wasn't an encyclopedia, I'd want some kind of anthropomorphic first-person quote by the marmot to top it off. Unschool 01:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Looks very delicious encyclopedic. Debivort 03:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure sharpening was needed, but curve adjust is good. Debivort 19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - nice image, but could someone adjust the levels? Looks like it could do with a bit more contrast or something. Stevage 05:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Attractive shot; good composition. The background is the finishing touch. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1 uploaded. Sharpened and curves adjustment. Have fixed up a lot of the overexposure problems mentioned and sharpened the detail on the beastie. This is about as far as I wanted to take things without starting to affect quality. --jjron 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Edit 1. An eyecatching picture with some technical concerns improved by the edit. --jjron 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. Great, high-quality picture, not to mention the hilarious yet natural pose captured by the photographer. --Prezboy1 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. The original is a great image, and the edit cleans it up to perfect quality. NauticaShades 22:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 although I must say, edit 2 is my favourite. Amphy 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit 2 all the way Support Edit 1 Unique shot. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2 1 Ksempac 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 although the sunglassas are a nice touch. Buphoff 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Lovely --Kryobot 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Marmot-edit1.jpg MER-C 08:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

North Façade of the White House[edit]

Not for voting
I think this is a aesthetically pleasing image of one of America's most iconic landmarks.
Proposed caption
The North façade of the White House, completed in 1824, located on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C.
Articles this image appears in
White House
  • Support as nominator Nishkid64 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on technical grounds. How a propos: it slants to the right. Spikebrennan 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Boring, conventional. Sorry. Unschool 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose could be taken better --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose ordinary picture, not stunning at all Mikeo 22:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose While slant could possibly be corrected, and care has been taken in framing to minimize the imposition of that tree, the subject is in shade and the foreground fountain is cut off, creating an awkward appearance. For such a widely-known and (relatively) easily-obtained image we should insist on the best. This is better than adequate, but not by much. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The lack of symmetry does it for me I'm afraid. -- Chris BTalkContribs 10:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that the recent stabilized magic hour attempt at this shot (right) failed, I wouldn't put the odds in favor of this nom. Noclip 03:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Self-Nom. This is a good picture of a famous landmark of Kyoto, Japan.
Proposed caption
Kinkakuji, located in Kyoto, Japan. The temple was built in 1397. It was burned down by a monk in 1950 and was restored five years later.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Jerry 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blown sky. Iorek85 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Trees immediately in front of the edifice are way too blurry. Unschool 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose poor quality, and per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above, blown sky, bad quality Mikeo 22:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very nice subject - but blown sky and bad composition unfortunately. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 08:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this composition is FP material, then my shot[3] should be on the cover of National Geographic! --Bridgecross 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yosemite El Capitan[edit]

Pretty spectacular image I though. Buc 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Proposed caption
Southwest face of El Capitan from Yosemite Valley
Articles this image appears in
El Capitan
  • Support as nominator Buc 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The integrity of the focus on the rockface itself—which is what we are drawn to—is flawless, which this layman found impressive. And the whole image I found spectacular. Unschool 05:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't find it at all too spectacular. There are other spots from which better pictures of El Capitan can be taken (i.e. Tunnel View, Valley View). Those would show El Capitan together with a little more of Yosemite Valley than just a couple of trees. The picture here is just showing a lot of rock without anything around. It is just one of the millions of tourist snapshots taken in Yosemite Valley, nothing outstanding. Mikeo 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mikeo. Cacophony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacophony (talkcontribs) 00:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose technically, looks quite good to me, but there are a few problems. We have nothing to gauge the distance between the foreground trees and the rock; the tiny trees at the top and the large ones at the bottom give us a weird forced perspective, as if the face was extremely tall, when it's more likely just some distance away. While some people would object to there being a climber in the shot, some kind of scale would also be good. Nice detail, though. Matt Deres 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I respectfully disagree, Matt. I think that the trees at the top do a sufficient job of providing scale, not significantly different than would be gained by having a climber in the picture (though a climber on the face would make this, methinks, a more spectactular shot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talkcontribs)
Perhaps I should have been more clear. The trees at the top do provide some sense of scale compared to the trees at the bottom, but the angle makes it impossible to say how much of that scale is due to the camera's distance from the rock face and how much is due to the height of the rock. A climber would give us a separate scale for the rock itself. And, yeah, look pretty cool too. Wonder if William Shatner is up to it... Matt Deres 23:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Burj Al Arab[edit]

Beautiful PD shot of a famous landmark by a Wikipedian
Proposed caption
The Burj Al Arab, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, completed in 1999, is the world's tallest hotel. The hotel claims in its advertising to be the world's only 7-star hotel.
Articles this image appears in
Dubai, Burj Al Arab, Landmark
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan 19:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: It's gorgeous! --Procrastinatrix 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support It could be bigger, but there aren't any glaring errors.--HereToHelp 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Seems 'washed out' (low contrast), and the size is too small for my liking. Iorek85 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I concur with both points raised by Iorek85. Indeed, I wondered if this had been taken under conditions of fog, though that would seem unlikely, given the venue. Unschool 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with above, there is something not quite right about it, plus quality is pretty low --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with above. Picture really seems to be washed out. Maybe also not the ideal weather to take such a photo. Mikeo 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "washed out" look is due to clouds/mist. If you look at a google image search for this structure, you'll see that better weather conditions certainly exist, and this image, while nice, is far from the highest quality we could acquire for this structure. -Harmil 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The mist gives it a nice ethereal quality. Not every image has to be clinically crisp. DrVerlucci 14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Image looks good on my computer, I don't see any artifacts. I believe the image shows the lake clearly, it also shows the waves in the water. The image also shows the area surrounding the lake.
Proposed caption
the extended caption of the image, providing adequate context, with prose suitable for display on the Main Page
Articles this image appears in
Michaux State Forest
  • Support as nominator ~ Wikihermit 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I am a big fan of the composition artistically, I'm afraid it doesn't give me very much information about the state forest whose article page it is on. What is the name of this lake? Also, even if this lake is notable enough to be described in the state forest article, I'm afraid the image isn't very distinctive. Beautiful, but not very specific. Most of the image is taken up with beautiful, but nondescript, water and sky. Technically, the blurry distance (sky, trees and far lake shore) and the color distortion at the edge between the sky and forest are both problems. Enuja (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Uninteresting snapshot of a very typical looking lake. Cacophony 08:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lacking enc., and technically uninspiring. --Sean 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The rule of thirds would have helped too. -- Chris.B 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for poor technical quality. Puddyglum 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on technical grounds. I do love the zen self-referential caption, though. Spikebrennan 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yeah, I'd like to see this in person, as I crawl out of my tent in the morning. But as an FP, it's just not sufficiently spectacular. Unschool 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just boring. Mikeo 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shaftesbury Avenue, London. Kodachrome by Chalmers Butterfield[edit]

Proposed caption
Piccadilly Circus, London, c. 1949. The Circus, a famous traffic intersection and public space of London's West End in the City of Westminster was built in 1819 to connect Regent Street with the major shopping street of Piccadilly. Its status as a major traffic intersection has made Piccadilly Circus a busy meeting point and a tourist attraction in its own right.
Articles this image appears in
Chalmers Butterfield
  • Support as nominator Ajuk 23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I've always liked this image, though it is a bit out of focus. It's especially cool having it side by side with this one taken last year. Really shows the passage of time. -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Piccadilly Circus in 2006 (for comparison)
  • Support, It shows a rich history of London. Shaizakopf 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, super interesting picture Mcrawford620 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, focus is an issue at higher resolution (perhaps it's oversampled? what does a downsized version look like?) and you haven't written a caption . I added the article in which it appears for you. --Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very high in WP:ENC value and attractive to boot. The kind of thing that should appear on the main page. Pedro |  Chat  11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. --Golbez 11:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Charming, but needs a caption, and probably downsampling, and perhaps a crop or something to take care of those ugly missing corners. Spikebrennan 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Exquisite shot. It's caught the archetypical hustle and busle of London perfectly. -- Chris.B 15:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment where is caption? Also, can someone sharpen it?--Svetovid 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added a caption - that should have been the nominator's job though, tut-tut. -- Chris.B 17:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very encyclopedic and nice old picture. Mikeo 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support You can even see the old tram lines in the road! Encyclopedic value compensates for slightly blurry shot. One thing we have to be clear on though is has this been false coloured? it looks like original colour to me but just to be sure. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's Kodachrome, famous for "nice bright colors" and "greens of summers". It is (almost always?) a slide film format. I have no reason to suspect alteration. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Kodachrome is ALWAYS slide film and ALWAYS has been colour, this image is slightly improved if you do auto levels in PS.Ajuk 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The uploader and his father (the photographer) have some other pics that may be worth a nomination. I don't want to nominate too much, as it will most likely be me who has to close them. MER-C 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably a bit late, but I've added edit1 which is hopefully not too savage a treatment. As requested, it's been sharpened a bit but the main thing it needed was a rotation to bring the verticals upright, which has lost some of the original info at the edges, although nothing (IMO) that would be missed. I've removed a fair bit of dust, hair and scratches but haven't touched the colour or tonal balance as it seems fairly true to 60-year old Kodachrome to me. I have downsampled from the original 50Mb (!) though. mikaultalk 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit1 or whatever. mikaultalk 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 looks good, though I don't know that sharpening was warrented - it mostly seems to have brought out grain. thegreen J Are you green? 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. The usual aim of edge enhancement that you go for with digital shots would be no use with this scan. I made a point of sharpening the original file before downsampling so that the grain (which is usually really fine: this would probably have been 10ASA film) could be expressed as "pixels per particle", which I think is always the best way of scanning film if you have the resolution. This article goes into a bit more. The grain is actually the dye particles of the film (although there is also some scanner noise) which contains all of the detail in the image. The sharpening has brought out two issues: first, there is a fair bit of camera shake (10ASA..) which you can't really see in the soft original, and second, the scan has left some banding and chroma in the shadows which is a little unfortunate but which is correctable and would probably not be so visible in print. I've taken it to the point where you can just see some halos around the non-spectral highlights (ie where there is no grain) which means we can now see only original detail and no more. I still love it, as I love that fabulous random Kodachrome texture.. mikaultalk 08:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Why not?--Kryobot 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:London , Kodachrome by Chalmers Butterfield edit.jpg MER-C 08:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wawadit'la(Mungo Martin House) a Kwakwaka'wakw big house[edit]

This is a very high detail image of a historic building. At 10000x7000 pixels this is a 70 mega-pixel image. Visible are the tools marks in the hand made totem and wall and the nail holes in the doors hinges. In the background other totems can be seen in great detail. I think this meets all the requirements of a featured picture. Single Photograph Account 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Proposed caption
Wawadit'la, also known as Mungo Martin House, a Kwakwaka'wakw "big house", with heraldic pole. Built by Chief Mungo Martin in 1953. Located at Thunderbird Park in Victoria, British Columbia.
Articles this image appears in
Potlatch, Mungo Martin, Kwakwaka'wakw, Victoria, British Columbia, Culture_by_region, Canada
  • Support as nominator Single Photograph Account 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The colors don't look natural and the shadows are distracting and probably avoidable. To me it looks like a poorly tone mapped HDR image (and the conditions don't really justify HDR). And just because you can upload a 20MB photo doesn't mean that you should. I think the photo would be much better without all the digital trickery. Cacophony 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The tree casting that shadow would be more useful for this picture if it were carved into a totem pole. Until then, oppose.--Puddyglum 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Colors look unnatural. FlakHack 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rez breaks, but does not make, an image.--HereToHelp 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tree Climbing Lioness[edit]

Original/Option 1
Option 2
Self-nom. A high-quality image of a hard to spot tree climbing lion in its native habitat. The sky is blown, however given the time of day and the technically difficulty of photographing in mixed light conditions (shadows from the tree etc.), I feel this doesn't distract from the FP attributes of the image. Also, there is a lot of discussion right now about original content on the talk page, so I decided to add some more original content. I've just now added the image to wiki, and so the articles it appears in may be updated, I'll make a note if this happens.
Proposed caption
A female lioness in Ishasha Southern sector of Queen Elizabeth National Park (Southwestern Uganda). Ishasha lions are famed for tree climbing, a trait only shared with lions in the Lake Manyara region. They often spend the hottest parts of the day in the large fig trees found throughout the area. It is still unclear why so few lions exhibit this behavior.
Articles this image appears in
Lion, Queen Elizabeth National Park
Cody Pope
  • Support, self nom Cody.Pope 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and high quality. Really a beautiful animal which shows it's full physical form. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Puddyglum 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While this may be a great shot given the conditions it was taken in, that much blown sky is tough to overlook. The compositions and main subject don't stand out enough to make up for the serious flaw.--ragesoss 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • support--Mbz1 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support though its obvious there are blown highlights i do not believe that thaey in anyway detract from the image --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is certainly a very nice image, but I am concerned about its encyclopedic value and about its technical quality. What are the sources for the fact that "Ishasha lions are famed for tree climbing?" If this unusual lion behavior is what makes this image encyclopedic, where is that information in the text of this encyclopedia? This image is currently used as a second image in the lion taxobox, and I'm not convinced that it is useful to have two images in a taxobox. It is also used in the park stub, which has three excellent pictures (and they should all be kept in the article!) but almost no text. The technical issue I'm most concerned about is the appearance of the lower, unfocused branches of the tree. What caused that strange mottled effect? Note: the two current lion FPs are Image:Male_Lion_and_Cub_Chitwa_South_Africa_Luca_Galuzzi_2004.JPG and Image:Lion_waiting_in_Nambia.jpg. Enuja (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that the mottled effect is just a result of Bokeh. The image was shot at f3.2 with a Nikkor (80-200, f2.8) telephoto at 200mm. There is no way to modify how the Bokeh effect presents itself with this lens. In any case, the mottling is not a result of any post-processing, and is in the RAW image. Also, as I've said, I wasn't sure where to place the image on Wikipedia, so your concerns about it's placement in the taxobox may be valid. However, given the sexual dimorphism of lions, it may be warranted (I think this is one of the reasons two images can go in a taxobox in the first place, and is quite common in field guides/standard encyclopedias, etc.). Finally, I've found some preliminary sources about tree-climbing, but am still looking for an academic source (most of what I've found is from travel websites; the Uganda Wildlife Authority was the original source of my comments, but I know there is at least one field researcher studying these prides, so I'm looking for an academic article as a better source). --Cody.Pope 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - no one is looking at the sky in this picture anyways. I honestly would not even have noticed that it was white until you pointed it out. Very nice shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrawford620 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to blown sky. This is not a unique enough image to overlook such a flaw. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added Option 2, with no sky. There is simply no data in Option 1 to be recovered. Depending on if either is promoted, I'll move the proper one into the pages listed above. I'm personally fonder of the composition of Option 1, however. --Cody.Pope 10:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Either - Great pictures of a very unusual behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenS (talkcontribs) 12:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either - Technical quality is adequate for an unusual picture. I didn't know any lions climbed trees, so this makes me want to read about it. --Sean 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either per above. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The image page points out that the behavior depicted in this image (tree-climbing) is rare, and is apparently only practiced by a few groups of female lions (including one of the groups at the park where the image was taken). This leads me to question the picture's encyclopedic-ness for Lion, although it's perhaps appropriate for the article about the park. Spikebrennan 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original per above. Good, encyclopedic shot. -- Chris.B 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either Searching for tree lion on google images demonstrates that this is not an area in which many high-quality pictures appear. There are problems here, but none that seem to overcome the substantial encyclopedic value. Detail is well documented. Composition is excellent. -Harmil 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tree_lion_2.jpg MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Roesel's bush-cricket[edit]

Scraped off COM:FPC, where support for this image is unanimous.
Proposed caption
Roesel's bush-cricket Metrioptera roeseli is a European bush-cricket, named after August Johann Rösel von Rosenhof, a German entomologist. Its song is very similar to that of Savi's Warbler. As shown a male.
Articles this image appears in
Roesel's bush-cricket
Richard Bartz
  • Support as nominator MER-C 03:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. No, it's not perfect; a tad of focus loss near the extreme parts of the subject, but on the whole, I think it's quite good. Unschool 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As good as one could expect from a live subject in its natural habitat.--HereToHelp 17:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good shot --Fir0002 05:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Very good quality, considering the speed at which they move. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 09:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - good, sharp, encyclopedic shot. -- Chris BTalkContribs 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Debivort 03:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support nothing to oppose here.--Svetovid 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great shot. Good focus.Ghelelio 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - muy bueno -Henry W. Schmitt 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I like the details --Kryobot 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice image --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Metrioptera roeseli male Richard Bartz.jpg -- Chris Btalkcontribs 19:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Sole image displaying a cat at feeding time, adequately used on an appropriate article.
Proposed caption
A domestic cat, eating some meat provided by its owner.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Cyclonenim 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, not large enough. Please, read over the guidelines. --Cody.Pope 13:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC), can you upload a bigger one? --Cody.Pope 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose fails many criteria - small, wrong composition, ...--Svetovid 14:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's impressive and unusual that you got the cat to feed on a vertical surface, but, well, the size at only a third of the minimum is just the first issue. Speedy close? --jjron 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Speedy close. Debivort 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed: also, that's no vertical surface, I looks very much like a wacky camera angle.. mikaultalk 23:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  ;-) --jjron 08:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above. The camera angle makes my eyes hurt. :) *Cremepuff222* 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Penedès vines[edit]

Quality image of high enc value to three articles, I think I like it most for the 19th century art nouveau bodega in the background.
Proposed caption
The vigorous young growth of the Tempranillo grape vine vitis vinifera in a typical vineyard in the CatalanPenedès region. One of the most ancient wine regions in Europe, el Penedès is home to some of the most innovative of the so-called Old World growers.
Articles this image appears in
Mick Stephenson
  • Support as nominator mikaultalk 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

*Support there are a couple of technical faults people may pick up on but i love it it. The composition is excellent, just enough of everything is shown and the colours are great --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Ah, the eagle eyes of FPC..! I see the sensor dust specks top center, I'll upload a retouched version. Am I missing anything else? mikaultalk 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral It is a nice picture, I just would like a bit less foreground and more headroom for the trees. The light leaves a little to be desired as well. Maybe someone can convince me to rethink it. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Support Edit 1 Thanks for letting me know about the edit mikaul, For me, the new crop does it. Great composition. Way to be brave and stop down to f/22. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Weak because of the blur on some of the leaves in the foreground (it was probably windy that day).--HereToHelp 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak support edit 1 Marginally better.--HereToHelp 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's nice, but I don't suppose you'd have a version with a little more space at the top, in particular a bit more space above the tower, and the cut-off tree not being cut-off? --jjron 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I do.. I cropped it from 3:2 from the top, to balance the shot and draw the eye to the vines; I suppose it could afford a fraction more. I'll post up a different version later. mikaultalk 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I've added Edit 1, with a bit more contrast, sensor dust removed and the top of the tree left in. mikaultalk 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Weak Support Edit 1. It's still a little tighter at the top than I'd like, and that slight motion blur mentioned, presumably due to a slight breeze with the shutter speed at only 1/40s. Still nice, and seems to work well in its articles. --jjron 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support Edit 1 per HereToHelp. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 I like the composition and quality.--Svetovid 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Far better than the first. Attractive shot. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:ClosLaPlanaEdit.jpg MER-C 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A Hornet holding a Bee torso.[edit]

Cropped & slightly shaded
This is rather unique picture, is rather good quality, especially considering the fact that it's a macro shot.
Proposed caption
A Vespa crabro germana, or European hornet, is actually a type of wasp. This one is holding the remnants of its prey, the upper torso of a honeybee. Adult worker hornets feed the masticated prey flesh to the larvae.
Articles this image appears in
Richard Bartz
  • Support as nominator NauticaShades 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The caption could use expansion, but the image itself is perfectly alright.--HereToHelp 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I expanded the caption slightly; I hope it's enough. NauticaShades 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit1 - I'm not sure that I that I like the composition much; it's bang on centre and the perspective is somewhat awkward. But I'll support nonetheless, its other qualities probably outweigh this. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Brilliant. (and I don't care much for composition "rules"). —Pengo 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support good picture, all in focus, composition doesn't matter --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure I could live with the centered composition, but maybe I'm just being fussy. I'd support edit1 although might be persuaded, should the consensus go with the original. mikaultalk 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for Edit 1 It's a good image, excellent focus and stands out well from the background. Cyclonenim 13:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for Edit 1 Nifty content. DrVerlucci 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for Edit 1 Greatly done --Kryobot 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for Edit 1 It's a good Makro work. --LucaG 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Vespa crabro germana with prey Richard Bartz Crop.jpg MER-C 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Close-up view of a Leopard Tortoise having its lunch.[edit]

Currently no pictures available of this specie in its habitat.
Proposed caption
A close-up view of a Leopard Tortoise in its natural habitat. This Eastern and Southern African tortoise, has the unique ability to swim and can live more than 100 years and grow up to 60 cm making it one of the largest terrestrial tortoise.
Articles this image appears in
Tortoise, Leopard Tortoise
  • Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Too similar to the other image you nominated-- pretty much all of the criticisms given to that one apply here as well. Inklein 01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the comments in the nomination below. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak support It is interesting to note that the tortoise is staring straight at the camera. Picture's a bit noisy.Ghelelio 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose This image would be more suitable as an edit of your previous submission rather than uploaded under a new entry. Noise should also be dealt with via another edit. Cyclonenim 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tortoise on Grass[edit]

I feel it meets the requirements
Proposed caption
One of the many of its kind, this young twenty year old tortoise, will probably witness the inauguration of the 100th President of the US
Articles this image appears in
Tortoise, Animal shell
Extra Info: The tortoise is presumably a Leopard Tortoise. The photograph was taken in its natural habitat. The age of the animal can be obtained by counting the number of rings on its shell. It can live up to a life span of more than 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talkcontribs) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The picture is not used in any articles. Please fix this before we consider this image. MER-C 06:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Concern fixed. MER-C 09:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, please familarise yourself with the Featured picture criteria, and once you do, feel free to upload and nominate your pictures. This looks a good contribution, and I don't think we've got many photographers based in Tanzania, so it can only be a good thing. --jjron 08:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Welcome to FPC Muhammad (I think you're new here). I like this photo - actually I think it belongs in a better spot in the tortoise article than just the gallery. However, one of the key criteria for an FP is the encyclopaedic value of an image. Your image description simply says this is "A picture of a tortoise crawling and eating in a grassy area.". I wonder do you have a bit more information to help with the encyclopaedic value. In particular a species identification would be good, given that there's so many different sorts of tortoises. If you took this in a zoo or some other wildlife park in order to find out that it was 20yo, then they should also have the species ID which would save you finding out yourself. Some other information on where the photo was taken may also be good, especially if it was in fact taken in the wild. Thanks. --jjron 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support I've seen better, but there isn't really anything wrong with it. The caption and such will need to be fixed up, of course, but the image itself is acceptable.--HereToHelp 12:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Composition is fairly weak. The creature is not centered, and while the photographer can't really help the clump of grass in front, it's highly distracting from the subject matter. Fully 1/3 of the bottom of the picture is sand. Cropping and color-manipulating (reducing value, increasing saturation, for example) might help to bring out the subject, but I'm not sure it would elevate it to FP-quality. -Harmil 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The clump of grass was being eaten by the tortoise just before the picture was taken and the sand is part of the picture to show the tortoise's habitat. -Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Composition and lighting. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • support - Very nice frontal shot. I strongly disagree that the grass and sand detract from the picture's value, although I do agree that the photo could be a bit better centered and perhaps otherwise color-manipulated to better effect. Mcrawford620 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose great shot form a camera phone! but i msut oppose per other users comments, it could msut definately be taken better --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't strike me as the best shot we could get of this creature. I mean, a flying insect shot you take when you can get it, but I think another shot of this subject, with more depth of field, perhaps a better angle, could have afforded itself to a patient photographer. It's a good picture, but I don't see it as a FP. Unschool 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Total Lunar Eclipse Sequence[edit]

A sequence of images from the 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse
Edit 1 by Fir0002; removed stars, slight levels on blacks, added more time bars

First the McNaught and now this - it's been a pretty good year in the southern skies! aside from the lack of rain... But anyway, I know that this was a well photographed event, but I think this shot is probably one of the best enc wise. Each image was taken at about 3 minute intervals except the last image in the sequence which shows what the moon looked like at about the middle of the eclipse. I've included time markers to give you an idea of when each shot was taken - but these obviously can be removed if people don't like them. One of the most surprising things (at least for me) was just how linear the ascent of the moon was. I was expecting a somewhat parabolic path. Clouds obscured the moon during the egress so I didn't bother shooting a sequence of that.
As an added bonus I've even been super generous with the pixel count :)

Appears in Lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. It might be worth considering adding more time labels, and it would also be nice to have one from about 6:50 for the sake of symmetry. Otherwise I'd say its outstanding. Cacophony 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah it would have been good - but unfortunately I wasn't quite prepared enough and the shots I took earlier were over exposed. I suppose I could photograph the moon tonight if the clouds clear up. --Fir0002 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Lovely work, those kind of things require a great deal of patience, and for rare event you only really have once chance to get it right. I agree that more time labels would be nice though to give it more context. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice, although the pixel count is almost too large, given each moon is only about 100px each. (But there's at least 10 moons, so that's ≥100px of subject, right?) I would also support more annotation and a full moon at the bottom. The thing that strikes me the most is why the moons form a diagonal line. Did it move across the sky like that? I think it would be more useful in an article to a vertical line of moons, with the total eclipse on the bottom. That way it can be put on the right side of an article and sort of fall through the sections, like the Signpost banner. That's just one idea, though. Great image nonetheless.--HereToHelp 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's the path the moon took across the sky. I mean I could do as you suggest and just make a straight vertical - but I feel that the enc value of this image would be far better.
  • conditional strong support - answer me these questions three: 1) What does the dashed line signify? A longer time gap? I'm not sure it's necessary. 2) If you want to keep the dashed line, it looks a little off center, like it doesn't point exactly to the center of the earlier moon. 3) Which image was used for the background? presumably the stars would make linear sequence also, except they appear only once. I'd consider removing them all or explaining which moon image contains them. I like the fadey pointer lines btw. Debivort 15:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, 1) yeah it just shows the longer time gap 2) i think it's probably worth keeping - I drew a straight line from the centre of both moons and aligned it to that so it should be good now 3)I made it as Fbc guessed below - with the camera on a tripod I shot photos until it went out of frame and then moved the position until I got all the photos. And then in Photoshop I got the first image of the sequence at the bottom and stacked the rest on top in "lighten" mode (only lighter pixels come through) and then I merged the four resulting sequences into a big long one with just a black background. Hope this helps! and yes I like the fadey pointer lines too :) --Fir0002 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Great! Too bad it can't be on the main page 6 days ago. Debivort 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So, this looks like, what, 4 sky segments stitched together to form the path of the moon? The differences in ambient light, average exposure, etc. make these different segments pretty obvious (on my LCD monitor). I wounder if it wouldn't be better to just cut out each moon, and arange them in a line. As it is now the black BG and the semi-black sky clash a bit too much. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 17:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah ha, I decided to recalibrate my monitor after trying to do some photo work and getting bad results and when I checked back here... guess what, black as night. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah it will make a difference on a properly calibrated monitor! I don't think it's be a good idea to just cut them out - compiling them as I described above gives a really scientific image with correct trajectory! I've uploaded an edit where I've brought up the levels of the blacks 4 points which removes most of the visible bordering. I've also removed the stars (believe it or not at the exposure I was using they were only visible once the moon went red) - keeping them looks messy (it's just a heap of dots). I've also added more time pointers. --Fir0002 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit Looks good. : ) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it, and was impressed. But two comments, echoing others. I might like to see more time stamps (but am unsure until I see how they look). Also, I am disappointed in the greater gap between the final image and the preceding image. Was someone sleeping on the job? Unschool 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit I prefer the star-less version and I prefer the extra time stamps. As others have touched on, I would also prefer a continuous sequence up to totality, even if it makes the image significantly larger. Matt Deres 14:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. I was going to nominate this myself. NauticaShades 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful image. I think time labels would draw attention away from the image itselfGhelelio 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support edit 1 The timestamps are messed up : 7:54 PM, 7:12 PM, 7:30 PM, 7:18PM. I prefer the edit for the better contrast. Anyway, great pic, congratulations to the author.Ksempac 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit. If you have the information, may I suggest adding more precise time information (seconds, if your camera's internal clock is sufficiently accurate), and adding to the caption the precise GPS coordinates of the location of your camera? Who knows-- this information might be of some scientific benefit for people who want to compare your pictures to those taken by other observers at other locations. Spikebrennan 13:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit1 - great picture. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Total lunar eclipse august 28 2007 edit.jpg MER-C 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


This picture shows an amazing example of genetic manipulation. The picture is high resolution and meets the criteria of a featured picture. Genetic manipulation is a very important topic both in the scientific community and in the popular press.
Proposed caption
These zebrafish (Zebra danio) have been genetically modified so that they produce green, orange, or red fluorescent proteins which impart a dramatic neon color to the fish. Although not originally developed for the ornamental fish trade, they are the first genetically modified animals to become publicly available as a pet.
Articles this image appears in
Recombinant DNA, Genetically modified organism, and GloFish
  • Support as nominator Jeff Dahl 04:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose low quality, reproducable and the white parts are really bright (blown highlights i think they are called???) --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Uncorrectable quality issues. Photographing subjects in water is tricky as the water and glass your shooting through will diffuse the light and give you a loss of contrast, bluring and those kinds of white blow outs, Don't be put off though, a pic of a GFP fish would be nice for more than a few of the science articles. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WikipedianProlific. Unschool 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Curious subject, but the quality is under par I'm afraid. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Elisabethmarkt Muenchen Graffiti[edit]

This work is an example of Street Art on the wall of Elisabethmarkt in Munich, Germany. It shows the use of both free-hand aerosol paints and stencils. A stencil can be used to protect a surface except the specific shape that is to be painted. Stencils can be purchased as movable letters, ordered as professionally cut logos, or hand-cut by artists. The speed, portability and permanence also make aerosol paint a common graffiti medium.
Ca.30% downsampled version for evaluation purposes
A great image of Graffiti, it shows the size of images that can be made and how it is a true artform.
Articles this image appears in
Elisabethmarkt Graffiti
Oliver Raupach
  • Support as nominatorChildzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When you say creator and selbst gemacht (own work) does this mean you are the Graffiti artist? If not then we have a problem here... --Dschwen 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see why, if the person that took the photo releases it then there is no problem. It is graffiti, nobody owns any rights towards the work anyway --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a discussion about graffiti and copyright and here are German laws on freedom of panorama. What could you make of it?--Svetovid 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strong oppose upon reconsideration I'm not convinced that using the image isn't copyright infringement, unless we have the permission of the graffiti artist him/herself. Even if there are no legal ramifications from using this image, posting it without the painter's consent doesn't reflect the ideals of WP. At least that's my perspective. SingCal 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean that information wants to be free and we need to get it into the hands of everyone at no cost? Copyright goes against wiki ideals, it's just something we have to deal with since people with guns and lawyers don't agree with us --frotht 17:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Encyclopedic and excellent quality reproduction. Bleh999 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose at 100%, the image is not crisp. I understand that the medium (presumably spray paint) doesn't give a crisp edge, but I am not talking about that. Look at the texture on the wall. There seems to be focus issues.-Andrew c 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original Support withdrawn It's in focus, I think. As it's rather large (10MP) and not sharpened, it looks "soft" at 100%. This is more the fault of the Wikipedia image display defaults: images aren't scalable, so there's no happy medium between 800x600 preview – where you see little to no detail – and full resolution, where you can't see the wood for the trees. While downsampling and sharpening would work, you lose the benefit of high resolution and spoil the image for possible print use in the future. I've uploaded a ds version anyway, so you can see what it might look like in print. (All) that said, whereas I really like the illustration, the copyright situation is unclear (per SingCal) & I'd need clarifiaction before supporting.
    mikaultalk 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support downsampled provided copyright is resolved. Also, do you think the nudity is sufficient to disqualify it from the Main Page. (Yes, I know, an image can be featured but withheld a Main Page appearance.) I don't mind, but someone else might.--HereToHelp 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There are no copyright issues.. this photo is just a picture of a wall, the wall happens to have a FP worthy design on it. The artist does not own the wall thus does not own the picture. There is no copyright tag on the wall so the picture has not been copyright protected. You can look at it a million ways but at the end of the day lets finish with the semantics and accept that there is nothing wrong with it from a copyvio point of view --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's a picture of a picture, not just a wall... Just so you know, a ©-mark is not necessary. Copyright is automatic when an image is made public. However, if there is no author's name or signature, then we don't know who the © belongs to.
        • I've just reverted my reconsidered support for this. As a photo of a recent artwork, the best we can hope for is Fair Use, which makes it ineligible for FP. I'd also like to point out that it is signed... mikaultalk 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
          • But from a legal point of view is graffiti entilted to copyright protection. Now im no lawyer but id think not tbh. --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
            • If it's illegal graffiti, probably not. But I look at the intense, painstaking detail of the painting and I think it wasn't a rush job. I feel like the artist had permission to use the space, either from a business owner or as part of an exhibition similar to the one that Wooster Collective sponsored. In either of those cases, intellectual copyright holds and we don't have permission to use the image. And I think these scenarios are likely enough that promoting this to FP would be irresponsible. SingCal 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP is not censored. So nudity shouldn't matter. Debivort 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I know it isn't and it shouldn't. Just wanted to make sure nobody else disagreed.--HereToHelp 03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Debivort 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Fair use#Images: As a recent artwork with clear authorship, wikipedia might be entitled to Fair Use licensing of this image under "images illustrative of a particular technique". Regardless of any (unfounded) assumptions we might make about the legality of the original artwork, and despite it being a photographic reproduction, it must be assumed to have legitimate authorship and therefore subject to copyright the same as any other artwork. Fair Use might be ok for wikipedia in general but it is not a permissible license for featured picture submissions under the current criteria. I move we suspend this nomination at the very least, until the license situation is properly resolved.
mikaultalk 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I totally agree with Mikaul. I move to suspend the nomination as well, with the understanding that I would likely be in support of this candidate if not for the copyright issues. SingCal 07:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't the owner of the wall have the rights? Shoeshirt 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope, authorship is everything. It's yer intellectual property, innit? mikaultalk 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
But if am using your property without your permission as a component of the art, then wouldn't that make a difference? If I took your paint and your canvas and made a picture without permission, or if I stole a camera and took a picture and it was recovered, wouldn't the owner of the medium have the rights? Not basing this on anything, it would just seem to make sense. Shoeshirt 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting Shoeshirt 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but again, that discussion only applies if the graffiti is created illegally, and as I've said, I think that there is ample evidence to support that it was created legitimately. Even if the building's owner has since removed it, the artist still holds intellectual copyright on visual representations of the work, including images, until he or she decides to release them. SingCal 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, unless there is a specific prior agreement to the contrary, ownership of the medium (camera, film, canvas, wall) employed to create an intellectual work is secondary to ownership of the content within that medium. Hence you may own a book but not the ideas printed in it, or a music CD but not the songs written for it. If I use your camera and take a photo with it, it's your camera and my photo, whether I took it with your permission or not; they're entirely distinct entities. mikaultalk 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to summarize, since there's often confusion around this idea: If you were to spray-paint a tuxedo on a statue, the resulting art (yes, it's art and copyrightable, even when illegal) is a derivative work. Copyright is held by both the street artist and the statue's artist. However, when you put a mural on a wall, the wall is typically considered a canvas of sorts, which has no copyright standing. The art, therefore is not a derivative and stands on its own. Ownership of the material on which the art is painted does not convey copyright. For example, if Picasso had stopped to draw a picture on a paper that someone gave to him to autograph, that picture that he drew is his work, and the person who owns the paper has no standing to claim copyright controls over it. The visceral sense that we get that an artist who uses someone else's property for their art must be sacrificing control is appropriate, legally, only in terms of disposing of the art. When it comes to reproduction, copyright law makes no allowance for ownership of the media. Note: 1) I am not a lawyer, this is just a summary of what I have researched myself 2) I'm discussing U.S. law due to Wikipedia's hosting location. German law may differ. -Harmil 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose conditionally - should the artist authorize the image's release under a free license, then I would support this image. Its focus is not even, but that's a factor of the size of the wall, I believe. The composition and lighting are excellent. The art itself is stunning, and clearly topical if somewhat adolescent. Has anyone tried to contact the artist? -Harmil 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been 3 months since the nom was suspended, and there's been no progress on addressing the image's status. I couldn't find a clearly explained WP policy on suspended nominations, but as so much time has passed I move to close as no consensus due to inactivity and the inconclusive voting results thus far. SingCal 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspended due to uncertain copyright status. MER-C 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted because of copyright issues. Can be renominated when they are resolved. --NauticaShades 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lilium University of Saskatchewan[edit]

seems to fulfill all 9 categories at Featured picture criteria. Seeking to edit University of Saskatchewan to feature article status as well to celebrate the 2007 centennial year of the U of S
Proposed caption
Lilium University of Saskatchewan University of Saskatchewan Centennial Lily by plant breeder Donna Hay. University of Saskatchewan Centennial Lily
Articles this image appears in
University of Saskatchewan University of Saskatchewan Academics
J. Adamson SriMesh | talk 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator SriMesh | talk 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gorgeous flower but there are glaring blown highlights and some fringing on the petals. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 17:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Overexposed --Kryobot 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Details lost in overexposure. --Bridgecross 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per CillaИ X♦C. I guess that's the school flower? Puddyglum 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This flower was bred to show the University of Saskatchewan school colours for the centennial year.
  • Oppose - Per all of the above. Its not a flattering angle either --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Çomment': Thank you for the discussion. Add two more smaller thumbnails of other photos taken. Would appreciate knowing if they have the same problem for another day. Thank you.SriMesh | talk 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Basically yes. It's hard to capture an essentially white object like this flower in full sun without overexposing/blowing highlights. You could try a much faster shutter speed, or try taking it on an overcast day or early morning/late afternoon when the light's not so harsh. I'd say the nominated version is probably the best of the three, but the background is not that attractive in any of them either. It is a lovely flower though. --jjron 14:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you. The flower is finished blooming, starting to get frosty nights here. Have to try again another year. Thanks for comments though! Will try to learn from the above for another day.  :-)SriMesh | talk 04:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Silver Buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea)[edit]

Seems to fulfill all 9 categories at Featured picture criteria
Proposed caption
Silver Buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea) Photo taken at Chief Whitecap Park near Saskatoon Saskatchewan. See also Buffaloberry
Articles this image appears in
Silver Buffaloberry
J. Adamson SriMesh | talk 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator SriMesh | talk 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments Picture looks a bit grainy, I think. Let me see what others have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talkcontribs) 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Grainy and a little out-of-focus. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Grainy and jpeg compression artifacts. --Bridgecross 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This might not be a sure-fire FP but it's a fine, encyclopedic shot with only minor techincal flaws. I have to say, those flaws don't include grain or compression artifacts: I think what reviewers here are seeing is the texture of the leaves. Everything else is pretty smooth. It could have done with more DOF, for sure. mikaultalk 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought much the same thing; I was wondering how a 2.2MB file at that res would get compression artifacts. There are also speckles on the fruit, but I think they are just that, speckles on the fruit, not grain or artifacts. --jjron 08:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Focus problems --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I agree; a bit out of focus. *Cremepuff222* 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush portrait[edit]

Edit 1 downsize, median filter, corrected discoloration on the hair
(One more go...) Edit 2 less smooth
Very good portrait (even though I despise the subject).
Proposed caption
Maybe not suitable for the main page, but: George Walker Bush is the forty-third president of the United States of America...
Articles this image appears in
George W. Bush, President of the United States, United States presidential election, 2000, Republican Party (United States), 1994, List of Governors of Texas, Presidency of George W. Bush, List of Presidents of the United States, British American, United States presidential election, 2004, The Greatest American, Professional life of George W. Bush
White house photo by Eric Draper
  • Support as nominator Cacophony 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I was all ready to be the big man and support this despite the personal cringe factor. Then I saw it at full rez with its horrific jpeg artifacts which initially looked like noise. Maybe if it was downsampled and cleaned up. There are plenty of pixels to play with. Debivort 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose Sadly, I tried to clean this up to no avail. The JPEG artifacts are just too pervasive. His hair is horribly color separated. -Harmil 07:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose I agree with the above, the noise is simply too horrific for consideration. As with Debivort, if someone feels they can clean up the image i'll more than happily consider my vote to be changed. -Cyclonenim 13:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose Even the pictures of him are horrible... low technical quality--Svetovid 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose Per opposers, low quality --Kryobot 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • very weak oppose edit 1 much much better, but there are still awkward parts, like the edge of his ear which has residual noise made obvious against the now over-smooth background. For such a reproducible subject, a better shot should be available. Debivort 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The background is a little less smooth in edit 2. But I agree with you, there's got to be a better image out there. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose not good enough, more pictures will be taken. This doesnt cut it --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it doesn't really distinguish itself from any recent presidential portrait. gren グレン 03:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lightning striking the Eiffel Tower[edit]

Unique historic image (a cleaned-up version of this image). The caption admittedly needs work but I believe the image itself is featurable.
Proposed caption
Lightning strikes the Eiffel Tower on June 3 1902. During a lightning strike, the presence of electrical charges on the tops of prominent objects such as tall buildings and trees enhances the electric field formed by the stepped leader. The current flowing between the two oppositely-charged fields creates the electrical discharge.
Articles this image appears in
Eiffel Tower, Lightning
M. G. Loppé
  • Support as nominator CillaИ X♦C [dic] 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support Not sure how unique this is, considering lightning probably strikes the tower during every Parisian storm, but it looks good for the period. the caption might need a bit more work, as you suggest.--HereToHelp 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks like a scan from an old magazine, not the original photo. Even in 1902, photos were better than this. IIRC, this has been up before (probably another version of the same pic, or a very similar one, since there's nothing in the file links). --Janke | Talk 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed you're right Janke. This image in fact appears in no articles (tsk, tsk). It is this version that's in lightning and Eiffel Tower. And that one has been nominated before, and roundly opposed (though as the nom says, this version has been fixed up a bit). --jjron 08:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (Hehe, just noticed, you were the first to oppose it last time too. --jjron 08:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)) OK, done a bit more looking - I wonder if a better caption wouldn't be the one included with and below the image on what I presume is the source site for the photo here at the NOAA Photo Library? --jjron 09:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You're right, it's the other version that appears in the articles. I cleaned-up that version to create this one but I wasn't sure if I should replace the image in the articles (this is my first time nominating so I admit I probably made a few mistakes :S). I didn't realize the image had been nominated before. :S CillaИ X♦C [dic] 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Technically the nominated version should be the one in the article - it's probably not a big issue seeing as it's basically the same picture, but still, it's the principle. And if this one's an improvement, then it probably should go in the article. If nothing else, at least you've fixed up the tilt. --jjron 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it completely for real, this shot? The minor rays to the sides look convincing enough, the way they merge with the sky, but those ones on top look retouched, if not painted in. Look closely and there's no "interaction" with the grain of the emulsion and the bleached out rays, which appear sharper and better-defined than the tower itself. Just wondered.. mikaultalk 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose not very good quality, only mildly historic, and not particularly encyclopedic of anything. There are lots of pictures of the Eiffel tower and lots of pictures of lightning, so why nominate this rather poor specimen of either? Any historical weight is blown out by the poor quality, darkness, and large number of other pictures of the tower from the early 20th century. Matt Deres 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, poorish quality, and not encyclopedic per above. *Cremepuff222* 01:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No real encyclopedic value. We've got better pictures of lightning and the Eiffel tower. The fact that it's 100 years old doesn't really change much. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Felix hits land[edit]

High quality image of this hurricane. The picture captures the perfect shape of the storm as it hits the coast. It meets the fp requirements. The image has already been on the main page of wikipedia as well as featured on various news portals within wikipedia.
Proposed caption
Hurricane Felix makes landfall on Nicaragua's Mosquito Coast as a Category 5 hurricane, making it the both the second Category 5 storm and the second landfalling storm of that strength in the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.
Articles this image appears in
Hurricane Felix (2007),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Support as nominator ZeWrestler Talk 13:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret: I love the colour sat and wide view but sharpness and resolution need to be nearer this example to challenge this, arguably less informative, FP. mikaultalk 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The caption ("makes landfall on Nicaragrua's Mosquito Coast") seems inaccurate-- the storm is well east of Central America, between Hispaniola and Lake Maricaibo. Compare this one.Spikebrennan 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per mikaul --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - source? Alex Spade 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    The picture is on commons: ([4]) it's just uploaded for the main page. Borisblue 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Skyline[edit]

Edit 1: Contrast Boost, Histogram Work, Slight Crop
Edit 2: downsampled quite a bit, slightly sharpened
This hi-res panoramic of the St. Louis skyline was taken Labor Day Weekend 2007 from East St. Louis. It is a intriguing classic view of a beautiful city and a great compliment to the St. Louis main article.
Proposed caption
St. Louis Skyline taken from East St. Louis. (needs more St. Louis detail)
Articles this image appears in
St. Louis
  • Support as nominator Buphoff 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It could stand some downscaling and a contrast boost. Noclip 16:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Edit 1: Contrast Boost, Histogram Work, Slight Crop Buphoff 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Great panorama but it's a bit grainy at full resolution and there are some blown highlights (on the paddle boats especially). CillaИ X♦C [dic] 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Edit 2.Great picture, but I'm only weak supporting for reasons stated above.Great work on the second edit. NauticaShades 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose although Edit 2 is much improved. The word "intriguing" comes to mind less than "clichéd", sorry (I can think of at least three good skyline views of Chicago, for example). If you want a nicer word, go with "classic". Problems include the distracting ironwork in the water on the right, and the fact that both the tallest (One Metropolitan Square) and most interesting (Old Courthouse) buildings are obscured. (Compare this non-pano commons image.) Granted any given angle will have deficiencies, but I think this is such an easily obtained shot that we should want a slightly better one to be ranked as our best, especially for an, ahem, classic shot. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The caption will be reworked by others at Wikipedia. I am submitting the photo with an open caption so 'classic' is fine with me and I recommend it be used. I walked up and down the East STL shore to find the best shot to take a balanced photo with an unobstructed view and this photo is the result. As an artist I like the iron work in the front because anyone who has been to this area knows that there is a large industrial base and this at least doesn't comically remove all of it.Buphoff 15:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The ironwork is a visible, and in my opinion, prominent part of the riverfront. It's extremely visible from the Poplar Street Bridge and the Arch, becoming almost a part of the skyline.Rwhealey 21:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit2 This image looks very balanced as it is, and any attempt to take this picture from another spot would (IMO) make the Arch go out-of-balance. I actually like the ironwork on the lower right. If someone can take a much better picture (which will not be very easy), there are still de-feature options for this one, but I don't think we need to go there for a long while. – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Although there's little to oppose here – it's obviously a really clear & informative photo – there's not much to actively support either. None of the versions have really good contrast or colour balance and the whole panorama looks around 30% wider than it needs to be. mikaultalk 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2 I love the composition of the photograph, the arch is very eye catching! The colours seem good and it is clear enough. Cant see any other errors --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2 Smokizzy (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2- thank you Astuishin (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Now I don't know for sure, but it seems as though this isn't the ideal view. A rusty iron 'thing' on the right edge of the panorama (surely it could have been avoided by moving a little further to the left, or cropping it a bit, or a combination of the two?)... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • CommentThe "rusty iron thing" can be cropped or photoshopped out but it detracts from the overall prospective of the shot. Also, anyone who has ever taken a shot of STL from any angles knows the inherent difficulty of the Mississippi's industrial facilities and numerous obstructing bridges. Buphoff 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2 as above. Schcambo 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:STL Skyline 2007 edit.jpg MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of amplitude modulation and frequency modulation[edit]

An audio signal (top) may be carried by an AM or FM radio wave. - original caption
A simple, concise illustration of the difference between AM and FM modulation.
Proposed caption
The signal to be modulated (top) is shown as represented by amplitude modulation and frequency modulation.
Articles this image appears in
Amplitude modulation, Frequency modulation, Modulation
  • Support as nominator Noclip 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support Amazing. I learned so much so quickly. Debivort 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • question I would like to see those suggestions below implemented. Also, the leftmost edge of the FM waveform never moves - would there actually be a fixed point there, or is that a mis rendering? Debivort 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a mis rendering but is typical of what one sees on an oscilloscope whose sweep has to be triggered by an edge of a waveform, so that edge appears stationary. Any of the 3 waves could have been used as the trigger.Cuddlyable3 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The modulated signals are off by 180 degrees (i.e. its backwards). The peak of the signal wave should corrospond to the highest amplitude of the AM signal and highest frequency of the FM signal. I think that the lines could be smoothed out quite a bit. It would also be much easier to understand if the carrier frequency was higher and the signal was irregular as opposed to sinusodial. Here is a better example of a FM waveform, and here is a better example of an AM waveform. Cacophony 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree your static examples are good (and similar to diagrams already on Wikipedia pages). Note however that for an audio signal the modulation polarity is not necessarily wrong, because in monophonic radio it doesn't matter! As to this mathematical nicety that boils down to whether the receiver loudspeaker cone moves out-in or in-out, I accept your point and it looks like NoClip has fixed that.Cuddlyable3 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per Cacophony. Don't have a problem with the signal being sinusoidal, but even for an animation it's very low quality. Great idea though, if anyone with the necessary tools/skills could create a higher quality version I'd be a strong support. Bad_germ 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, this was intended to be a very small animation file that would not slow down loading of pages that use it. As more Wikipedia users get broadband Internet we can become ambitious with higher resolution, colo(u)rs and frames.Cuddlyable3 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I love the idea of this image, but would want the above concerns resolved before supporting. --Sean 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've flipped the input wave. Noclip 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks the same to me. I wish that I knew more about creating/modifying animated gifs. Cacophony 05:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Clear your browser cache. Noclip 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Great from the enc point of view, but technical quality should not be this terrible for an FP, and it doesn't have to be, this can be redone (unlike a historical photograph). --Dschwen 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Questions about the accuracy but more so the quality is too low in my opinion. In the old days we were very limited by what we could do with animated diagrams in terms of quality due to file size, but with broadband virtually everywhere now it isn't such an issue, we could certainly make a much higher res version. I oppose this version but not the idea, its one of the more encylopedic FP ideas we've had recently, I recommend SNOWball closing this unless/until a higher quality version can be provided, possibly with a fourth line with all the waves overlaid.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
One further thought is this could probably be added to more articles. For example it demonstrates fairly nicely different types of waveform.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not big enough --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This would make an excellent featured picture if it were larger. Calibas 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
How big would you like?Cuddlyable3 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Around 1000 X 500px would be nice, anti-aliased if possible. Calibas 00:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Contact me if you wish to pay me fairly for preparing such a 5x enlarged diagram. IMO it would merely waste page area if posted in Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Elzabeth II of the United Kingdom[edit]

Edit 1, by Fir0002
Nice looking, crisp, encyclopedic image of her majesty the Queen
Proposed caption
Queen Elizabeth II greets employees at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland during her six-day visit to the United States in 2007. She was presented with a framed photograph of the Hubble Space Telescope.
Articles this image appears in
Elizabeth II, Politics of the United Kingdom, Monarchy in Canada, Commonwealth of Nations, and many others
  • Support as nominator Hadseys 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit1 - with respect to image quality, it's sharp, nicely framed and has been perfectly composed. Encyclopedic value is equally as good IMO, so I support. (We need more peole FPs) -- Chris Btalkcontribs 08:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support damn you i was going to nom this!! =) excellent quality and composition --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Support Edit 1 --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Photo is of impressive size and has vivid colors, but Her Majesty's face is not in focus and lacks the crisp detail that a portrait should have. The hat also casts a shadow over her face. Not so impressed. --Bridgecross 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The composition is excellent, and we should remmeber that well composed pictures of the Royal Family that are free use are going to be relatively hard to get - however my concern is the shadow per Bridgecross.Pedro |  Chat  13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeh but when you consider that the queen always wears a hat in public, a free license image without a shadow might be hard to get. Anyway the hats pretty, leave it alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • weak support Overall quality of the picture is good, but the backlight throws a shadow on her face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghelelio (talkcontribs) 05:59, September 4, 2007
  • Support Nice pic. Cacophony 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Support' I was going to oppose on grounds of the face not being nice and crisp, and then realized I'm looking at a person, not a bird. So yeah. I dub thee Lady Featured Picture! --HereToHelp 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Support edit 1 Fir's done it again!--HereToHelp 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Debivort 04:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support on the assumption we have no other free images of H.M. I am no expert, but is it possible that some histogram work could improve the shadow situation somewhat? Also, I hope to one day receive my own framed Hubb. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was wanting one of those Hubb's too, especially a framed one... ;) --jjron 08:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and rewrote the cut-off caption. Vote changed to support edit 1 although I still feel Edit 1 is not quite there, despite being a great improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to oppose this: blown hat and coat (it was obviously a windy day ;)), uncomfortably-tight crop, and rear-focussing leaving the facial detail soft. A fill flash or even nifty post-processing would have made a world of difference. The crop is so tight that the Hubb is totally obscured from view. mikaultalk 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Above. 8thstar 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above --Brendan44 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom --Brent Ward 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to face darker than background Spebudmak 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Her face is not as in-focus as her jacket, but it's not a fatal flaw. As for her face being darker than the background... I'm not sure that detracts at all. She has a hat on, which shields her from the sun. It's part of the composition. -Harmil 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good pic --Kryobot 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Blown highlights all over the place, and the shadowing is a shame. To find good-quality pictures of HM, I'd suggest finding images of her meeting with U.S. politicians-- these are more likely to be public domain and can be cropped as appropriate. I think the portrait of HRH Charles on his bio page is such an image. Spikebrennan 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1, strong oppose Original but only because her face was too much in the shade there. (Edit 1 has much nicer colors; I like the composition and didn't see other major flaws.) – sgeureka t•c 11:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 Brighter, more details. Smokizzy (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 I was holding my vote because of the shadow on the face, but now i can only approve :) Ksempac 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1. Much better. NauticaShades 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1, Oppose Original. A lot better without the shadow. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg MER-C 10:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Kaaba Symmetry[edit]

Edit 2: downsize, slight crop, median filter to reduce graininess, removed black dots
Good quality and the only image which shows this feature
Proposed caption
The Kaaba, a large cuboidal building located inside the Masjid al-Haram, is one of Muslims' holiest places. This picture taken from the gate of King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, seems to to divide the Kaaba and the minarets into mirror images of one another.
Articles this image appears in
Hajj, Kaaba, Masjid al-Haram
  • Comment uploaded Edit 2; hopefully improves the grain issue. I also removed the black dots visible between the minarets in the original. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose poor quality --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Pictures of the Kaaba are rare, and this is one of the highest-quality free ones that I've seen. I've also never seen one from this angle, that shows the people and their clothing in such detail. This is a useful and encyclopedic image, about a rare event which is closed to most of the world. Non-Muslims can't even enter the city of Mecca, let alone get this close to the Kaaba. --Elonka 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

**Comment still as this will happen again it is possible to take a much higher quality image --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose, too grainy. Someday there will be a better picture and for now this is the best we have, but that doesn't make it featured picture quality. gren グレン 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to force my picture, but heres what I have to say. Pictures of the Kaaba are rare becuase if one is seen taking pictures by the guards, one can kiss one's camera goodbye. Hence, taking a good quality camera and time to take the picture, exposes you. the angle that this picture is taken from is from the main entrance, hence more difficult. The picture looks a bit grainy when viewed under very high zoom. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Existing Wikimedia featured picture (not up for vote)
  • Support Great angle and view. I've never seen the kaaba's symmetry like this before. Ghelelio 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The photo really isn't FP quality under normal circumstances, and given the dozens of photos that have similar thumbnails on a google image search, anyone could be forgiven for thinking it reproducible. But I've just spent 15 minutes looking through all those images, as well as through a couple of galleries specifically for pics of the Kaaba, and they are all, without exception, extreme crops from a distant shot, probably from a helicopter. It's certainly an important enough subject and this may well be the best picture. Based on all the others I found, kudos on the shot! ~ VeledanT 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, great picture, but a poor camera. Besides, this wikimedia already a great picture of it (shown on the right) -Inklein 03:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A GIS shows that this is superior to almost every other easily found image of the Kaaba. Flickr only has three images, and shows a gallery of century-old photos. Even a travel site is limited to an Instamatic-quality shot, making Muhammad Mahdi Karim's assertions believable. If there is a better one out there, I'm not sure where we're going to get it; if they were easy to get one would surely exist out there (license compatibility not considered). --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per recent arguments, after a bit of looking myself it does appear you cant get a shot making this one inherently encyclopedic --Childzy ¤ Talk 07:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit1 – under the circumstances it's a pretty neat shot, but the uncropped, slightly over-exposed original just doesn't look like a worthy FP; it just needed a crop and a tweak, I think. mikaultalk 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Come on, if a picture is historic, OK we might be able to live with quality like this. But this is more than reproduceable and the quality is rather bad. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Dhartung. There are very few outdoor, architectural photos that are difficult to take these days. This is certainly one, and deserves to be measured against its peers. -07:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmil (talkcontribs)

Support: This picture makes you really feel u r in mecca looking at hte Kaaba. its making u see the reality and such pictures r really rare —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I really don't like the composition. It's too bad that the shadow line passes through the center of the image, and the composition makes it look like the two towers are coming out of the Kaaba itself, rather than being part of the larger building that surrounds it. Spikebrennan 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Rare picture. AliFazal 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Picture is grainy and blurred, specially the people in the foreground. This takes place every year, so someone's got to be able to produce a better picture. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. 8thstar 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The picture is well taken but the camera is not to be proud of. However considering the circumstances and the difficulty in taking pictures of this kind, I guess I have to support the picture. 06:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007[edit]

Excellent high-resolution photograph of one of the most high-profile contemporary American politicians. Taken today. (Full disclosure: Author is my brother.)
Proposed caption
United States Presidential candidate John Edwards campaigning in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Labor day in 2007.
Articles this image appears in
John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008, John Edwards, political campaign, oratory, Livestrong wristband
Mike Murphy (user:mikemurphy)
  • Support as nominator — brighterorange (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This photo is definitely a well-taken, colorful and high-quality one. I like that there is no political agenda, logo or anything that might call into question its neutrality... it is simply a picture of a man, just one who is a politician. However, I'm reluctant to support for featured picture at the moment, mainly because it was nominated on the same day that it was taken, and by the photographer's brother, no less. I'm not opposed to this as a featured picture, as it meats the criteria... I just want to see what others have to say about my concerns first. -- Prezboy1 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Support As per Muhammad Mahdi Karim. -- Prezboy1 18:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • comment If you're worried about a conflict of interest, it's no worse than a self-nomination. I do think it's worthy of FP status, though. — brighterorange (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support- A very good quality, high res picture. Being nominated on the same day as it was taken shows the dedication users have towards Wikipedia. You get my vote. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support There's some blurring and it'd be nice if we could see more of him, but no outstanding problems; we need more people FPs. I wouldn't vote for the man but it's a decent image. ;) (Why does it matter that it's nominated on the same day it was taken? I don't see how that affects anything.) CillaИ X♦C [dic] 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Sharp (to me) and nicely composed. It's a shame his arm is somewhat cut-off though. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 18:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Like everyone's been saying, very well composer. I especially like how prominent the Livestrong bracelet is. SingCal 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Yay for people FPs. I wonder we'll now see others nominated for other candidates. Debivort 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - First off, I don't find the shot all that interesting. In my book if you're going to feature a pic of a contemporary public figure (especially one as photographed as Edwards) the shot should be especially noteworthy. Second, given the fact that this guy is currently running for president, issues of neutrality should obviously be brought up. Having Edwards so prominently placed on the front page comes awfully close to political advertising in my estimation. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it will be very hard to get a notable recent picture freely licensed. I dislike the argument "it won't suit the main page"; FP is not POTD. thegreen J Are you green? 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support it really is a great shot, but for POV sake it cant go on the main page, I know Raul654 is in charge of featured articles and has a list of some which wont see the main page so whether someone could do something similar with this (I personally dont care what goes on the main page but you know how the news likes to attack the site, just dont want the picture to cause hassle etc) --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - more like this please. The brother/photographer issue is a non-issue: most of the nominations here come from the photographers themselves. The POTD issue should be completely disregarded - if it shouldn't go on the main page, then we won't put it on the main page. We should be doing all we can to encourage more high quality photos of public figures, because we're seriously lacking in them. Stevage 07:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurring, easily reproducible (I hear he goes out in public a lot these days). --Bridgecross 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Which blurring are you referring to? Not background I assume... Debivort 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • His hand is slightly blurred IMHO. Not really a big deal though. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor lighting effect. It would be very easy to get a better shot.Ghelelio 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I really like his pose and that the flag is out-of-focus in the background. Even though this was likely not intended, this photo seems iconic and historically important (I know that it's not, that's just how it looks to me.) – sgeureka t•c 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Among other things, his mouth is open and he doesn't look happy. -Henry W. Schmitt 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Which Featured Picture Criterion does this violate?! Debivort 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not confuse me for a WikiRuleNazi: I don't care about WikiRules, I just don't like this photo. -Henry W. Schmitt 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't confused you for anything - but without a proper rationale, your vote is likely to be dismissed when determining consensus. Debivort 08:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Its a bit overly contrasty for my liking but it is a high quality portrait - something we need more of. I don't see the problem with featuring a photo of a person who is not NPOV. I know its been discussed previously and we all agreed to disagree, but seriously, we need separation here. It doesn't imply endorsement of the POV or person, just the same as featuring a motorcyclist who doesn't have the optimal safety gear. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Blown highlights on the forehead and nose, and black formless regions in the hair and on the coat. Certainly not as striking as other portrait FPs that come to mind. The lighting is pretty bad; if this was a photo of an animal under the same lighting conditions, I believe the opposes would be overwhelming. Easily reproducible, especially if the only requirement is a blurred flag in the background and a yellow rubber bracelet. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-04 19:49Z
  • Support. Striking, high quality photo that satisfies the FP criteria. And POV? Give me a break. Iorek 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking. Neutralitytalk 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good portrait, nice light. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The lighting is actually pretty bad; if this was a photo of an animal under the same lighting conditions, I believe the opposes would be overwhelming. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-05 15:50Z
      • If we'd have to vote on a non-perfect image of an animal, there are still thousands (millions?) of other animals of the same species almost all over the world that can be photographed by anyone. But there is only this one John Edwards (who I have admittedly never heard of before this FPC), and to have a wikipedian take an IMO darn good (free) image of him is actually pretty rare, or there would be more people-FP on WP. – sgeureka t•c 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The image is easily reproduced. Just as one would go to the zoo to photograph an animal, one would go to a campaign rally to photograph a candidate. The only photos that are hard to reproduce are photographs of rare or historical events, or photographs of subjects that no longer exist. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-05 18:51Z
          • With that reasoning, any image of a creature is "easily" reproduced, and I'm not sure I agree with that. All I see on Wikipedia are tons of horrible "snapshot" people photos (or none at all), but most animal articles have photos, almost all of at least decent quality. What I mean is that most people contributing photos to WP seem to care about showcasing their pets, their babies or their own bodies, but the fewest would go to campaigns with the intent to take photos of notable people for WP. If someone takes a much better (free) photo of JE in the near future, we still have the option to defeature this image here easily. My opinion. – sgeureka t•c 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. 8thstar 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well-taken, nice composition and great context for a US politician. Minor tech problems don't detract from the image's value or impact, and if we are to exclude shots of people for NPOV violation we'll have no people shots at all. It's an unavoidable fact of life that notable people are often the subject of controversy of some kind, and NPOV depends entirely on the context in which the image is used. mikaultalk 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It becomes an issue when those voting on FPC have strong opinions (negative or positive) regarding the subject of the image. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-05 15:58Z
      • I wonder what percent of supporters are liberal. 8thstar 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • As long as they can justify their supports, does it really matter? thegreen J Are you green? 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
        • 8th - what's your take on the connection between your succinct oppose vote and conservative beliefs? Maybe we should all just assume good faith eh? Debivort 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
          • As I said, some of the justifications seem bogus, such as the lighting being good when in fact it is bad. For an image that is so easily reproduced, it really can't have any obvious flaws if it's to become an FP, but it does. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-06 01:45Z
  • Weak support Regardless of the main page question, this is a fine image in many respects. My only concern are the couple of blown highlights and the fact that his face is just dark enough, due to lighting, that there's some grain at full resolution. These are fairly minor, even at highest resolution, though, and the composition is perfect. It's not easy to take a picture like this. -Harmil 07:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose A similar image of a candidate from a previous election—one who isn't running for anything now—would put to rest the objectivity concerns while conveying the same feel. (Better lighting couldn't hurt.) DrVerlucci 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think the objectivity concerns are only with its possible inclusion on the main page. But WP:FP isn't the same as WP:POTD... that is, we're not trying to select an image of any old presidential candidate for POTD, we're trying to decide whether this image is one of the best pictures of a person on Wikipedia. — brighterorange (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's ok --Kryobot 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's some really weird graininess on the side of his face and neck, almost to the point of posterization. Not one of our best, I think. Matt Deres 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, a good portrait of a relevant subject Jellocube27 15:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, even though I am not a fan of John Edwards, this is a very nice image that really caught my eye and shows its subject well.--Southern Texas 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as a striking photograph of a current politician. Not perfect, but I like to encourage this type of go-out-and-get-it contribution. I have added it to the articles political campaign (which had nothing this good) and oratory (which had no images at all). --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, nice, hi quality picture. Good composition with the flag in the background. And it's good to add variety too, rather than the usual plants and insects etc. Also, who cares who took the picture or nominated it or whatever. If it's FP quality, it should be featured. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Me likey --Central Powers 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
User has only 6 edits - four of which are on FPC the other two on his userpage --Fir0002 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007.jpg MER-C 10:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ivan the Terrible[edit]

Alexander Litovchenko's historical painting Ivan the Terrible Showing His Treasury to Jerome Horsey (1875), oil on linen, 153х236 cm.

Alexander Litovchenko (1835-1890), a little-known painter from Imperial Russia.

Proposed caption

Sir Jerome Horsey was a resident of the Russia Company in Moscow from 1572 to 1585. His house next to the Kremlin is still shown to tourists. During his stay in Moscow, Horsey got to know Tsar Ivan the Terrible rather well. In a lively account of his Russian experiences Horsey recalls how the Tsar led him to his Kremlin treasury to boast his riches. The painting represents the precociously aged and short-tempered monarch seated in the Kremlin Armoury, his half-witted heir Fyodor standing behind, a group of distrustful boyars whispering at a distance, the Tsar's jester in a skomorokh cap addressing Horsey, who is accompanied by another guest in foreign attire.

Reasons and articles

I believe the image provides an exceptional illustration of our articles about Russia Company and Jerome Horsey.

  • Comment. It's a good image and potentially FP-worthy, but we don't know enough about it. How big is the original painting? What medium? Where is it now? Something more than painter and year.--ragesoss 07:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added all the info from the image page, which includes everything you asked for except where the painting is currently located. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-07 17:15Z
  • Support Excellent detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-07 17:16Z
  • Support - Enc for Ivan. I note that he doesn't appear to be sitting in the linked Ivory Throne, which has rounded rather than square handrests. Also, this picture would make an excellent jigsaw puzzle. --Sean 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - High quality, striking and colourful. the scanning work is also very good --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per all above. Bewareofdog 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - high quality painting and scan.--Svetovid 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - strong historical value --Mothmolevna ( © ® ) 12:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Spikebrennan 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ivan the Terrible and Harsey.jpg -- Chris Btalkcontribs 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Giant Haasts eagle attacking New Zealand moa.jpg[edit]

A beautiful and very encyclopedic illustration of extinct animals
Proposed caption
Giant Haast's eagle attacking New Zealand moa (The caption can also include some explanations about the Island gigantism)
Articles this image appears in
Island gigantism, Haast's eagle, Moa, Late Quaternary prehistoric birds
John Megahan
  • Support as nominator Tomer T 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • support - I think PLoS is an untapped resource for images, and we should all keep an eye out there for high quality ones. Debivort 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • support--Mbz1 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Mbz1 - could you please give your reasoning, both here and in the two or three other nominations below where your only comment is "support"? Considering this isn't a true vote (although it often feels like one) that would be very helpful. Thanks. Zakolantern 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, generally a reason is only considered necessary on an oppose vote. The nominator gives the reasons in favor of the image, and a plain support vote indicates agreement. Debivort 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I should reason only oppose. You see, it is hard for me to write in English, which I've learned just few years ago. One user(fir0002) has already made comments about my spelling, that's why I rarely oppose and more often support just to write less.--Mbz1 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support - I looked at their website and was impressed. Artistic quality is great, as expected from a professional journal, and all its current uses are legit, something I was unsure of and went though and checked. So high enc value, especially for an artistic interpretation. I would like the piece on giagantism added to the caption. Zakolantern 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Zakolantern and comment: I suggest that the caption clearly indicate that this is an artist's interpretation (even though it's pretty obvious). I also note that the artist's signature and the date '2004' are in the lower left corner-- I assume that this is not contrary to our standards. Spikebrennan 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - it shouldn't be an issue; after all, the copyright status is what matters. An extreme example, for clarity: if a Monet painting is signed by the author, it's still a great thing to have on Wikipedia, and it's still copyright expired public domain. Zakolantern 20:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The difference being that Monet's paintings are historic - in fact partially due only to the fact that they have his signature - and that altering them would be altering history. On the other hand, this drawing draws no added value from the signature. I'm not advocating keeping or removing the signature, but the license does allow for modifications, given attribution, so if anyone feels the urge, he can remove the signature. J Are you green? 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great work. —Pengo 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. I think we might as well keep the signature. The only problem with them (assuming they were added by the original artist!) is that they may assert copyright (taken care of).--HereToHelp 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would strongly oppose removing the signature - I think it's part of the original piece, and something the artist probably put in their knowing the copyright "limits" of the journal it was going into. While the license allows us to remove it, it doesn't mean we should. Zakolantern 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine by me.--HereToHelp 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The contrast is on low side. Everything seems slightly washed out. Isaac 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. For two main reasons. If this was a photo, everyone would be screaming about the washed out colours, and blown out sky (and the signature for that matter). I’m not exactly sure why this has different standards, but I’d be almost willing to let that slip. The more important reason though is scientific accuracy. Although there were a number of different species of moas, the most well known are for obvious reasons the biggest ones, the giant moas. According to the articles, these grew up to 3.6m, while Haast's Eagles had a wingspan of from 2.6 to 3m. OK, now look at the picture. The wingspan on the eagle is clearly bigger than these moas; at a rough estimate, even if the wingspan is at the upper end of 3m, I’d say the moas here are well under 2m. What’s more, since the moas are nearer to where the picture is taken, due to perspective they should appear bigger still. Not sure what I mean – check out Image:Haastseagleattacksamoa.jpg to get a better idea of what it should look like. So, the only interpretations here are that either the picture is wrong, or that it’s misleading because it’s either showing some relatively small species of moa, or juveniles of the ‘popular’ giant species. Since neither of these possible misleading options is identified in the caption or picture description (it simply says it’s a moa), I’m guessing it’s wrong. Either way I oppose, because, whether wrong or simply misleading, it contradicts what everyone else has said about it having high encyclopaedic value. It also disturbs me that this misleading picture is spread so prominently as the lead picture in so many articles. It is a nice picture though. --jjron 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great picture. It's definitly an depiction of the Megalapteryx didinus better known as the Upland Moa. As far as i know, it's accurate (proof here) and not misleading since it does not appear on the Giant Moa article. PYMontpetit 12:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I accept that this is a good, encyclopedic, image, but the quality of the painting doesn't exactly blow me away. Frankly, it has a kind of flat, paint-by-numbers kind of quality to it that I find underwhelming. Matt Deres 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I was planning to nominate this myself when I got around to it. Guess someone beat me to it. --ZeWrestler Talk 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sigh. This is why science is not democratic. Oh well, more misleading information in Wikipedia that the media can use to beat up on it again. --jjron 09:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please reply to PYMontpetit's comment above that implies the image is accurate. Debivort 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Only just seen this down here. OK, my original summary of my issue: "...the only interpretations here are that either the picture is wrong, or that it’s misleading because it’s either showing some relatively small species of moa, or juveniles of the ‘popular’ giant species...". PYMontpetit's comment was: "It's definitly an depiction of the Megalapteryx didinus better known as the Upland Moa. As far as i know, it's accurate...and not misleading since it does not appear on the Giant Moa article".
I think "definitly an depiction [sic]" is a bit of long call, but it is possible that this is what it is (for mine the leg structure and feather coverage on the legs is different in the current nom from PYMontpetit's linked image).
I did make the point that it could be a small species of moa, or juveniles of the giant moas, but as I said that would make it misleading. It would be like showing a thylacine attacking a kangaroo to show how big the extinct thylacines were, but using a smaller macropod like a wallaby instead of what people normally think of as a kangaroo in order to artificially exaggerate the size of the thylacine. It may not be wrong if you can sort out what the actual species are, but it's certainly misleading when you don't give the details of these species.
If you just say "moa", people will automatically think of the giant moa of this sort of size, as they are far and away the most well known, but some moas such as the Euryapteryx were only about the size of a large turkey.
As this image never states a species anywhere (not even on the original site), I maintain my original objection. Even if it was finally definitely identified as a small species of moa, I still feel it's being used in a misleading way to enhance the apparent size of the Haast's Eagle. --jjron 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I was voting based on art, not science --ZeWrestler Talk 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Jjron. Accuracy must be confirmed before anything further goes on. On the picture itself, I'm leaning towards neutral per Matt Deres. It's interesting, but not really anything very special. thegreen J Are you green? 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Although I voted support above, if this isn't scientifically accurate, it simply cannot be featured. Perhaps we should suspend the nom until someone can very, perhaps the artist?--HereToHelp 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Done. MER-C 09:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • um... Those of you worried about technical accuracy would do well to consider PYMontpetit's comment which gives pretty compelling evidence that it is accurate. Debivort 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no clue about Giant Haasts eagles or moas, but I think that since the objection has been brought up, we should at least confirm that PYMontpetit's comment from a second source. thegreen J Are you green? 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Refer to my most recent statement just above. --jjron 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose since the listing is still open. I'm not stressed about the size of the moas having read the article PYMontpetit linked, but the painting itself is not exactly jaw-dropping per Matt Deres ~ VeledanT 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perspective is confused to my eye, and the image is overall quite flat. Ceoil 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No Consensus , since no one has taken an initiative to prove it's scientifically accurate. --NauticaShades 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Medieval ship flag[edit]

Good caption and very encyclopedic.
Proposed caption
A medieval ship flag captured by forces from Lübeck in the 1420s showed the arms of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Pomerania. The original flag was destroyed during a World War II attack on the city, but a 19th century copy remains in Frederiksborg Palace, Denmark. The saint accompanying the Virgin Mary and infant Christ is Saint James the Greater, identified by his scallop shell emblem.
Articles this image appears in
Coat of arms of Denmark
Professor Julius Magnus Petersen
  • Support as nominator Bewareofdog 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Good quality image, has interesting history and is encyclopedic --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - a really nice bit of history. I like that the arms of all three Scandinavian states are included in the flag, and that in a German flag. Manxruler 03:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    Comment from the uploader: It is not a German flag. It is a flag from the former Kalmar Union which was composed of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. It dates from the reign of king Eric of Pomerania who ruled all three kingdoms, which is why the Pomeranian griffin is included as well. Valentinian T / C 15:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to visible half-toning. Seriously, Support. Do we have many FPs of textiles? I feel the caption needs some massaging, partly because of the confusion between the original and the copy. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    Comment from the uploader: The reason for the difference in caption is as follows: Karl Nikolaj Henry Petersen who wrote the book in question and who rediscovered the flag considered it to be an early version of the Dannebrog due to the red squares. This interpretation is commonly heard in Denmark but it is not commonly accepted in Norway and Sweden. Petersen also mentions that he had been told during his stay in Lübeck of a second flag that had previously hung in the church but which had disintegrated. Petersen doesn't provide the name of his informant, but he description he conveys of the second flag resembles a standard Danish naval flag. This part of the story is consequently open to interpretation and debate, but everybody agrees that this flag was used by a union vessel, that is was captured by Lübeck forces in a naval battle in either 1426 or 1427, subsequently located in a German church for 500 years and destroyed in an air raid in 1942. The controversial part of the story was not relevant in the article about the coat of arms of Denmark so I left it out from this particular caption. But it will be relevant when this image is (one day) included in the flag of Denmark article. Hope that cleared things up a bit. The webpage here has an image of the flag hanging in the church. Valentinian T / C 15:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I wasn't even referring to any of that. Is the image we're looking at the 19th century copy, which is in the palace, or are we looking at the original which was destroyed (presumably not), and which is not in Lubeck any longer? The Lubeck bit should probably be a subordinate clause or sentence. I ask in part because the quality of the textile seems too regular and less aged. So it's a copy. Just say we're looking at the copy. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I got my wires crossed. The image you're looking at is Julius Magnus Petersen's image of the original flag, I presume that it is a drawing. My scan is from the book it first appeared in. The flag was "discovered" by Henry Petersen in 1879 and after negotiations between the Danish consul and the city authorities [Magnus Petersen] ".. was allowed to make a full size copy of the flag on behalf of the National Museum at Frederiksborg. ... I [Henry Petersen] was in Lübeck when Prof. Magnus Petersen copied the flag in June 1881, and studied it at close hand." ... "the flag is of coarse linen, on which all figures and heraldic images have been painted. The colours are very pale, the blue colour has generally turned grey." (p. 2). Henry Petersen notes that the paint had been applied thinly and that it must have been oil-based paint, since he couldn't dissolve a sample in water. The front and back were painted as mirrors of each other. (page 3). I am not aware of any other images of the original flag, save the (poor) photo mentioned above which is missing the Virgin Mary and Christ. Most books I've seen use the drawing as illustration - e.g. Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon [5] - but Erling Svane (1994): Det danske Rigsvåben og Kongevåben has a photo of the replica (p. 79). Valentinian T / C 10:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above, historical value and uniqueness. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Skibsflaget fra Mariakirken i Lübeck.png -- Chris Btalkcontribs 11:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Montreal City Hall[edit]

I had been meaning to nominate this image ever since I took it almost two years ago. Its a high resolution image of a beautiful building.
Proposed caption
The 5 storey Montreal City Hall (Hôtel de Ville) is the work of architects Henri-Maurice Perrault and Alexander Cowper Hutchison, built between 1872 and 1878. Its architecture is in the Second Empire style, also known as Napoléon III-style.
Articles this image appears in
Montreal, Montreal City Hall, Old Montreal
  • Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I always thought this was already featured, but now I see it is just featured in Commons. At any rate, I love it. The colors are brilliant and intriguing. The angle is different, but it works (and if I recall correctly, there's a building off-center in front of this building that would inhibit a straight-on shot). You've got my support. tiZom(2¢) 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, the colors are magnificent. The tree branch sticking out of the left edge of the shot is a bit distracting, but other wise this is a really good shot. *Cremepuff222* 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. A fine addition to our architectural FPs, most of which are also Diliff's.--HereToHelp 01:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot - the lighting is excellent as is the IQ --Fir0002 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Per nom, I like it. --Cody Pope 11:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A difficult image to fault. The crop on the left seems a bit tight (which is the opposite of what Cremepuff222 has said above, who finds the branch distracting), but otherwise excellent. —Pengo 13:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I love it. – sgeureka t•c 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Really like the colouring, and its beautfully composed in terms of angle. Ceoil 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A high quality and just generally amazing picture. NauticaShades 16:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - An excelent image, the only thing i dont like is the angle.. I just wish you could see a little bit more of the front --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice colors, detail, exposure, contrast, etc. --Peter 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, and I have no problem with the tree branch, it works as a "frame" when zoomed out (although it does look like lightning at first glance). --Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Why not? My only quibbles are whether that bit of cutoff building on the left is part of this building, or is it the building next door, and I'm not a big fan of those little bits of intruding tree branches. Stunning detail. --jjron 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral Amazing picture --Central Powers 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
User has only 6 edits - four of which are on FPC the other two on his userpage --Fir0002 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Is that voting based on personal prejudice, or am I imagining things!? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No it's still an amazing picture, especially the colors. What attracts my attention (after more than 20 times watching to it ;) is that i have the feeling that the building is toppling to the right side, maybe caused by a wideangle effect. This picture shows a building in aprox. the same size, (which is not that amazing as yours but still a good one) has not this effect or slight. Here i have the feeling its toppling a bit to the left. Where is that effect coming from? --Central Powers 11:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 11:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
lol I think the fact you initially said that it was tilting to the right and finished by saying it's toppling to the left kind of speaks for itself ;) - but no matter --Fir0002 11:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes tilting should the correct synonym, i meant the 2nd picture is tilting to the left. Excuse my bad english, but its even better than your german i think ;) --Central Powers 11:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Nice shot. Cat-five - talk 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Montreal City Hall Jan 2006.jpg MER-C 08:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fatsia japonica[edit]

A beautiful and encyclopedic picture. Illustrates well both the plant Fatsia japonica and the term umbel.
Proposed caption
Fatsia japonica close-up of flower umbel, 15 November 2005; cultivated, UK
Articles this image appears in
Umbel, Fatsia japonica, Fatsia
  • Support as nominator Tomer T 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The out-of-focus bloom in the bottom left is distracting. Crop the photo so it focused more on the single bloom, and that should improve the composition. As is, I'm afraid I can't support it. --Asiir 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Weak Oppose – I want to support the picture but as per Asiir, the bottom left bloom detracts from the whole image. Centyreplycontribs – 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blue fringing on the blooms is distracting. I tried cropping the image to remove the out-of-focus bloom, but no go...the resulting crop was way too tight. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

EIAJ connector[edit]

Blemish highlighted
I'm nominating this in good faith (honestly!) not only because it satisfies all FP criteria but because we should recognise quality content, in whatever form, and use it to promote the encyclopedia.
Proposed caption
The yellow-tipped EIAJ connector, more formally known as EIAJ RC-5320A, is a small (+/- 2cm) standard DC power supply jack for small appliances, commonly used to adapt transformers converting mains power for laptop computers and peripheral devices. The connectors are supplied in a range of sizes according to power rating of the device; bigger plugs are used for higher voltages, to reduce the risk of using too high a power rating and damaging the appliance.
Articles this image appears in
EIAJ connector, Coaxial DC Power Connectors
Mick Stephenson
  • Support as nominator mikaultalk 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, only because it isn't very informative. Wouldn't a diagram be better than a picture to understand a power connector? Great macro shot, but there just isn't much detail to show. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean like Media:Jack plug.png, with labels etc? I kind of had that image in mind when I set this up (a wiki requested image) but I'm a photographer, not an illustrator.. I could easily label it, if that's the consensus opinion. mikaultalk 17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support hmm simplicity in design, it is what it is and it looks fine. labels would ruin it, you dint label a building so why this? it is encyclopedic in itself --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, Weak Support Edit 1 and 2. I'm afraid that for something so common, the picture really must be flawless and it is slightly grainy/artifact-y, but very well taken. On the other hand, I also think that someone reading the article on the EIAJ connector is more interested in how it works or its uses than what it looks like, so an FP diagram might be more appropriate. The edit is quite an improvement, thought my second objection still stands. NauticaShades 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see major artifacts all over the pic. Much better pic can be taken. Sorry. Jumping cheese 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I was waiting for these comments. You must bear in mind this is a fairly extreme macro shot, so at 100% you're viewing it at 8 to 10 times life size. It will print at at least twice life-size, at which enlargement you don't see the texture of the plastic and metal at all. A raw file with no Jpeg compression has no artifacts and at ISO100 it pretty much has no grain, either. It does have a crude (not shiny) metal barrel and very rough plastic moulding which appear to be grainy, just as they do under a 10x magnifying lupe. Ok, so maybe this would be better in some respects as a drawing, but the photo up for nomination here was requested as such by the article writer (as in, please upload a photo) and is wrongly accused of tech-crimes! mikaultalk 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The are box artifacts all over the black plastic housing and, as you mentioned, on thew metal barrel. Try running the raw file through again to see if the artifacts pop up again. Jumping cheese 19:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Weak support edit 1 Thank you for the time in answering and addressing all the concerns. Edit 1 is certainly better. There is still a noise issue on the plastic housing. However, given the circumstances and explanations, I'll change my vote to support. =) Jumping cheese 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment We need to see the whole thing, so could you do a composite shot?--Svetovid 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify what mean by the "whole thing"? mikaultalk 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
From both sides, basically.--Svetovid 14:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
IOC... well yes, I suppose I could and probably would, for a subject that would fail to be fully illustrated without showing its "dark side". I don't understand how this could be an important requirement for this subject..? mikaultalk 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support Does a pretty good job - I just a few small concerns with the texture of the white background being visible in the shadow area --Fir0002 04:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak Oppose original, edit 1 Sorry, don't know how I didn't see it before, but the blemish in the connector spoils it for me. FWIW the edit is better tho --Fir0002 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Edit 2 Only Cloned out blemish --Fir0002 07:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit1 added (complete re-conversion from raw file, with better white balance and density) mikaultalk 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. From a compositional point of view, it illustrates the subject about as good as you could expect (or need for that matter). Even in the edit, I can't help but notice a strange noise pattern that doesn't seem to be high ISO noise. It still looks somewhat like jpeg artifacts, but I'm not sure thats what it is. It is quite a small file - around 300kb, so perhaps the compression was higher than necessary. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Weird, isn't it? This was shot raw at ISO100, converted to uncompressed tiff and then resized to a max quality jpeg. I think it's something to do with the contrast settings I was using to have a pure white background and enough detail in the black areas. The small file is the result of lots of zeros in the white, rather than heavy compression. It prints very smoothly; I'm at a loss to explain further, but I'm glad you agree it's not a huge big deal :o) mikaultalk 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose original, edit 1, edit 2, blemish highlighted There are five EIAJ RC-5320A connectors, but this photo shows only one, and by its use of an adapter that supports positive and negative polarity, implies that the adaptaplug is an integral part of the EIAJ plug. The quality of the photo is irrelevant--this photo does not adequately show the EIAJ plugs.--Peter K. Sheerin, K6WEB (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg MER-C 08:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Junkers J.I.jpg

Cement truck[edit]

The result of excessive speed, this cement truck rolls over into the front garden of a house. There were no injuries, but significant damage was caused.

I'm not sure if I'm totally serious - let me know what you think. The interest in this image is obviously totally the subject. I'd only had my camera a couple of days and it was pure point and shoot. However I love this photo, especially for the fact that no one got hurt - apparently the driver just kicked the window out and stepped out. The two people at the left are the electricity company (notice the power pole got wiped out), not sure about the other two.

Maybe this other photo would be better?:

The truck being freed from the barrier afterwards.


  • Subject matter
  • The nice symmetrical pose of the four guys
  • The clarity of the image - you can see even in a small thumbnail what is going on (compared to other images at car accident, where it's used).


  • Framing is a little too tight to be comfortable (it's not cropped)
  • Slightly overexposed?
  • Tone is too peaceful? People standing around isn't as exciting as rushing frantically to free someone...

Stevage 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments:
    • As documentary photographs, they're not bad... The image quality isn't great but the thing is, I'm not sure how you'd squeeze them into an article and have them stand out enough to be a featured picture. :) Are you aware that you submitted this candidacy into the FPC section, not PPR? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I put one in car accident. I can't think of much of a topic for the other one. It would be great on an emergency services type article, but a) it wasn't an emergency, and b) the guy clearly works for the power company :) Yes, I was going to make it an FPC but changed my mind at the last minute. Stevage 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Agree with Diliff, good res etc (is the clearly visible no. plate a problem?) but I don't know about being FP worthy. --Fir0002 www 08:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, this fell off the FPC main page. Listing it now. MER-C 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It never was supposed to be on FPC as far as I know. It was only listed on Picture Peer Review, but I think Stevage was confused when he created the page using an FPC template. The same probably applies to the others you've just added to FPC. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not really encyclopedic, also this is one hell of a confusing nom...--Childzy ¤ Talk 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, assuming this was intended for FPC. More of a Flickr interesting photo than an encyclopedic illustration. --Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop, yeah this is not an FPC. I disagree that it's not "encyclopaedic" though :) Look at car accident. Stevage 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Image:Cement truck crash.jpg --Chris Btalk 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Silver Star[edit]

Best of breed from A nice, clear photo which adds value to the article of the same name. Not sure if the size/resolution is of high enough quality, but that's why we review them first. :) — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposed caption
The Silver Star is the fourth highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of any branch of the United States Armed Forces. It is also the third highest award given for valor (in the face of the enemy).
Articles this image appears in
Silver Star
U.S. Military
  • Support as nominator — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a very nice, clear shot, but for all that the top metal device is blurry and there's too much graininess on the star itself. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very grainy for a studio shot. --Sean 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per others --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - terribly grainy up close. Carcharoth 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. Great enc composition in the thumbnail, though.--HereToHelp 01:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very grainy 8thstar 02:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; it is very nice, but the picture quality is quite the opposite. -- Altiris Exeunt 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - quality is not acceptable. Andrew18 @ 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro[edit]

Good composition, striking effects created by the enormous church in relation to the lonely person in the foreground.
Proposed caption
Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro is newly built Roman Catholic church in Yamoussoukro, the administrative capital of Côte d'Ivoire.
Articles this image appears in
Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro
Asram at fr.wikipedia
  • Support as nominator Camptown 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not sharp at full size, also some mysterious marks all over the image, possible dirty lens? --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting, but several problems. Cut off at the right-hand side. Seems to be strange tilts going on, for example with the open area - they could be natural, but they look odd. Pretty unsharp, and overcompressed leaving jpeg artifacts. The bottom right-hand corner has jagged white edges, perhaps due to an imperfect crop from small stitch job (which could also account for those odd angles). Don't spose there's a higher quality version around? --jjron 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per jjron. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per jjron. NauticaShades 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per jjron. 8thstar 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per jjron and because of black "flakes" in the picture. -- Altiris Exeunt 13:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Khachkar at Haghartsin Monastery[edit]

Khachkars are a highly developed art form, unique to Armenians, and this is a beautiful specimen, and in my opinion, well captured.
Proposed caption
An example of a Khachkar ("Խաչքար" in Armenian, meaning "cross-stone"), an intricately carved cross usually intended as a tombstone or a memorial. This khachkar is found at the 13th c. Haghartsin Monastery in Armenia. The golden age of khachkar carving was between the 12th and 14th centuries, though khachkars continue to be produced to this day.
Articles this image appears in
Haghartsin Monastery, Khachar
Raffi Kojian -
  • Support as nominator RaffiKojian 09:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this picture as a nominator! Very professional photo of a historical and religious monument. Andranikpasha 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very blury at full resoulotion =/ --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurry, the sky is blown, and there's some fringing on the leaves. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. NauticaShades 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Awfully blurry and poor composition. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 14:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn! --RaffiKojian 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Full Moon[edit]

Image:Moon merged small.jpg was delisted in this nomination, and the consensus was to nominate this image, so I did.
Proposed caption
The Moon, which is the only natural satellite of the Earth, pictured in its full form. During the ancient period, it was not uncommon for cultures to believe that the Moon died each night, thus descending into the underworld. - (partly stolen from WP:POTD).
Articles this image appears in
Luc Viatour
  • Support as nominator NauticaShades 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent...and it's by a Wikipedian. That needs some pretty good gear. --jjron 12:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • From a Wikipedian? Impressive, very impressive. For that, its size, and detail, I would give it strong support. -- Altiris Exeunt 09:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • thank you :) --Luc Viatour 13:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent shot - it would have thought it was by NASA! -- Chris Btalk 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Full Moon Luc Viatour.jpg MER-C 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:8 - AmStar 7.JPG[edit]

The remains of the American Star in 2004. The stern broke off and sank in 1994, leaving only the bow section on the sandbar. Since this photo was taken, the ship has listed to port and become almost completely submerged.
Pretty good quality, It adds much to the shipwreck article, It is very pleasing to the eye.
Articles this image appears in
Shipwreck, SS America (1940)
Muldoon X9
  • SupportMuldoon X9 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This nomination never made it to the main page. Listing it now. MER-C 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose This image is very dramatic, but the top of the mast is cut off, and the image is not very sharp (maybe because of the weather?). – sgeureka t•c 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - It isn't the best picture ever but it sure as hell is dramatic. This is what FP's should be like, the minute the Shipwreck page opens that image grabs your attention. The only problem is the quality, the composition looks brilliant and makes the image look very moody. --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Dramatic indeed. 8thstar 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support We're not looking at one of Fir's macros; the details aren't going to be perfect. But the over-all, "gestalt" feeling is very good. The water suspended in the air is a nice touch.--HereToHelp 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very interesting shot, you can go to the ship's article to find the coordinates and plug them into google earth. There must be 100 panorama pictures of the ship on google earth, none as good as this the waves are so wild.Xpanzion 04:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry folks but I cant bring myself to support with the sharpness as it is. I would love to support the great composition but I can't help thinking how much better it would be with some sharpness. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - It is magic and I agree that is what FP is (also) about - Alvesgaspar 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, dramatic photo of a wreck which no longer has this appearance. There are many photos out there, few with this theatricality. --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Given updated photos I think the caption is based on old information, so I'm going to alter it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - because of sharpness. Andrew18 @ 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Support – This was a finalist for Picture of Year 2006 for a reason - it's an amazing composition. Centyreplycontribs – 10:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - This just for those opposing on technical grounds and also to further explain why this image is without a doubt feature worthy image. For one this particular criteria should be taken into account; "5. Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." That criteria speaks for its self. The mood and composition reflected in the image is perfect for the Shipwreck article, there just isn't a better picture available. Also, please take note that there are many images of this ship, none compare to this. Furthermore the ship is no longer there now, a better picture to improve technical quality cannot be taken. Overall its encyclopedic value is huge, i don't believe we'll ever see a picture the likes of this on here again and also its historical value is massive, the last picture of this great ship which has a rich history. Hope i can persuade you all --Childzy ¤ Talk 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support especially per. Childzy. Witty Lama 15:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Grabs the attention, great composition, strong story Wikipete 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:8 - AmStar 7.JPG MER-C 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Creeping Thistle with bees[edit]

Edit 1 by User:Fir0002
Highlighted problem areas
I think this a good quality photograph of a rather unique shot.
Proposed caption
A Cirsium arvense, or Creeping Thistle with two bees. Although this plant is considered as a weed, it provides food for the Goldfinch and Linnet, as well as over 20 species of Lepidoptera, including the Painted Lady butterfly, and the Engrailed, a species of moth, and several species of aphids.
Articles this image appears in
Cirsium arvense
Richard Bartz
  • Support as nominator NauticaShades 19:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support With macros, it's not hard to get something sharp; it's hard to get the right thing sharp--and I think the DOF is perfect. I also like how the two buds show the flower in different developmental stages.--HereToHelp 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I like this picture a lot. The colors compliment eachother nicely, and I agree with HereToHelp's comment on the differing plant stages. *Cremepuff222* 01:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There's a few things I don't like here. I may be reading too much into this, but it almost looks like this has been cut out from a different background - if you look at the image I uploaded with the highlighted areas; 1. shows odd looking tips off the flower which seem to be resulting from a soft eraser brush; 3. it is a bit odd that despite the hairy texture of the stem it is completely clean along the edges. 2. is not related to my idea that it is cut out, but it certainly is an odd blurry area given the sharpness of the rest of the stem - what's going on? Finally if you look at the unopened flower head it suffers from motion blur and the overall image has a weird pastel colouration. Given the histogram I'm pretty sure it's not a natural colour, but I could be wrong. At any rate I've uploaded an edit for those who disagree with my other issues. --Fir0002 02:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. If you look here, however, the stems also look smooth. Maybe there are different varieties. NauticaShades 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original and edit 1 I think you are seeing ghosts, dear Fir0002. There are probable explanations for all of the items you mention. 1. is a result of background softening, 2. is the front most protruding scale from the perianth, 3. the stem is felty rather than hairy. Lycaon 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. My first thought was 'I like this'. My second thought was 'The background looks fake'. And that was before reading Fir0002's comments, and it's for different reasons. I can't describe it very well, but the depth of field used to capture the flower as it is just doesn't seem to gel with the detail in the sky - the blur on the rearmost petals is perhaps greater than the blur on the clouds. And would those camera settings capture that sky, e.g., a picture taken in what looks like the open in almost the middle of the day at ISO 800 and 1/200s...hmmm, and the sky is that blue? It just doesn't seem right to me, but I hope I can be proven wrong. --jjron 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose. OK, the more I've thought about this the more I can't see how it's not fake. And given that the image creator (Richard Bartz) has now voted below (Central Powers) and made no comment on this, I'm assuming our suspicions were correct. This level of manipulation clearly defies Criterion 9. --jjron 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Lycaon said it all so why this needs further discussions ? I like this picture a lot--Central Powers 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps you can give a definitive answer as to whether the background of this image was tampered with? --Fir0002 11:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a effect of dof (which you can see all around, a interesting effect indeed) and/or the bees moved this part of the bud--Central Powers 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Which part are you referring to - the background or highlighted area #2. If it is the latter I am quite sceptical of that claim (the blurriness is a result of the dof) - its far to sudden from the rest of the flower head, and some of the pink petals up top which look to have a greater displacement "inwards" are in focus. This does not address the more serious concern of background manipulation and quality issues relating to blurred petals. I've updated my higlighted edit with a few more problem areas I picked up looking at it again just now with a few "zoom ins" showing odd looking sections. One features a petal which seemingly comes out of the blue, the other a petal which becomes dramatically blurred (although this possibly might be a petal in front of it?). Not sure what you mean by "and/or the bees moved this part of the bud" unless you are trying to explain the motion blur? --Fir0002 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Slowly it is turning contraproductive. You take more time and effort in investigations onto this picture as i needed to take it, identifiy and upload it :) I dont know where this phenomenies are coming from, i can only presume that it could caused by motionblur. This picture has more to offer than tiny phenomenas. You can see a detailed pollination, detailed stems, different states of development on the buds, everything nicely wrapped and packed under a authentic bavarian blue sky, thats all. It is just a nice informative picture which i spent to the general public for free, so why you trying to enforce me to justify myself? What exactly you want from me? --Central Powers 13:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
All smoothing aside, for the background exposure you'll have to explain how a blue sky is blue in this picture. At 1/200s, ISO800 and F14 the sky should be 2 1/3 stops overexposed. (Sunny16: 1/200s, ISO800 -> F32). It seems very much like the sky was added later on. Wwcsig 13:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I give up, but you are wrong. enWP will be memorized as uncongenial for me, are you happy now? --Central Powers 14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's very possible that my math is wrong but please tell me what's wrong with it. Cause if its right the sky should be completely white rather than cloudy blue...Wwcsig 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So, what is the answer to the burning question, "Is the background fake?" A statement by the creator, please? thegreen J Are you green? 01:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original and edit 1 Beggars can't be choosers --Central Powers 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
User has only 6 edits - four of which are on FPC the other two on his userpage --Fir0002 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How i can withdraw this stupid nomination? --Central Powers 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Compositionally it is quite a good shot but I am also not convinced about the legitimacy of the photo itself, as I agree with wwcsig, Fir0002 and Jjron. The edge of the thistle is quite clearly blurred where it meets the sky. This doesn't automatically mean gross manipulation (could be poor technique on noise reduction, etc), but the author's justification has not been particularly reassuring as little attempt has been made to debate the concerns others have. Sure, he has no obligation to, but we also have no obligation to make it a featured picture either. I think that when there is serious doubt about the validity of the image, aesthetics are very much of secondary importance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that main reason for the author's lack of explanation is merely the language barrier, but I could be wrong. NauticaShades 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • But wouldn't it be easier to simply say "I guarantee you the background's not fake" than to avoid Fir0002's direct question on this and go on about DoF and motion blurs on the thistles? His English seems pretty good to me - certainly good enough to understand that we are concerned about the sky having been added from a different picture. It's like a politician avoiding a journalist's question they don't want to answer by going off on a different tack. Alvesgaspar invokes Occam's Razor, but I think we rather need to invoke the duck test here. --jjron 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I got the impression it was more due to his indignanation than a language barrier... As Jjron said, his english seems pretty good. It just seems like certain people come here with an attitude problem and see themselves as above critical reasoning. I don't think theres anything wrong with a bit of balanced cynicism. After all, FPC isn't about personal critiques - it is just about selecting the best encyclopaedic images that Wiki has to offer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some of you are really seeing ghosts and I think I'll have to recall "Occam's razor" again. It would be so damm difficult to manipulate the picture the way it is suggested that I just can't believe the author did it. For example, how do we separate an out of focus element from the background when the limit is not well defined and the colours merge perfectly? By hand?- Alvesgaspar 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but wwcsig raises a very valid point. I haven't confirmed what a typical blue sky would actually look like when using the settings (1/200s, ISO800 and F14), but his maths seems right to me. It should be grossly overexposed according to the Sunny 16 rule. Given that extracted EXIF data, surely Occam's Razor would suggest the most logical explanation IS manipulation of the image rather than an extraordinarily dark blue sky on this particular day. Ahh.. One thing did just occur to me though. What about if the author used a ND/polarizing filter? Just a thought anyway. :-) All he needed to do was explain this, if it was the case anyway, as wwcsig did invite an explanation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ack, Alves. I think somebodies' imaginations are running wild here. I see absolutely nothing in the highlighted areas which cannot easily be explained with DOF effects. Changing the sky while keeping a natural look on the OOF contours would be an insane amount of work. And if the sky really were grossly overexposed we'd have light bleeding into the flower and insect contours. There would be no way short of repainting the image to replace it with a new sky. The more I think about it the more ridiculous I find this allegation. Please keep in mind that Richard is not a native english speaker, so he might have misread or simply overlooked this discussion. Taking his lack of response as an argument against him is quite frankly a bad faith assumption. --Dschwen 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, and what amazes me even more: no one apparently bothered to leave him a note on his talk page. Come on, this would be step number 'one if you really were interested in a response from him. --Dschwen 11:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • For the record he was notified and it's not as if he didn't know about it (as per his comments) --Fir0002 12:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry Dschwen, but having read your comments here a couple of times I can only assume that you missed the point that Central Powers is Richard Bartz (no, I don't know why he's got two usernames - well three including his old Makro Freak, but who's counting?). He therefore had been clearly asked about this, and had posted several replies which avoided the issue. I assume your statement about "a bad faith assumption" probably refers to myself, Diliff, and Fir0002 - so given that he had replied and his answers were not exactly satisfactory, I don't think it's a fair call to say we acted in bad faith. --jjron 08:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I second that, Jjron. I don't feel like any of us acted in bad faith. We had an inkling that there may be deceptive manipulation involved and debated it with the author. I don't think any of us were rude - merely to the point. And as you said, his english is not that poor that he was unable to rebuke our points. As he states directly below me here, he just didn't feel like he had to, which is fair enough, but it didn't really alleviate our concerns. Anyway, Dschwen has been quite critical of potentially deceptive manipulation in the past. Just because he doesn't agree with us this time, it doesn't make it bad faith! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah I agree with Diliff - I think the questions we raised were perfectly in keeping with this process and I find it a little unusual Dschwen that coming from someone who in the past has stridently argued against cloning or any manipulation your position here is a bit odd --Fir0002 08:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh geez, give me a fracking break. What the hell is unusual about that?! I'm still very critical about image manipulation. Have I argued in favour of manipulation anywhere? Please point it out to me! The essence of my position was the inquisitory behaviour based on paper thin pseudo evidence. If anyone's position here is unusual it is your's Fir. How comes you of all people is suddenly going on an anti-manipulation crusade? You shouldn't have to be afraid of the competition, so what possible explanation could be left here... I don't know. --Dschwen 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Take it easy Dschwen! I'm not against manipulation at all as I've made very clear. But I do require that if any manipulation has been done it has been done well - that is it looks like it had never been done. That was my initial complaint - that the image manipulation was poorly done. From there I've merely been trying to get Richard to confirm the manipulation (in which case my oppose stands since it has been poorly done) or explain the issues I'm haing with it. Furthermore manipulation should be done to improve the image - and IMO the sky looks quite unnatural and detracts from the image. I mean I didn't initially at thumbnail size see the errors, but what looked like a fake sky to me prompted me to investigate the image closely and I came up with the problems. And no I'm not afraid of competition as you put it - why would I have supported the grasshopper thing nominated just before if I was? I think quite a few of Richard's photos are worthy of FP but this one isn't one of them --Fir0002 12:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Ok, fair enough. Sorry I got so agitated about this whole thing. --Dschwen 14:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • This picture must be good, otherwise it wouldnt cause a stir, like we have here. Dschwen and Alvesgaspar phrased it exactly, it would be a insane undertaking to replace this accused white background through a blue sky, furthermore iam the world most laziest person, even use jpg instead of raw because of the timewasting procedure of converting. I admit that sometimes I erase dirt, doing color adjustments and sharpen slightly, thats all, no merlins hat. My aloofness is a reaction on this absurd reproaches, and i dont want to play this "hearing" game with you, because i have more positive things to do. My last comment: This background which is the most unimportant part on this picture isnt fake! Regards, Richard Bartz--Central Powers 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I was reading all the dogged comments and presumptions. I know that Wikipedians are keen to debate, thats why iam most of the times at Commons where its more quiet and gracious. What makes me really disapointing here on the english Wikipedia are the questions on this picture. I assumed there will questions about the pollination, maybe about the missing id of the bees etc., something more scientific, something what is interesting for me to discuss, but what we have here is a really poor, nerdish photographers talk, which is exclusive based on assumption and everybody takes joyful part on it. Iam not the nominator and i dont asked for FP. I dont want something from you, and i learned that if you want something, you have to be very friendly. Because of your contrary behaviour e.g. you insistence on assumptions in a bad tempered pathetic chorus i cannot easily deliver the answers you want. Its not important for me to fight for stupid FP buttons, more important is my job, my kids and the abandonment for macro photography. I assume most of the users here are in the same age from the same generation, with the same profound love for photography, and before i came here i thought there must be smart, international, dynamic and easy people here around. What I find here destroys my perception of the enWP. Enough said, i take my dog and my cam and leave this stupid computer and if you like you can discuss this until you getting gray, but without me. Have a nice day, Richard --Central Powers 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Why can't you "easily deliver the answers you want"? They're not that complicated, we just want you to explain a few things about your photo. I mean even ignoring the obvious Sunny 16 issue there's also the focus issue. No doubt there's a formula to work these things out, but personally (and I obviously hadn't shot with your 65mm so can't say for sure) I'd have thought that the sky would be almost completely OOF given the focus drop off of the petals. And again I'm not sure what the bokeh looks like on your lens, but the sky doesn't look like a natural OOF, to me anyway, more like a gaussian blur has been applied. Add to that the issues I've raised in my highlighted edit and really I don't feel comfortable with this becoming an FP. So if you could please describe any modifications which have made to this image we'd all be very thankful! --Fir0002 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • No need to leave, Richard. This place belongs to eveybody, including you and all the "amateur" photographers of Commons. There is only one way to ban the pedantism of the English Wikipedia's FPC, which is to stay and fight it with common sense and the excellency of your contributions. - Alvesgaspar 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
        • You mean this is for Pro's only? --Central Powers 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Richard - since you have all this time complaining about our questions, why don't you just answer a few of them? Shouldn't a peer review of an FP photo include reasonable questions about possible manipulations, especially since the FP criteria do require no significant alterations ? If you can explain how you got a blue sky when it is mathematically 2-1/3 stops overexposed this issue would be resolved for me. And if there's a language barrier, reply in German or email me and I'll translate your answer for you. Wwcsig 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Support – I don't care if the background's real or not. The foreground subject is well photographed and the background is not detracting from that. That's all that matters to me. Centyreplycontribs – 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Support – Richard convinced me that the exposure is correct, the EXIF time is obviously off by a few days and hours: The sunny16 rules does not apply for an evening sky which makes my objection based on the non-overblown sky moot. Beautiful image! Give us more - and be ready to be grilled again ;-)... Wwcsig 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I will be ready, but prepare for a hard nut to crack! :) :) :) --Central Powers 19:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • But then why are the shadows appearing to show that the sun is reasonably high in the sky? ;-) Anyway, just putting that question out there.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I just ask Wwcsig what convinced you to change your vote? --Fir0002 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The background really bothers me. If you look closely you can see gradient banding on the "clouds"...just doesn't look natural to me. CillaИ ♦ XC 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original - per my comments above - Alvesgaspar 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svgSupport - Agree with Alvesgaspar that this discussion is purely pedantic and has nothing to do with the real merits of the photo. The discussion should be about the merits of a photograph, but it seems more about posturing among regular contributors over who can come up with the most erudite and arcane objection to the photo. FPs are still about excellent photos, and these discussions of technical minutiae do nothing for the community. I have rarely commented on FPs because of the "OMG is that a blown highlight!" mentality that prevails. I'm saddened to see that some individuals who have been unfairly subjected to this sort of treatment are now the ones perpetrating it themselves. - noraad 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd call myself a regular contributor. This is not an elite cabal. Comment more often, and participate in constructive discussions. --Dschwen 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to be overly negative, but that's really why I don't comment more often - I rarely find a discussion that is constructive. Most follow the same route with the same people discussing the same issues ad infinitum. Certain individuals comment on their topic du jour, then others line themselves up around those opinions and proceed to argue, or if most impressions are favorable, give a "chorus" of supports. I know there are examples that do not follow this pattern, but by and large this is the case. In a broader sense, I object to a pattern of catering to the contrarian voice. Just because I have an opinion and have a right to express it does not mean I should express it. I have a responsibility to judge how my comments will affect a discussion (and in a larger sense, a community) and then to select participation or non-participation based on those effects. To the self-serving or narrow-minded individual, the thought process stops at the "I have a right to" phase, and yields comments that are, in the least, non-constructive. --noraad 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. See my comments above, plus it is a striking macro and technically well done. --Dschwen 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cirsium arvense with Bees Richard Bartz.jpg MER-C 03:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrophil with Anthrax[edit]

The picture is of excellent quality and clarity, and depicts a convoluted and confusing biological process in a simple, straighforward manner.
Proposed caption
An image captured with an electron microscope demonstrating a Neutrophil engulfing anthrax bacteria as an immune response.
Articles this image appears in
Immune System
Volker Brinkmann in PLoS journal, uploaded by User:Tim Vickers
  • Support as nominator Lumbergh 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent detail. You may also want to add this to the Nueutrophil article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-11 14:50Z
  • Support per above. Neat. --Bridgecross 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Whoa... 8thstar 15:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The caption mentions Neutrophil and anthrax but which one is which? Is the Neutrophil the yellow? I think the caption should be modified to say which is which by color... 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "...Neutrophil engulfing anthrax..." shows that Neutrophil is the yellow stuff. Seems clear to me.--Puddyglum 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And what about color-blind people?! (I assume the anthrax bacteria is the stuff that looks like bacteria - long tubular thingies. The other stuff must be the neutrophil). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-11 20:31Z
      • The current caption in immune system is best: A scanning electron microscope image of a single neutrophil (yellow), engulfing anthrax bacteria (orange), though this should be expanded upon for main page use. Color blind people can generally tell the difference between orange and yellow, as yellow is always lighter, no matter what kind of color blindness they may have (ie. a lighter shade of gray for monochromats). ♠ SG →Talk 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Soaked in technical awesomeness. --Puddyglum 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support despite an improvement-needing caption. In addition to the above comments, it should be clear that the image is artificially colored: SEMs are grayscale.--HereToHelp 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm rubbish at biology, but I do know that they're one millionth times the size of the human hair. I will give strong support for its magnification, regardless of whether it was computer-generated or not. -- Altiris Exeunt 13:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I wasn't trying to argue that the artificial color hurts the image; quite the opposite. Also, only the color was computer-generated, not the image. I just wanted someone to take note of that in the caption, that's all.--HereToHelp 19:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Eh? No no no, I wasn't implying that you were arguing. In fact, I didn't know that you were arguing. Your statements hold true, however, and I think we can give a thumbs-up for the artificial colouring for the sake of clarity. -- Altiris Exeunt 09:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Would be even more impressive with a proper balance of colors but still very nice. Calibas 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Assuming it gets a solid caption. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Mbz1 03:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Conditional Support The picture is great, but the caption needs work. We need to get some sense of scale here; I guess everybody knows bacteria are tiny little things, but how tiny? Is this magnified 100x or 10,000x? Is the picture a millimeter across or a micrometer across? The article on neutrophil suggests that they are about 12µm across and the anthrax article says that they (the bacterium) are about 9µm long. Is this shot then, about 25µm by 20µm? Matt Deres 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Neutrophil_with_anthrax_copy.jpg MER-C 10:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Drone Flies Mating[edit]

Drone flies mating on a daisy flower head
Edit 1 by Fir0002, less sharpening, processed in DPP raw converter rather than Adobe's raw converter
Current drone fly FP (not for reconsideration or voting)

I think this is a high enc and high quality image. True we already have a drone fly FP, but I think this is of equal quality and shows significantly different aspect of Drone Flies. And to those wishing to make a crack at a "Fir Fetish" (as one user once put it) I suggest you watch a few David Attenborough docos first ;-)

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - though if the focus is a bit further the depth of field would be better. So what's with you and mating insects... --antilivedT | C | G 08:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - very good picture. High resoloution and good colour quality. Btw Fir, how do you manage to get these pictures, i've always wondered how you spot this sort of thing happening and always get such brilliant images? --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd like to claim it as constant vigilance and a sixth sense, but in the case of this image it was really just luck. I just noticed an enormous fly buzzing around and followed it until it settled long enough for me to get close (at which point of course I realized it was two flies) and get a shot --Fir0002 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry to go against the flood but the picture seems to be oversharpened and lacking detail. Please compare with this one and this one (just to mention two excellent pictures of the author), which are clearly superior in detail and size. I think that the "insect bar" needs to be raised here too. Alvesgaspar 16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please make sure to view the image at full res - the new sharpening feature on the media wiki server oversharpens my already sharp images terribly. As for detail I beg to differ... --Fir0002 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I always evaluate the images in its maximum resolution (this is not the first time I say this, remember?) - Alvesgaspar 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for the "insect bar" being raised, but the "insect rod" in this picture....*ahem*... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-10 17:43Z
      • Ahem... but when you look past the insect pr0n and get down to the nuts and bolts of the image, it is pretty hard to match this sort of quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the insect bar does need to be raised. I mean, if Fir can't bother to create an assembled composite image of incrementally focused photos (especially for something as easily photographed as this subject), he shouldn't even bother submitting them as FPCs. Chicago god 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support If you've seen one photo of drone flies mating, you've seen them all. Chicago god 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This picture is oversharped and badly postprocessed --Central Powers 21:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please make sure to view the image at full size, and not on the oversharpened image description page. --Fir0002 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
User has only 6 edits - four of which are on FPC the other two on his userpage --Fir0002 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I always watching pictures in 100%. Its a nice picture but looks unnatural for me. On the one hand its oversharped and crisp on the other hand the hairs and details of the drones are blurry and smeared, the same happen to the flower. So this makes me say its badly postprocessed. There are good tools for smoothing oversharped pictures but you have to adjust it gently. Another thing is that you say it has enormous value. On the first sight it looks like that, but i dont see genitals nor a semen transver which would be very interesting and highly valueful. What would a entomologist need ? --Central Powers 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Again I really can't see the oversharpening you claim to see, particularly if you are happy with your flower shot. The blurriness is not smoothing at all - merely the effect of limited DOF (as I'm sure you're familiar with). I don't claim it has "enormous" value, and I don't see why genitals etc need to be seen - I mean I don't think they'd be visible would they? Case in point (and yes this isn't an FP or anything) Image:Lion pair2.jpg - would this need to show genitals etc to be consider high enc value? But anyway you have your right to your vote ... --Fir0002 07:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I dont know what my picture has to do with this but iam not the only one which the oversharping attracts attention. About high enc and genitals. ... sometimes its just a tiny rotation or a few inches to the right to show more interesting things--Central Powers 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion about tagging user comments is moved to here because its not relevant to this poll --Central Powers 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit 1. The sharpness is fine. There is a lot of blur and the amount of detail is not as great as in other insect photos (e.g. your other drone fly FP on that article page). However, weak support for being user-created. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-11 17:16Z
  • Support If this were uploaded by a less popular user I think there would be more support. I'd take it as a compliment Fir0002, people expect great pictures from you. Calibas 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Mbz1 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support. Good shot, DOF is good enough for this sort of macro. At least the flies found a romantic and aesthetic place to mate. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'm glad you picked up on that (the flower)! I was thinking of putting it in the description but thought I'd just see if anyone else noticed. It's not often you can get both the subject matter and nice background/setting in one shot. --Fir0002 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Drone flies mating.jpg MER-C 10:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Garden[edit]

Original. Panoramic view from the Symbolic Mountain at the Japanese Garden in Cowra, NSW, showing many of the typical elements of a Japanese garden.
This is a pretty attractive and informative picture of a Japanese Garden. Taken on a lovely day, at the perfect time of year with the cherry blossom trees in full bloom, and with no pesky tourists spoiling the photo. It has stood the test of time, being unchallenged as the main image (in lower res versions) in three articles for almost a year, including the main Japanese Garden article.
Proposed caption
Panoramic view from the Symbolic Mountain at the Japanese Garden in Cowra, NSW, showing many of the typical elements of a Japanese garden. The Cowra garden is a kaiyū-shiki or strolling garden. The view takes in the gardens and the plains of the Cowra Shire across to the nearby mountains.
Articles this image appears in
Japanese garden
Cowra, New South Wales
Cowra Shire Council
  • Support as nominator jjron 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good composition. Nice colors. Don't see anything that would make me want to oppose. – sgeureka t•c 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice, simple panoramic view. It does look a touch overexposed but it may just be my preference as I think I tend to underexpose to preserve highlights more than I should. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Some blown highlights here and there, but it doesn't detract from the picture too much (which is excellent by the way). NauticaShades 19:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Only very slightly overexposed. The radio tower in the upper right is distracting, but oh well…--HereToHelp 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice scene and colours. Also like the composition of this one better than for example this shot thanks to the framing of the eucalypt LHS --Fir0002 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I really like the composition as well.--ragesoss 03:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Technically fine, but not particularly striking. Also I don't find it to be very Japanese, and I've seen Japanese gardens from Australian natives that seem a lot more Japanese than this. It's certainly nothing like the Japanese gardens I've seen in Japan. Perhaps the light and sense of space are reasons. I wish I could give more objective reasons. —Pengo 13:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - It's a curious subject no doubt, but I'm afraid various things bother me. It's discernibly overexposed, the framing is not too good (the tree on the left-hand side just looks cut off) and the composition is nothing special, I daresay under par. And I'm finding everything rather distracting. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks a little oversaturated, like a magazine photo from the 70's. Still an FP though. Calibas 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ummm, what exactly does this illustrate? IMHO this is only some garden with a stone lantern thrown into the lake and labelled "Japanese garden". There is nothing that screams "Japanese" from this garden, the architecture, the main component visible from this pano, is absolutely not Japanese from the outside; most plants there aren't native to Japan and as far as I can see, there is only 1 sakura tree in full blossom in the centre; All three pictures at the end of the article put more emphasis on the Japanese parts more than this pano, but from this pano the garden look no different to any other well-maintained western public gardens: It tries to encompass too many things, like many public parks, and neglects the Japanese part that it's supposed to illustrate. I would support if it's for illustrating a public park, but not for Japanese gardens. --antilivedT | C | G 08:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a nice photo, and maybe even a good illustration of a (Western public garden-style) Japanese garden. It just seems wrong to have a photo of one in Australia rather than an authentic original from Japan. Perhaps the caption could clarify something about the tradition of having such gardens in public gardens in the West, because this just doesn't feel authentic to me. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to argue with genuine reasons for opposing, but perhaps I could recommend some of the opposers to take a couple of minutes to check the articles to understand the significance of these particular gardens and clarify some points. See especially Cowra Japanese Garden and The Cowra Breakout. These gardens were supported in their development by the Japanese Government both philosophically and financially, and designed and 'constructed' by a leading 'Japanese Garden' designer of the time (this was in the 1970s). And as the Japanese garden article says, one of the typical features is "A "borrowed landscape" from beyond the garden's confines", something I would have thought done pretty well here. --jjron 12:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes and all of the 3 photos at the bottom screams out more "Japanese" than this one. This is just not a good perspective to illustrate the "Japanese" part of the garden. --antilivedT | C | G 00:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • But could it be that this image is actually better at illustrating the article than the others as it defies many people's preconceptions about what a Japanese Garden should look like and therefore educates? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Garden, yes. Japanese, no. Doesn't adequately illustrate the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-10 14:54Z
  • Oppose Oversaturated, unsharp and not particularly encyclopedic. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevermind per Dhartung. This is a rather atypical Japanese garden in terms of a number of things, including size. I would consider changing my vote if the title of this photo were made specific to the Cowra Japanese Garden. Tokugawapants 06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Huh? The image name is Image:07. Japanese Garden Pano, Cowra, NSW, 22.09.2006.jpg, and it's clearly identified in the image caption everywhere it's used as being the Japanese Garden in Cowra - how much more specific do you want to get? --jjron 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is interesting, because i recently saw a TV documentary about gardens especially Japaneses ones. I won't pretend i m an expert about gardening, but I can understand how this garden relates to Japaneses ones. The mix of raw stones, low bushes, and pond of water is definitely something you could see in a Japanese garden. However i find it disturbing that very few trees seem to be cut according to the Japanese way. Maybe we should need some additional input/research about Japanese gardens ? 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Not much wrong technically, and "there are Japanese gardens around the world?" Interesting... --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Support – Technically good. Sharp details and good balance of colours and contrast given the bright sky. What it lacks in an outright informative photo of a Japanese garden, it makes up in its composition. Also the photo appears in other articles too, so it's not like it has to be the perfect illustration of a Japanese garden. Centyreplycontribs – 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I hope that whoever is responsible for closing this nomination takes into consideration that the gardens were, as Jjron said, designed and built by a leading Japanese gardener, and that many of the opposers are likely not Japanese or Japanese garden experts and therefore might not have the expertise to determine such things... ;-) It would be a shame if the opposition sunk the nomination based on limited understanding. I don't claim to be an expert either but I will take on face value the fact that it is actually a Japanese garden. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Speaking as a Japanese person, this garden does appear abnormal. It may have something to do with the fact that, although it was designed by a Japanese gardener, it was designed for a foreign terrain. That being said, I withdrew my opposition, as long as it stays clear that this is a "foreign" Japanese garden. Tokugawapants 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have no idea if the picture is representative of a Japanese garden or not. Aesthetically, I don't lik it. The compostion is unbalanced and cluttered with too many elements. The tree and dark bushes in the foreground are particularly ugly. Maybe another POV? Finally the image seems overstaurated. Alvesgaspar 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I lived in Japan for three years and this is a very atypical Japanese garden. The only one I can think of that has wide expanses of lawn like this is Kōraku-en. howcheng {chat} 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Stron support - very nice view on the japanese garden :) Andrew18 @ 22:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too cluttered, appears to be a random collection of coloured objects in a field Wikipete 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Avala 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Even though this is slightly over-exposed, it doesn't matter due to the picture quality and beautiful Japanese garden. Matthuxtable 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The garden in this photograph is visually very different from Japanese gardens in Japan. One difference is the species. The designer of the Cowra garden appears to have used native species, which appear very different from the pines and maples (for example) of gardens in Japan. A second difference is the amount of space. The Cowra location has much more space than typical gardens in Japan at Buddhist temples and other private locations. Only the very largest gardens in Japan, such as those built by daimyo, are on a scale that can compare with Cowra's garden.
  • This photograph aptly shows a present-day Japanese gardener's response to the terrain, vegetation and space of an Australian setting. For that reason, it has a place in the article on Japanese gardens as an illustration of a Japanese garden outside Japan. In my opinion, it should not be the main photograph in that article. It could be the first illustration of the section on Japanese gardens outside Japan. Also, there are three photos from Cowra in that article. A single picture would avoid concerns of undue weight. Fg2 10:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Valid points. Part of the reason I waited for almost a year before nominating was to see if anyone came along with a better image of a Japanese Garden for that article, say from Japan. That has not happened. I also only put three images in the article due to the generally low quality of what was there already. I know I may be a bit biased since they're my photos, but I think all the images contribute to the article and are higher quality and better composed than most of the other images in there; other than this one, the other two are pretty generic, but I have identified them as from Cowra in their captions. Nonetheless I'm happy for them to be replaced if someone contributes something better, and happy for that lead image to be shifted as you suggest, again if someone produces something better that gives an overview of a Japanese Garden, as this does. --jjron 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that whether this picture is appropriate for the Japanese garden article would be an editorial decision best suited for the appropriate talk page. That said, it's still enc for Cowra, New South Wales and Cowra Shire Council. Thus, I'm inclined to promote this image. MER-C 10:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promoted File:07. Japanese Garden Pano, Cowra, NSW, 22.09.2006.jpg

Marine Corps Platoon[edit]

Hi-res photo of a Marine Corps Recruit Training platoon. It adds value to United States Marine Corps, and illustrates the nature of Marine recruit training, "boot camp".
Proposed caption
A Marine Drill Instructor inspects his platoon shortly before Lights Out.
Articles this image appears in
United States Marine Corps
Recruit training
Sergeant Kenneth Morgan, senior drill instructor, Platoon 3078, Lima Co., 3rd RTBn
  • Support as nominator Coasttocoast 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose noisy, muddy colored, tilted. Sorry. Debivort 02:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. A lightened version might be better for the article, but there's not enough quality here to work from. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, very enc, but poorly executed--at least not up to FPC standards. gren グレン 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose quite dull and grainy but it is a good shot of the subject --Childzy ¤ Talk 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above, but it's a very good idea... 8thstar 22:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good idea Mario1987 16:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Grainy and lacking in contrast - Adrian Pingstone 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfly on a leaf[edit]

Edit 1. Cropped, levels, sharpened, by jjron
Good quality showing the body, and eyes of the insect.
Proposed caption
Dragonflies valued as predators, help control the populations of harmful insects, such as mosquitoes; hence are vital in control of insect vector diseases especially in the Third World countries.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wings obscure head, and sharpness isn't enough to make up for it.--HereToHelp 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments I've bee observing this fly for a week now, and this is how it always perches, wings covering head. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's embarrassed after being stalked for a week. What is the specific species? They certainly do not all do this. Puddyglum 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be a Blue Dasher, Pachydiplax longipennis. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-14 13:21Z
  • Oppose A tad too blurry for a FP. The bright stalk of the plant takes some of the attention away (and might have contributed to the blurry problem). Still, if I took this picture it would be hanging in my house. :) Puddyglum 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a really nice picture, but there's a slight issue that its only use is in the gallery in one article. OK, technically it's in an article, but really a likely FP should be of more use than this. Also, given the number of dragonflies we get through here, a species ID would probably be of benefit. --jjron 01:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HereToHelp. Debivort 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Avala 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great at full resolution Mario1987 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Draws attention to the leaf and not the dragonfly.Buphoff 07:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • D'oh. Uploaded an Edit which I would have supported, but MER-C had closed in the meantime. Oh well. --jjron 10:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Iceland Gull[edit]

Another great bird photograph by Mdf. I especially like the serenity of this one.
Proposed caption
The Iceland Gull, Larus glaucoides, is a large gull which breeds in the arctic regions of Canada and Greenland, but not Iceland, where it is only seen in the winter. It is migratory, wintering from in the North Atlantic as far south as the British Isles and northernmost states of the eastern USA. A few birds may winter on the Great Lakes. (Stolen from Iceland Gull.)
Articles this image appears in
Iceland Gull
  • Support as nominator NauticaShades 14:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is technically a good picture but not excellent like many others from the same author. What I like less is the tight framing on the bird (which is almost a trademark of Mdf, I'm afraid). Also, the contrast and crispness could be better and there is a slight noise in the background. Alvesgaspar 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support i love birds Mario1987 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose There is nothing majorly wrong with the shot, but I'm afraid that the washed out tones (and lack of vibrancy) does it for me. -- Chris Btalk 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

White Crowned Sparrow[edit]

White-Crowned Sparrow / Zonotrichia leucophrys

Lovely image, perhaps a little oversharpened but still very good. High quality + high enc value

Created by User:Wwcsig

Appears in White-crowned Sparrow

Nominate and Support --Fir0002 09:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support maybe some oversharpening but I think thats more the effect for the flash lighting. It looks really good. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It almost looks oversharpened, but I don't clearly see the usual effects of oversharpening, so maybe I'm just imagining things. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-13 15:46Z
  • Support Sharp, but not oversharp IMO. Good enough for FP, even though I suspect the bg has been filtered. --Janke | Talk 16:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice! Puddyglum 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support After trying to take some bird photos yesterday I certainly appreciate this. Cacophony 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I would have liked more room on the bottom, but the detail is top-notch.--HereToHelp 23:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Beautiful bird and almost perfect picture - Alvesgaspar 08:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Brilliant detail --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice --Central Powers 12:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Superb detail, great posture Wikipete 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the cropping could be a little tighter on the top and side. Kaldari 22:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:White-crowned-Sparrow.jpg MER-C 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Screech Owl[edit]

Eastern Screetch-Owl (grey morph)/Megascops asio

What can I say? I'm jealous! Superb clarity (but then what can you expect with a EOS 1D and a $5500 lens!:) and nice composition. In short a good enc and high quality image. I hope the creator will upload more pix and nominate more himself!

Created by User:Wwcsig

Appears in Eastern Screech Owl

  • Nominate and Support --Fir0002 09:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support What kind of flash gun is this guy using? Heavy illumination at 500mm? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Ya rly! NauticaShades 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously, nobody's going to say "no wai!"? Do I really have to do it? -- Kicking222 17:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A little bit on the small side but it does meet minimum requirements. Great clarity. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent detail, very good composition and encyclopedic -- however, the lean seems like a slight flaw. It's impossible to tell whether it's the photographer or the owl who's leaning, and rotating it would make this relatively small image even smaller. It gets my support regardless. Puddyglum 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Same comments as for sparrow above. --Janke | Talk 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Yep, it's a great shot that meets all of the criteria. It might be a bit small as far as FPs are concerned, but it's large enough, and that's all that matters- otherwise, we'd have to raise the criterion. -- Kicking222 17:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well, it could be a bit larger, and... it's leaning... a bit... it's... um... looking... at... me... yes master. support. yes. --Bridgecross 17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support While it is 1200 px, it's still kind of small, and doesn't leave a whole lot of room for detail.--HereToHelp 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Perhaps it should be turned into another file format to look better at low resolution, but the full picture is clean, crisp, and has a fine size. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Yeah, size, but it meets the requirements and is really intriguing, a nice departure from the more usual bird shots. --jjron 13:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Small or not it still passes the criteria, great picture --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Mbz1 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support Exquisite detail, encyclopedic and excellent composition. -- Chris Btalk 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Eastern Screetch-Owl.jpg MER-C 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Common Shag[edit]

Scraped off of COM:FPC, where voting is at 9/0/1.
Proposed caption
A young common shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii), taken on the island of Cres, Croatia.
Articles this image appears in
Common Shag
Julius Rückert
  • Support as nominator MER-C 09:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't mind the fuzzy background, but the subject isn't as focussed as I hoped it would be. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support; this bird is just waiting to take flight, isn't it? The background, surprisingly, doesn't compromise the subject focus very much, and that's quite impressive in my opinion. -- Altiris Exeunt 09:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Judging by one foot being off the ground, I think it is indeed ready to take flight. The other composition quirk is that the tail feathers are partially obscured, but I find that pardonable.There's also a few pixels of glare in the eye; if someone could remove that—don't bother with a new file, just upload over it—it would be great.--HereToHelp 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't notice that it had one foot off; I meant that it's probably a shoo-in for promotion to Featured Picture status. Coincidence is scary. -- Altiris Exeunt 01:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah.--HereToHelp 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This image looks quite a bit different from the others at Common Shag, and that appears to be because it's a juvenile, and the other pictures are of adults and of chicks. I'm not a big fan of the reflection in the eye of the bird, but this image very competently illustrates what a young common shag looks like, so I support its promotion to featured picture. Enuja (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii.jpg -- Chris Btalk 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fuel dumping[edit]

Original. RAAF F-111 aircraft performing a dump-and-burn fuel dump, a procedure where the fuel is intentionally ignited using the plane's afterburner.
Eye-catching image of a F-111 fighter jet performing a dump-and-burn fuel dump against a cloudy grey sky. I was actually surprised by how few photos there are of this. Most that are around are captured from the ground at airshows, and are therefore usually from an unappealing angle looking up from below the plane.
This pretty rare side-on view is far more appealing. This image also retains considerable detail in the ‘fuel dump’ itself; in most images it is blurred, completely blown out and often cut-off. Some people will undoubtedly complain that the plane is essentially silhouetted, but that was a necessary consequence of using a high enough shutter speed (1/3200s) to retain detail in the flames – remember that this is nominated for the demonstration of a fuel dump, not the plane.
I realise that image quality isn’t perfect (there’s a bit of noise and seems to be a slight halo around the plane, most noticeable in the downsized versions - not sure why), but there’s certain expediencies when taking a photo like this - you only get one try. Perhaps worth comparing to any other images you can find of this phenomenon. Used in several pretty big articles, and BTW, it’s exclusive to Wikipedia.
Proposed caption
Fuel dumping is a practice used by aircraft that are equipped to jettison fuel in the event of certain types of emergency situations. This RAAF F-111 aircraft is performing a dump-and-burn fuel dump at the Australian International Airshow, a procedure where the fuel is intentionally ignited using the plane's afterburner.
Articles this image appears in
Fuel dumping
General Dynamics F-111
Australian International Airshow
  • Support as nominator jjron 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the high shutterspeed caused the plane to be silhouetted, then I would expect the image to have focus. I can also see is blur in every part of the photograph. I would've preferred to see the plane in a clear sky. The clouds mess with lighting conditions and causes a general color balance which is unpleasing, at least to my eyes. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great picture! When viewed at original size, shows great details of the fuel being expelled.Muhammad Mahdi Karim 11:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • weak Support per nom Debivort 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC). Changing vote to weak support, per the subtle halo seen by Logan Williams. Debivort 02:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support this is one of the better images of this i have seen and i think conditions warrant a bit of leniency --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It doesn't look great, but some Googling has convinced me that it may in fact be the best image of the subject on the internet (even more so if you consider copyright). That's good enough for me.--HereToHelp 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that the silhouette is unapealing and the subject is a bit small within the picture. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, fantastic one-of-a-kind catch. Strong encyclopedic value. They do this at air shows, sometimes, but the view is never this good. --Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Halo around plane -- Logan Williams 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you sure you were looking at the full size? The version on the image page has a nasty halo because of wikimedia's over sharpening. Debivort 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I was. It doesn't look like the typical 1-2 px sharpening halo, it is a wider, more gradual halo. -- Logan Williams 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah... hadn't seen that. Debivort 02:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't think that's a halo - I think it's smoke from the burning fuel --Fir0002 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Fir0002 is right, there is smoke around the flames, but the halo is different. If you read the nomination you'll see the slight halo around the plane was identified there. I have some other pics of mainly this plane from around this time, with similar halos. I've tried to work out why, and I think it's something to do with the heat and light. It was a damn hot day, about 39°C, and despite the looming storm clouds seen in the photo, the sky above was still quite clear and sunny. I think - and I'm not sure because it's a bit puzzling - but the halo may actually be reflection off the plane of the bright light from the clear sky which only becomes evident due to the dark clouds. Anyway, to me it's pretty minor, not that obvious at full size, and not enough to throw the picture out, but each to their own. --jjron 06:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--ZeWrestler Talk 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Mbz1 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support Gragox 13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, amazing picture; minor flaws are forgivable given the difficulty involved in taking the picture Rubble pile 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Great shot, exposure is spot on for the flame. Did you anticipate what the exposure settings would need or was it a lucky guess with some dialed in underexposure? Also, you correctly state that these sort of photos are typically from an "unappealing angle looking up". Were you not on the ground? Or was it just fortunate that it was banking at the same angle as you were viewing it from the ground? I think the haloes are there but an unfortunate byproduct of in-camera sharpening algorithms. If it were shot with raw format (and preferably with a good DSLR ;-)), this could probably be avoided or at least minimised, but it doesn't detract enough from the photo to avoid my support. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Bit of luck I suppose; I had ramped up the settings because as I mentioned above it was actually very bright above the clouds and I anticipated possibly catching the plane in the clear sky, plus the sun was starting to move into that part of the sky. So between trying to allow for all that, and looking to freeze the motion of a low flying fighter jet, I basically had it set up, the bonus being it exposed the flames so well. A lot of people that have seen this have said it looks like I was in a plane flying alongside. Actually I did a bit of trick to get this view - of course all the keen photographers at airshows get as close to the action as they can right alongside the runway. I went way back for a different perspective, say a couple of hundred metres away amongst the milling crowds and fixed displays. That meant instead of shooting at say 45° to the horizontal as is usual for a low pass, I was only shooting at about 10°. As you can probably tell from the clouds there wasn't much banking of the plane, there was possibly a little, but combine the small angle and a minor banking and you get this basically side on view. I must say that this is the most 'side-on' out of the ones I took from there, so it is good that it was combined with the fuel dump and the spot on timing to get this, but perhaps I shouldn't be revealing all this detail. Oh, BTW, this is the first photo I've uploaded that has been taken with my 400D - OK, so it's no 5D, but it's not a bad piece of gear ;). I maybe should start using raw, but at least I have since got some better glass. --jjron 09:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, as you stripped the EXIF data from the image, I didn't realise you did shoot it with a DSLR - I wasn't having a dig at your 400D not being as good as a 5D - its quite capable, if not more capable than a 5D for that sort of shooting, since it has a 1.6x crop factor that essentially zooms in further for a given focal length. I don't see why those technical details is 'too much info', it doesn't detract from the image that it was taken from ground level as opposed to being parallel with an F-111 in the clouds, although it would be impressive to say you were! As for shooting in raw, I thoroughly recommend it, as you have complete control over the final image and aren't limited to how the camera processes it in the split second after you press the shutter. I've already had that debate with Fir0002 and he seemed happy enough to stick with jpeg at the time despite the potential benefits. Jpeg is certainly simpler to work with, but I'm picky. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • You get some strange reasons for opposes at times, which is why I often think it's better to leave a bit of mystery. I got onto ensuring EXIF data was removed from images when someone opposed one of my A95 FPC noms because it was taken with a 'small digicam' (OK, the nom was bombing anyway, but still...). I can see advantages to raw, my main two reasons for not using it are time (though I could try selectively using it) and disk space (most of my work is done on my work issue laptop with only a 40GB hard-drive and not a lot of free space; a lot of stuff ends up on external drives anyway, but it's all extra mucking around). I also need to put the time into actually learning how to use raw properly so I would get the benefits you mention. One step at a time; at the moment I'm still experimenting with the camera and a couple of new lenses. --jjron 03:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That halo looks like an editing attempt to bring out detail in the silhouette, and even if not, it looks unnatural. Can jjron confirm or deny that editing has taken place? Thanks, --Janke | Talk 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank-you to all who have voted. Yes I've cropped, adjusted levels, sharpened a bit - is that all banned? I had a look at dodging out the plane just to see what I could get, and realised there was very little detail there, so didn't bother with it (it actually looks a lot better as a dark silhouette rather than lightened up). I could have removed the halo, but decided that I'd put it up as was. As the nom says, I'm nominating for the fuel dumping, not the plane - nice (usually military sourced) photos of these planes are a-dime-a-dozen, but not so with the dump-and-burn. If people didn't like it they were free to oppose, but it seems most people were willing to accept it for what it is, without being overly distracted by minutiae. --jjron 09:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Certainly not banned, but I suspect that the greatest effect that sharpening had on the image was to enhance the halo effect, as the image inherently didn't have much to sharpen in the first place apart from the silhouette! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Probably the biggest effect of the relatively minor sharpening was tightening up the edges of the plane silhouette; can't remember it having much impact on the halo. It was taken with the kit lens, which was the only lens I had at the time, and that inherently tends to be pretty soft, so a little sharpening didn't hurt. --jjron 03:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - The halo is distracting but not so much that it takes away from a great image. I've never seen anything quite like this, it's very interesting! --iriseyestalk 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Triseyes, halo is distracting but doesn't take away that much from the overall image. Cat-five - talk 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stunning image when viewed small, but then, if you imagine if the subject area was cropped to just the plane + flame.. the picture never gets that big. There's just not a lot of pixels or information content there. Still a great photo, but doesn't seem to be up to the typical quality requirements. —Pengo 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, fair enough. So would that preclude anything long-and-thin or tall-and-skinny from becoming a FP? --jjron 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Ooooo...pretty. Very encyclopedic and a rare shot indeed. Jumping cheese 01:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:F-111-Fuel-Dump,-Avalon,-VIC-23.03.2007.jpg -- Chris Btalk 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man[edit]

High quality reproduction of a well-recognised drawing.
Proposed caption
The Vitruvian Man is a world-renowned drawing with accompanying notes created by Leonardo da Vinci around the year 1492 as recorded in one of his journals. The drawing and text are sometimes called the Canon of Proportions or, less often, Proportions of Man. It is stored in the Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice, Italy, but is only displayed on special occasions. (yanked from Vitruvian Man)
Articles this image appears in
Vitruvian Man, Man, Physiology and many others
Leonardo da Vinci/Luc Viatour
  • Support as nominator MER-C 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's tilted - it needs probably a 0.3° clockwise rotation. Someone wanna fix this up before proceeding? (I'm not mucking around with a 6MB file.) --jjron 09:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd also support a tilted version, assuming the resolution and color aren't changed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If it does get de-tilted, could you upload over the original version as it is also being considered on COM:FPC (where voting is at 5/0/0 after one day). MER-C 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks very artificial at high-res, possibly oversharpened and/or over-contrasted. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-14 13:32Z
  • Support - But the image isn't tilted at all! The framing of the photo is perfectly aligned with the margins of the sheet (supposing that the sheet is not cropped). What is tilted in relation to the margins of the sheet is the written text and three of the sides of the square. I think we should post a message on Leonardo's talk page, that was an inexcusable flaw regarding the actual FPC standards Alvesgaspar 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Like Alvesgaspar, I don't see a problem with tilt. The bottom is tilted, but the top looks fine. Puddyglum 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support although I'd like to see a version tweaked to address Brian0918's points. The tilt is a tricky question. I'm surprised to find that the top and bottom lines of the square are not perfectly parallel (although the scale line pretty closely matches the bottom line just above it). A rotation would fix one, but not the other, and leave the borders perhaps looking tilted. Offtopic: This was used wittily in the award-winning animation KunstBar. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmmm, interesting issue re the tilt or not. I'm wondering whether - given that this was apparently photographed rather than scanned - whether we're seeing some barrel distortion here. To me there looks to be a curve at the top of the page which could be consistent with this. --jjron 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • best is scanner, but which can do that with the original? --Luc Viatour 14:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right of course - so this is a photo of the genuine original, not of a print or out of a book? --jjron 06:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Not book! With an exposure in Brussels behind an armoured windows!--Luc Viatour 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Weak support. It's pretty good overall. Tilt seems to be present in other examples too, possibly just slightly greater here. Slight barrel distortion. Query on colouring compared to other examples, see here and here for example. Those things result in the 'weak'. --jjron 08:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Great historical image, good quality, tilt is not obvious, Overall very nice--Childzy ¤ Talk 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Avala 00:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds like someone read The Da Vinci Code. -- Chris Btalk 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Doesn't get more encyclopedic. Buphoff 07:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour.jpg -- Chris Btalk 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris)[edit]

quality pic of a Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris)
Proposed caption
Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris) in the Tur river near Călineşti-Oaş Lake in Romania
Articles this image appears in
Bufo, Toad, True toad
  • Support as nominator Mario1987 09:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blown out highlights and the leg is cut off. Try with a more diffuse light source, shooting into the sun, especially when the subject is wet, is rarely a good idea. Cacophony 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cac. Debivort 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because for some reason i thought it was a basket with something burning in it :/... and because of the blown out highlights... 8thstar 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the highlights.- Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor framing and blown highlights. -- Chris Btalk 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

John Abizaid[edit]

Pretty striking image. Captures the intensity and focus of military men. Not much of a propaganda question with it because Abizaid is no longer in active service. If people like it, there are likely to be other possible noms from this type of image.
Proposed caption
General John Abizaid was commander of the U.S. Central Command with responsibility over U.S. military action in the Middle East and North Africa from 2003-2007 during the beginning of the War on Terrorism. He is shown wearing the now obsolete Desert Camouflage Uniform.
Articles this image appears in
John Abizaid
US Army
  • Support as nominator Debivort 03:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose slightly blurry at full res Mario1987 09:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • support--Mbz1 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support per nom Matthuxtable 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oh yes, please nominate every military portrait in existence. More Wikipedians' photos please, less US Army. Stevage 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you opposing because of who created it? That's not one of the criteria FYI. Debivort 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm opposing because there's not much remarkable about a military portrait. I'm *biased* because of who created it. Stevage 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Cool. Debivort 03:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not exactly struck. It's a pretty standard pose and he pulls off a good gruff impression but that's about it. Striking, to me, would be an image of a military commander something more like this or this or even this. (Well, yes, Herr Rommel is more photogenic. But they're better portraits regardless.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - bad composition (the left arm is cut off) and low encyclopaedic value.--Svetovid 10:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this photo is nothing but meh. --iriseyestalk 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of composition and bluriness Cat-five - talk 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. -- Chris Btalk 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I really like this photo. In my opinion, this is the perfect portrait and contributes significantly to its article. Mahahahaneapneap 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Vibrating glass beam[edit]

A flash photo freezes in time the extent of vibrations of a cantilever beam, exposure beyond flash reveals the whole path of the beam and creates an interesting effect with the lighting (which consists exclusively of a carefully positioned 1 watt LED flashlight). The vibrations rendered in white against the black background lend to a very diagrammatic appearance which works well for the article it's in. Post processing involved only resize and slight sharpening. The beam was melted from a capillary tube and that took about 20 tries to get right. I need to go buy some more tubes.
Proposed caption
The vibration of a beam, such as this cantilever made of borosilicate glass, can be described with the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation alongside a loading function which includes inertia, gravity, and possibly drag, and functions describing the variable section modulus and linear density. The traces of the exposure show decaying oscillations and motion that is not simple harmonic.
Articles this image appears in
Euler-Bernoulli beam equation
Ben_pcc (also the shameless nominator)
  • Support as nominator Ben pcc 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Extremely fascinating and enc. Well done! --Sean 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. There's motion blur, but since it's a photo of a vibrating object, I think that's unavoidable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The motion blue helps visualize the vibration. It's pretty much essential, even if it were avoidable. Puddyglum 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Pretty sweet image. --iriseyestalk 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Exactly what a featured picture should be, as I see it. J Milburn 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Encyclopedic and wonderful subject. -- Chris Btalk 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:VibratingGlassBeam.jpg MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pisaura mirabilis[edit]

a quality pic of a Pisaura mirabilis in its natural enviroment
Proposed caption
Pisaura mirabilis near Călineşti-Oaş Lake in Romania
Articles this image appears in
Pisauridae, Pisaura mirabilis
  • Support as nominator Mario1987 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose very good for articles, but the motion blur prevents FP status - just doesn't look as great at full rez. Debivort 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose per Debivort; it's quite good, but not quite up to the rather high bar set for creepy-crawlies. Matt Deres 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Red-veined darter[edit]

It is a quality close up showing clearly the head and the body of the dragonfly
Proposed caption
A Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii) pic taken near Călineşti-Oaş Lake in Romania
Articles this image appears in
Dragonfly, Insect, Epiprocta
  • Support as nominator Mario1987 10:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's in articles, but isn't technically as good as [6], which is in the actual Red-veined darter page. 16:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blurred slightly also composition needs to be better, the wings are distracting at full res --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blur. 8thstar 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Iapetus mountains[edit]

High-res Version
This picture gives an amazingly three-dimensional view of the terrain on the bizarre moon Iapetus. Unlike most space probe images taken from above, it gives a sense of the view you might get from the object's surface.
Proposed caption
Mountains on Saturn's moon Iapetus, photographed by Cassini-Huygens. Original NASA caption reads "This stunning close-up view shows mountainous terrain that reaches about 10 kilometers (6 miles) high along the unique equatorial ridge of Iapetus. The view was acquired during Cassini's only close flyby of the two-toned Saturn moon. Above the middle of the image can be seen a place where an impact has exposed the bright ice beneath the dark overlying material. The image was taken on Sept. 10, 2007, with the Cassini spacecraft narrow-angle camera at a distance of approximately 3,870 kilometers (2,400 miles) from Iapetus. Image scale is 23 meters (75 feet) per pixel."
Articles this image appears in
Iapetus (moon)
  • Support as nominator Rubble pile 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too small, no sense of scale, poor composition (cut off mountain at top), hard to know what you're looking at (where's the ridge in the picture?). I'm sure we'll get an FP out of the Iapetus flyby, but this just isn't it. --Sean 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Some fair criticism here but perhaps I should have stressed that this image was snapped by a extremely fast-moving spacecraft during a once-in-its-lifetime flypast of an incredibly hard-to-reach moon; the composition is impressive given the circumstances. Rubble pile 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The higher res version I uploaded. This is a rare and fantastic closeup picture of Iapetus. Imaninjapiratetalk to me 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the higher res version; obviously, this is better. Rubble pile 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and rubble piles reply to TotoBaggins. I rarely get to see an image this clear of a 12 mile high mountain range. Debivort 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Close up or not it is very bland gives no sense of what we are seeing and is cut off, now dont have a go at me for saying this, but it is my honest opinion. Also no sense of scale which makes the image useless --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support – It does show a limited FOV and has other minor problems, but it is so exotic and high in encyclopedic value that I support it without any hesitation. — Ben pcc 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support both--Mbz1 03:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support either, I think it qualifies for a pass on the bluriness under the general standard that historic and once in a lifetime shots deserve a little bit of laxness (though not to much) when it comes to certain standards. Cat-five - talk 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • support. such detail of a small object soo far away! I'd expect a blob or an indistinguishable disc, this is incredible! --frotht 20:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Iapetus mountains Larger.jpg MER-C 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Barkley at Buchenwald[edit]

I find this image to be deeply moving, and particularly significant for its historical symbolism (e.g. US-Israeli relations, worldwide grief and shock at Nazi practices, the final days of Nazi power, juxtaposition of American might and American powerlessness, et al.) Also, the date of the photo, April 24 1945, is significant.
Proposed caption
Alben Barkley, U.S. Senator of Kentucky, looks on at Buchenwald as part of a congressional committee investigating Nazi atrocities. Barkley would later serve as Vice President of the United States under Truman. This photo was taken on April 24, 1945, six days before Adolf Hitler committed suicide.
Articles this image appears in
Nazi Germany Buchenwald concentration camp Alben W. Barkley Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV
US Army
  • Support as nominator DBaba 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Powerful subject (and I always liked Barkley), but this scan is just too small and low quality for an FP. Bridgecross 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Although I think quality or aesthetic and even size issues are not very relevant for such a subject, I would like to know why this picture is of low quality ? It's sharp, has no grain, and a long tonal range. It fits all the requirement for a good Black & White photography IMO. Ericd 00:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Bridgecross. Puddyglum 17:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too small, and it's not as emotionally engaging to me. (Incidentally, the Holocaust has very little to do with US-Israeli relations.) Given that this is not a unique photo, I think we can do better. --Dhartung | Talk 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Mbz1 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Oppose - Far too small I'm afraid. -- Chris Btalk 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too small. 8thstar 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Chris Btalk 06:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Solitary bee collecting nectar(Abthidium florentinum)[edit]

Edit 1 (bk noise reduced)
Edit 2 by Fir0002 - further reduction of bg noise
It is a high resolution and encyclopaedic depiction of the species.
Proposed caption
A male solitary bee of the Megachilidae family (Anthidium florentinum) collecting nectar from a Lantana camara flower. The long tongue and part of the head are sunk inside one of the florets. It is also known as a leafcutter bee, for it uses hair plucked from leaves to build the nest. Flies all summer and nests in holes in the ground, trees or walls. Males are noticeably larger than females.
Articles this image appears in
Bees, Megachilidae
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
  • Support as nominator Alvesgaspar 09:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Moderate Support; it's a good image, but I can still detect some artifacts in the image. -- AltirisExeunt 09:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit1: Excellent details and encyclopedic. --LucaG 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition isn't very good. We can't see most of its head and there's a lot of useless space top and bottom of the image. The edit while an improvement still has significant noise. I tried reducing it but there isn't enough image data and it became posterized. I've uploaded an edit anyway. Also seems a pretty ragged specimen (from it's wings). The composition of Image:Anthidium September 2007-2.jpg is much better since we get to see it's eyes, however that image fails in terms of IQ which is poor at 100% (seems to suffer from over sharpening). --Fir0002 08:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • After viewing Fir's upload of Edit 2, my voted has been changed to moderate support for Edit 2. -- Altiris Exeunt 09:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support excellent details Mario1987 16:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's worthy of FP. Puddyglum 19:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose all versions - Composition isn't ideal (too much bee hidden by the flower it's buried in) and the specimen, as Fir says, is somewhat damaged (if that doesn't sound to cold when talking about a living thing). Also, there's a lot of flash glare on the abdomen and wings and the background seems artificially dark (probably due to the limited range of the flash). A reasonable photo but not featureworthy IMO. --YFB ¿ 10:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mainly because of the composition, per Fir. I disagree regarding "ragged" and "damaged", though; that makes the image more useful and interesting, in my view. --ragesoss 04:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Chris Btalk 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ring-billed Gull[edit]

Edit 1 Color corrected the original, was too yellow and warm in general
Edit 2 Color corrected, properly this time ;-).
Color example - Not for voting
Yes, I know, we have several other FPs of Gulls. We do not, however have one of a Ring-billed gull and I think this is as good a picture as any. Sharpness, detail, size, informative angle. I know that the light could have been a little better and the composition can be seen as a bit bland but I think overall it is FP quality.
Proposed caption
A Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) at Nantasket Beach, Massachusetts. Clearly visible is the dark ring on the bill of the Gull from which its name is derived.
Articles this image appears in
Ring-billed Gull
  • Support as nominator (Self nom) Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I uploaded the edit after a second look at the image and the RBG histogram showed me what I feared. The color was very yellow shifted. I did the RAW conversion on a computer I wasn't used to and I guess I set the wrong WB. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. Still way too yellow. Also, the neck looks unnatural - it appears the gull is walking along the beach, and the shutter snapped just when the neck was in this unattractive position - or does this bird have no neck? ;-) --Janke | Talk 05:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Enclosed is a small example (not for voting) of what I think the color balance should be like. Looking at it, it also appears thet there's no detail in the breast feathers - blown highlight? (All uniform yellow in the original.) --Janke | Talk 05:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Fullsize please :( --frotht 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's better if the photographer does this from the raw file. That's why I left my example small. --Janke | Talk 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You are quite right, Janke. Here is an edit. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The detail is just not there, it almost looks like it was run through a posterize filter. Noclip 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Noclip, and I oppose. It is large, yes, but there is quite a fair amount of picture fragmentation in the background, and there are very few details in the picture to be awed by. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Computer-generated kilogram[edit]

Shown above is a computer-generated image of the International Prototype Kilogram (“IPK”). The IPK is the kilogram. It sits next to an inch-based ruler for scale. The IPK is made of a platinum-iridium alloy and is stored in a vault at the BIPM in Sèvres, France. For other kilogram-related images, see Links to photographs, below.
I was recently looking up information on the metric system, which I've never used in real life, and found the Kilogram article to be very well written. The first thing that catches your eye when the article opens up in front of you is this amazing image of the International Prototype kilogram, which was created by our very own User:Greg L.
Proposed caption
A computer-generated image of the International Prototype kilogram, which is made from an alloy of 90% platinum and 10% iridium (by weight) and machined into a right-circular cylinder (height = diameter) of 39.17 mm. It sits next to an inch-based ruler for scale. The IPK is kept at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) in Sèvres, on the outskirts of Paris. The geometry of this computer model was based on the actual specifications being used for experiments in new manufacturing techniques to produce new kilogram mass standards. (Struck as it caused confusion after the actual caption was added below the photograph.) Greg L (my talk) 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles this image appears in
User:Greg L
  • Support as nominator Agüeybaná 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm confused - why do we have a computer-generated image? Why don't we have a picture of the real thing? Raul654 01:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • From the image description page:
1. the IPK is stored in a vault nearly all the time,
2. there is no general public access to the BIPM (and certainly none to the vault),
3. and working copies of the IPK are used at the BIPM for routine calibrations for years on-end.
  • …and the basic reason underlying those three explanations is this one: Copyright restrictions. Pictures from the BIPM are copyrighted. Same with the NIST. It’s not like you can go take your own picture of the Leaning Tower of Pisa; you gotta use what these organizations provide. They're copyrighted and Wikipedia’s policy is not to use anything but free content. The really artful, attractive picture of K20 sitting on egg crate fluorescent light fixture panel is also copyrighted. It was briefly used on Wikipedia but was yanked. I would have expected that people could advance a good fair-use rational and use it anyway. I wasn't involved with the decision to yank the picture but assume the issue of fair-use had been raised. I was never quite satisfied with K20 picture anyway because—unless you’re damn familiar with fluorescent egg crate panels—you have little sense of scale. So I spent an evening and made an image of the IPK alogn with the much-needed ruler. Greg L (my talk) 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not very informative. A photograph would be nice, but a computer gen just doesn't tell me how much a kg is any more than a description. And - if computer generated it must be, jpeg probably isn't the best format. thegreen J Are you green? 02:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's an image of an International Prototype kilogram, which, as explained above, are not very common. I think showing it and explaining what it is is informative enough, and it's certainly more informative than Image:John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007.jpg, which was recently promoted to FP status. --Agüeybaná 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, photograph of John Edwards tells me more than a computer gen would. A subtleties that a photograph captures are what make it interesting. This doesn't show any of the subtleties that might distiguish the actual thing, just a grey cylinder. What information have I gained from this? Not more than telling me that it's the same as a litre of water. So, no, I don't find it more informative than Image:John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007.jpg. thegreen J Are you green? 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
        • "...doesn't show any of the subtleties that might distiguish the actual thing, just a grey cylinder". You do realize that the IPK is just a grey cylinder, right? The Mona Lisa has subtleties. The IPK doesn't :) Kaldari 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
          • True, the jump from this to a picture wouldn't make a terribly big difference, but there's just something extra knowining that I'm looking at the real thing. thegreen J Are you green? 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. If there are really no free photos of this thing, then very good idea to make a computer-generated image. Very valuable contribution to wikipedia, and I'd fight tooth and nail against someone who wanted to remove it from the article on the basis that it's only computer generated. But I just don't see any reason to nominate it for FP.. it's a good representation of a plain metal cylinder with a ruler. Perfect for the article, but not impressive for FP sorry! --frotht 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) Question The ruler in the background is a yardstick, right? Shouldn't this rather be a metric ruler? I'm inclined to support this, but the reflection of the marbled countertop makes it look like it's corroding, and I don't see that the marbling adds anything to the picture. If these two things can be corrected I'd certainly support. I think it's very illustrative, helps the article, and replaces a fair use picture with a free one. ~ trialsanderrors 04:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the textured table helps give life to the image.. otherwise the whole cylinder would just be a gray shape like the top. I don't know if the ruler needs to be metric (it's just for scale) but it certainly makes sense since the image is of a kilogram --frotht 04:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but the texture doesn't have to be brownish marbling. Anything that doesn't create the impression of corrosion would do. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The ruler is a solid model I had left over from a work project. I did that project (a medical device) in all-metric units. And the ruler I based it off of had a metric side to it too! Still, I chose not to use the metric side. Why? I chose to model the inch-based side for scale with the medical device because the American audience that would be viewing those medical images is better accustomed to inch-based rulers. In other words, it wasn't about the logic of a metric ruler for a metric medical device, it was about the intuition of the eye. Of course, it’s less intuitive for non-American audiences, but that’s what I had laying around in the computer. Greg L (my talk) 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that "Because American will understand better" or "Because Europeans will understand better" aren't good reasons to select one unit rather than the other. Wikipedia is made to be used by people worldwide (that's especially true for the English one) so either way, some people won't be happy with the choice. However, your picture has a scientific value and meter is the fundamental unit of length in the SI. That's why i think you should use a meter-based ruler. Ksempac 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I like the image both in style and quality, and I think your rationale about the use of the yardstick as opposed to a metric ruler is good. But I think it should be pointed out in the caption that it is a yardstick. I guess almost all metric-Europeans have never seen a yardstick and would mistake the ruler on this image for a metric ruler very easily, especially in the thumbnail. My visual intuition as a European tells me this kilogram prototype is about 2cm in diameter, a completely insane suggestion in my experience. :-) – sgeureka t•c 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Query Well, it’s a moot point because the nomination is clearly going down in flames. But I’m confused. The caption says it “sits next to an inch-based ruler”. Is a caption that says “yard stick” clearer terminology for Europeans than “inch-based ruler”? To split hairs, it is a foot-long ruler with a well-recognized profile to Americans; no yard stick has this distinctive profile. Greg L (my talk) 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would leave it as "inch-based ruler". I don't think a yard stick means anything to most Europeans - except as a colloquial term, but I could be wrong. I'm Australian (a non-European metric-based country). :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it just means that I was blind when I read the proposed caption. :-) And I just copied the word "yardstick" from above; I have never seen such a ruler in my home country (until I spend some time in the US), and I guess we don't even have a proper name for it here. – sgeureka t•c 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would love to support this, but 1) the ruler/yardstick is stuck in the shadow making reading it harder than it needs to be. 2) is the top supposed to be blue? not according to my newspaper who recently reported about the standard kilo losing weight. 3) the jpg choice means there's a lot of compression artifacts. - Mgm|(talk) 08:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The image itself is just a little bland and under-descriptive. I know its hard to present a measurement of weight visually, and I'm not sure this really adds enough to the article. Better than nothing in the article, but not a stand out for FP imho. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well, I see that the vote is certainly not going well, but it would be wrong of me to let Agüeybaná’s vote hang out there all by itself. So… WOW, what a cool-looking CG image! When you visit Kilogram article and you first lay eyes upon that article, one’s initial impression is that Wikipedia sure is one first-class online encyclopedia. Kudos the the techno-stud (whomever he may be) for the contribution! ;-) Greg L (my talk) 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I'll throw my vote in there as well. It's a very striking and informative CG image. I can't imagine a better illustration of the subject. Kaldari 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question I know this is a computer-generated image, not a graphic, but would it work in SVG format? I'm certainly defering to the graphics types around here on this, but it needs to be in the format that graphics folks agree is best for me to vote for it. Also, the length metric needs to be in SI units and you need to be able to see the ruler at least on both sides of the IPK. I think the bit of the inch-based ruler to the left of the IPK doesn't have any numbers on it; to give scale, I need to know the demarcations on the ruler. Also, it does look as if the top of the IPK is blue. Maybe an off-center blue spot-light would be better? This image has greatly improved the kilogram article, because other images (like the ones of all the bell jars linked on the kilogram page) just don't clearly show what the IPK looks like (even on the "artistic one" of K20 I can't tell if the edges are rounded or not) and I agree that it's really unrealistic to expect a free image of the IPK to ever be available. To summarize, I'd support if this image was 1)in format graphics folks recommend 2)SI unit length to compare and 3) not all blue on top. Enuja (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The top of the IPK is blue because a blue light is above and behind reflecting into it. This is similar to the Robert Rathe picture of K20 (except he used orange). That same blue light is what causes the blue cast projecting towards the viewer along both sides of the IPK. Typically, JPEG compression results in visual artifacts because a significant level of compression is used. In this particular case, the original, double-size image from the CG engine was saved as a TIFF file (lossless compression). I then reduced the image in size by a factor of two in Photoshop to further smooth the image and then saved it at a quality level of 12 (very highest quality level). At this compression level, there are zero detectable visual artifacts; the image is indistinguishable from its lossless original. Uploading the same image in another format would be trivial. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to change their vote based only on this issue. This picture is a contribution and there necessarily have to be limits to the amount of time I’m willing to invest into it. As I stated above, the ruler was already a solid model left over from previous projects. Creating new graduations and legends on the ruler would take hours, which I am not willing to do. You can't tell from the image, but this is a true 3D solid modeling program and the “ink” of the graduations are actually a thousandth of an inch thick. It takes time to make all that “ink.” The program also has a bug in it so I can't use the “4” “6”, “8”, “9”, and “0” digits because they hide the wood texture in their closed loops; that’s why numerals aren’t on the ruler past “3” (hidden behind the IPK). I never self-nominated this image because I knew this detail would come up. No one notices when it’s simply in the Kilogram article but when it’s a candidate for FP status, flaws like this take on new significance. The vast majority of the roughly six hours I spent making this image was in lighting the scene. And even then, I combined lighting from two different prior projects to expidite the process. If there are any who feel that having the full-size original being stored in another format besides JPEG is enough by itself to change their vote, post your answer. I'd be pleased to upload the file in another format. I chose (perhaps wrongly) JPEG under the theory it was most compact and would function faster on Wikipedia. Greg L (my talk) 06:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OpposeI understand the use of CG-imagery to convey meaning or to present art and there can be crossover between the two. This image is art lurking under the auspice of mathematic and science. Real images obviously exist of the IPK and although they may not be as aesthetically pleasing as other FPs they convey much more meaning than this image. If the image were a diagram of dimensions, protection mechanisms, etc. it would be a better candidate FP material than a shiny CG-image with lighting/shading effects. The ruler really does nothing more than provide a simple reference for the vague scale of the object. When one looks at the image it conveys that the IPK is ~2inch metallic cylinder...that's all. From an artistic perspective, the images lighting effects are nice but overall composition could be better with the ruler hidden behind and the blue light choice of the composer. Buphoff 06:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reaction: Yes. As you wrote, “real images obviously exist of the IPK…” The trouble is: they’re all copyrighted. See above. Greg L (my talk) 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good for the article, but since this is a synthetic picture, it's not worthy of FP status IMO, since it lacks the "wow" factor that other featured CG images have. (PS: Why use an inch ruler? The kilogram is metric, at least to my knowledge... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Complete mystery. Greg L (my talk) 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Now now, lets not be bitter :) We're all trying to compliment you as much as possible while politely opposing --frotht 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't being bitter whatsover. I saw Janke’s smiley face, understood the humor he intended, and responded in kind. I do take note of the seeming hubris in your assumption that I need to be counseled by a college-age youngster. No offense taken though. Greg L (my talk) 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Per above. 8thstar 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Moderate oppose as per froth's comment. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 01:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

360 panoramic view of London from St Paul's Cathedral[edit]

File:London 360 crop1.jpg
Stitching error 1
File:London 360 crop2.jpg
Stitching error 2
File:London 360 crop3.jpg
Stitching error 3
I had been meaning to take this panorama ever since a previous version was nominated and failed but had been waiting until nice weather and a some free time on my lunch break at work corresponded! This one isn't perfect either (there are minor stitching errors if you pixel-peep closely) but I am pretty confident that it is impossible to completely avoid stitching errors, as parallax gets in the way of a 360 (you're forced to walk around what is probably a 5 or 6 metre diameter viewing platform), as well as movement between frames. I think that this is pretty close to the best 360 you're likely to get from this position - the weather was lovely, the sun was out of the frame (just) and I managed to avoid any blown highlights in the clouds and it is extremely high res (downsampled from 200 megapixels to 50 megapixels - 3 x 17 segments!). Oh, and damnit, it cost me 9.50 quid to get in! It better be worth it!! ;-)
Proposed caption
Blank for the time being - any takers?
Proposal by Chick Bowen:
Panorama of London taken from the dome of St Paul's Cathedral. Built from 1675 to 1708, the Cathedral is still one of the highest buildings in western London.
Articles this image appears in
London, Architecture in London and History of London
  • Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Amazing. My (admittedly inexperienced) eye could not catch the stitching errors. There are some very slight artifacts, but no biggie. All-around wowness. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support unless someone finds a glaring stitching error. Otherwise, another great pic.--HereToHelp 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support no doubt about it. Cacophony 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Hoooooo ly crap. --frotht 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No no no, don't crash my browser...! Ah, better. Strong support; I admit that it is a bit too large for a computer image, but that aside, the panorama is brilliant! I doubt there's a better time to take this panorama than when you took it. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm terrible at captions, but here's my (useless) advice: you could try using the filename. "Panoramic view of London from St. Paul's Cathedral" might be good for starters, in my opinion. Now I'd better leave, before I get too carried away by this destructively awesome picture. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Not wild about how the sky came out, but that is compensated by the wow-ness of the rest of the picture. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you mean how the sky came out? Whats wrong with the sky? I thought it came out pretty well actually. Its very difficult to get a 360 panorama without a part of the sky blowing out from the sunlight and I managed to avoid that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The... detail. You're going to settle personality rights with everyone in this picture, yes? — Ben pcc 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just wanted to show that there are some substantial stitching errors. I have no idea how to correct them appropriately, but maybe the photographer can fix them? Puddyglum 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As I already mentioned, the stitching errors are due to the effect of parallax shift. In other words, I had to move slightly with each segment in order to circle the viewing platform, and as a result, there are inherently minor perspective shifts across the image that cannot be corrected for. With much smaller panoramas, it is sometimes possible to be selective about the control points to minimise the parallax error, but this photo has 50 overlapping segments and it is virtually impossible to correct for every stiching error. So yes, I am aware that minor errors exist, but they are relatively minor considering the detail level. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of stitching errors, as it's an amazingly detailed view of the city. Puddyglum 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Diliff, your pictures never cease to amaze me. NauticaShades 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. In regards to the stitching errors. First they aren't that big of a deal...obviously the overall composition of the photo is not detracted from by the minuscule errors. I see that you reference PTgui and smart blend on your user page as the software that you use to stitch your images together. Myself and some of my colleagues have used this software in the past but have switched to Autopano Pro because we have found the overall blending and stitching to be much much better. Autopano does not have quite as many customizable features but overall it is simple to use allowing for fine tuning after the initial assembly of the images. Since you clearly enjoy working on panoramic I thought I would pass along the knowledge. Buphoff 07:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the advice. I did investigate Autopano Pro a while ago (6 months or so?) and from memory didn't find it to be as good as PTGui but I will have another look at it. The blending with Smartblend is excellent as it does its best to 'hide' parallax errors. Obviously where it isn't possible to hide the seam line it is forced to just split an object or person down the middle, but 9 times out of 10 it will create the seam line along the edge of an object so it appears to be stitched perfectly. I don't know if Autopano Pro does this - I know the built in blender in PTGui and Enblend aren't nearly as intelligent about where to place the seam lines but I'm more than willing to be converted. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • First off I'll admit that compared with you I'm very much a novice at pano stitching and I never really got to grips with PTGui. However, despite being an el-cheapo completely auto program I've found Panorama Maker 4 pretty good with stitching. Also CS3 now comes with a pretty good stitcher. If you don't have these, perhaps you could upload/email me some images to have a shot at stitching? --Fir0002 08:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Fir, I recently got CS3 (the price is unreal) and tried a brief test with the photo-merge or whatever its called, problem was, it gave bad horizontals and has no way that I saw to set vertical and horizontal line control points. I was using an equirectangular projection so I dont think thats it. Is there some way to adjust the settings for it so that some control points are editable? just wondering. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
        • You're welcome to try but I suspect with that software you won't have much luck bettering the stitching, but maybe I'm being unduely pessimistic. The other issue is the question of file size. Do you really want me to email 51 x 8mb jpeg files to you? Are you still on dialup? ;-) Send me an email and I'll see what I can do about putting the files up on a web server. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Pano Maker does do a good job, especially if the originals are well taken with plenty of overlap, but unless I'm very much mistaken, it won't handle stacked photos like this (i.e., 3 rows of 17). It just does single rows of horizontal, vertical, or 360°. In fact, I'm not even sure it will handle the 17 alone - there's some limit that I hit on with one pano I was trying to do a while back, I think it was either 16 or 18 original images. --jjron 10:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, what a great free image.--Svetovid 09:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Impressive, amazing to see my girlfriends house! --Central Powers 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great! Wow factor = 100% --LucaG 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Surprise Wikibreak-interrupting Support - An astounding bit of photography. I think the odd stitching error is going to be unavoidable in a scene as complex as this. £9.50? Bargain! --YFB ¿ 11:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This is a really well done picture. I only wish the constuction had been completed, but it doesn't take away from the picture really. Captain Phoebus 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I look at every FPC but rarely vote. But WOW! This is amazing! Mahahahaneapneap 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Well i nominated the first one, thanks to diliff for retaking this image. Looks brilliant --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above. Spikebrennan 13:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The only thing I don't like here is that it's 360°, because I actually don't like 360° panos. I would have preferred say two 200° panos instead, one looking north, one looking south (or whatever would work best in London), and I would have supported both - then you would really have got your 9½ quid's worth! It may also have avoided those minor stitching errors. --jjron 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, nice! --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:London 360 from St Paul's Cathedral - Sept 2007.jpg MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrace rice fields in Yunnan Province, China[edit]

Edit 1 - attempted noise reduction, slight histogram adjustment
A wonderful picture with many contrasting and complementing pictures; also a very good reference for the articles it is linked to.
Proposed caption
Terrace rice fields in Yunnan Province, China. Rice is a staple food in many parts of the world.
Articles this image appears in
Rice; Yunnan; Terrace (agriculture); Paddy field; Agriculture in China
  • Support as nominatorScouterSig 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Mbz1 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Conditional support If the noise can be reduced. Totally awestruck at the view, but when viewed full-size it up it almost looks like a well-done painting due to the noise/lack of detail. Puddyglum 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose All The only drawback with it, after the edit, is with the detail. I think it's encyclopedic, and adds something that the other pictures in that article cannot. It's wonderful to look at, even though it's not as sharp as it could be. However, it's lacking so much detail that it really only looks good as a thumbnail. Puddyglum 18:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The view is beautiful but not so rare that we cannot wait for a better picture. The image is noisy, unsharp and lacks detail. - Alvesgaspar 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per above Matt Deres 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - what an incredible image. However, for FP the detail would be better, and it loses enc value by being cropped so close. It's striking that you can't immediately tell what you're looking at, but that's unfortunately contrary to what an "encyclopaedic" image is. I'd love to see other images of this subject though. Stevage 06:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Somebody fly to that spot now and take another picture, amazing compostion. Real shame bout quality --Childzy ¤ Talk 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The smoke from burning moss generated by the advancing lava flow[edit]

An interesting image, which shows yet another cause of wildfire, which was not represented in the article before. The image also shows lava flow.
Proposed caption
Pāhoehoe lava flow on the coastal plain of Kīlauea, The Big Island of Hawai generated wildfire. The new lava is moving across the old surface ,which is covered with a layer of moss about an inch thick. This moss is burning generating the smoke visible in the image. This kind of fire cannot be easily prevented or suppressed. The update that was written by USGS for the same day the image was taken - 09/04/07 says :"Lava flows advancing through vegetation are hazardous and can produce fire and methane explosions that propel chunks of lava and rock several feet into the air. "The picture was taken from a helicopter.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Mbz1 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • query - is this really a wildfire? It sort of seems like smoke being generated by the direct heating of the lava on soil and other rocks, rather than a fire. It seems more likely to illustrate something like lava or Kilauea. I think the statement that the fire cannot be prevented or suppressed is misleading because lava floes can be diverted, which is similar enough. Other than that, I like the image and am ready to support. Debivort 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your questions.Here is the quote from the report by USGS that was written for the same day the image was taken - 09/04/07 :"Lava flows advancing through vegetation are hazardous and can produce fire and methane explosions that propel chunks of lava and rock several feet into the air. "The important word here is vegetation. It is what is burning in the image - vegetation. I do not think this kind of smoke could be generated by the lava flow itself (at least I've never seen one). I did see and photographed smoke,when the lava entered Pacific Lava enering ocean 3n.jpg, but it was because a hot lava met relatively cold ocean. Otherwise as you could see from my other image Pāhoehoe and Aa flows.JPG no any smoke was generated from the lava flow.
      I'm not sure about your second statement that lava floes can be diverted. I know only about one such case, which happened if Iceland. The lava flow was about to close a harbor, which was used for fishing ships. Desperate people used the water from icy ocean over the lava flow for 24 hours a day. The water was getting right from the ocean by special ships and the water was really, really cold. Eventually the lava stopped and solidified, but remember they had unlimited quantity of very cold, icy water. The only other case of a stopped lava I know of was never proved. It happened on Etna. The lava flow was about to cover a small town. The local people went to churches to pray, while military shot missiles at the lava. Eventually the lava changed direction and the town was saved, yet nobody knows exactly what helped. The believers believe that the God helped them, military is sure their missiles did, while I think that Etna just changed her mind as it often happens with volcanoes. Whatever it was , I do not think somebody ever has been able to divert lava flow at Hawaii. They did try and they failed.--Mbz1 03:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • The iceland example is the one I was thinking about, but the two you have given prove that the caption above is technically false - these fires can in fact be suppressed, under the conditions you have described. Best to say something like "this kind of fire cannot be easily prevented or suppressed." Debivort 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I Agree and the caption is corrected.--Mbz1 04:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support per nom. Debivort 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Cacophony 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A very encyclopedic image indeed. Managing to get a freely licensed shot of wildfire over Hawaii from a helicopter can hardly be easy. -- Chris Btalk 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose.. it looks like lava flowing 1 foot across gravel- impossible to tell the scale. Are those little pebbles supposed to be rocks? Also very blurry.. understandable since it's from a helicopter but too blurry --frotht 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how you came up with "lava flowing 1 foot across gravel"? Do you see lava flow all across the smoke line, (which is clearly seen in full resolution), or you are talking only about lava river, which is seen at the top of the lava flow? I agree there's no scale, yet it is much, much, much wider than 1 foot. Blurry you said? It looks fine to me even the highest resolution.--Mbz1 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Oppose not quite beautiful enough, and I don't really see the "wildfire" connection. It illustrates lava, but wildfire? Whether or not that lava actually caused a fire or not, the image just doesn't show that: it shows lava advancing over rocks, and producing smoke. So it's not really showing what it purports to show, and it's not beautiful. Stevage 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It is said: "There's no smoke without fire". The advancing lava by itself does not produce smoke. Something is burning at the ground and that's why the smoke is seen. So, in your opinion the picture is not beautiful? Well, in my opinion the picture is not just beatiful, it is spectacular. --Mbz1 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
I see no vegetation anywhere... --frotht 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I sent the image to U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory.
Here's their response:
"Hi Mila,
What you can't see from the air is that the old surface that the new lava is moving across is covered with a layer of moss about an inch thick. It's this moss burning that made the smoke visible in your photograph.
Tim R. Orr
U.S. Geological Survey
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory."
So as you could from see Tim's response the moss(vegetation) is burning, which means that the image does show a wildfire.--Mbz1 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Right. But the image doesn't clearly show that, so as an "encyclopaedic" image, it's a bit of a failure. That's all. We're judging the image itself, not the event. Stevage 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I added Tim's response to the caption of the image to clarify what is burning.--Mbz1 13:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support based on image. I also have concerns about whether the use of the word "wildfire" in the caption is unnecessarily confusing-- why not simply say that the smoke comes from burning moss?> Spikebrennan 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand the concern about "wildfire" in the caption. I just added to the caption the update of USGS, which was written for the same day and also talks about fire. Maybe this new addition makes the caption more satisfactory? The thing is that in my opinion it is important to show the hazard, which associated with the lava flow advancing over vegetation and specify in particular that it could generate a rather dangerous wildfire.--Mbz1 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • Well, the name of the image still refers to "wildfire", which is just misleading. It's like showing a photo of a bird, and saying "Bird feeding its young", with the explanation that birds have young, and that the baby birds might be just out of shot. It's an interesting photo of lava advancing, burning moss as it goes...but the connection with wildfire is tenuous. And hence its use in wildfire is marginal. Stevage 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd like to thank you for all your comment, Stevage. They forced me to e-mail to U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaiian Volcano observatory and to learn from their response what really is burning in the image. Your comments also helped me to write much better caption, which in my opinion explains nicely what is going on. In my opinion to compare the image with image of a bird with no chicks is not exactly fair, just because you still could see not only lava, but also the smoke in my image. Remember "There's no smoke without fire" and there are many birds with no chiks. Anyway I've changed the title of the image like user Spikebrennan suggested. I hope that the using image in wildfire article could save somebody's life. Many people hike to see the lava flow at Hawaii. They do not see the danger because the lava usually advances slowly there one could easily run away from it. The picture shows one more hazard associated with the lava moving through vegetation. In my opinion it is important to keep the picture in wildfire article. Once again I'd like to thank everybody for the comments and votes.--Mbz1 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: You are very kind, Mbz1, but we're not nominating this image for deletion here; quite the opposite. In fact, given that this image is in the public domain, that's highly unlikely. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lava wildfire.JPG MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WTC (23 September 2001)[edit]

Edit 1 by Dhartung
Edit 2/Alternative Cropped version
HUGE, detailed and clear image. Shows the medium-term aftermath of the tower's destruction. Slightly grainy, but overridden by historic and encyclopaedic value.
Proposed caption
An aerial photo of the World Trade Center complex, 12 days after its destruction. This image, as taken by a NOAA Cessna Citation from an altitude of one kilometer, shows NYC firefighters and construction equipment surrounding the debris created by the attack. Also noticeable is how the shrapnel caused further structural damage on the surrounding buildings.
Articles this image appears in
crops of the WTC buildings are used in their respective articles
  • Support as nominatorJack · talk · 04:49, Monday, 10 September 2007 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • support wow - finally a stunning 9-11 image. Debivort 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Gives a very real sense of the devistation, highly useful image--Childzy ¤ Talk 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, important image of an historic event's effects. Unfortunately this crashed both my browser AND my image viewer. Would a downsample (and maybe a wee sharpen) help with the graininess? It would make t more accessible as well. --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support wow...though I agree with Dhartung, this just about killed my browser. Wouldn't mind a slight downsample. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 1 Much more accessible. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Back to Support original per comments by User:SG below. CillaИ ♦ XC 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, this thing is GINORMOUS. Enc, unrepeatable, and great timing. We couldn't rush ship this to the Main Page, could we?--HereToHelp 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Huge and encyclopedic image. NauticaShades 02:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Wow. --Bridgecross 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Extremely stunning and encyclopedic pic. However, at 14mb, the pic is a bit too unwieldy to handle (yes, too high of a resolution also becomes a problem). As mentioned by Dhartung and Cillan, my browser crashed when I tried to view the full res version. I had to download it and then open it to view. I would prefer a downsized sample...which would also completely eliminate any of the minor grain issues. It'll be the perfect pic for the seventh anniversary...since it missed this year's. Jumping cheese 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While historically quite relevant, quality is mediocre to say the least. Noise reduction and resampling (or maybe even only the latter) may help to improve crispness of the image. Lycaon 05:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I note issues on the huge file size, but the enyclopedic value of this is excellent. Pedro |  Chat  09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Agree with Lycaon. I don't see the need for such an enormous file and the aerial photograph could be easily improved by downsampling and de-noising. I wonder if a rectified version is available (meaning a version corrected for the conical projectionn geometric distortion) - Alvesgaspar 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support A little bit of editing would make this a better picture. Anybody up to the task? Calibas 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Extreme Support for size, clarity, and historical reasons. Yes, I think this must definitely be a featured picture. -- Altiris Exeunt 09:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Good Zinglon! I've just downloaded the full image and viewed it! What kind of detail level is this? Insane quality? Even Google Earth can't provide such a high-quality photo! It's historical, it's of insane quality, it's in the public domain, it's over here; my vote has been changed to Ultra-Extreme Support for the Original Image. This image is priceless and must definitely be a featured picture! -- Altiris Exeunt 10:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have uploaded Edit 1, with the following changes:
  • Canvas size cut in half
  • JPEG compression at 90%
  • File size at 7MB (half of original)
I was able to open and manipulate (scroll) this version in my browser, though it was still sluggish and thrashy. Probably someone with a gamer's machine (lots of memory) will have zero problems, but I believe I have a pretty "average" PC. There is of course less detail in this one, but it's still closer in than most online aerial photograph (e.g. Google Maps). I skipped a sharpen step as most of what I objected to was really haze (I assume). It's sharp in some places, gauzy in others. I also tweaked the caption (American English, etc.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose edit, support original — The edit does not do anything except increase JPEG artifacts and reduce the image size. The original should be the FP, and a smaller version (~3-4MP) is always created for images of this magnitude for front page use (from where a link is supplied to the full image). ♠ SG →Talk 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Is that always the case? Nobody mentioned that above. In that case, I withdraw my edit and will leave creation of a smaller version to the pros. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose edit, support original — Full Ack SG. The fullsize version does not vindicate this kind of downsampling, it only leads to information loss.--Dschwen 09:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the photo does not "Add value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." since it's not in any articles. Instead, we have Image:6-wtc-photo.jpg which is cropped (I think too tightly cropped) and used in the September 11, 2001 attacks article. But, this version viewed in the article as a thumbnail isn't great either. The actual WTC site and surrounding blocks are only a portion of the image. I suggest cropping the image, with a bounding box including the Woolworth Building on the northeast, Trinity Church on the south, and the World Financial Center on the west. That would make the image just right, and suitable for putting in the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Image:Aerial photo of WTC groundzero.jpg is another variation of the proposed FPC, with the black border cropped out. This image is used in the World Trade Center site article. Though, I think a somewhat tighter crop as I proposed is better.` A crop will not sacrifice image resolution, though will somewhat lower the size of the file, which may help people. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • CommentAh, Aude makes a very valid argument. The image is not being used in any articles. Until the image is put to good use, it cannot be promoted per FPC requirements. ♠ SG →Talk 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Didn't notice MER-C's comment about the non-bordered version. ♠ SG →Talk 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
We can either replace the non-bordered version with the nominated version, or we can promote the non-bordered version as per my comment below. MER-C 13:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support both--Mbz1 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

I suppose you don't mind if I promoted the non-bordered one instead, as to sidestep the concerns about "not being in any articles"? MER-C 10:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, in that case, it's probably best to promote the original (due to the extra detail), but link to the cropped version and appropriate articles on the image description. ♠ SG →Talk 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble uploading my cropped version. I'll try uploading one more time. Regardless, making this original file the FP is fine with me, so long as we can use a cropped version in articles. --Aude (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A fine image. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Wtc-photo.jpg MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Javier Solana[edit]

Edit 1 by Fir0002, noise reduction + mild sharpen
Scraped off of COM:FPC where voting is at 9/0/0.
Proposed caption
Javier Solana Madariaga (born July 14 1942 in Madrid, Spain) is the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Secretary-General of both the Council of the European Union (EU) and the Western European Union (WEU). He was named Secretary General of the 10 permanent member Western European Union in November, 1999. (plagerised from his article)
Articles this image appears in
European Union, Javier Solana, Reform Treaty
  • Support as nominator MER-C 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I'm a sucker for people FPs. Lots of detail. minor grain at full rez, but oversized to begin with. Debivort 14:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. It is indeed oversized; it's probably close to actual size.--HereToHelp 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent, and more People FPs are needed. The noise is a non-issue given the very fine resolution. — brighterorange (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent picture, looks like straight out of a good newspaper. – sgeureka t•c 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hand is distractingly out of focus -- Logan Williams 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just a guy with a fist. 8thstar 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd like to see more people FPs as well, but a featured picture should be the kind of shot that makes you want to know more about the subject, whether it's clicking on the link to read the article or just examining the shot at full resolution. This is just some guy speaking at a conference. Matt Deres 12:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Nice picture, and i think a shot "in action" like this one is more interesting than the official ones where people stay still and make a big fake smile. Ksempac 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Although the subject is cut off (one of his hairs, that you can actually see, is sticking strait up out of the frame!), I love it! Yes, the fist is out of focus, but I think that actually gives the image more depth (and it's not like we need to encyclopedically illustrate what a human hand looks like; it's his face that's the illustrative part). The resolution is very high, so yeah, there's a tiny bit of grain or whatever, but it's a very good shot that certainly illustrates the article about him. Enuja (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, another excellent go-out-and-get-it image from a Wikipedian. Captures the man in a candid moment. My only quibble would be the composition -- I think it would look better with about 7-8% of the left margin trimmed off. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Both. Love the composition. Eidt 1 was well done. NauticaShades 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - great photo, just what we're after. Stevage 03:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose A good photo, but not exceptional. It doesn't make me want to click it or to find out more about the subject. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Oppose – Fist horribly out of focus, central subject off centre and frankly not that interesting. Centyreplycontribs – 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great composition, and it seems focused fine to me. Puddyglum 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I like it - focus seems right to me and the expression of the subject paired with this great background makes this a winner for me. Wwcsig 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Edit 1. Nice shot - complaining about the OOF fist is a bit silly IMO --Fir0002 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

    • The edit is pretty good, but the NR seems a little clumsy around the fist. thegreen J Are you green? 20:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the "Just a guy with a fist" comment. If we make every high-res well composed, non-grainy, well lit portrait become a FP then FP will be booked through 2025. I know lots of people with government jobs who have fists and good pictures. Buphoff 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Profoundly oppose Its just a reasonably well taken shot of an utterly unremarkable subject. Its someone unimportant doing something uninteresting. Unless you are related to the subject I can't imagine anyone feeling compelled to look twice at this photo. I really hope this isn't where the featured picture category is heading. Meniscus 04:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The subject has an article about them. That makes them remarkable for our purposes. Period. Debivort 15:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahem, unimportant? -Wutschwlllm 13:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original, weak oppose edit The picture's great, but the NR around the fist just isn't quite right. thegreen J Are you green? 21:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, prefer original per thegreen J--ragesoss 02:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for Edit 1; the reduction of noise in the image is successful, and at full size...uh, that's pretty big...anyway, the focus is there, no questions over that. A good picture, in my opinion. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 06:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 per above. --Sharkface217 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose after the fact. I was surprised to see this as a featured picture on Wikipedia's front page. As noted by Meniscus and others above, it is a picture of some guy, and is quite unremarkable. Tempshill (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Javier Solana (2007).JPG --Hadseys 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool Waterfront By Night[edit]

A stunning picture, high resolution, great detail, and covers the whole of the waterfront - certaintly the best example of a photo of the waterfront I've ever seen (be that night or day).
Proposed caption
Liverpool waterfront by night. A World Heritage site featuring the "Three Graces" which includes the Liver Building, the waterfront at Liverpool is one of the most famous and recognisable maritime landmarks in the world.
Articles this image appears in
  • Support as nominator Liverpool Scouse 22:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Great image, but not as informative as a day shot would be. I'll refrain from joking about blown highlights, this time... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This shot begs to be retaken in HDR. Tone mapping with +2EV shots would fix the noise in the sky, and a -2EV set could bring back the highlights. Noclip 22:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; it really is too dark for the image to be of much encyclopedic value. Some of the buildings, for instance, are near pitch-black darkness, and I have to spend...ten seconds...trying to figure out if it looks like a prism or a cuboid. Do a panorama in the day; it's less appealing, but makes up for that with more details. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Some parts look brilliant but overall there is too much dark --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Images like the London panorama that just got promoted are the way to go. This pales in comparison. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Chris Btalk 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ivaylovgrad reservoir[edit]

it's a really interesting creation of nature... even though i think it's actually artificial since that's the bed of an artificial lake... appealing to the eye, no doubt
Proposed caption
The dried lakebed of the Ivaylovgrad reservoir near the town of Ivaylovgrad in the Haskovo province of Bulgaria.
Articles this image appears in
it's a wikicommons picture uploaded by user Sandstein but its creator is a Flickr user from Bulgaria, see image for more details
Let's not exaggerate. 200 pixels too short at its longest is not that much. Besides, I don't see how a higher resolution would improve this image or possible reuse. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of size, but it's really good otherwise.--HereToHelp 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good composition & color, but this isn't unique enough to override the size factor. Encyclopedic value is limited since we don't know why the reservoir is dry. Is it being filled? Is it a seasonal low water point? Is the dam open for repairs? --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fails #2 of Featured Picture Criteria: minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height. Cacophony 07:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too Small --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; everything is fine, except the picture size...and this is only taken into account because it is not historical (yet). If the image is two times larger without sacrificing quality, you may get my vote. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 06:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be a too small. --Sharkface217 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Chris Btalk 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cassowary head frontal[edit]

I am nominating this picture because cassowarys melt faces.
Proposed caption
The head of an unidentified species of cassowary.
Articles this image appears in
IJsendoorn Note: via Flickr; uploaded to Wikipedia by Sandstein
  • Support as nominator Also, octopuses 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Moderate support; umm, it looks a little blurred and off-focus to me...not sure why, though. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is nice and sharp around the eyes and beak with quite good colours, but given that one of the most distinguishing features of the cassowary is the crest (casque) on top of their head - and it's cut off in this photo - then one can but oppose. The neck is also cut off. If this had have been taken vertically instead of horizontally then it may have avoided these problems. --jjron 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Beautiful composition, hi-resolution image, i think the off center framing is very attractive and well done. This animal has very striking features, and furthermore, it is very obscure; I mean, how many people have heard of or seen pictures of a cassowary? It could do well for some exposure. sea sponges 07:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too many features have been chopped also I believe these photo's should be more illustrative and show the entire bird --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To become featured an image has to be extremely encyclopedic or stunning. The cropping kills a lot of the encyclopedicity and while solid and interesting, I'm afraid the image isn't stunning in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 17:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the composition is exquisite, the cut-off features mean that the image loses the vast majority of its encyclopedic value in addition to detracting from the quality of the picture in general; the image is of high quality, but not featured quality. -- Mike (Kicking222) 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Amazing image, but weak oppose, as is does not properly illustrate all the animal's features, which seems unsuitable for an article. — Jeremy 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Clear oppose. Nice but not in frame. Separa 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Top of the Victoria Monument[edit]

very high quality picture of the top of the Victoria Memorial (London)
Proposed caption
The Victoria Memorial is a sculpture in London, placed at the centre of Queen's Gardens in front of Buckingham Palace. It has a large statue of Queen Victoria facing north-eastwards towards The Mall. The other sides of the monument feature dark patinated bronze statues of the Angel of Justice (facing north-westwards toward Green Park), the Angel of Truth (facing south-eastwards) and Charity facing Buckingham Palace. On the pinnacle, is Victory with two seated figures. The subsidiary figures were gifted given by the people of New Zealand.
Articles this image appears in
Victoria Memorial (London)
  • Support as nominator Hadseys 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Moderate oppose; the image quality is good, and the focus is there, but the lighting is rubbish and dictates the accuracy of the picture. Example: even at full size, it's difficult to see what kind of eyes the statue has, and when you try to imagine what kind of eyes the statue has, you might get conjunctivitis from trying to figure it out. Perhaps a better picture could be taken if it was under clear, sunny weather. Look at this, for instance. This might be the best kind of weather to take a picture. It was taken from the rear of the statue, but look how radiant it is! If this candidate was taken again under good weather conditions, I believe it will look much better. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support In contrast to above, I think the lighting is the strongest aspect of this picture. Sharpness is marginal, crop doesn't show enough bottom, but I love the lighting. Fairly soft directional, with an overcast? how? both the statue and the overcast sky are nicely exposed. It looks like the photographer used 3 3200 watt second strobe heads from camera left to give some very nice fill flash. obviously they didn't but it does have that effect. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The image doesn't seem that sharp when opened fully, also there are very bright parts on the monument which are distracting. However I do like the background contrast --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sharpness is simply lacking. thegreen J Are you green? 00:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per above, image quality isn't good enough. Given there's nothing unusual about what's depicted, it shouldn't be a problem to get a better image of the subject. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fish Cleaning Station[edit]

Not an edit of the first image,but original image taken before the nominated one
Cropped of the second image
Fascinating, underwater image taken in a wild and showing a really interesting, rarely photographed behavior. The image is very educational.
Proposed caption
A Dragon Wrasse, Novaculichthys taeniourus being cleaned by Rainbow Cleaner Wrasses, Labroides phthirophagus on a reef in Kona, Hawaii.You could see the both cleaners inside the gill of the dragon Wrasse.
Articles this image appears in
cleaning station,Wrasse
  • Support as nominator Mbz1 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice shot, educational as you say. However, unfortunately - the main subject is too small, the composition is lopsided (the fish at left spoil it). Cropping probably won't help, even at this size we see a slightly fuzzy Wrasse. --Janke | Talk 06:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please notice that in my opinion the subject of the image is not only a cleaning action, but also a cleaning station itself. I've seen a cleaning action with only one fish being cleaned, but this one was really a cleaning station with many fishes lined up to get cleaned. So, cut fishes in the left (convict tangs) and a fish behind the corals, as well as the corals themselves are part of the subject. Maybe it will be a good idea to add that image Cleaning station parot.jpg as the other version of the cleaning station?--Mbz1 13:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support. Composition is slightly off, but quality is good, especially given the shooting conditions - quality underwater shots aren't easy to get. As Janke says, the main subject is a little small in the image, but overall the value to me outweighs the concerns. Species identification of Novaculichthys taeniourus appears to be correct; a species ID on the cleaners would be good, too, I suspect Labroides dimidiatus, though they're a little fuzzy. BTW it's a great photo of Novaculichthys taeniourus as well, just a shame there's no article on it. --jjron 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I wonder if this wouldn't also be useful in cleaner fish. And also Bluestreak cleaner wrasse if that is indeed what the cleaners are. --jjron 08:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I just found out that the cleaners are Rainbow cleaner wrasse, Labroides phthirophagus, so I'm going to change the caption.--Mbz1 13:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Weak support. It's a nice photo certainly, and I like that the two wrasse are picking the gills, a behaviour that is remarkable given how vulnerable a fish's gills are to damage. So it shows the degree of trust involved quite well. But the image isn't as sharp as it might be, and oddly having two cleaner wrasse in identical but mirrored poses makes them look much less obvious. It takes a second to understand the image. If there's a similar picture with one wrasse or the two wrasse spread out more unevenly, I think I'd prefer that image. Neale Monks 13:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Edit -- For what it's worth, I like image 2 rather more. Less confusing, and the host fish has an interesting expression on its face. Neale Monks 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't look right. 8thstar 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I wish I knew what does not look right and how many fish cleaning stations user 8thstar have seen before he saw the nominated image. Maybe I should have asked user 8thstar to be a litlle bit more specific and explain what does not look right? Well, I guess I just let go on it. The only thing I'd like to add: I do consider user Janke oppose a valid one (I disagree with it, but I understand the user concern). I consider the user 8thstar oppose invalid one. --Mbz1 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Support, I thought it was just a regular picture of a fish at first, I didn't read the nom lol 8thstar 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel an appropriate crop of the second image would be more likely to succeed. I feel this scene is not rare enough for us to lower our standards. 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A tilt would also be beneficial, I think. I already tried with the first image, but then the other fish were (of course) tilted. – sgeureka t•c 20:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I did the crop of the second image, still the picture was taken underwater (strong currents) with 2 megapixels point and shot camera and the quality of the crop could be not enough for FP picture. It is for you to decide, but I'm glad that the image evoke some interest. I'm not very good with photo shop, so, if somebody wants to work on the images, please, go ahead.Thanks.--Mbz1 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Oppose It's certainly very illustrative of a cleaning station, but I don't think it's technically impressive enough. I'd also like to mention that imagery of cleaning stations is not uncommon. As an undergraduate, I took some Super8 video of cleaning stations, and was dissapointed that my images weren't nearly as good as the fantastic stills the dive shop had posted on their walls. Any scuba diving tourist in a tropical coral reef with an excellent underwater camera (an oddly common occurance, as people who have money like to do things like dive in the tropics) can, and often does, take an images of cleaning stations. I LOVE that we can actually see the gills in both of these images, but it doesn't override the technical considerations, and it is certainly a repeatable shot. Enuja (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Enuja. Cacophony 07:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The quality isnt good enough of a subject/ scence that isnt exactly rare --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I still insist that 2 cleaners (even one cleaner) photographed inside a fish's gill is relatively rare picture (it probably not a rare scene, but very few people ever seen it and even fewer took a picture of it and the only one uploaded it to Wikipedia with a free licence) lol. Still I'd like to thank everybody for their votes no matter "support" or "oppose" ones.--Mbz1 12:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support any, preference for the third image as the cropping makes it the easiest to see what's going on. Spikebrennan 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose original, oppose image 2: Content is pretty good, but the first image is technically not good enough. The second one isn't apparently isn't that unique, and given the poor quality, not good enough for FP status. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your vote,Snowolfd4, and for adding the word "apparently" in the discraibing the uniqueness of the image. The nominated images are not unique, but they are rare and they are underwater. In my opinion very few people ever heard about fish cleaning station leave alone ever seen it. After all how many people are diving in tropical oceans? I'm sure, some of the ones, who did see it, had no idea what they were looking at. That's why in my opinion the image should get FP status for educational purposes, if for nothing else. Still I understand opposers concern about the quality of the image. Thank you all for your votes.--Mbz1 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Not promoted MER-C 08:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Giant Petrel[edit]

A rare action shot taken in a very remote region.
Proposed caption
A Giant petrel is feeding on a Antarctic Fur Seal carcass at South Georgia Island. We assumed that a Antarctic Fur Seal was killed by an Orca.
Articles this image appears in
Giant Petrel, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
  • Support as nominator Mbz1 18:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment When I first decided to visit South Georgia, I called a travel agent and asked, if they have tours to South Georgia. "No" - she replied - "but we do have tours to North Carolina". She believed I was asking about tours to Georgia (U.S. state). It was really funny and I realized that not so many people are familiar with the unique, beautiful, but very remote South Georgia.It is one of the reason I'd like the image to get an FP status.--Mbz1 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a pretty good snapshot but the color contrast seems odd (possibly improvable) and the subject is slightly out of focus, the carcass even more so. Not up to our nature photography standards and not unique enough an image. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I must admitt that the picture is a digital picture of my old film picture(I do not have a scanner).Of course the original is much better. If somebody could improve the nominated image, it will be great. I do not think we have any FP from South Georgia.--Mbz1 05:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • Comment. I tried an edit on this to attempt to improve the quality, but the detail is just not there, the original quality is too poor. The edit is a little bit better, but not really worth uploading. Maybe if you could recapture the original film photo a bit better it would be worth trying again, but there's some issues such as badly blown out areas on the wings and body of the bird that I suspect are there in the original. It's a good picture, but as far as an FP is concerned, I can't see it overcoming the significant quality concerns. --jjron 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, too high contrast and blown highlights. Amazing, though, if this is a digital camera image of a printed photo. You'd really need to get the negative (or slide) scanned to improve this. --Janke | Talk 10:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Few weeks ago I went to Best Buy to see, if I could find a negative scanner. I did. It was very bulky, very expensive. Besides I have thousands upon thousands old negatives and it is not easy to find the wanted one. Sometimes, it is not so easy even to find a wanted print. I thought about the time I would loose to look for negatives and I decided not to buy a scanner.--Mbz1 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Oppose - Per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for votes and comments, everybody.Thank you, Jjron, for working on the image. I withdraw the nomination--Mbz1 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Chris Btalk 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Lillian Gish (1921)[edit]

Original. Lillian Gish was one of the first female movie stars, starting in 1912 and continuing to appear in films until 1987. This image was taken in 1921.
Edit 1 Upsampled to 200%, levels at black-point:8 and white-point:226, and downsampled back to original size
File:Temp-file-Lillian Gish-edit1-comparison.jpg
Comparison. Original at left compared to Antilived's 'improved version' at right. Comments on preferred version?
Superb photo of one of the major stars from the early days of cinema, taken around her heyday in 1921. Quality is not perfect, but pretty good for a photo of this resolution from that time. Unlike most of her contemporaries from the silent era, Gish's career continued into the era of the 'talkies', and she made movie and TV appearances right up until 1987, for a career spanning 75 years. From all reports, a pretty decent person as well.
Proposed caption
Lillian Diana Gish (October 14, 1893February 27, 1993), was an Oscar-nominated American actress, performing from the early days of the silent movie era until the late 1980s. The American Film Institute (AFI) named Gish 17th among the greatest female stars of all time. She was awarded an Honorary Academy Award in 1971 "For superlative artistry and for distinguished contribution to the progress of motion pictures", and in 1984 she received an AFI Life Achievement Award.
Articles this image appears in
Lillian Gish
Silent film
Academy Honorary Award
AFI Life Achievement Award
Movie star
Bain News Service; Uploaded to Wikipedia by Calliopejen
  • Support as nominator jjron 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC). Note: Support Original. --jjron 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice size, good composition and the quality problems you mentioned do not detract from it value --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Wish I had nominated it myself. Spikebrennan 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Mbz1 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Support Top enc. --Janke | Talk 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Puddyglum 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support; after taking a crash-browse through the Lillian Gish article, I have determined that the encyclopedic and historical value of this image overrides all other issues. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've overwritten the file with contrast-improved edit. Now uploaded my edit as a separate image and reverted the original. --antilivedT | C | G 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, to me the 'improved' edit is too bright, looking overexposed especially down her right side, on her cheek, hair, hat and shawl, and nearly loosing detail in places, such as on her shoulder. I have included a small comparison image for others to get an idea what I mean before comparing full versions. Would you mind reverting to the original and uploading this as an edit instead (as is usual), rather than overwriting the original? --jjron 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, can we get into the habit of stating exactly the nature of the transform? There are standard algorithms for this, e.g. normalise, equalise, stretch contrast; then various photo editors have automated "enhance" or "improve" functions; maybe if you're applying a curve, you could upload a picture of the curve along with your edit. Some people just label their edits "edit" and expect their reputation to travel ahead of them. That's simply not acceptable. Separa 11:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I simply upsampled the image to 200%, did levels to move the white point to 226 I think, and black point to 6 or 8. Only around 4 pixels is lost on the black part. And then I downsampled it (to fill in histogram gaps) and uploaded it. I thought a simple (near lossless) contrast enhancing does not warrant a need to upload a separate version. --antilivedT | C | G 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks Antilived. Some people (such as me) may not consider the edit an enhancement, so that means a separate upload is preferred. If it was just a regular picture then you're probably right, but given this is up for FP consideration, then it's probably a little more contentious. --jjron 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --Sharkface217 01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original: Great picture of historically significant individual. (Nice coincidence too, I just watched The Birth of a Nation in class last week) --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lillian Gish-edit1.jpg MER-C 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nations of the UK[edit]

This is one of those diagrams that says so much, so succinctly. You don't need to read the accompanying text in the article to understand exactly what took place from 847 to present, in terms of the broad political entities. I can't vouch for its correctness, and possibly the layout could be improved further (eg, raising the Kingdom of Ireland to the same level as the Kingdom of England, as they're roughly contemporary), but it's pretty good.
Proposed caption
A graphical history of the terms "United Kingdom" and "Republic of Ireland".
Articles this image appears in
British Isles (terminology)
  • Support as nominator Stevage 05:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good information, but graphically messy, layout unappealing. --Janke | Talk 07:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Um, size? You do realise this is a png, not an svg? Unless I'm missing something it's way too small on current guidelines. I do like the idea behind it, as per nom, although I'm not very comfortable with how, for example, Scotland, Wales, and later Northern Ireland seem to become separate islands. --jjron 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that after nominating. Come to think of it, I don't know if the size rules should particularly apply to diagrams - but in any case, this would definitely be better as a .svg. Stevage 02:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not, but with this I'm squinting to try to make out details on the maps anyway, so more size would be good. --jjron 04:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Poor quality image (scaling artifacts) - looks like its been scaled up from a low resolution. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It has been well put together and is helpful in its respective articles but size is an issue, for what it is there is no reason it shouldnt be larger --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I love how this image is able to let me understand the history behind the UK, but I don't find that it is big enough to satisfy the size portion. Perhaps if it were made bigger (SVG) I would support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared (talkcontribs) 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: More space needed, and let the arrows be more lazy. They're too desperate atm. Separa 22:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's helpful, I suppose, but it is too small and simply inelegant. Fails WP:TUFTE. --Dhartung | Talk 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

--Dhartung | Talk 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Ultra-Extreme Oppose as a Featured Picture Candidate; it's just another diagram; anyone can replicate the whole thing. In addition, it's fairly disorganised. Furthermore, it's not attractive (that may be irrelevant considering that it's just a diagram). But the biggest issue I have with this image is its size. It does not meet the size requirements at all! -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • all those superlatives are unnecessarily hurtful. Debivort 03:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and given all the other oppose votes a mere oppose would have done. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon[edit]

Great quality image.
Proposed caption
Not yet decided.Anybody else write one?
Articles this image appears in
Rock Pigeon, Columba (genus)
  • Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 11:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much jpg artefacts, not an interesting composition. - Mgm|(talk) 15:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Main subject too small, thus less resolution. --Janke | Talk 17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose On compositional grounds. The subject is looking out of the picture. Perhaps some cropping would improve this, although this would lose some of the interesting collonnade in the bg. --Pete 06:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per other users comments. I do however quite like the compostion though it does distract from the subject --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Moderate Oppose; the details are good, and the image meets size requirements, but the background is rather distracting. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support seems to meet all the criteria to me. Debivort 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Great colors, wonderful details but not a beautiful and outstanding bird picture. These birds aren't rare and one can retake it with a nicer background and better composed easily. Wwcsig 00:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader[edit]

Topical image of an influential political figure, and I think it compares well with other FP's of people. This was my first significant outing with my new camera, and I'm pleased with this image.
Proposed caption
Consumer advocate and four-time U.S. presidential candidate Ralph Nader spoke before a crowd of protesters near the White House at the September 15, 2007 anti-war protest organized by ANSWER Coalition. During his ten-minute speech, Nader criticized the Iraq War and its relevance to terrorism, and encouraged activists to focus on convincing members of Congress to end the war. He excoriated the present Congress for failing to impeach President Bush, asking: "How many more impeachable offenses to those spineless, gutless, hapless Democrats need?", and referred to the "stolen" elections of 2000 and 2004.
Articles this image appears in
Ralph Nader
  • Support as nominator ragesoss 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Erm... what we voting on? I see no image --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's there, all right. Have you tried purging over at commons? MER-C 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blurry background is distracting, and it kind of looks like he needs some Preparation H. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I can see it now, oppose anyway, distracting background and shadows cast on right side. Not fully sharp either --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but only due to the lighting. The composition is good. Spikebrennan 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just as bad lighting as the John Edwards FPC that was voted in by fanboys. Of course Nader's got no fan base now, so this won't go anywhere, just as it shouldn't. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-24 13:57Z
    • Alas, that was my thinking in nominating it: the lighting is not great, but if the John Edwards pic can pass...--ragesoss 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Also oppose for having no (visible) yellow wristband. ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-24 15:02Z
      • The John Edwards pic is many times more dynamic (I suppose it helps that John Edwards is loads more handsome, too), and really wouldn't have been out of place in a TIME magazine spread (it's a bit their style). I'm sure better pics could be (and probably have been) taken of Nader. --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, on the basis that the lighting is actually better than in the John Edwards one; apart from that I'm thinking it's quite sharp and the background is hardly distracting. Schcambo 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the background is distracting, and the lighting appears to be in the wrong place. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose primarily due to shadow on face, but background is distracting and the hand gesture is ... prehensile or something. Unlike the Javier Solana pic, his gesture just looks odd and makes you wonder what he's doing. Maybe if this could get a histogram treatment like the Queen did I'd reconsider. Or if Ragesoss has an alternate version? --Dhartung | Talk 08:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I do have about 50 alternative versions, but they have similar lighting problems. I'm an amateur at image tweaking, though, so if someone wants to try I can provide alternative shots and/or RAW files.--ragesoss 10:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The lighting is all wrong. Also, unlike the John Edwards FP, with the flag in the background etc, this is a pretty generic picture. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Poor lighting. -- Chris Btalk 17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Humpback Whale Feeding[edit]

This is a relatively rarely seen behavior. It has only been documented in humpbacks off the coast of Alaska since the 1960s. The naturalist on our boat noted that in all of his years of tours, he had only seen the behavior five times. This is an image taken on film and developed and then scanned. I originally put it up for a picture peer review, and a couple editors thought I should give it a shot in FPC. I'm very new at this, so be gentle. Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposed caption
Off the coast of Juneau, Alaska, a group of 15 humpback whales catches herring using the bubble net fishing technique. In this technique, which is unique to humpback whales, the animals exhale through their blowholes while swimming in a tightening spiral so as to create a cylindrical wall of bubbles under the water. The wall of bubbles acts as a net that fish are reluctant to swim through. The whales then suddenly swim upwards through the bubble net, mouths agape, swallowing thousands of fish in each gulp. This technique can involve a ring of bubbles up to 30 m (100 ft) in diameter and the cooperation of a dozen animals. Some whales take the task of blowing the bubbles, some dive deeper to drive fish towards the surface, and others herd fish into the net by vocalizing. The seagull in the frame is scavenging for leftover fish.
Articles this image appears in
Humpback whale
Eva bd, edited by jjron hi
  • Support as nominator Eva bd 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Some motion blur but SPECTACULAR subject & composition --frotht 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • support--Mbz1 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Simply incredible. -- Mike (Kicking222) 05:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: ...umm, what bubbles? Is it referring to the foam they're making? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 06:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the whales blow bubbles from their blowholes deep underwater, working together to create a circular 'bubblenet'. This herds the fish into a concentrated group in the centre of the net which some of the whales then swim up through from below openmouthed to consume the fish en masse. Obviously what you're seeing on the surface is the whales that have come up for their feed. I think the article describes it. --jjron 07:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah-ha, I understand the picture now. I'll support it moderately, though. I'm an alien to whale habitat and behaviour, and thus it took me a very long time to understand what was going on in the picture. Image-wise, however, it is a very good image and is to be a rare occurrance (as per jjron), so that's where merit should be given. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support by the way. Not an easy thing to photograph well given that so much of it happens underwater, and this is pretty well done. I like the composition looking back towards shore with no distracting elements - I didn't actually realise they did this so near land. --jjron 07:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It was rather difficult. The swarm of gulls flying over the surface made it easy to see the general area where the whales were netting the fish, but when they actually did surface, I was almost too late. I've put up several other pictures that weren't nearly as good from my digital camera. My partner had a much more enjoyable time simply watching the action rather than fretting over getting the pictures.--Eva bd 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, here's a little comment: You did your best. Keep it up, Eva. I think you took a good picture (even though I couldn't understand what was going on at first). -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I have trouble figuring out how many are in the pic. - Mgm|(talk) 15:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The modifications (crop, lightened, and a downsample to get rid of the film grain and scanner dust) suggested on picture peer review have greatly improved this image. I didn't notice before that there was green fringing on the gull, but it's not the subject, and that's not a lot of fringing. Enuja (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support --LucaG 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. Picture is not only high quality but also very encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Whales Bubble Net Feeding-edit1.jpg MER-C 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)