Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2007

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

	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Arc de Triomphe 2007

Original

Reason

Currently a FPC on Commons, earning a lot of support there. Beautiful image, more attractive (in my view) than this earlier nom.

Proposed caption

The Arc de Triomphe, commissioned by Napoleon after the victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, stands in the middle of the Place Charles de Gaulle and at the western end of Champs-Élysées, at 51 meters (165 ft) high and 45 meters wide. The monument honors soldiers throughout French history, and currently houses the famous tomb of the unknown soldier.

Articles this image appears in

Arc de triomphe

Creator

en:User:blieusong

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support High resolution, very clear and detailed, very encyclopedic. Good composition (I like the Eiffel Tower and the tree leaves in the foreground). Perhaps a more detailed caption? --Malachirality 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed Revised Caption: The Arc de Triomphe, commissioned by Napoleon after the victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, stands in the middle of the Place Charles de Gaulle and at the western end of Champs-Élysées, at 51 meters (165 ft) high and 45 meters wide. The monument honors soldiers throughout French history, and currently houses the famous tomb of the unknown soldier. --84.90.46.116 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! (I copied it). Spikebrennan 03:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --84.90.46.116 10:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support Excellent detail and knockout composition between the lighting and Eiffel Tower. I don't know who the anon was but s/he suggested a superior caption.--HereToHelp 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nicely done blieusong. wonderful light, composition. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've struck-through some unnecessary words in the caption. Pstuart84 Talk 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is in fact better with these new changes. Well spotted ;). --84.90.46.116 13:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, although i would've prefered a version without the leaves, this picture is stunning. The sharpness is unbelievable, and it illustrates the subject well. --Aqwis 15:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I myself like the leaves, I think they add to the image by helping frame subject (the arch). --84.90.46.116 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Meets all the criteria - especially lovely composition and execution. Pstuart84 Talk 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• oppose Because of the branches. AJUK ^Talk!! 14:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I love the composition branches and all and the detail is Dilliffic! There is some fisheyeing but the image looks quite natural in the thumb, so I don't mind it. de Bivort 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Diliffic"…wow, I wish I thought of that!--HereToHelp 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support just as I did on commons, lovely --Pumpmeup 02:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I suppose I should take that 'Diliffic' as a compliment. :-) I wouldn't say there is fisheyeing (is there?), as it has been perspective corrected, but the verticals are not entirely vertical. Could do with a slight adjustment, but as you say, it looks quite natural in the thumbnail all the same. Detail is excellent, as is the shadow detail. Very good composition and exposure. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I chose to have the vertical lines converging a little, so it looks "less unnatural". The vertical anchor line is on the left edge of the right arch. I can change this if requested (?). Blieusong 16:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No, its ok, I think it looks okay as is. I do appreciate that complete perspective correction results in excessive distortion sometimes. Its a tradeoff. I'm impressed by your photography by the way. We have a similar 'signature' style. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It's because one copied the other, (hint: it's not you). Your pictures inspired me a lot, and you are certainly responsible for me spending a lot (time and money) in photography :). Blieusong 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Astounding detail. It's as though I were there. --Bridgecross 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Verticals look a little off as discussed above (I just get the feeling of a slight lean to the right), and I've said it before, but I think daytime shots have a higher encyclopaedic value; however these issues are compensated for by a good capture with sufficient light, and overall attractiveness of the image. --jjron 08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, great picture. But I see blurrs around edges of it, that may just be due to my crappy monitor! — jacĸrм (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - would be "strong" if the leaves weren't in there. Besides being distracting they're also an odd colour and (obviously) out of focus. If they didn't occupy quite so much of the picture, I'd suggest removing them with PS; given the flat sky, the work would be fairly seamless. Still, an awesome picture. Matt Deres 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Arc Triomphe.jpg MER-C 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lampides boeticus

Original

Crop - a more balanced crop? (For discussion only, not for voting)

Alternative

Reason

High resolution photograph of Lampides boeticus (Peablue).

Proposed caption

The Peablue (Lampides boeticus) is a small butterfly found in Europe, Africa and Asia that belongs to the Lycaenids family. The forewing length of the imago is 15mm - 20mm.

Articles this image appears in

Lampides boeticus, Lycaenidae

Creator

Laitche

• Support as nominator --Laitche 14:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Stunning, very sharp and high value. --Aqwis 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support alternative More balanced composition. --Aqwis 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very encyclopedic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-25 14:24Z
• CommentIt's good, I don't mind the OOF antennae, but it appears over-sharpened in places and the composition/crop could be better. Fixable issues, I think. --mikaul^talk 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can see the crop version at the image page in old version. I already did, the crop was not better. This one is the best, I think :) Laitche 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I find the picture balance a bit awkward too, with the purple on the left and nothing on the right; you're correct that the cropped version isn't any better, but perhaps a more aggressive crop is needed so that the butterfly itself balances up the flowers. Also agree that sharpening appears a bit overdone. DOF seems a bit narrow, but helped by the fact the wings are basically flat. Haven't decided which way to vote yet. --jjron 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can also see the aggressive crop version and the cloned out the flowers on the left side version. I already did and I think the original is better :) Laitche 09:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Per Aqwis. There's no debate here, FP no doubt. NyyDave 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've seen pictures shot down for nearly invisible flaws, so I can't believe that this one is getting by. The lack of focus on the antennae is simply too much for FP status, IMO. Perhaps if only one of them was out of focus, then fine, but both are blurred beyond acceptibility at their ends, which is a critical part of the picture. And I can't see how its fixable. Look, it's a stunning picture, but "No debate"? We're supposed to be talking about FPs here. Unschool 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think debate and discussion are good thing （＾＾）／ Laitche 11:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think he meant "No debate" as a way of expressing just how good he thought the picture was, not in the literal interpretation. --84.90.46.116 13:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Laitche 13:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I meant no doubt as in the quality. The first part was "per aqwis" is which the great quality was mentioned.NyyDave 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support very clear image - especially of the scales. Nothing says an antenna needs to be in focus. The antenna are not really critical to this image - the species could be keyed easily without them. de Bivort 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Separa 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The out-of-focus antennae is a minor issue (and one that's extremely hard to avoid with this kind of shot). I would have cropped some from the right, but it's an outstanding shot as is.--ragesoss 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Uploaded cropped version which I think looks better (it's only low-res, so for discussion only, not voting). --jjron 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• That crop makes me feel narrow and unbalance. I think space is not a nothing, space is a space. There are flowers on the left side therefore need the space on the right side for balance, I think :) Laitche 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Laitche, I reckon that if you added just a bit more of space to the side to have the butterfly stand in the center it would be a great improvement over the original (which is in itself quite good.) --84.90.46.116 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just wanted to chip in, in support of a more subtle crop, if someones is up for re-dong it. I agree the negative space is trashed with the latest crop (as it was with the original nomination) and suggest a 10% crop from the right would be all it needs. --mikaul^talk 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I felt exactly the same as you. Then I cropped the image like this. But after that I felt the space on the right side is not enough. That's why I quit cropping. Laitche 20:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I actually like that last crop , the subject seems better centered then the original or the first edit - maybe submit it as an edit open to vote? --84.90.46.116 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, that's really nice now. If you're going to put it up as an alternative, maybe shade (darken) the extreme right hand side a little, to balance out the flowers; I think that's why you want more space there, but it's tonal, rather than spatial weight it needs, I think. --mikaul^talk 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with Mick's point - however I'm going to Support the now submitted alternative, as I find it better then the original. --Mad Tinman 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC) (PS: I'm the above anon, by the way.)

• Info I uploaded the alternative. I feel that the original is better, but the decision is yours. :) --Laitche 05:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Nice detail on the wing; original has much better composition. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Peablue October 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Cox

Original

Reason

High visual appeal; bright, eyecatching colours and interesting textures while maintaining a professional portrait appearance. Also has high resolution, is encyclopedic, and is effectively captioned.

Proposed caption

Peter Cox, the author of more than 20 books, including You Don't Need Meat (the best-selling vegetarian book of all time), was the first chief executive of the Vegetarian Society and is now a literary agent working in London and New York.

Articles this image appears in

Peter Cox (author)

Creator

John Buckman

• Support as nominator Lambyte 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm only an occasional participant in FP discussions, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I can't see that a photo portrait adds such great value to a bio article that it meets FP standards. I mean, would any article be significantly weaker for the lack of this photo? Unschool 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah ... no offense meant, but I don't think you do know what you're talking about - photos do add enc value to bios - how else would you know what the person looks like?

• None taken. I mean, I'm asking the question seriously. If the picture is of a place, I understand the importance. If it's of a person whose looks are a subject of the article, I see the importance. I don't deny that I wish for bio articles to have pictures, I'm just saying that, if this article on Mr. Cox didn't have his picture, I would still be able to learn that which was significant about him. That's not true if the picture is of Cappadocia or of Joseph Merrick; if those articles lack appropriate illustrations, my understanding of the subject is greatly limited. I don't need to see a picture of Mr. Cox to understand why he's noteworthy. Accordingly, his picture is inherently less able to add value to the article than the other examples I've cited. Unschool 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it does add less value than the elephant man, but surely you could "still be able to learn that which was significant about" Cappadocia without a photo of it, or the elephant man. In all cases this is true, and in all cases photos or illustrations enhance the article. de Bivort 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, I find that biographical articles without pictures are somewhat... at the lack of a better word, disappointing - it helps me visualize the subject I'm reading about, personalize him\her - without the picture, the only thing there is a bunch of text, and I find it difficult to contextualize that to a human being - maybe that's just me. On picture merits themselves, I find that the technical merits don't quite cut it, and that crop diverts a lot from any value it might have. I , of course, refrain from voting as IP's have no suffrage. --84.90.46.116 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I actually agree with this anon's sentiment—that is, that I too am disappointed by biographical articles that lack a picture. It's only natural to want to know what the subject of the article looks like. But what I'm saying is that a bio article without a picture is not hurt as much as would be many other articles lacking a picture. I completely disagree with Bivort above when he says that you could learn all that is significant about Cappadocia without a picture. An article that is actually long enough to describe Cappadocia well enough for me to visualize what the place looks like would be an article far too long and too boring to hold the attention of even one reader in a hundred. In such a case, the picture almost makes the article. That's not true of an article about Mr. Cox or most people. An article without his picture will perhaps disappoint, but I will still leave it with the knowledge that one would expect an encyclopedia to impart on the subject. Not likely with an article on The Elephant Man. Unschool 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• That does make sense - an article about a person whose looks are not the key to, but rather the acts taken by said person, can function without a picture - while when speaking of a subject like Cappadocia a pictureless article will most likely fail in catching any attention. Of course I still find that it's much easier to get interested in a biography with a good picture to open it, but it isn't made or broken by the photo itself. --84.90.46.116 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - washed out, grainy at full rez, subject is cut off. de Bivort 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the subject is cut off at the top. --Malachirality 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Malachirality- it makes the image look a lot less professional/encyclopedic. J Milburn 12:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Unschool's sentiment. It has no "wow" factor, and does not make me want to learn more about this subject (in fact, I didn't even click on the article). There certainly *are* portraits that make me want to learn more (like today's FP of William T. Sherman or the one illustrating Benoît Mandelbrot), but things like this and some of the recent portraits of modern people are excellently enc., but not up to the FP standard of "among Wikipedia's best work" in my opinion. --Sean 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to colour posterisation and lack of anything compelling, per TotoBaggins. The crop doesn't bother me at all, I often shoot portraits this way... --mikaul^talk 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The right side(looking at the picture) of his face is way too bright. NyyDave 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fall in Yosemite National Park

Original

Edit 1

Reason

Many people do not realize that Yosemite National Park is the park of all seasons. One cannot see waterfalls in fall, but leaves fall and fall colors are also a beautiful sight. In my opinion the image adds value to the article by showing how beautiful a fall in Yosemite National Park is

Proposed caption

Fall in Yosemite National Park with El Capitan viewed from the Valley Floor. See the climbers out there?

Articles this image appears in

Yosemite National Park;El Capitan

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 04:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's beautiful, and the seasonal angle is a nice one. But I predict that this will go down because of critics who say that it "lacks scale". But I feel that that's irrelevant to the reason it's being offered here. And the picture is flawless. Unschool 04:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the vote and for the comment. In my opinion the caption of the image does provide a scale. Have you clicked at climbers link? You could find the place, where climbers are at the original image really easy and in my opinion it is a good scale (of course, if I understood what you meant under the scale correctly).--Mbz1 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question. What did you do for post-processing? The sky looks over-saturated, but maybe that's just because I'm used to shooting drab New England skies.--ragesoss 04:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not very good with photo shops. I adjusted brightess, contrast and made it a litlle bit sharper.--Mbz1 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose dark halo along the skyline. de Bivort 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral The original is extremely poor. I'm not concerned about the sky, which looks great, but you have misused local contrast settings or unsharp mask (with a high radius) and basically destroyed the picture. Edit 1 is much better, but i'm not convinced about its encylopaedic value. --Aqwis 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per enc value, and disregard for the layout of the article (Featured, no less) it was pasted into. Already reverted and reinstated, I can't see it lasting there. I hate to bang on about it, but this simply shouldn't be allowed. --mikaul

^talk 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you for bringing this up. I expressed my thought wrongly and it is not what I meant to say. What I wanted to say is:
    Looks like it is the only image at Wikipedia, which shows the fall in Yosemite. Maybe the image does not have much encyclopedic value(in my opinion it does by showing seasanol changes), but in my opinion it does have informational and educational value. The caption of the image provides the link to the image of the climbers. I do not think there's any other image at Wikipedia, which shows the climbers at El Capitan.
    I agree with you that the image probably will not last long in the article, but in my opinion it adds value to the article and should stay there. Surely I'm not going to post it back, if it is removed again.I agree that to put image in the article only to get an FP status should not be allowed, but I do believe the image adds value to the article. I agree that I disregarded the layout of the article by putting the image at the top section. I removed it from there and put it in the climate section of the same article, where it belongs. Do you still believe the layout of the article is disregarded? Thank you --Mbz1 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the given image size the quality is just not enough for FP IMO. Sky has artifacts, forground is OOF, sky is too dark, and the top rim looks fuzzy. (that would probably make it a weak oppose, but for formal reasons stated above I go with a full oppose). --Dschwen 13:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've made two big mistakes with the image. First one was, when I put it at the top of the article. It does not belong there. The second one was my comment in history, when I put it back after it was removed. It was a very wrong comment. This comment was not what I meant to say and I accept full responsibility for it. Of course the image(rather photographer) deserved to be opposed. Thank you for the lesson,MIckStephenson. I wish you answered my question, if you still believe the layout of the article is disregarded after the image was moved to the climate section? Oh, well... What about the image? Well, the image is in the article in climate section and in my opinion it is there to stay. In my opinion it is a good image with encyclopedic value and it adds value to the article. I'd like to thank Unschool for not withdrawing his support after reading this. Thank you all for the votes and comments--Mbz1 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination--Mbz1 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Annie Oakley film clip

Original

Reason

Remarkable pd film of a well-known public figure in action

Proposed caption

Annie Oakley, a 19th century sharpshooter and exhibition shooter who performed as part of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, demonstrates her rifle target skills in this 1894 film.

Articles this image appears in

Annie Oakley

Creator

William Heise (camera) in Thomas Edison's "Black Maria" studio (1894)

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I have a few issues with the size and the clip length, but the enc value is so high that I'll overlook them. SingCal 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Valuable. Even though most videos this old would be anyway.NyyDave 18:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Impressive for 1894. -Malachirality 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Low quality, slow to load. A woman (and frankly for all you can see it could be anyone) firing a gun - that's not that hard to understand without this. And it appears that some of the shots miss, so it doesn't even impress me re her sharpshooter skills, in fact it makes me think less of her. I'd rather a picture that actually let you see this woman; something like the show poster in the article is far more interesting and usable. --jjron 09:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom--Mbz1 17:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• weak oppose per jjron. de Bivort 06:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support This movie is one of the first of its kind. It shows moving footage of someone who lived over 100 years ago. Very encyclopedic. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I don't think she actually misses (It looks like some of the targets get hit but don't fall right away) But it's awfully small, and that limits its value. Surely there's a little more detail that could be brought out? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not just the targets on the wall. Later in the video, when she's shooting what I assume are the glass balls referred to in the image name that are tossed up by the bloke, it looks to me like she misses some and they just fall back to the ground. Now, maybe it's just fragments that are falling, but who can really tell with this quality, so my assumption is they're a miss. --jjron 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very unique and valuable motion picture with a dynamic and highly notable subject. Is there any reason why this particular frame is shown as the still? Oakley looks to be about to shoot his his rear end. If it is possible, I'd rather see the still as one with the gunsmoke going into the air, or something more engaging/dynamic. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogv MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Electromagnetic spectrum

Original

Edit1 with continuous colour scale

Reason

Ultra-enc value + svg + high quality (it's a pity the article isn't in the same shape)

Proposed caption

The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses all electromagnetic radiation - ranging from radio waves through microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays in order of increasing frequency.

Articles this image appears in

Electromagnetic spectrum

Creator

commons:User:Inductiveload

• Support as nominator MER-C 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. We should have an excellent chart of the electromagnetic spectrum, but I'm not sure this one is quite excellent. I have some nitpicks; for example, the minus signs in negative exponents look like hyphens, and are hard to see (cf. "-2" with "−2"). It should be easy to line up the numbers on the different scales (wavelength, frequency, temperature) but they're too far apart and are interrupted by the little pictures. This xkcd version, while not entirely encyclopedic, is actually easier to use for converting frequency and wavelength. The idea of showing objects with the same physical size as the wavelength makes some sense, but it might lead the reader to think that radiation of that wavelength interacts strongly with objects of that size; this isn't really the case. Molecules have a lot of transitions in the infrared, and most atomic transitions are in the UV. In the atmospheric transmission bar, there are gray blocks that aren't explained (probably because there's a complex band structure in some of them). I've come across published charts that have been more useful to me (with features like a plot of atmospheric transmittivity, common radio bands like X band denoted, etc.), but maybe something that information-dense would be too much for someone new to the subject. -- Coneslayer 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree it difficult to line up the numbers, but the scales aren't precise as they spectrum is not linear or logarithmic here - it's been stretched and squashed to give about equal weight to each "band". I am going to make a dedicated frequency-wavelength scale that will be precise to complement this picture. Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do the humans have to be naked? Little unnecessary if you ask me. NyyDave 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. --84.90.46.116 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, they're from the Pioneer plaque. -- Coneslayer 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think they're pretty standard for representing humans when it comes to size\scale, sadly I can't think of any particular example now :\ --84.90.46.116 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the actual Pioneer plaques - they were drawn to show humans' size and shape in the first place. :D Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well said xD --84.90.46.116 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• NyyDave, I hope you are kidding.--Svetovid 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it just seems like we don't need to represent ourselves that naturally. Whatever.NyyDave 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Coneslayer issues - another problem is that the units look like divisors: "Wavelength / m" looks like wavelength per meter - should be "Wavelength (m)". de Bivort 16:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, they ARE divisors. Dividing by the units is the accepted way to label a graph, as you are ploting numbers, not quantities (how do you draw a Hertz on a graph?). Therfore, Freq. / Hz is a dimensionless quantity. If you write f(Hz), it looks like multiplication or a function of Hz, neither of which makes sense. Also, am I allowed to vote here? Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that out, I was wondering about it myself - It seemed correct, but I just wasn't sure ;) Also, I'm pretty certain that you can vote here, yeah - as far as I know only IP's don't have suffrage. --84.90.46.116 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed to (units) convetion, because ths seems to cause endless confusion, and consensus at Commons was to use this way, as although the / units way is more correct, this is more accessible to the layman. Since this is not a highly accurate image anyway, and is designed for use in teaching the basics to people who may not know the / units convention, I think this is the best option. --Inductiveload 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Very cluttered. If it can be simplified, it would make for a much more powerful image. Sometimes little pictures like this are helpful, but in this case, instead of thinking about the science, I'm distracted thinking about what the little pictures mean. The color temperature bar shows discrete steps, but in reality it is a continuum, and why are X-rays and gamma rays shown as pink when they are colorless? I've seen scores of these kinds of diagrams, and while it's great to have this one, I've seen many better. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I wondered about a transmission plot that but I couldn't find a transmission plot that goes from radio to gamma, and anyway, it's horrible cluttered and spiky. If people want one they can go to the relevant article and get a much more detailed one. It is more of an indication of the general transmission in that area. No scale on this picture is designed to be very precise - it's more of a concise overveiw of the spectrum than a very accurate plot. I'm working on a continous black body scale. Also, I am going to make a dedicated frequency-wavelength scale that will be precise. That may be a few days though.Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • On seconds thoughts, I'm NOT going to make one as there is one in the article already. --Inductiveload 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you prefer this edit with a continuous colour scale?(right)Inductiveload 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've moved this edit to the top below the original, and labeled it Edit1, as is customary on FPC. --jjron 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support If I'm allowed. Inductiveload 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure you're allowed. --jjron 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question Is there something that I'm not seeing, or does this image fall far short of the size requirements? --Malachirality 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics). If you open it in the right software you can resize it to any size you want without loss of quality. Thus the size stated on the image page doesn't have the same meaning as for a jpg, png, gif, etc. --jjron 07:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Gives impression that radio waves etc. are red and X-rays are fuchsia. I'm really not sure about the little pictures (butterfly, atom, etc) - I'm not sure they help or distract. Also, how can frequency be measured in meters? Shouldn't that be Hz or something (I'm talking about the edit, the original is different)? Matt Deres 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Diffusion tensor imaging

Original

Reason

Featured on German wikipedia. Beautiful, and interest-provoking enough to make me wonder what it was. Nominated for FP status on Commons but the nom failed because the image did not satisfy the higher-resolution requirements that apply there.

Proposed caption

Visualization of a DTI measurement of a human brain. Depicted are reconstructed fiber tracts that run through the mid-sagittal plane. Especially prominent are the U-shaped fibers that connect the two hemispheres through the corpus callosum (the fibers come out of the image plane and consequently bend towards the top) and the fiber tracts that descend toward the spine (blue, within the image plane). This image was rendered using the BioTensor application developed at the University of Utah, based on data provided by Gordon Kindlmann at the Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, and Andrew Alexander, W.M. Keck Laboratory for Functional Brain Imaging and Behaviour, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Articles this image appears in

Diffusion MRI

Creator

Thomas Schultz (who I believe is a user of German wikipedia)

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - very nice, very informative - though I would like it better if there was a side-by-side key with structures labeled. de Bivort 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Informative; I've never seen a picture like this before.--HereToHelp 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Cat-five - talk 10:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. --Aqwis 15:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice, interesting. But can we leave out this stuff re noms on other Wikipedias and Commons - this is becoming increasingly common, but is irrelevant as a reason; reasons should be relevant to us here, not to what's happening with the image somewhere else. --jjron 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:DTI-sagittal-fibers.jpg MER-C 07:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tufa formations of Mono Lake

Original

Original 2

Reason

These are good images of unusual rocks. The images have educational and encyclopedic values. I hope that an image as a FP would "make the viewer want to know more" about tufa of Mono Lake , as well as tufa in general;

Proposed caption:Tufa towers like in the Mono Lake are calcium-carbonate spires and knobs formed by interaction of freshwater springs and alkaline lake water. Tufa can reach heights of 30 ft. (9.1m). Mono Lake is located is Eastern Sierra and covers about 65 square miles. Throughout the lake's existence of over 1 million years, the steady evaporation of freshwater originally coming from Eastern Sierra streams has left the salts and minerals behind so that the lake is now about 2 1/2 times as salty and 80 times as alkaline as the ocean. Mono Lake tufa is now California state reserve.

Articles this image appears in

Mono Lake; Tufa

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the lighting, I'm not sure ho informative the composition is. I feel like a better one could have been chosen to highlight the lake as well. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original 2, neutral on Original (which also seems a little tilted?). I really like the colors and the prettiness of both pictures, but for an image of a lake, the angle is too low. I also feel that the proposed caption does not sufficiently explain the concept of tufa at the first mention, and so the encyclopedicness of the first image is somewhat lost to me as a layman. (What I mean is it reads like "what you see is a tufa, which was formed like this and that" instead of maybe better(?) "a tufa is whatever and works like this and that; if you want to see one, look at the picture".) :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 01:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've changed the caption. Is it any better now? Thank you.--Mbz1 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Better but not perfect. I really do think that this FPC gains from putting Tufa over Mono Lake. So I offer a revised caption: Tufa towers like in the Mono Lake are calcium-carbonate spires and knobs formed by interaction of freshwater springs and alkaline lake water. Mono Lake is located is Eastern Sierra and covers about 65 square miles. Throughout the lake's existence of over 1 million years, the steady evaporation of freshwater originally coming from Eastern Sierra streams has left the salts and minerals behind so that the lake is now about 2 1/2 times as salty and 80 times as alkaline as the ocean. Mono Lake tufa is now California state reserve. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I like your caption much better. Thank you very much for helping me out.--Mbz1 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• weak support original 2 Aesthetically and technically good (but is the right side of the tufa overexposed?), but IMO this picture has very little encyclopedic value regarding Mono Lake, because from this perspective, the body of water can be anything with tufa and hills. Also, a valid reason is needed; right now, the reason does not really address the picture itself. --Malachirality 02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess you and Fcb981 are right, when you say that the images have little encyclopedic value regarding Mono Lake. The images are more about Tufa formations of Mono Lake and maybe even tufa in general. The image is featured in tufa article. Tufa could be and is in other places too. On the other hand the tufa in my images is at Mono lake. It is tufa of Mono Lake, which is California state reserve, not the lake itself,but, if there were no this very special lake, there would not have been tufa either. I tried to addresse this issue by changing the title of the image to "Tufa formations of Mono Lake". Do you believe it is OK now or should I change it just to Tufa? Thank you.--Mbz1 03:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support either with revised caption. These are attractive images, and illustrative of tufa. I had never heard of tufa before looking at this nom; now I know what it is. Perhaps the caption could be improved a little more (by Mila) by indicating how large the structures are that we're looking at-- less than a meter high? Several meters high? It's difficult to get a sense of scale. Spikebrennan 16:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I added the information about the height of the tufa to the caption. It is also interesting to know that altough tufa could grow only in the water, now some tufa towers are completely out of the water, because the water that used to be there has evaporated. One could walk between these towers without getting feet wet.--Mbz1 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose with regret. I very much like Original 2: it's a much better image than the original candidate (scanned film , yes? nice...) despite the small horizontal tilt, which somehow works here. It's just that enc problem again. It really doesn't belong at Limestone at all and should be removed. IMO it should appear at both Tufa and Mono Lake in place of your original candidate – but it isn't there! How can we promote an image which isn't (properly) in the encyclopedia yet? Please, do the pic a favour: delist it, sort out proper placement, and then nominate it. I'd happily support it then, and I think many others would too! --mikaul^talk 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you, sgeureka, for helping me out with the caption and thank you, everybody, for votes and comments.I withdraw my nomination--Mbz1 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I took the Original 2 from Limestone (btw tufa is limestone). I will put to Tufa and Mono Lake whatever image will pass the nomination. If none is to pass, I'll put to Tufa and Mono Lake whatever image gets more votes. IMO it is common practice to nominate few images. Of course they cannot be in the articles all together at the time of the nomination, but it is understandable that whatever image is to get FP status will be posted in the articles as soon as the nomination process is over. I wanted to withdraw the nomination, but I believe it would not have been fair to the people, who spent their time voting and helping me with the caption. Thank you.--Mbz1 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment At this point the nomination is almost over, and looks like more people prefer Original 2 to Original, so I've put Original 2 in both Tufa and Mono Lake. Mick, do you believe your oppose is still valid at this point? Thank you.--Mbz1 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mono lake tufa.JPG MER-C 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Necking between two male giraffes

Original

Reason

A well-composed image of good technical quality, showing a unique and perhaps misunderstood giraffe ritual. Encyclopedic and detailed. An FP on Commons.

Proposed caption

Male giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis), such as the two pictured here, often engage in necking for various reasons, including combat and competition over females. Males with longer necks and heavier heads are at an advantage in duels and thus have greater access to estrous females, suggesting that the giraffe's distinctive long neck may be a product of sexual selection.

Articles this image appears in

giraffe and Homosexuality in animals

Creator

user:LucaGaluzzi

• Support as nominator Malachirality 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support--Mbz1 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - At the first fleeting glance of the thumb, I thought this showed a windmill - yes, I'm myopic... ;-) Doesn't look like a very fierce necking battle, though. --Janke | Talk 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Does this really belong in the Homosexuality in animals article? I mean they're necking, not necking; I think it's a little bit misleading, especially with an image like this that could be misinterpreted that way. --jjron 07:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Had the same thoughts - but, in that article, this image is used more as an illustration than an example. One reason for my only weak support. --Janke | Talk 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is just being used as an illustration of giraffes, but the worry is that two male giraffes 'necking' could be interpreted by some as indicating that this is a homosexual behaviour, when it's not. If no image is available of actual homosexual giraffe behaviour, then perhaps a picture of a single giraffe would be better to avoid possible confusion. --jjron 09:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather take it off fromHomosexuality in animals too.--Mbz1 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it fits in the Homosexuality in animals article, it only makes mention of actual sexual activity and shows no correlation between necking and giraffe - related homosexual behaviour, potentially misleading people into believing that necking is in fact homosexual activity. --84.90.46.116 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I like it overall, but some concerns leading to the 'weak'. The colours seem just a little out, there's some distracting blurry grass in the extreme foreground, the grass around the giraffes is a bit too long obscuring a bit too much of their legs, and the long grass and shadows make it hard to tell whether the giraffe at the right in particular is a male (which is very relevant for this photo which is specifically nominated to show a male/male behaviour). Also questionable use in homosexuality article discussed above. --jjron 09:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Assuming I'm looking at what I'm supposed to be looking at, it seems pretty evident at full resolution that the right giraffe is male. And per the "Homosexuality in animals" article, does either A) removing the pic or B) editing the section to incorporate the pic have an impact on the the picture's FP candidacy? I'd be willing to do one or the other. --Malachirality 16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, you can see it's a male, my point was just that with the grass and shadows, and at this size (i.e., even at 'full size'), you have to look pretty closely to be sure. I'd rather it be removed from the other article for reasons stated above, rather than rewriting that section to try to make this fit there when it's potentially misleading (I'm not sure if you were just asking rhetorically, but yes, it does affect the FP candidacy, as an FP is meant to be encyclopaedic by being correct and adding value to an article - if it's potentially misleading in how it's being used, and I'm not the only one saying this, then it's actually being the opposite of encyclopaedic). --jjron 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too static. I would like to see an image where their heads are together (yes, they do use their little antlers) or with some motion blur in the appropriate place. Even better perhaps, an animation! So that's the encyclopaedic criterion again: doesn't illustrate the subject. Separa 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose My impression, and what seems to be the general consensus among voters, is that this article does not belong in Homosexuality in animals, which means that I'm only considering in terms of the other possible interpretations. As said above, the shot doesn't communicate combat really effectively, so it's not a really great portrayal of its proposed FPC5 subject matter. SingCal 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• The subject of the picture is not combat, but are rather giraffe and necking, which are clearly and aesthetically illustrated in the picture. Combat/competition is just one of many functions of necking, and is merely included in the caption as an interpretation and to introduce the interesting idea of sexual selection. The giraffes might not be fighting at all (and the caption can be edited), but this, IMO at least, does not detract from the picture's encyclopedic significance regarding the animal (giraffe) and the behavior (necking). --Malachirality 17:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Image was removed from "animals" article. --Malachirality 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It just looks like they're... passing by each other. ^8thstar 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1691 map of Kamianets-Podilskyi

Original

Reason

A High-resolution historic map done by famous French cartographer Nicolas de Fer.

Proposed caption

A 1691 French map of Kamianets-Podilskyi, depicting the city's old town neighborhood and castle, surrounded by the winding Smotrych River.

Articles this image appears in

Kamianets-Podilskyi

Creator

Nicolas de Fer

• Support as nominator —dima/talk/ 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion - Maybe someone could present a translation to the text in the map? Would help with the understanding by some, such as myself, who either know nothing or very little of french. --84.90.46.116 20:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I too do not know anything in French.. There is however a site which translates the map.. perhaps I can incorporate the translation into the image description page. —dima/talk/ 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Excellent find there, don't see any reason why you shouldn't include it in the image page. Well done. --84.90.46.116 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It would be best to do it from scratch; translations can be copyrighted if they have creative content. Chick Bowen 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I have provided a translation of the two left and right portions of the map with the help of Google translate and some portions of the website's translation... hopefully its good. —dima/talk/ 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I asked a friend with some french understanding to verify, and he says it's pretty accurate - still, if someone with a complete understanding could verify it'd be better xD --84.90.46.116 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - high res and rare picture.--Riurik^(discuss) 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support nice, good, rare pic --Boguslav 23:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice scan of an encyclopedic image. NauticaShades 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting, high res, rare and support per above reasons. — jacĸrм (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like old maps, and kind of like this at full size, and would probably support if it was on French Wikipedia. But since we don't seem to have a definite translation, that to me lowers its value. Also I feel that if we're making exceptions for foreign languages, there should be a reason - so a map of a city in the Ukraine with writing in Ukrainian may make more sense than a Ukrainian city with a French map. Now perhaps if the city was ruled by the French at this time we would also consider that a reason, but according to the article in 1691 it was under Turkish rule, and Polish rule soon after - so why French? OK, some other reasons; every time I look at this in thumbnail I think it's a diagram of a cell or some type of cell structure, and as far as it's use in the article, it really looks like it's just been jammed in there, it just doesn't look comfortable. --jjron 08:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Kamianets-Podilskyi map 1691.jpg MER-C 07:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Lemurs

Original

Original 2

Reason

High quality image taken in the natural habitat and showing male and female together. The colors is so different that for many years people believed these were different kind of lemurs.

Proposed caption

Male and female Black Lemurs,Eulemur macaco. The black lemur is one of 28 species of lemurs, which are relatives to monkeys and apes and is so called True lemur. The black lemur got its name from a male coloration, which is black, while female is brown. The difference in the colors between male and female black lemurs is unique for lemurs.

The image was taken at Madagascar

Articles this image appears in

Lemurs

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The center may be somewhat clear, but the rest of the picture is way too blurry. NyyDave 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose subjects are cut off, too small in frame, and there is wicked (Go Sox!) chromatic aberration in the foliage in front of the sky. de Bivort 23:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I added another image, which shows female black lemur only. I added link to the first image to the caption of the second one. Of course the subject is cut off too. Well, I just counted at least six cut off subjects on FP mamals. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose both In the first, the subject is too small (composition), in the second detail sharpness is not very good. --Janke | Talk 10:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose both, very poor technical quality, poor composition, too far away from the subjects. --Aqwis 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose – although both have really high encyclopedic value, they both suffer from too many technical problems to mitigate a FP pass. I guess the crux is that these are easily replicable shots. --mikaul^talk 15:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Getting both a male and a female of the species in the same shot, in the wild, is remarkable but there are regrettable technical problems (blown highlights in the sky, and the tails of the animals are hard to see (when the subject is a lemur, getting the tail is part of what makes the photograph encyclopedia-worthy). The first image could probably benefit from a crop. (On an only partly-related note-- wow, Mila, you sure do travel a lot. I'm jealous.) Spikebrennan 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I did travel a lot mostly with my old film camera.
  In my opinion I've made some progress with this nomination:so far nobody has complained on the caption or/and encyclopedic value of the image. Thank you for the votes, everybody. Please keep them coming. (I really mean it. I much prefer to have oppose votes than no votes at all. When there's no votes, then it is getting really boring)--Mbz1 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you there, you wrote a perfectly good caption for this image, with no noticeable flaw - well done. --84.90.46.116 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I really like original 2, the expression is striking. But has there been too much post-processing? It seems just a little blurry and doesn't quite look right. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Jeff. It is great somebody liked the image!--Mbz1 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Portrait of a Turkish Woman

Original

Reason

It is very encyclopedic and great for illustrating the articles. It is culturally significant, there aren't enough high-quality portraits on Wikipedia, and the woman's intriguing expression makes the articles a lot more interesting. Much better version of the photo than the previous nomination.

Proposed caption

An elderly woman in Selçuk, Turkey, wearing traditional Islamic dress. Due to Secularism in Turkey gradually increasing since Atatürk's Reforms in 1923, it is now much less common amongst the younger generations for the hijab to be worn, particularly in urban areas.

Articles this image appears in

Hijab, Selçuk, Turkish people, Secularism in Turkey, Religion in Turkey

Creator

Kitkatcrazy

• Support as nominator Kitkatcrazy 10:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Was this not submitted once before? --84.90.46.116 12:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per above, but since that version the photo has been cropped, brightened, and put at a more realistic colour level. Kitkatcrazy 12:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, was just making sure XD. --84.90.46.116 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question. The nom, as well as captions on this image in the articles, claim that this is "traditional Islamic dress". Um, is this correct? Take the long pants for example. Looking through the Hijab article I can't verify this, but considering how recently women in Western societies started wearing pants I have to wonder. Overall it doesn't really look traditional Islamic dress to me. If it's not traditional it probably weakens the nom somewhat. --jjron 13:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Salwars are loose pajama-like trousers, with legs wide at the top and narrow at the bottom. They are a traditional form of dress across the Muslim world, having originated in South Asia. Hope that clears it up :) Kitkatcrazy 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The woman is not in hijab. her neck, hands and feet are showing. This is NOT the traditional Islamic dress. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Islamic dress varies according to which Muslim country you are referring to. Hijab can be interpreted in many different ways and does not necessarily mean that the neck must be covered. Followers of hijab in your own country Tanzania for example will have a different interpretation of hijab from those in a more liberal Muslim country such as Turkey. However, even in more strict Muslim societies the hands and feet are rarely covered as these are needed for everyday tasks. Kitkatcrazy 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The hijab I was referring was the actual hijab that is mandated by Islam. According to the Islamic defn of hijab (according to most Islamic scholars), all parts should be covered except the hands from the wrists downwards and the face. The body shape ie figure should not be noticeable. Unfortunately the woman in the picture does not meet the requirements. Perhaps you can change the caption and mention that the woman is wearing the "liberal hijab". Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Muslim you obviously have more experience and say on the matter than I do, but before the caption is changed could we perhaps find another person to give their idea of the interpretation of Hijab? Also, regarding the photo itself, would you support its nomination as a featured picture? Thanks Kitkatcrazy 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I cant understand the subject of the discussion. Hijab is not related with this matter. Dress of this elder woman is traditional-rural dress than can be seen similarly in central,west Anatolia and also in Balkan countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Greece-western thracia, Macedonia and Albania. Religion has no so much affect on this style of dressing but life-working style.

• Please try to follow the discussion. Hijab is relevant because the proposed caption above, along with image captions in various articles, state that this is "traditional Islamic dress"; it links to hijab, and is in fact in the hijab article. If it just said it was 'typical Turkish rural dress' or something, without all the references to hijab, then you would have a point, but the nom itself has made hijab relevant. --jjron 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• So, take out the word "Islamic" and everybody is happy? 129.215.191.74 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps replacing traditional Islamic Dress with something more accurate would be more useful then just removing islamic, which would just leave us with traditional dress... --84.90.46.116 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've been asked for some imput, I'm not really an expert on the subject, I agree with some of the points made above, the clothing (to me) doesn't seem that traditional. If the caption were to change then maybe it would have a better changes of getting through. I think the image needs more focus, if it were about a certain famous building in Turkey, or a more obvious cultural aspect unique to Turky, it would make more sence to go on the front page. It's not obvious enough that it's connected to the articals it links to. Steveoc 86 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support for FP.Regards.Must.^{T C} 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose She is wearing a traditional anatolian headscarf. The laws in Turkey do not interfere with wearing this style of headscarf. The caption should be corrected.
• Oppose So-so technical quality, poorly-nominated, confuses more issues than it illustrates and frankly irrelevant to most of the articles it appears in. --mikaul^talk 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Caption? Thanks for all the comments - what do you propose the caption should be changed to? Should the photo be taken out the hijab article altogether? Kitkatcrazy 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Technical quality is not so great, it's not particularly encyclopedic if we're not using it to illustrate something about hijab, and the composition/expression of the subject is not my favorite. Also this really is not much different than the previous failed nomination, which in my opinion should be given considerable weight. Calliopejen1 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a slight point of order here. Seeing as you're not a regular on FPC Kitkatcrazy I'll assume good faith and think that you don't necessarily know all the details of the process. However canvassing other users to come and support your nom (1, 2, 3) is generally frowned upon. There are a few other messages in a similar vein, though it's not quite such an issue if it is just a request for people to come and look. Cheers, --jjron 07:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry but the technical quality is substandard and the composition is not very appealing. Plus that sort of canvassing is a bridge too far. -- Chris B • talk 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hay Copy of the Gettysburg Address

Original

Reason

Historically significant, this is one of the great speeches of the American Civil War, and this copy is said to be "the most inexplicable of the five copies Lincoln made." I therefore feel this should be a Featured Picture.

Proposed caption

Image of the "Hay Draft" of the Gettysburg Address, in Abraham Lincoln's handwriting, from the Library of Congress website

Articles this image appears in

Gettysburg Address

Creator

Technically Abraham Lincoln, licence is {{PD-US}}

• Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support very nice historical document scan. Cat-five - talk 10:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Weird splotches, especially obvious in the top left corner. Is this really what the document looks like or is this just poor depth of color in the scan? Spikebrennan 13:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably say it's a moire pattern. Either way, there's gotta be a higher resolution and better scan out there somewhere. MER-C 13:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not detailed enough, no "wow". Enc is high, but that's not enough, IMO. I'd say the splotches are Newton rings. --Janke | Talk 14:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Way too small. Can be rescanned, so the "small sizes are acceptable for historical pictures" rule doesn't apply, and a larger version probably exists on someone's computer anyway. However, what really destroys the picture is the moire or what it is - this is not how the document actually looks like! --Aqwis 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a common misconception; our FP criteria states explicitly that "Still images are a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; larger sizes are generally preferred." This image is 640 × 1031 pixel, and therefore meets minum FP criteria. If you wish to object on some other grounds, feel free, but objecting on the size of this particular image is for our purposes technically incorrect. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, i am aware of the minimum image sizes, however, as far as i know they are not set in stone and in this image i feel that the small size makes it far less useful than it would be otherwise. However, even if the size is not a good reason to oppose, the coloured patterns in the top of the image are reason enough to oppose the image becoming FP. --Aqwis 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Minimum acceptable sizes also depend on the subject; certain images such as Image:Vinland Map HiRes.jpg have to be a lot bigger than 1000px in order to see the detail. Since the writing in the Lincoln document is very delicate, a bigger image is probably needed. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose unless a better scan can be found. The size makes the text barely legible, which is a shame because it's a curious relic of the past. Futhermore, those splodges/discoloration are worryingly bothersome. -- Chris B • talk 10:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, I just don't get this at all. It means nothing to me. The newton rings are enough on their own to kill any chance it ever had. --mikaul^talk 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Freakadelic color thing, man. ^8thstar 02:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Reason

clear, encyclopedic portrait; technically excellent. An FP on Commons.

Proposed caption

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is the 39th and current President of Brazil. He is also a founding member of the Workers' Party. Elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006 (with over 60% of the popular vote in both), he will remain Brazil's President until January 1, 2011.

Articles this image appears in

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Creator

Ricardo Stuckert / Presidência da República. Edited by Lycaon (Commons)

• Support as nominator Malachirality 04:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Commons debate. MER-C 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, valueable and high quality. --Aqwis 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom and above. Caption could be expanded, though.--HereToHelp 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Strikes me as a pretty ordinary portrait, and I don't like the composition with so much building in the top half. Pstuart84 Talk 18:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be easy to crop out…--HereToHelp 13:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. I would definitely support this if it was taken by a Wikimedian, and possibly if it wasn't but was released under a free license specifically for Wikipedia. But this is a government photo that is freely available independent of what we do, and while technically good it's not an especially striking composition.--ragesoss 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's perfectly fine on copyright issues- it's FP on commons so it far exceeds our expectations for copyright. It makes no difference whether it was made specifically for wikipedia- in fact that's a self reference and you cannot let it influence your decision --ffroth 07:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't question the copyright. One of the criteria is "Is among Wikipedia's best work". The less Wikipedia or a Wikipedian was involved in the creation or securing of rights, the higher the quality I expect for the image itself or for its particular unique value within an article(s).--ragesoss 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad background for a portrait. Enc is good for the article, but this is not FP stuff. --Janke | Talk 10:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose A COM:FP? Why, because it's big?? As an official portrait of a current politico it displays much more enc value than photographic prowess. The composition and lighting are just awful. Shot on a 1Ds too.. tsk.. --mikaul^talk 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose He's OK, but the background is distracting and gives him a Mary Ann Vecchio problem. Along with Ragesoss I might approve of this if it were a Wikipedian's, but there has to be a better official portrait available. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Parthenon

Original

Reason

Aesthetic composition, high technical quality. The picture is very encyclopedic because it clearly shows the columns, the metopes, and the roof tiles. Is an FP on Commons.

Proposed caption

The ruins of the Parthenon, here viewed from the south. Formerly a temple to Athena, it was built in the 5th century B. C. E. on the Acropolis of Athens. It is widely considered to be the most important surviving building of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy. In the foreground of the image, a reconstruction of the marble imbrices and tegulae (roof tiles) forming the roof is visible, resting on wooden supports.

Built on the Acropolis of Athens in the 5th century B. C. E. as a temple to Athena, the Parthenon today stands in ruins. Much of the original marble that formed the roof and frieze now lies in a pile of rubble at its base. Even so, it remains ones of the most important surviving buildings of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy.

Articles this image appears in

Classical Greece and ruins. Minor contributions to Parthenon and Pericles

Creator

Thermos

• Support as nominator Malachirality 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Not perfectly sharp. Part of the building is missing... Although including it would make for a less appealing. the sky is really nice. Overall I think it very artistic and deserves feature. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeI do not like the composition.--Mbz1 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Really great photograph, but it doesn't illustrate the Parthenon very well. Iorek 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Support Now it illustrates ruins. Iorek 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Support Great photo. Maddie ^talk 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Iorek, this photo doesn't illustrate the Parthenon well enough to be featured on Wikipedia. It is, however, of great technical and aesthetic quality, and is fully deserving of being featured on Commons. --Aqwis 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps it would work better in ruins?--HereToHelp 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Would voters think that it would have greater enc. value in ruins? Am I allowed to just add the picture into the article? Would it be perceived as an underhanded edit that was made just to validate an FPC? --Malachirality 18:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry for the multiple posts, but I have a question. Could the image be inserted into other articles, such as the aforementioned ruins and/or (perhaps even more appropriately) Classical Greece, where the enc. emphasis is on the style, individual architectural elements, and the feelings evoked by the place, rather than on the Parthenon itself? Consensus says (and I agree) that this picture is not very enc. regarding the latter, but IMO it is very enc. regarding the former. I think this picture is one of en.wiki's more distinctive pictures and definitely has the ability to draw readers into an article, and I would like to see it featured. That being said, I don't want to do anything that comes across as inappropriate or manipulative. Thanks. --Malachirality 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think too much of the subject is cut off for Parthenon. I suggested ruins (Classical Greece is another great idea) because I got a sense of what a mighty structure is was compared to what it is. I like the juxtaposition of still-smooth surfaces with the pile of fallen rubble. I can see that the Greeks cared about their architecture but also that the building has seen a lot of wear-and-tear. This is the image's strong point; putting it in a better article is not manipulative, it improves the encyclopedia.--HereToHelp 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The composition is beautiful, but the image is put together at the expense of the subject. It's missing a significant portion of the building and has no more detail than the more comprehensive images on the page. In my eyes, this combination torches the enc value because there's nothing to be learned about the subject from the photo. SingCal 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Pending a reworking of the caption. The image is much more encyclopedic now, but adding the word "ruins" to the caption just doesn't cut it for me. I will change to a full support once the caption is at least slightly reconsidered. SingCal 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have tweaked the caption. Better? --Malachirality 15:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me. SingCal 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not sufficiently illustrative of its subject. Pstuart84 Talk 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Neutral. I still don't like the abrut cutting off of the Parthenon, but since it's now being suggested for Ruins I'll abstain. Pstuart84 Talk 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I have added the picture to the articles ruins (replacing this painting) and Classical Greece (replacing a picture of the Parthenon--a fully enc. Parthenon pic occurs later in the article). Please take a look and assess the picture's stylistic and enc. contributions to those pages.
  • I agree with these changes - that pic has great power to open an article, as it is very eye-catching - made me want to read more about ruins and Classical Greece when I opened those articles. --84.90.46.116 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. For a very artistic picture, not enough of the subject included in the image. KyuuA4 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I would plead with people to reconsider this one. I fully admit I'm swayed by the fabulous lighting and arty perspective and supported this last time based on little more than that (tut-tut..) but now that it's in the Ruins article I think it's found a very enc niche. There are no longer grounds for opposing on the basis of not seeing all of the structure, as the intriguing rubble is now a major part of its value. It may look a little posterised at 100% but this completely disappears in print. It's very sharp, has fantastic depth of field and inspired me to copyedit, never mind read, the article. Support! --mikaul^talk 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support I find that now the image has found a proper home at Ruins, it's encyclopedic value skyrocketed - and seeing as it is a very impressive photo (it has that WOW factor many photos fail at and the technical prowess) I figured it was the perfect photo to actually cast a vote for the first time. Cheers. (As mikaul above me said, I encourage people who opposed based on encyclopedic grounds to reconsider seeing the now fulfilled niche) --84.90.46.116 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi 84.90.46.116. I notice you've now made quite a few comments, etc, on this page, and as you say above, have now casted a vote. Please be aware, and I quote from the top of the page, "...anonymous votes are generally disregarded". Can I encourage you to register an account (it's easy and free) and contribute using that so that we can get some feeling for who we're dealing with, and so that you can participate fully. Cheers, --jjron 08:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That solved it ;) -Mad Tinman 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is just a lovely photograph. I initially had reservations about its encyclopedicity, but I think it's a great addition to Ruins, so that concern has been addressed. -- Coneslayer 12:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- definitely a great picture for Ruins. -- Merope 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to support as the picture works well in the article Ruins. --Aqwis 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent photo, nice light. Good enc in Ruins. Could be improved with slight cw rotation. --Janke | Talk 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Composition no encyclopaedic, but would do well on Commons. (Detailed reasons: subject cut off, too much space devoted to loose stones and sky) NB proposed caption references parthenon, not ruins. Separa 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The composition is encyclopaedic for ruins - works much better then just any front shot - and to adress your other concern, I propose we change the caption to "The Ruins of the Parthenon, here viewed from the south. The Parthenon is a temple to Athena built in the 5th century B. C. E. on the Acropolis of Athens. It is widely considered to be the most important surviving building of Classical Greece and a symbol of Athenian democracy. In the foreground of the image, a reconstruction of the marble imbrices and tegulae (roof tiles) forming the roof is visible, resting on wooden supports." Cheers. --Mad Tinman 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support A very attractive shot no doubt, and the sky is lovely. But the mere fact that the main subject has been chopped in half isn't particularly useful, especially when it's the first thing your eyes see. Hence only a weak support. -- Chris B • talk 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I went back and forth on this one-- it is such a stunning work of photography, but not encyclopedic for "Parthenon". But now that it has been submitted for "Ruins", it works for me. Compare the discussion of this FPC nomination, once it was submitted as encyclopedic for "Camouflage" rather than for "War in Afghanistan", it was recognized as encyclopedic. Spikebrennan 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support use in ruins. Matt Deres 01:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I want to see more of the subject. ^8thstar 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a lovely photo, but falls down on encyclopaedic grounds for me. Too cut off for the "Parthenon", and while the case has been made above for "Ruins", to me the so-called 'pile of rubble' at its base that dominates the foreground is all too neatly stacked to convince me. --jjron 08:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Parthenon from south.jpg MER-C 05:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Edward VI of England

Original

Reason

Sharp, crisp clear painting of a british monarch

Proposed caption

Edward VI became King of England, King of France and Edward I of Ireland on 28 January 1547, and crowned on 20 February, at just nine years of age. Edward, the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, was the third monarch of the Tudor dynasty and England's first ruler who was Protestant at the time of his ascension to the throne. Edward's entire rule was mediated through a council of regency as he never reached maturity. The council was first led by his uncle, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset (1547–1549), and then by John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland (1549–1553).

Alternate proposed caption

Edward VI became King of England, King of France and Edward I of Ireland on 28 January 1547, and crowned on 20 February, at just nine years of age. Edward, the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, was the third monarch of the Tudor dynasty and England's first ruler who was Protestant at the time of his ascension to the throne. Edward's entire rule was mediated through a council of regency as he never reached maturity. The council was first led by his uncle, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset (1547–1549), and then by John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland until Edward's death, probably from pulmonary tuberculosis, aged 15 in 1553. This portrait depicts Edward as Prince of Wales, wearing a badge with the Prince of Wales's feathers, and was probably painted in 1546 when he was resident at Hunsdon House from May to June, as the house is shown through the open window. - PKM 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Edward VI, Edward VI of England, 1500-1550 in fashion Edward VI is a redirect. - PKM 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Creator

Unknown, but the copyright has almost certainly expired

Alternate creator

This painting was formerly attributed to Hans Eworth, but is likely by another artist of the Flemish School, perhaps William Scrots. -PKM 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nominator Hadseys 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I like the painting, however i just can't make myself support it, simply because i know a larger version exists somewhere and i feel it's currently not detailed enough to be a featured image. However, since it's above the minimum size according to the guidelines, i can't really oppose it either, and to be honest i don't want to do that as it is a high-quality picture. --Aqwis 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but if we ever get a larger copy that doesn't have other flaws, we should probably shift to that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The new scan is significantly better, but those strange lines and halftoning artifacts keep me from supporting. Resolution isn't the best, but fine. However, for the size, I want a bit more than what the jpeg artifacts and lines/spots, especially on the face, leave. thegreen J Are you green? 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the artefacts you mention are just part of the painting, it usually happens on even the best paintings, because the paintbrush doesn't go ver all of it or something. --Hadseys 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't really have a texture as I might expect from a painting; I think it's probably something to do with the scan/printing. A larger scan will tell more. thegreen J Are you green? 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I've asked PKM if she'd be willing to rescan it. Chick Bowen 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rescan: I can rescan at higher resolution, but maybe not before the weekend. What's the max size? 5MB? - PKM 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Something around that area, but it is possible to upload larger files. thegreen J Are you green? 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's actually 20MB, but the limiting factor is likely to be your internet connection. MER-C 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And if you're considering internet connections, please consider other people's and try to keep file sizes to something reasonable - I can't see why this needs to be more than 1 - 2MB. --jjron 08:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rescanned I have rescanned from the book at 600dpi (the largest native resolution on my scanner) and removed scanning artifacts. The new image is 2.67MB, and at this resolution we are picking up the screen from the printing process, so I think this is as large as makes sense. - PKM 16:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There are slight color fringes from the scanning process which can be removed by sampling this down to a smaller size, which would, IMHO, make the high res version more useful and pleasing - but you seem to want all the detail, so here it is. PKM 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hmmm, if I saw this in an art gallery it wouldn't draw me in - applying that to FPC would be an oppose. --jjron 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Presumably the argument here is that its value is historical rather than aesthetic. Chick Bowen 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And I would contend that 'historical value' is far too oversold on FPC as an excuse for not meeting other criteria. --jjron 06:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.247.123 (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hello 85.75.247.123, I'm glad to see you're interested in the FPC process - however I noticed that your only edits are here, and as such, your vote is likely to be disregarded (I quote "Note however that anonymous votes are generally disregarded"). If you wish to participate, I'd encourage the creation of an account. Cheers. --Mad Tinman 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha Pay it forward brother! de Bivort 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I most surely will xD Fast learner, hehehe --Mad Tinman 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support The size doesn't bother me, and the quality of being aesthetic is subjective; so opposing on the grounds of not being attractive is a little unfair IMO. -- Chris B • talk 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do I assume you're referring to my vote? It seems that people oppose images all the time for 'no wow factor' or its equivalent. Perhaps if I put my vote in those terms it would make more sense? --jjron 14:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support For the record, I think this image is gorgeous (but I spend a lot of time looking at 16th century paintings). It is historically interesting, as depicting the short-lived king of England as Prince of Wales (he wears a jewel with the Prince's badge of three ostrich plumes); it can be dated decisively (Hunsdon House appears in the distance; Edward lived there from May-July 1546); and it documents clothing cuts, textiles, furs, and embroidery of its period. It's also, in retrospect, heartbreaking - Edward died at the age of 15 in 1553. - PKM 16:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support on enc. grounds and technical quality. Perhaps work some of PKM's info above into the caption? --Malachirality 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:I've proposed alternate captions and creator messages with some of this info, above. Sorry if I didn't follow approved protocol on that; I've never participated in one of these before. The turquoise streak is in the photo I scanned, and is I think an artifact of a crack in the wooden panel on which this is painted (it's not on canvas). - PKM 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Edward VI of England c. 1546.jpg MER-C 03:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Engraving of trepanation by Peter Treveris for the 1525 book, "Handywarke of surgeri"

Original

Reason

It's crude, like most 16th century engravings, but damn me if it doesn't grab you and pull you in.

Proposed caption

1525 engraving by Peter Treveris, from the Handywarke of surgeri. Trepanation was the practice of drilling holes in the skull, for various reasons, some justified and others not. In 1525, when this engraving was made, there were no anaesthetics, so the best the unfortunate patient could hope for was passing out drunk. Nonetheless, the survival rate was quite high.

Articles this image appears in

Trepanation

Creator

Peter Treveris

• Support as nominator Vanished user ^talk 09:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• The book's caption needs to be cropped from the image. It would be better to have the original source, which may be of higher quality and contain more examples than the two presented in this book. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-30 14:20Z
  • Well, yes, but it's also a rare and no doubt extremely valuble manuscript from 1525. Also, to be honest, most of the late 15th/early 16th century engravings aren't particularly interesting as art: Of about a couple hundred or so examples, it was only these two and Image:John Bydell - Engraving from the Goodly Primer.png that really seemed to rise above the others in interest. All three of them are odd and grotesque - I wonder what that says about me? I don't object to cutting the caption, if you like, but I'm going to pass out for a bit now. Vanished user ^talk 14:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom--Mbz1 14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support and trim the book's caption. Does this need tilt correction? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support don't think it does need the tilt corrected, although the trim is essential in my opinion - I'll change my vote to full support once it's done. Cheers. --Mad Tinman 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Caption removed. Vanished user ^talk 18:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Now that that's handled, my vote was changed to support. --Mad Tinman 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nip/tuck, eh.--Svetovid 20:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good heavens. (Seriously though, I wonder what the reaction would be to having this on the main page...) -- Chris B • talk 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably something like this discussion. Thank goodness for the medical and content disclaimers. MER-C 04:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Perfect for the day. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Compelling - the image describes the procedure beyond what words can do. Royalbroil 11:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support and comment. Maybe a bit more should be cropped off the left so that it's consistent with the right. Spikebrennan 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Peter Treveris - engraving of Trepanation for Handywarke of surgeri 1525.png MER-C 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom Royal Coat of Arms

Original

Reason

Crisp, clear, informative, and all round great image.

Proposed caption

The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom is the official coat of arms of the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. These arms are used by the Queen in her official capacity as monarch, and are officially known as her Arms of Dominion. Variants of the Royal Arms are used by other members of the Royal Family; and by the British Government in connection with the administration and government of the country. In Scotland, the Queen has a separate version of the Royal Arms, a variant of which is used by the Scotland Office.

Articles this image appears in

Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom

Creator

Chabacano

• Support as nominator Hadseys 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• I added some links to the caption. Cheers. --84.90.46.116 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. I can't find much wrong with it (granted, I haven't looked very closely), but the rather two-dimensional SVG graphic just doesn't seem the right way to go for a royal coat of arms. A little uninspiring and non-majestic. Plus, the very faint unicorn on the right, esp. at thumbnail size, doesn't really fit composition-wise with the lion. --Malachirality 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I think it needs some shading on the animals, and a reassessment of some of the colours. This is something with a pretty ancient history, after all, but looks modern and bright. The shield is good. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is anyone in a position to verify how accurate this is (or how accurate these things should be)? Comparing it to the only version I could find on what should be the most reputable site, the official site of the British Monarchy (link to image page here), there are a number of minor differences. Is this variation OK, or is there a archetype that all others should be identical to? --jjron 07:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Some variation is allowed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose looks too clip arty to me. Also there are some sloppy aspects to the vector art, like the unicorn scale that has been made by scaling the same element, but has line thickness that decreases to nothing, instead of remaining constant. de Bivort 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Debivort. Upon seeing the link from Adam Cuerden, I just think this one pales in comparison. --Mad Tinman 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. ^8thstar 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Four-seam fastball by Chris Young

Four seam fastball delivery by Chris Young during pregame bullpen warmup.

Edit 1 - adjusted levels so that it's less washed-out; downsampled to reduce artifacts; slight rotate

Edit 3 by jjron - tilt adjustment, crop, sharpen, colour balance, noise reduction (note: replaced low res Edit2 sample version with this)

Reason

This shot captures a four-seam fastball with enough detail to see the seams on the baseball and the fingers during an action shot of a pitcher's delivery. It is rare level quality and detail on wikipedia to have such clarity of the seams and the fingers in an action shot of a top flight pitcher. Chris Young is an interesting subject because he is an up and coming pitcher who is the first Princeton University baseball player to start a Major League Baseball game since 1961. Since Wrigley Field is on the short list of favorite baseball stadiums (with Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park) the backdrop of the old fashioned scoreboard (note the scoreboard only has room for 24 teams even though baseball has expanded 3 times to 30 teams since the scoreboard was added) adds interesting context to the picture. Its old fashioned layout with open bullpens in foul territory (instead of enclosed as is more common) allowed me and the viewer to look on along with the bullpen coach.

Articles this image appears in

Chris Young (baseball pitcher)
Bullpen
Fastball
Starting pitcher
Pitcher
All-Star Final Vote
Four-seam fastball

Creator

User:TonyTheTiger

• Support as nominator — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A lengthy discussion on various contract issues regarding this photo (hidden by noinclude) has suggested that this photo is, indeed, OK for inclusion. Restarting candidacy. MER-C 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support With the copyright issues out of the way, this one's a no-brainer for me. SingCal 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Great detailed view of the delivery. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Detail on the fingers is excellent, relatively rare, and very illustrative. Chick Bowen 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Appears tilted. The composition is really the biggest problem in my eyes. There is too little space in the direction of dynamic movement (in front of chris young, the direction he is throwing) I'm not sure if a portrait orientation is best for this picture. The pitching coach in the background is distracting. A tighter crop would be nice. Also, although this could be overlooked if the other aspects were addressed, I'd prefer to have the picture taken during the game. Maybe that prevents use b/c of copyright but it'd be nice. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Still oppose, the cropping helped but unfortunately the aspect ratio is too tall and skinny for this type of shot. I didn't suggest cropping or add my own edit because I thought (and still think) there isn't enough space on the left. Its a good shot by all means, I the composition just isn't there for my. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • You'd need a heck of a lens to get that much detail during the game. A bullpen shot is actually better for this purpose (showing the grip on the ball). Chick Bowen 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added a low-res edit (Edit 2) with a tilt correction (based on the flagpole being vertical, but I may have gone just a little too far) and a crop (agree with Fcb981's comments re the composition, coach, etc, so have tried to fix this with the crop). This is for discussion only rather than voting. --jjron 12:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The composition of Edit 2 is much better. It doesn't appear to me that you went to far in the tilt correction, but it's hard to tell. I would support a full-res version of edit 2. --Malachirality 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I too would support full res of edit 2. And we need to have a caption too. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I hesitated about running a full-res version of Edit2 as the original here has already been reduced a bit, so didn't know how it would handle it the crop and resave. I can have a try, but it would probably be better if TonyTheTiger did it off the real original. --jjron 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit3 uploaded; I have removed the low-res Edit2 and replaced it with a full-res Edit3. Link to Edit2 here.

• Oppose I was just going to abstain here, but I've read over the original objections and I'm not really happy on a couple of points. The original image always seemed to me to be beyond redemption on composition, sharpness and enc grounds. I like jjron's edit but it's really only addressed one of those issues. I also don't understand how the copyright issue is suddenly "out of the way". Did I miss the part where permission was granted, or have we just decided to "publish and be damned"? All told, I can't help thinking it's a lot of struggle for a rather flawed image of doubtful legality, so I have to oppose. --mikaul^talk 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment glad to see debate resume. I am also grateful that this was cropped in a way that does not affect any of the linked articles. Since this was a 12:05 game the clock is important for starting pitcher and the bullpen is obviously important for bullpen. I would just remind you that this is the best unposed picture of a Four seam fastball on WP. Bases on the first sentence at WP:FPC ("Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article."), this is a great shot for its instructive value. I am not a photographer and appreciate all the editorial assistance in making corrections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. I don't know much about contrast and tint and such, but as a casual observer, I think the grass' green and the sky's blue looked better in edit 1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Original & Edit 1, Weak Neutral Edit 3. Bad tilt and composition issues on opposed versions. Even with my edit that helps with these problems, I just can't really support Edit 3 on quality grounds. Re encyclopaedic value, I think it's best use is for the Chris Young article and probably 'pitcher' - a fair bit of discussion has gone on re the Four seam fastball value, but to me that's not that great as you can only see the fingers at full size (which not that many users do), and then it's all pretty fuzzy. So it does have value and is a fine image, but just not quite there for me. --jjron 08:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg MER-C 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New solar systems in a making

Original

File:Mira the star-by Nasa.jpg

Original down-sampled

Original down-sampled, cropped and corrected orientation

Edit 3 Original recropped to remove an unrelated star that could be confused with having something to do with Mira, which it does not.

Reason

Just think about this! We are witnessing the birth of new solar systems! A great educational image of a wonderful star. Btw Mira is named after the Latin word for "wonderful" .

Proposed caption

Mira A is a red giant variable star in the constellation Cetus. This ultraviolet-wavelength image mosaic, taken by NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer, shows a comet-like "tail" stretching 13 Light-years across space. The "tail" consists of hydrogen gas blown off of the star, with the material at the furthest end of the "tail" having been emitted about 30,000 years ago. The tail-like configuration of the emitted material appears to result from Mira's uncommonly high speed relative to the Milky Way galaxy's ambient gas-- about 130 kilometers per second.Mira itself is seen as a small white dot inside a blue bulb. You could also see many stars and galaxies at the image. Please click for more images and information http://www.galex.caltech.edu/MEDIA/2007-04/images.html

Articles this image appears in

Mira

Creator

NASA

• Support edit 3 as nominator Mbz1 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Why display this photograph vertically? Displaying it horizontally might make it easier to put it in articles. Caption needs work too. Spikebrennan 00:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. When I first saw the picture at NASA site, it was horizontal. I'm not sure why the original uploader has changed the orientation. I just down sampled his image. Anyway I've changed it again and it is horizontal now. Could you, please, give me some hints about the caption. Thank you. --Mbz1 01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, how about the following (add links to taste):

"Mira is a red giant star in the constellation Cetus. This ultraviolet-wavelength image mosaic, taken by NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer, shows a comet-like "tail" stretching 13 light-years across space. The "tail" consists of hydrogen gas blown off of the star, with the material at the furthest end of the "tail" having been emitted about 30,000 years ago. The tail-like configuration of the emitted material appears to result from Mira's uncommonly high speed relative to the Milky Way galaxy's ambient gas-- about 130 kilometers per second." (a lot of this caption is nicked from here). The more I read, the more I realize that this star is a pretty weird and unique object. Spikebrennan 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the caption and she is an amazing star. I still left something from my original caption. In my opinion it is important to stress that Mira is a variable star. If you see problems with my English, please, correct them. Thank you.--Mbz1 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. What's with the black triangle sticking in the side? Unschool 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The image is a mosaic. Sometimes it misses a part for some reason. All images of the tail I've seen have it. I'll try to contact somebody from NASA to ask how it came about.--Mbz1 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't bother writing NASA - the triangle is from the mosaic. de Bivort 05:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support downsampled, rotated version Edit 3 - I don't like the smoothing - I would rather have a noisy 3k x 700px image that could be further downsampled than a filtered image like this one. tsk NASA. That said, very enc. de Bivort 05:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Original version (10.1 MB tiff), see also http://www.galex.caltech.edu/MEDIA/2007-04/images.html. MER-C 09:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the link. Should we use the original tiff image? In any case I'm adding the link to the caption.--Mbz1 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The way the image is in the article isn't the best right now, could someone do something about it? It just seems to not fit in there so well - otherwise great image. --84.90.46.116 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment. I believe we'll see, if any image gets promoted and change the article later. If none gets promoted, I'll probably post horizontal version there.--Mbz1 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Cool, thanks for addressing my concern - much appreciated. --84.90.46.116 20:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very grainy and nasty looking, just not impressive sorry --ffroth 03:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to be sorry about. It is me, who should be sorry that I could not find the right words to explain how impressive, unique and encyclopedic the imafe is.--Mbz1 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support (Edit 3) Very cool. Double check the orientation of the horizontal; on the Caltech website] the image goes the other way around. Double check the punctuation on the caption, I'm not sure whether that needs to be an emdash or how to code that in markup. Always insert a space after a Full stop. The caltech website also mentions that "It dims and brightens by a factor of 1,500 every 332 days, and will become bright enough to see with the naked eye in mid-November 2007." So we can keep an eye out for it! The caltech website has a few other images of Myra, including a UV and Visible comparison, which is interesting. Consider cropping the image so that the unrelated star (again see the caltech website for explanation) is out of the way, because it is confusing, and is not related to Myra at all. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've cropped the image a little bit, I've changed the orientation to correct one. To tell you the truth I do not feel comfortable changing NASA images. I just hope, that, if the image is to pass, people, who are interested in the subject would click at the original images links.

I had a different strategy in mind for the cropping. OK to leave the background stars, but the large bright star in the image has nothing to do with Mira but could be confused as being part of it. This star has nothing to do with Mira, so it shouldn't compete for viewer attention. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jeff, you are right, sometimes you could see Mira with a naked eye as I did last year . Of course it looks just as another star in the sky, but when you'd think about the magnificent tail, I hope you will not get disappointed. Thank you.

84.90.46.116, I've changed lay out of the article. Do you believe it is better now? Thank you.--Mbz1 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although it's not one of my favourite pictures of our universe, it is a very encylopaedic and unique picture with acceptable quality. --Aqwis 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 3, this kind of picture needs to be accurate - removing or adding anything from it makes it less accurate. --Aqwis 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In this case I feel cropping actually makes the image more accurate, since Mira is not composed of two stars. Of course, keeping background stars are totally fine because they wouldn't be confused with Mira, but the original image gives the wrong idea about this celestial object. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You're very right - for some reason i thought the star had been cloned out of the image. I'll change my vote then. --Aqwis 13:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I've changed my vote too. Thank you, Jeff.--Mbz1 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, which version? Please reference a specific version in your supports. MER-C 06:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 3]]] Spikebrennan 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like the last edit by Jeff has more supports. --Mbz1 13:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The concept behind the picture is certainly impressive, but IMO the picture itself is much less so. The picture is uninformative--just a blur of dots--and there is no sense of scale or size. Are the dots stars? galaxies? dust particles? I think even looking closely, this picture could be mistaken for a comet, and for me, that makes it unenc. And why is there a triangle of completely blank darkness on the lower left edge? The dark triangle on the lower left edge is also a minor problem for me. --Malachirality 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mira the star-by Nasa alt crop.jpg MER-C 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Majestic Seal of the Realm of Wladislaus II of Poland (16th century copy).jpg

PlayStation 3

Original

Reason

It significantly contributes to the article by illustrating what a PS3 is an is an excellent SVG.

Proposed caption

Sony Corporation's 7th Generation game console, the PlayStation 3.

Articles this image appears in

Playstation 3

Creator

User:Ssolberg

• Support as nominator -KULSHRAX 22:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - no sense of scale or perspective. Also this SVG renders terribly in my browser. What a fragile format. de Bivort 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's... Not very interesting. ^8thstar 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Bivort. This was terrible loading up, and, as 8thstar says, it's boring. Unschool 03:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not really sure why you wouldn't do a standard photo in jpg for this. And to illustrate something like this fully I think you'd want to include accessories like the controllers (but I don't think 'boring' comments are necessary). --jjron 08:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see anything special in this image.--Mbz1 13:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per debivort. It looks really odd in full size. Also, isn't there some copyright issue with this image? I mean, it's the design of the Playstation 3 and it's logo is there, so... Cheers. --Mad Tinman 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, as far as I can tell this is a derivative work of Sony's case design, and therefore has exactly the same copyright restrictions that a photo of the same object would have. The artist is able to disclaim his own copyright in the creative depiction of the object, but not Sony's copyright in the design that he has copied. That means, I think, that this image is fair use, and needs to be taken out of the non-article pages that it's currently used in. It's a shame, because clearly a lot of work has gone into it with the hope of ending up with a copyright-free PS3 picture; but actually I think that this has just the same restrictions that a photo would have. IANAL, of course, and others may have other thoughts. TSP 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • A case design can be patented (see design patent), but not copyrighted, because it's primarily useful and not artistic. The logo is a trademark issue and not a copyright issue because it's not original enough to be copyrightable. Since wikipedia isn't trying to manufacture an identical case or pass itself off as sony, neither is an issue. That said, I don't think the image is interesting enough to feature. Calliopejen1 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, a good photography of the subject would've been more useful. Mad Tinman has a point too. --Aqwis 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Rather an odd picture. Not very interesting. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - takes SVG-use fanaticism to the extreme, there's no point in using vectors for a shot like this. Can't tell it from a photo at thumbnail size, on the image page the attempt at reflections near the DVD drive look strange, and at full size the nice gradient on the left side suddenly turns into a series of overlapping ovals... bad rendering there. Also perspective problems. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dies in firefox- no gradients and is like .5 frames per second scrolling around --ffroth 23:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I see that now. When I nominated the picture, I did so in Opera, where it rendered fine. I suppose this is because of only partial support for SVG in the Gecko rendering engine, which I'm sure will come with time, but yes, it does die in Firefox.-KULSHRAX 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way, Zodiacal Light, Venus, Orionid and stars

Original

Reason

It is a remarkable image, which shows a night sky photographed in relatively dark place. The image has encyclopedic and educational value. It shows many interesting things like meteor, Milky way, Zodiacal Light. Even well known Venus is interesting to compare to other objects in the night sky to see how bright she is.

Proposed caption

Every October the Earth is orbiting through a stream of dust from Halley's Comet, the source of the annual Orionids meteor shower. Orionids got its name because the radiant, the point where meteors appear to originate from, located in the constellation Orion. At the image you could see Milky Way - our home galaxy, Zodiacal light - a faint glow, which appears after evening and before morning twilight, and of course the Meteor trail. The bright star just above the horizon is actually planet Venus. Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon.

Articles this image appears in

Orionids

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I know the image is very, very noisy. I used ISO 1600 otherwise it is hard to capture a meteor with a 8 mm fisheye lens and aperture 3.5. I wish you could see beyond the noise. It was an incredible night filled with the stars and meteors. Special note to Mick: you would see that the image was posted to the article today (the nomination with short legs?) Not exactly. First of all today I simply replaced my own image with my own image. Second of all looks like almost all meteors pictures (not only Orionids) were uploaded by me. I know the image would probably get opposed, but, if while it is nominated, at least one person would learn something new, my work for creating the nomination will not be lost. Thank you.--Mbz1 03:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is it just me or is this awfully over-exposed for Astronomical photo? If you had used like ISO400 in RAW mode and played with curves a bit it would look a lot better. Also I don't get what you're trying to do in here. It's sunset/dawn and the sky is bright, so there's absolutely no point of going to a dark place to shoot this. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The zodiacal light isn't going to be visible except from a dark site. I think a lot of the "overexposure" you're seeing is the Milky Way and the zodiacal light, which are important components of the photograph. -- Coneslayer 11:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for the comments,Antilived and thank you very much for doing my work for me,Coneslayer . I should have explained myself how one takes image of meteors: Of course one goes to the darkest place one could find because not only Milky Way and Zodiacal Lights, but also most meteors would get lost in light polluted places. The low horizon would also help because many Orionids flaying low. Then one opens a shutter, looks at the sky and waits until a meteor flies by. As soon as meteor does, one closes the shutter. That's why all my images of meteors look different. This one, for example is much darker than the nominated one simply because a meteor has flown in 7- 10 seconds after I opened the shutter. Of course neither Milky Way nor Zodiacal Lights are seen at the image - only bright stars and a meteor. If I used ISO 400, I would not have been able to capture the meteor at the nominated image. I know I tried! Please see how much dimer the meteor is comparing to other objects in the sky.I'd like to add that for photographing Milky Way and Zodiacal Lights I could have used much lower ISO with the longer exposure time. This technique does not work with meteors. One cannot take a time exposure of a meteor. Meteor's flight takes a split of a second and then you capture one on film or you do not.I do have a raw file, but I'm not photo shop specialist. I have no idea how to work with the curves. If anybody wants to try, I could e-mail the image. Thank you.
  • No I mean using exact same aperture and shutter speed, but using ISO400 or ISO800 speed (ie. a stop or 2 darker). Compare your picture to Image:Cantin1.jpg and you can see that the sky is actually dark, instead of bled through like in yours. Stars are mostly 1 or 2 pixel in diameter but if you overexpose it the light will bleed through, creating fuzz around the star and look rather bad. Usually I purposely under-expose them, preserving some colour information, and push it up later in curves instead. I agree that it's hard to capture meteors but maybe you're just in the wrong place at the wrong time, getting the milky way in the background of meteor showers instead of some nice relatively empty spaces. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The thing is that in astro photography post processing of the image is almost as important as the taking of the image. If I were taking pictures of Milky Way or Zodiacal Lights only, I could have taken few short exposures and then stack images together in photo shop. I cannot stack images with meteors. As I explained I waited for a meteor to fly by before closing my shutter. In the nominated image exposure time was about 40 second or so. Of course it is overexposed yet you still could see well all the subjects of the image. If you go to Orionids article and take a look at the other my pictures, you would see that they all have different colors because the exposure time was very different. Some of them are very dark and still show a meteor, but IMO the nominated image is more interesting because it shows Milky way, Zodiacal Light, Venus and Orionid in relation to each other. Of course the image is very far from perfect and even more far from FP quality standards, yet IMO the image has high encyclopedic and educational value that may mitigate technical problems. Once I've read in Commons FP criteria something like this: "A bad image of a difficult subject is s better image than a good image of an ordinary subject." Have I been in a wrong place at the wrong time? No. I probably was in the best place at the best time. I saw dozens of meteors. I could have turned my camera away from Milky Way and Zodiacal lights and still capture meteors, but I did not want to do it in purpose. It was an amazing scene - zodiacal lights touching Milky Way and I wanted to capture it on film. Thank you again,Antilived, for your comment and your interest in the image. Please feel absolutely free to oppose the image. It is overexposed and it is very noisy.--Mbz1 13:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It depends on your perspective really, if the subject is simply the meteoroids then I would want to get a relatively empty background instead of having the milky way in just for the sake of it. It's like inside a church and you want to get both the dark sculptures and the stained glass windows, except you only get 1 shot instead of many to make HDR. However if it's not necessary, 2 separate photos of the subjects separated would be better/easier than trying to get everything in. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Is that huge, bright, round splotch in the lower edge really Venus? Looks like the moon... ;-) There are serious technical flaws in this picture, so I can't support - even though it's a nice shot, showing a lot at once. --Janke | Talk 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a good point about Venus looking as the Moon. The thing is that, if the Moon (even half Moon) were present at that time, it would have been much, much harder to capture Milky Way, Zodiacal Light and a meteor because the Moon gives too much light. Even most stars would have been lost. The Moon set before the image was taken. Thank you for the vote, Janke.--Mbz1 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, sorry, but the technical quality is far too low, even for a picture like this. --Aqwis 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to be sorry about. Thank you for the vote.--Mbz1 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Coombs test

Original

Reason

This is a very high quality image. Very informative and educational. Meets all the requirements needed to become a featured picture.

Proposed caption

Coombs test (also known as Coombs' test, antiglobulin test or AGT) refers to two clinical blood tests used in immunohematology and immunology. These tests are the Direct Coombs test (also known as direct antiglobulin test or DAT) and Indirect Coombs test (also known as indirect antiglobulin test or IAT). The direct Coombs test is used to detect red blood cells sensitized with igG alloantibody, IgG autoantibody, and complement proteins. It detects antibodies bound to the surface of red blood cells in vivo. The red blood cells (RBCs) are washed (removing the patient's own plasma) and then incubated with antihuman globulin (also known as "Coombs reagent"). If this produces agglutination of the RBCs, the direct Coombs test is positive. The indirect Coombs test is used in prenatal testing of pregnant women, and in testing blood prior to a blood transfusion. It detects antibodies against RBCs that are present unbound in the patient's serum. In this case, serum is extracted from the blood, and the serum is incubated with RBCs of known antigenicity. If agglutination occurs, the indirect Coombs test is positive.

Articles this image appears in

Coombs test

Creator

A. Rad

• Support as nominator ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can't get behind schematics in a bitmap format. Even in cases where the SVG rendering isn't great, we should at least have it available to base PNG exports on. It's very wasteful to create a wonderful diagram like this one in an editable vector format, and then throw all that away by only keeping the PNG on Wikipedia. I see a note on this image's page saying that the author can't do SVG exports. I'd be happy to help in converting the Xara X format to SVG, and then I'd support this nom. --Sean 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you contact him and ask about that?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Someone has contacted him/her on the talk page. --Sean 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi all, and thanks for the nomination. Unfortunately, X1 indeed can't export to SVG. Xtreme, which is thet latest version of this program can, but the export filter is still underdeveloped according to the developers. Another problem is that SVG (AFAIK) can't handle objects that have blurred edges, like the shadows in this drawing and some of the highlights on the RBCs. I'm happy to help converting this image to SVG. I'll install the trial of Xtreme and see what the SVG export looks like. Sean, thanks for offering your help. I've uploaded the native .xar file here. Xtreme can also do PDF exports, which is reported to be very good according to its users. Maybe a better alternative would be to convert the PDF to SVG. But I don't know whether we'd still suffer the same problems as I mentioned above (with blurred objects). Greets, A. Rad 08:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi A. Rad, thanks for chiming in, and for the excellent drawing! I tried XaraLX but was not able to get it converted, so I'm withdrawing my opposition. --Sean 12:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Hey Sean, yeah I tried Xtreme too now, but the SVG was completely bitmap. On the other hand, the PDF looked very good IMO (here). Maybe converting the PDF to SVG would give better results. I don't have any software that can do this though. According to this, only CorelDraw and AI can import pdf and export to svg. Maybe someone who has them can give it a shot. It could give a better result. Greets, A. Rad 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, i'm not too concerned about the picture being PNG and not SVG. However, an expert on the subject will have to confirm the accuracy of the image before i can support it. --Aqwis 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It really depends on your definition of "expert" :) When I made the very early version of this pic, User:Snowmanradio gave me a lot of feedback on it. And, at the same time, he (or she) also contributed a lot on the Coombs test article. You can find those discussions on my talk page and the article's. I'm a med student, so not really an expert. You could ask Snowman about his background. I'm open to all feedback from experts ;) For the record, I'm in favour of having this diagram checked by an expert and I've once posted on WikiProject Clinical medicine asking for this, but the responses were a bit limited. BTW, I've now added Snowman to the image's description page. Greets, A. Rad 08:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. MER-C 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not promoted —Julia\^talk 18:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sleeping Mallard Ducklings

Original

Reason

The image adds the value to the article, by illustrating the habits of sleeping ducks. IMO it is also interesting that such small ducklings already know what is the safest way to sleep.

Proposed caption

Sleeping Mallard Ducklings( Anas platyrhynchos). The ducks usually sleep with their head turned around backwards and nestled into their feathers, to keep their unfeathered bill warm. They also have a habit of sleeping in a line where the ducks on the ends sleep with one eye open, watching for predators. At the image you could see that the duckling at the right has his eye at least half opened.

Articles this image appears in

Mallard

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 13:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to lack of DOF - there really isn't focus anywhere except on some wet breast feather of the central duckling and the front of the stone. Appears that the focus point should have been set further away. Cute pic, though. --Janke | Talk 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Even the half opened eye of the right duckling is out of focus? --Mbz1 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That emot was always the creepiest one. *shudder* --ffroth 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Janke. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per above points. --Sharkface217 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Army Sniper Team

Original

Reason

I have two main reasons for nominating this image: 1) It dispels the myth that army snipers move to the ragged edge of a window or door to snipe, as you can plainly see in this photograph, the sniper's back is up against the wall; and 2) this shows a sniper with an observe in tow, which is usually not the case when photographed off the battlefield. Observers are frequently assigned to sniper when out in the field, but not when the sniper is shooting at dummy targets (like on a firing range). Togather, these two reasons create a unique image that I feel deserves to be featured.

Proposed caption

A U.S. Army sniper team from Jalalabad Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) scans the horizon after reports of suspicious activity along the hilltops near Dur Baba, Afghanistan, Oct. 19, 2006, after a medical civic action project was conducted by the Jalalabad Provincial Reconstruction Team and the Cooperative Medical Assistance team.

Articles this image appears in

Sniper, M24 Sniper Weapon System

Creator

U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Bertha Flores

• Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 07:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• The sunlight from the window and its reflection off the floor are blown out and distract focus from the subject. MER-C 08:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, if somebody could do something about this reflection, the image will look better, but I stil Support it even the way it is.--Mbz1 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, while war pictures are always needed, this picture, with its not very interesting subject and low technical quality, is not some of Wikipedia's best work. --Aqwis 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Interesting composition and subject matter, but the blown sunlight is just too distracting. SingCal 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting composition and subject matter, but too blurry. Spikebrennan 16:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The content is suffuciently compelling that it makes the technical nit about the burned-out window unimportant by comparison. -- The Anome 19:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not just the blown window; per MER-C, there is also a large reflection on the floor. Together, the two occupy a large and central part of the picture and make it very difficult to look at. Not among wikipedia's best work. --Malachirality 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to fox the problems, or is the image beyond all hope? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Blown highlights are, by definition, unrecoverable. You can try to cover them up, but that's about it. There's nothing we can do about the window. MER-C 02:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Aside from the huge blown sunlight areas, the main subject -- the sniper and his gun -- are just out of focus. It's a striking image in some ways and is not without encyclopedic utility but we need greater technical quality for featured. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have to agree. The main subjects of the image (the soldiers) are completely out of focus. The window is very distracting. If it weren't for that I would have supported Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Focus issues, sunlight hindrance, questionable quality, etc. --Sharkface217 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mask of Sorrow

Original

Reason

Startling image, impressive composition, a great deal of history connected to the reasons for the monument, no glaring technical errors and seems to fulfill all the criteria.

Proposed caption

The Mask of Sorrow is a monument located in Magadan, Russia built as a tribute to the prisoners of the Soviet Union who died in the Soviet Gulags. The monument was designed by famed sculptor Ernst Neizvestny whose parents died during the Great Purge orchestrated by Josef Stalin.

Articles this image appears in

Mask of Sorrow, Kolyma, Soviet political repressions, Dalstroy, Sevvostlag, History of the Eastern Orthodox Church

Creator

User:Jnd02

• Support as nominator –– Lid^(Talk) 10:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The photo is a derivative work of the sculpture. The sculptor appears to be still living; in any case, the sculpture dates to 1996: it is copyrighted. Do we have the sculptor's consent to publish this image under a free license? Lupo 12:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Not promoted

Copyright violation. See commons:COM:FOP#Commonwealth of Independent States, which states that photos of statues and sculptures may only be used for non-commercial purposes if such sculpture is the main subject of the photo. I've listed this image on WP:PUI. MER-C 12:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital cameras

Original

Reason

A fun rear view of what people do... including myself!

Proposed caption

Just a comment on human nature andf the age of digital cameras...

Articles this image appears in

links to the articles that use this image

Creator

Tomas Castelazo

• Support as nominator tomascastelazo 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's not used in any articles... tiZom_(2¢) 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose this might be fine for nomination at commons, but at wikipedia FPs have to be encyclopedic. There's nothing encyclopedic about this picture. Try submitting a nice high-res closeup of a single digital camera --ffroth 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• speedy close ineligible - not in any articles. de Bivort 20:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• speedy close - Yeah... ^8thstar 20:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Got it.. withdraw nomination --tomascastelazo 22:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Not promoted

Crippler Crossface

Original

Reason

The image is of a high quality. It is an intense move that is eye catching to the viewer. The key aspects of the move (arm between the legs and locked hands pulling on the head) are clearly visible, and the victim appears read to "tap out". Image was naturally well lit. Benoit himself is notable due to the nature of his death.

Proposed caption

Chris Benoit, the then-United States Champion, locking in the infamous Crippler Crossface on Montel Vontavious Porter at a Smackdown live event.

Articles this image appears in

Chris Benoit
Professional wrestling holds#Crossface

Creator

Myself

• Support as nominator Mshake3 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In case you're wondering, No, I won't be submitting hundreds of wrestling pics for nomination. This is pretty much it as far as high end quality. Mshake3 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There's an enormous rope in front of the most important part of the subject. --Sean 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. --Janke | Talk 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sean. Sorry, it's too much. SingCal 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Gah, so close. Oh well. Mshake3 02:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, only because of the rope. Spikebrennan 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per rope. --Sharkface217 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support clear picture showing the move the rope does not interfere much --Wally787 02:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good quality picture. The ring rope does not obscure the key features of the move (arm trap and locked hands), and only obscures Chris Benoit's face. Bingo182 —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hereford Calf

Original

Edit 1 by Fir0002

Edit 2 by Fir0002, lighter version of above

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Reason

Clear, well composed portrait style shot of a hereford calf prior to any marking, tagging, etc. Nice detail in key features of the animal. Compares well to currently featured animal 'portrait' shots.

Proposed caption

Hereford cattle (Bos taurus) are a widely used breed in temperate areas, mainly for beef production. Originally from Herefordshire, England, they are found in the temperate parts of Australia, the Southwestern US, Argentina, Uruguay and New Zealand. This image shows an unmarked hereford calf, the offspring of a cow and a bull.

Articles this image appears in

Calf
Hereford (cattle)

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator jjron 07:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Needs more cowbell. MER-C 11:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Lol! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support either--Mbz1 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1, very sharp and detailed image. It's not as good for an encyclopaedia as it could be, though, because of the lack of DOF. The original is underexposed and dull, while edit 2 is overexposed. --Aqwis 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question Edit 1 does wonders for saturation and warmth but I can't help feeling all versions are little tight-cropped at the bottom. Is this full-frame or could it be opened up a bit? --mikaul^talk 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's basically full frame. I have added two more alternatives that have more 'room'; I thought the original was probably the best, but others may prefer one of the alts. --jjron 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 or Edit 2 --Sharkface217 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Hereford Calf Portrait, SC, Vic, 13.10.2007 edit.jpg MER-C 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Araucaria Fossil

Original

Original 2

Reason

This was previously nominated about a month ago, receiving only one oppose. There were some issues with the nom (multiple images, all suffering minor problems) - the upshot was I offered to do an edit, but the nom was closed 'not promoted' before I got time to do so. This is my edited version with a number of the flaws in the originals corrected. Seems highly encyclopaedic showing both the outside of the cone and a cross-section, and to me is attractive and interesting, with now quite reasonable technical quality. Please vote support or oppose, but can we get a clear decision on this?

Proposed caption

Araucaria is a genus of evergreen coniferous trees in the family Araucariaceae. There are 19 species in the genus, with a highly disjunct distribution. The araucaria are living fossils, dating back to early in the Mesozoic age. This image shows the petrified cones of Araucaria sp. from Patagonia, Argentina dating from the Jurassic Period (approx. 210 mya).

Articles this image appears in

Araucaria
Fossil

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator jjron 05:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A bit blurry in full; I guess this could benefit from downsampling. Spikebrennan 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support either It looks fine to me.--Mbz1 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Despite the editing the quality is still too poor for FP IMO --Fir0002 02:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fir0002. If it was shot on film I'd suggest rescanning, as most of the really interesting detail seems to have been lost somewhere. --mikaul^talk 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your votes, Fir0002 and Mikaul. It is a digital shot and I still have the fossil, the only thing I do not have now is the Sun (foggy for almost a week with no end in sight). Maybe I still try to reshot it somehow.--Mbz1 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fir. de Bivort 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Quality is questionable, although image is highly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, pictures of this type have to be of almost perfect quality to be featured, and this one isn't; the sharpness and lighting is too poor. --Aqwis 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Beth Phoenix

Originally proposed image, which was cropped and reduced in size

Original

Reason

It is an excellent image of Beth Phoenix, a professional wrestler, at a live WWE event. The image clearly identifies the subject, and her on the turnbuckle accurately represents her character as it is a trademark part of her ring entrance.

Proposed caption

WWE Diva Beth Phoenix on the corner turnbuckle at the WWE No Mercy 2007 pay-per-view event before her match for the WWE Women's Championship against Candice Michelle.

Articles this image appears in

Beth Phoenix

Creator

Myself

• Support as nominator Mshake3 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - An expertly taken picture. Gavyn Sykes 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Well taken, but on the verge of being too small to be eligible. With a weak point like that the composition's gotta be remarkable, and while it's good it doesn't grab me like an FP should. SingCal 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Noisy. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's sort of an interesting pose, except for the post between her legs, and the feet cut off, and she isn't doing any "wrestly" things (unless you count the post) -- so it's less WP:ENC. It's just barely large enough and it is a little noisy. Maybe if it were larger and sharper and more complete ... --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It was cropped and reduced in size a bit, so maybe I can just upload the original, although that would bring into view the ring announcer and a referee (but then she'll have legs again!). Mshake3 05:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I rather like it, and don't have an 'enc' problem with her not doing 'wrestly' things - I mean this is a 'wrestly' thing as part of her ring entrance, it's not like it's just a shot of her backstage or up the street or something. Having said that it is all cropped rather too tight, including the missing feet. Please do upload a less cropped version - if it shows the ring announcer, etc, that may not be an issue (depending on whether or not they spoil the photo) as that is also part of the ring entrance. The other problem I see is that it is very soft, I wonder if the focus wasn't just slightly off, or at 1/30s, quite likely motion blur given that it seems to mainly be a problem around her head. --jjron 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Are you sure you can release this photo (and the others you've taken) under a free license? Events like this typically restrict commercial photography. Check the back of the ticket for the details. (See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG for a similar case). MER-C 06:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on what I read down there, the issue was resolved, which is what I was waiting for before nominating my photo. If you still believe it's an issue, then fair enough. Mshake3 14:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original file, which was rotated and nothing more. Mshake3 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just not striking- for someone famous for doing something she's not actually doing it --ffroth 19:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well it's currently an infobox image, so that's why she's not really doing anything. Now the general opinion here is that a wrestler should be doing something for the photo to be notable. Mshake3 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I just think she should be doing something for the picture to be featured. As is, it's not very interesting except as illustration for the article on her. An FP needs something above and beyond the ordinary and I don't find it here. --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I find these opposes based on her not doing anything or not wrestling rather biased. Looking through the People FPs, very few of them are 'doing' what they're famous for. Politicians aren't politicking, actors aren't acting, etc - most are just standard portrait shots. By all means oppose the picture based on its merits, but that she's not in the midst of action is not a valid reason (unless you want to put all the others up for delist). --jjron 05:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Well yeah but they're just generic famous people; she's a famous wrestler- few would even recognize her if she's not in wrestling context --ffroth 06:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
          • And is sitting on the top turnbuckle, in a wrestling ring, clearly during a wrestling event, not a wrestling context? (Look, I'll grant she's no really big name star, and on technical grounds I don't think this is quite there, but this picture does give her context.) --jjron 08:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Well it gives the context of wrestling as a noun sure, but she's known for actually wrestling and IMO for such a small-time star that extra element of enc is critical --ffroth 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not dynamic enough for a 'sports' picture, Not well enough composed for a portrait (looking up at subject, poor lighting, ect.) -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 12:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to composition. The placement of that corner pole is unfortunate. Spikebrennan 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose simply for technical shortcomings; as far as the pose and positioning go, I think they're entirely appropriate for the subject. Matt Deres 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Pole is distracting. --Sharkface217 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

La Catrina

Original

Reason

Great picture!

Proposed caption

La Catrina – In Mexican folk culture, the Catrina, popularized by Jose Guadalupe Posada, is the skeleton of a high society woman and one of the most popular figures of the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico.

Articles this image appears in

Day of the Dead, Catrina

Creator

Tomascastelazo

• Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support very intriguing image! nice DOF. de Bivort 18:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice!--Mbz1 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Eyecatching, sharp, good "wow". --Janke | Talk 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Now that's one hell of a picture ! Cheers. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support high quality picture of an interesting subject, lots of enyclopaedic value. --Aqwis 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are the sculptures depicted here protected by copyright? How large are these sculptures? Spikebrennan 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The description in the image summary says they are about 38cm (15in) tall (does anyone read these things?). I'm not sure what the copyright concerns would be - could you elaborate? --jjron 06:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 2-dimensional photographs of 3-dimensional objects, such as sculptures, are never under the same copyright as that of the sculpture (unless the sculptor photographs his own work). If that weren't the case, we would have to delist several dozen photos from Featured. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-03 17:17Z
    • Sorry, but I don't think that's right. A 2D photo of a 3D sculpture is a derivative work of the sculpture. The sculptor has the exclusive right to authorize derivatives of his work. A photo of a copyrighted sculpture can thus be published only with the consent of the owner of the copyright on the sculpture. So, are these figurines copyrighted? If so, did the creator consent to the photos being published under a free license? Lupo 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I get the impression - and I could be entirely wrong - that these are simply the type of thing that you would just purchase pretty cheaply at a local market or something, and thus would not have a named sculptor or anything like that. If that is the case, how do you deal with the copyright concerns you raise? Brian makes a good point about photos of other sculptures too; it's my experience that most public sculptures make no mention of copyright on or about them - do we take that as meaning that since we're not told otherwise it's fine to freely photograph them and publish that work? --jjron 06:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I have the same understanding, that these are folk art that are widely available in Mexico, perhaps not always of this quality of workmanship but often close. I've seen some cool things people have brought back. I guess it would help if the creator could give us some context for the photo. If this was any kind of formal exhibit, e.g. with named artists, perhaps a contest, I would consider the copyright issues to have merit. If it's just a local/communal display, perhaps even product for sale, I'm less concerned, even though in principle it's the same issue. --Dhartung | Talk 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support, provided the copyright is worked out. (I was thinking the exact same thing as Spikebrennan but it's such a great shot I was going to feign ignorance and vote support unconditionally until I saw his comment...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 2-dimensional photographs of 3-dimensional objects, such as sculptures, are never under the same copyright as that of the sculpture (unless the sculptor photographs his own work). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-03 17:17Z
    • Disagree. See above. Lupo 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, one of the best FPC's I've seen in a while... tiZom_(2¢) 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support per Spikebrennan. Copyright must be worked out, and would be nice to give a sense of scale in the caption.--HereToHelp 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 2-dimensional photographs of 3-dimensional objects, such as sculptures, are never under the same copyright as that of the sculpture (unless the sculptor photographs his own work). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-03 17:17Z
    • Disagree. See above. Lupo 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, Brian, if what you're saying is that if a sculpture is protected by copyright then a photograph of that sculpture can conceivably be an infringement of the copyright, then I agree. I had posted some photographs of Cloud Gate (a public sculpture in Chicago) and they were removed from Wikipedia for this reason. Spikebrennan 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Commons candidacy. MER-C 02:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Stunning and eyecatching image! 24.184.103.209 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Wwcsig 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. If the copyright is good enough for commons, it's good enough here. Also fantastic shot --ffroth 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there necessarily _is_ a copyright problem; but I don't think we can just take commons's word for it. Spikebrennan 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent image. -- The Anome 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Someone should remove the noise in the bg --Fir0002 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question What kind of material are these made from? This is the sort of thing art folks always want to know. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Fascinating and Chilling simultaneously... Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• SupportThis is a beautiful photograph that represents something many english speakers may not know much about Alex Barrow 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Definitely eye-catching. ^8thstar 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the following comment on the Commons nomination of this image, regarding the copyright issue:

Comment According to the Wiki Commons page on Mexican law, literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases... VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places. Assuming this was taken in a public place, it's perfectly legal except that the source needs to be cited. Of course, if you got permission from the owners it's a different story. Please correct this or delete the image, it's a wonderful picture but not worth getting Wikimedia sued. Calibas 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Although the copyright issue needs to be looked into first, this picture is very encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This picture was taken at the Museo de la Ciudad (City Museum) in Leon, Guanajuato. It was part of an exhibit that did not mention authors of artwork exhibited. It wa an exhibit of the Day of the Dead celebration. --tomascastelazo 17:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Moving down to resolve uncertain copyright status, or at least until commons clears this. MER-C 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Passed as FP on commons Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleared on commons → Promoted Image:Catrinas 2.jpg MER-C 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kosovar refuge in Albania

Reason

Dramatic & Sad (Theme: Consequence of War)

Articles this image appears in

History of Kosovo & History of Modern Kosovo

Creator

Originally from Here

Nominator

--Albanau 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close far too small. Please read the guidelines. de Bivort 14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close yep. ^8thstar 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Close not even eligible --ffroth 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lamassu

Original

Reason

Good photograph of an important artifact. Shows the artistic style of ancient Assyria during this period.

Proposed caption

This 40 ton statue was one of a pair flanking the entrance to the throne room of King Sargon II. A protective spirit known as a lamassu, it is shown as a composite being with the head of a human, the body and ears of a bull, and the wings of a bird. When viewed from the side, the creature appears to be walking; when viewed from the front, to be standing still. Thus it is actually represented with five, rather than four legs. From Khorsabad, entrance to the throne room. Neo-Assyrian Period, ca. 721-705 BC OIM A7369.

Articles this image appears in

Shedu, Oriental Institute, (can add to Assyrian art etc.)

Creator

User:Trjames (a curatorial asst at the OI)

• Support as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Blurry. --Sean 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support The image is great. I'm not crazy about the museum-like setting of the image - not seeing it in context lowers the EV a bit - but I get the sense that's probably not a viable option for much of the material like this. SingCal 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great artifact, but ordinary image. Only just meets size requirements, but is still very unsharp, and lacks detail. Bad flash glare off chest with strong flash shadows particularly in the left corners, both of which lead to further loss of detail. I'm not crazy about the ropes, but may overlook them if the image quality was great enough (and if the photographer is a curatorial assistant at the place, maybe (just maybe), he could shift the ropes out of the way to get a shot without them). --jjron 07:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, very poor lighting and technical quality. --Aqwis 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with jjron, this is a bit of a missed opportunity. The lighting isn't bad at all and it isn't flash, it's four or five ceiling-mounted spots. I'd like to bet they could easily be moved & the one causing the hot-spot could become a fill for that dark corner. Depends how keen our curator-donator is, really. A tripod might help with the definition too. Great contribution, just not FP material. --mikaul^talk 15:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It is great and encyclopedic subject with a very informative caption, yet IMO it should be relatively easy to retake a better quality image.--Mbz1 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose A better shot can easily be taken. --Sharkface217 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm amused with the discussion of the aerial picture of the new Elevated Station at South Pole. I took the picture around January 25 2005 at the request of the National Science Foundation. This is something done twice a year, once in October or early November and again in late January for the purpose of documenting the drifted snow and changes made to the station. This particular photo was one of nearly 500 taken during this aerial mission. It was the first or second time I have ever done this type of photography. All photos were taken from the right front seat of a Twin Otter and little time was available to set up the shot. It was taken at 500 ft elevation in a plane traveling at about 100 knots. I'm sure my collection included other shots at higher elevation with more of the station including the old structures, but this particular shot was intended only to capture an image of the Elevated Station structure from the back side of the station. I'm assuming this is a draft image I developed as a smaller size JPG. It's likely that there are better and more recent images available from the National Science Foundation. All my pictures during this mission were taken with a Nikon D100 or Canon Mark IID in Raw format.

I personally like the image, but do agree that its appeal is limited. The image was intended to be for archival purposes V/s artistic representation of the South Pole. The National Science Foundation is the owner of the images. As part of the privilege for flying the mission we, the photographers, sign the rights of the photos over to the NSF.

About the orientation of the geographical and the ceremonial; once a year, on January 1st, we add a new geographical pole marker approximately 10 meters (point is established yearly by surveyors from the USGS) from the one set the previous year. We relocate the ceremonial pole and flags every two or three years to keep the walking distance to the geographical pole to a minimum.

Bill Henriksen, former Winter Manager South Pole Station —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Henriksen (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, viewed from above

Original

Reason

Really helps illustrate the geography of the research station and its relative position vis-a-vis the actual South Pole. This image could probably benefit from a little downsampling and perhaps some tilt correction.

Proposed caption

The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, a U.S. research station near the South Pole in Antarctica. The new buildings are built on stilts to protect them from snow buildup; older buildings seen on the right are gradually being buried. The geographic South Pole and the ceremonial pole can both be seen in the background just above the building, slightly to the left of center, below the tracks behind the buildings. The ceremonial pole, used for photo opportunities, is near an arc of international flags; the actual geographic pole, marked by a pole, a white rectangular sign and a solitary United States flag, is a few more meters to the left. The ice sheet on which all of these are located moves at a rate of about 10 meters per year, carrying the structures with it; the position marker of the geographic South Pole is repositioned each year on New Year’s Day to compensate for the movement of the ice.

Articles this image appears in

South Pole, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station

Creator

Bill Henriksen, National Science Foundation

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You said "Creator:User:Rebroad was the uploader". So here is my question: is User:Rebroad both uploader and creator of the image, or the image was created by somebody else? Maybe I'm missing something. I could not find this information in the image description. Thank you.--Mbz1 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It does say that in the image description... thegreen J Are you green? 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Say what? Could you, please copy and paste here excactly what is says. Thank you.--Mbz1 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "Original upload log/(All user names refer to en.wikipedia)/2006-03-09 16:46 Rebroad 2756×2000×8 (4188033 bytes)" and "its author, Rebroad" thegreen J Are you green? 23:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The "its author, Rebroad" bit is up in the licensing section in the copyright free box (I had trouble finding this too). --jjron 07:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think that the tilt or too much else should be changed in this photograph. I was taken by how the camera that took this photograph was at a greater angle than the sun. I went on a search for other aerial photographs with this same configuration and I got bored in Austria (if you try to find one, alphabetical might not be the best way to search). I think that it is only at the equator (or between the tropics) that there are not places where the sun doesn't shine -- but this place has an unusual amount of such area. -- Carol 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)
• Question. Sorry, can anyone clarify the caption (I realise you got it out of the image description Spike, so you may not know either). It says "The actual geographic pole is a few more meters to the left" - OK, a few more metres to the left of the ceremonial pole, or a few more metres to the left of where the photo ends? At a guess, I think it's saying it's out of the photo, and the 'few more metres' part is being a bit generous. (I mean why would you put a ceremonial pole so close to the real pole?) --jjron 08:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The ceremonial pole and the real pole are both in the picture: as shown here, they're both above the large building. The ceremonial pole has an arc of flags around it, the real geographic South Pole is a bit to the left and is marked by a stick with a solo United States flag near it. (Images in the South Pole article show both landmarks in greater detail.) I don't know whether "a few more meters" means less than twenty, or more than a hundred. Note that, per the South Pole article, "The polar ice sheet is moving at a rate of roughly 10 meters per year, so the exact position of the Pole, relative to the ice surface and the buildings constructed on it, gradually shifts over time." The facility staff do not re-locate the ceremonial pole as it, and the facility, are carried along by the moving ice, but they periodically do adjust the position of the marker of the geographic pole. Spikebrennan 14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Caption adjusted; feel free to edit it further. Spikebrennan 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, yep now I can see where it is in the image - looks like about 20 - 30m to me. I wonder what that other post thing is about halfway back to the building (I was wondering for a while whether that was the pole). --jjron 07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (Updated caption with some info from the article - geographic pole is repositioned each New Year's Day). --jjron 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged the caption and corrected one use of geographic to ceremonial for clarity. I'm not sure what the (I guess) snow sculpture is, but the pole denizens are known for killing time with whimsy. --Dhartung | Talk 10:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support as it is an interesting image. It's a shame that the older part of the station is cut off, as the contrast in architecture is significant. The size is just barely adequate, another concern. Are there any alternatives to this one? --Dhartung | Talk 10:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This is one of those where I feel I must be missing something. It's high resolution I suppose, encyclopedic but not exceptionally so, image quality isn't too good, nor are the shot angle and perspective particularly pleasing. Doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid. --mikaul^talk 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This image appears to be plagiarized from this url. The source URL appears to be public domain, but probably needs more clarification and (definitely) a new license tag. MER-C 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Spikebrennan 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• • It is done and now I'd like to Support the amazing image.--Mbz1 12:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's a few buildings seen from above, the picture is poorly composed; i can't see why this picture is special or amazing in any way at all. --Aqwis 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What is amazing for me in these buildings is the location they were build at. Very few people have seen or will ever see them. The image also shows the design of South Pole station - the most extreme place at the Earth.--Mbz1 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor composition; abruptly cut off on the right and lower left. Debatable enc. v. and lacking in artistic "wow" factor. --Malachirality 03:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fountains Abbey

Original

Edit 1 by Thegreenj

Edit 2

Reason

well-composed, high enc. panorama depicting Fountains Abbey

Proposed caption

Located in North Yorkshire, England, Fountains Abbey is a ruined Cistercian monastery built in 1132 C. E. and operating until 1539, when Henry VIII ordered the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

Articles this image appears in

Fountains Abbey

Creator

Klaus with a K

• Support as nominator Malachirality 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment- can someone help with the caption? --Malachirality 05:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I like it, but can you do anything about the deep shade on the right? --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a simple fix; I made an edit, but this computer's not letting me upload anything. Hopefully by tomorrow I can upload it. thegreen J Are you green? 01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, edit up. thegreen J Are you green? 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice! SECisek 06:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 thegreen J Are you green? 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• not supporting- it is too bright to take natural--Bhzd 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we interpret this to be an oppose? SingCal 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Although you're right, the caption could do with some work... I'd help but I don't know a huge amount about the subject. SingCal 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1--Mbz1 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree with Bhzd; the edit is too bright. The shadows could do with being lifted on the original, but it needs to be done more selectively. --jjron 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is edit 2 OK, or is it still overdone? thegreen J Are you green? 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Edit 2 looks significantly better, but Fir0002 raises some more serious issues. --jjron 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Compares very poorly with our other architectural FP's in terms of sharpness and image quality. Full res is also quite noisy, particularly in the edits. I would urge all the above supports to view it at full res because I think the quality is very poor for a building shot (which should be as high quality as possible because it can be retaken with relative ease). Also I think this perspective is quite misleading because I'm assuming that the entire abbey face is straight whereas in this picture it looks like its curving quite strongly. I also suspect that the face of the little shack on the RHS is parallel with the face of the abbey, yet in the pano it's at a distinct angle with the LHS side face (which I assume is perpendicular to the photographer). --Fir0002 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• This aerial shot bears out some of what Fir002 is saying about the building layouts. The main abbey face should be straight, but looks to be curving in the nom as Fir says. The out building is inclined at a peculiar angle, so the representation here is not too bad. A significant issue is that the tower in the nom is oddly distorted too - it appears to be angled to the left, but should be parallel with the main face. --jjron 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per above comments. Sorry, I was leaning towards support if the shadows were fixed, but encyclopaedic value is too compromised by the distortions in the pano. --jjron 06:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I was about to point out the same thing as Fir. I visited the place a while ago and the best pano was from quite a way back, not close in like this. Commendable effort to get the little house in, but ultimately a perspective nightmare. Hate to rub salt in, but a much more interesting elevation is just around the corner. --mikaul^talk 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 or Edit 2 High quality and highly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted (mainly due to unaddressed quality concerns re:distortion). MER-C 01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS10

Original

Reason

PS10 tower. Renewable resourses: This is a way to lead the humanity to fight aganist global warming, this is a good opportunity not to allow to sink the London city because of the oceans flood England, Florida, Bangladesh, .. We all know the Stern review, which was written by Nicholas Stern. Tony Blair asked Nicholas Stern to write this doc. (economic, financial view of global climate crisis) .--Stern review 09:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Too small + easily replaceable + not used in any articles + blatantly POV caption = Speedy not promoted. MER-C 12:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tagus River in Toledo

Original

Reason

I took this panorama almost a year ago and considered nominating it but was never happy with the original processing as it looked a bit dull. After re-processing it using tone mapping techniques, I was able to hold onto the vibrancy and dynamic range of the scene while keeping it looking (I think) quite natural. Anyway, its a very picturesque view of the Tagus River and the edge of the city walls of Toledo.

Proposed caption

The Tagus River, the longest river on the Iberian Peninsula at 1,038 kilometers, begins its journey in the Albarracín mountains in Spain, and follows very constricted course for much of its length before reaching the Atlantic Ocean in Portugal. Seen here, it passes through the World Heritage listed city of Toledo.

Articles this image appears in

Tagus and Toledo, Spain

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support Beautiful place and wonderful image. I could even see a flying bird with the reflection in the river and it is sharp!--Mbz1 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Just wow. May become my new desktop background. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Classic Diliff shot.--HereToHelp 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support WOW! Some nastiness on the white water but everything that's still is very sharp --ffroth 01:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support incredible SRauz 01:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Duh. Lovely lighting - highly immersive. de Bivort 04:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support One of the best landscapes in FPC in a long time. --Aqwis 12:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Diliff's landscapes: better than being there. --Bridgecross 15:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Incredible shot, meets all minimum FP requirements. --Sharkface217 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I could tell it was by Diliff even before I scrolled down and read it. -- Chris.B • talk 14:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic! H92110 18:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support My first thought was that it was a gorgeous image; my next thought was that it would be even better if more folks in Toledo had cable TV. Matt Deres 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, what a great picture! -- Jack 09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tagus River Panorama - Toledo, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg MER-C 08:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Magpie Goose taking off

Original

Reason

IMO the image is very beautiful as well as encyclopedic.

Proposed caption

The Magpie-goose, Anseranas semipalmata.The Magpie-goose is a resident breeder in northern Australia and southern New Guinea.

Articles this image appears in

Magpie-goose

Creator

user:Djambalawa

• Support as nominator Mbz1 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Please try to view this image not as one of our macro's where every feather is razor sharp, but as gestalt snapshot into the bird's behavior and unusual body structure.--HereToHelp 00:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The wing is badly out of focus, but I love the water droplets flying off the toes, and it's very encyclopedic per HereToHelp --ffroth 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom and above. de Bivort 04:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great picture. --Carioca 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom, though I'm waiting for complaints about size and DOF. --jjron 08:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, i'm not going to complain about the size or DOF, but i dislike the composition. The bird is located dead centre in the picture, and is "moving" out of the picture. --Aqwis 12:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • True. It could do with a little more lead room. -- Chris.B • talk 14:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as above. Interesting, despite people saying that it is not the best picture of the bird but a better picture of body structure & gestalt it is only being used in the article for the bird iself. Witty Lama 13:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support great picture. H92110 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Magpie Goose taking off.jpg MER-C 08:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Reason

A historic, unique and public domain photograph of Sir Winston Churchill.

Proposed caption

Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can). (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. A noted statesman, orator and strategist, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army. A prolific author, he won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 for his own historical writings.

Articles this image appears in

Winston Churchill, Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Military history of Egypt during World War II, Bow tie, Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Leaders of the Conservative Party, Clarissa Eden, Countess of Avon etc.

Creator

J. Russell & Sons

• Support as nominator Chris.B • talk 16:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Focus seems a little soft. Kaldari 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Not the best technically, but given that this is a portrait of an important historical figure, I'd say its good enough given that it can't be reproduced --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great historical picture SRauz 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom--Mbz1 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose sorry - just not sharp enough for me. de Bivort 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very blurry, even in thumbnail. Come on, there must have been literally thousands of good images taken of Churchill, there has to be better quality available than this. --jjron 07:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I'm sure a better shot of him can be found for a FP. --Sharkface217 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just too blurry for such a photographed figure --ffroth 03:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment He may have been photographed a myriad of times, but finding a PD photo of him isn't as easy as it sounds. -- Chris.B • talk 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly, look at Princess Diana, most photographed woman ever, and we don't have a featured picture of her, though we should have --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Needing" an FP of someone is not an excuse to promote an inferior image; the image is either good enough or it isn't. Matt Deres 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • But images depicting historical and unique events may be exempt from some quality concerns. -- Chris.B • talk 07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose grainy H92110 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Quality is too poor - historic value doesn't give it entire immunity IMO --Fir0002 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lava channel at Big Island of Hawaii

File:Konachannel with overflows edit2.jpg

Edit 2

File:Dickchannel with overflows edit 4.jpg

Edit 4

Reason

IMO it is a good quality and high encyclopedic value image.

Proposed caption

Pāhoehoe Lava flows in the open lava channel (not in a Lava tube) with overflows at both sides. The image was taken at The Big Island of Hawaii. The lava flow is due to July 21, 2007 fissure eruption at Kīlauea volcano.The channel is crusting over with a v-shaped opening pointing upstream. The crusting-over process usually starts at the upstream end, the crust grows downstream for a considerable distance, then the crust founders and sinks opening the channel to crusting over again. The main channel and overflows show perched nature of this kind of lava channels. The picture was taken from a helicopter. The link to the map of the flow by USGS.

Articles this image appears in

Fissure vent

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears a bit under-exposed, is there a reason for this or could you lighten it??? -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your quesion, Fcb981. The reason of the original image being so dark is that I overdone it in photo shop. Does the edit look any better?--Mbz1 21:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support (prefer Edit 4). The rocks are quite dark in real life. The picture may be a little dark, but not much. -- Coneslayer 20:18, 7 WESTSIDE 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 which I've enhanced some, based (colour, density) on your equally amazing image at Lava. Awesome subject, well captured. --mikaul^talk 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Support Edit 4 only I think the original is too dark, Edit 1 too bright, and Edit 2 makes the red look fake somehow. I'd support if someone with better photo-editing abilities than me could try with another color-correcting edit. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment, Sgeureka. I really like the version edited by mikault. He did an amazing job making the image to look more like this one , which was taken at the same day. Still I added one more edit. --Mbz1 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 4 only and support clearing out the rest of the edits. de Bivort 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've cleared what I could (2 of mine own edits - the edits that nobody voted for). I'm afraid I cannot clear any other edits because Edit 2 was not posted by me and Edit 1 was already supported. If User Coneslayer does not mind to quit his support for Edit 1, I will remove it at once. Thank you.--Mbz1 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Done! -- Coneslayer 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yay, back to reasonable choices - my pref is still for #4 - it seems to have better color balance. de Bivort 17:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 4 Edit 4 is better due to sharper colors. --Sharkface217 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Due to quality issues - particularly Edit 4 which seems to have been poorly oversharpened to compensate. At 100% it's just not as crisp as we've come to expect on FP - particularly for images at this res--Fir0002 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Agree it is not very sharp in the full resolution.Thank you for the vote.--Mbz1 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 or 3, encyclopaedic value is reason enough to support this image despite its techical faults. --Aqwis 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lava channel with overflows edit 4.jpg MER-C 08:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge Memorial

Reason

This is an image that I took before the rededication ceremonies (I was one of the 5000 Canadian students that travelled to Vimy Ridge for the event). I believe that it is a good picture, although I am certainly not an expert on image quality. I'd also like to point out that while the camera was straight, the image was taken from a slight angle, possibly contributing to it's slightly tilted look.

Proposed caption

The reverse of the fully restored Canadian National Vimy Memorial on April 9, 2007, the day of it's rededication by Queen Elizabeth II. The memorial faces the location of the battle. The two towers represent Canada and France, joined together in the fight for freedom. The battle was fought from April 9, 1917 to April 12, 1917 between the Canadian Corps and the German Empire, and three of the four Canadian targets were taken within the first two hours of battle. By April 12 the Canadians controlled the entire Ridge. The Germans considered Vimy Ridge to be one of their most impregnable defences, and it's capture by the Canadians is thought to have been not only a turning point in the war, but also the moment where Canada became a nation.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Vimy Ridge, Canadian National Vimy Memorial

Creator

I took this photo and released into the free domain when I uploaded it to Wikipedia.

• Support as nominator MelicansMatkin 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Although it's a large and detailed shot and undoubtedly adds interest to the articles it appears in, it's almost certainly too noisy (grainy), the crop is too tight (actually missing important detail at the top) to be have any real chance as a Featured Picture. Incidentally, it does need a slight clockwise rotation to bring it vertical. --mikaul^talk 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with mikaul.--Mbz1 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above points. --Sharkface217 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose grainy... and cut off. ^8thstar 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose but thanks for providing it: We're not likely to get anything better for quite some time, if ever. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak oppose per mikaul H92110 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First Chechen War

Original

Bigger picture

Edit 1 - Small fix to tilt?

Edit 2 - removed bg noise + sharpened the person a bit

Reason

I'll let the photo do the talking here.

Proposed caption

A Chechen separatist fighter praying during the First Chechen War.

Articles this image appears in

Ethnic conflict, First Chechen War

Creator

Mikhail Evstafiev a.k.a. Evstafiev

• Support as nominator MER-C 05:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Other than appearing in the First Chechen War article, what evidence is there to suggest this is the case? The photo has no image description whatsoever and no date. If we take it that it is from there, then I assume it's a scan of a film image, given the war took place from 1994 to 1996 - I'm not good at telling whether images are scanned or not if it's a very good scan, especially at this size; can anyone else tell? This may help prove its age. Also the 'author spam' should be removed from the captions in the articles in my opinion (even if the author apparently has a Wikipedia page, it's not relevant to the articles the photo is in and just seems like a bit too much self-promotion, as the file is also named after him; the link could go in the non-existent description). But before worrying about anything else I'm struggling for encyclopaedic verifiability given this complete lack of information from the uploader/creator. --jjron 07:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I poked the photographer. MER-C 08:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is scanned, either Neg or a print. There were no real digital cameras in 1996 and there are a few scanner artifacts in the picture: A white dust, or scratch in the center about a third from the bottom, and some other dust... -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's a fine image, as good as any free-licensed photojournalistic work we have. There's only ever the photographer's word for the authenticity of images like this, which the shot has in the form of a short caption. Pre-digital shots are impossible to date accurately (I agree this is almost certainly a scan) and although a little more info would be nice (like where exactly that fire is coming from) the fact that the image was posted by its creator at First Chechen War is enough for me. --mikaul^talk 16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per mikaul. -- Coneslayer 16:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support either I think it is a real deal.--Mbz1 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• The photographer has uploaded a higher resolution scan. MER-C 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wow! Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question Do the buildings look like they're falling over? Tried fixing tilt on edit. Possibly too much, or maybe tilt fix isn't even necessary. Opinions? tiZom_(2¢) 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice catch --ffroth 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - tilt correction looks good - striking image. de Bivort 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Great images but I didn't notice the tilt until it was pointed out. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. Marvelously evocative image, and encyclopedic. Spikebrennan 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 Incredibly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose First, there is no proof that the uploader's claims are true. Second, it does not show anything special about that conflict or at least conflicts in general.--Svetovid 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 . Interesting and eye-catching picture. H92110 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 . Very descriptive of showing what the people did at the event. --Tadayuki ^紅葉 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean that they prayed while there was war going on?--Svetovid 12:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Evstafiev-chechnya-prayer3.jpg -- Chris.B | talk 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The School of Athens

Original

See The_School_of_Athens#The_philosophers for a list of who these people are

Reason

One of the defining works of art of the Renaissance- in fact, it's used in Template:Renaissance.

Proposed caption

The School of Athens or "Scuola di Atene" in Italian is one of the most famous paintings by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael. It was painted between 1509 and 1510 as a part of Raphael's commission to decorate with frescoes the rooms that are now known as the Stanze di Raffaello, in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican.

Articles this image appears in

The School of Athens, Renaissance, Raphael

Creator

Raphael

• Support as nominator ffroth 20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, doesn't load for me. --Aqwis 20:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, i still can't load it on any of my three computers and have no idea why. Anyone have the same problem? --Aqwis 10:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, i can't even load it in IE6, IE7 or Opera. At least my vote wouldn't matter now anyway. ;) --Aqwis 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Crooked, and also stitching errors (especially visible below the blue-toga guy sitting on the stairs). Could be cropped better, too. Spikebrennan 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The arch looks crooked at the top but the floor is perfectly straight (except on the left side where it wobbles downward a bit). Presumably this is because it's a fresco and painted on a non-flat surface. I do see a couple of tiny stiching errors.. forgivable IMO- this is a fantastic shot, just look at the detail in the upper-left and upper-right corners --ffroth 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support It does look crooked to me, and to me the floor (are we looking at the same thing?) is crooked. The crop is a little tight especially at the bottom, but the stitching is acceptable; I had to really look hard to find the example pointed out above. If someone can suggest a better crop/rotation it would be that much better. I'd add a sentence to the caption, something like "...and depicts important scholars such as Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, whose ideas shaped the course of western civilization..." Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent detail, highly encyclopedic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-12 14:39Z
• Support Very fine, informative picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by H92110 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support A great job. Matt Deres 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Crooked and off center. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It could be a little better but this is a FP quality already.--Svetovid 12:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - could someone do the same thing (i.e., download and stitch the image together) for The Last Judgment (Michelangelo) from the Vatican's website. The current picture isn't as good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:"The School of Athens" by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino.jpg MER-C 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

American Crocodile

Original

Reason

I think this picture is different in the sense that it shows the croc and how it blends in its environment as opposed to full body shots, that while valuable, this one shows the croc in predatory mode

Proposed caption

This picture was taken in its natural habitat, in a manglar at La Manzanilla, Jalisco, Mexico. When in the water, the texture of the skin and the reflexions serve as camouflage for this reptile, moving silently through the waters.

Articles this image appears in

• American Crocodile
• Crocodile

Creator

Tomas Castelazo

• Support as nominator tomascastelazo 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, somewhat blurry, blown reflections in the water (middle of the right hand side in particular), not great composition. Not the best way of showing camouflage of the croc - it's too close-up for that. Witty Lama 13:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose blurry and not the best composition. H92110 18:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, does look blurry indeed. -- Jack 09:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Facial features of a Emperor Tamarin

Edit 2 by Fir0002

Edit 3 by Fir0002 and Mbz1

Reason

IMO the image adds value to the article it appears in by showing a close up face of Emperor Tamarin

Proposed caption

The Emperor Tamarin (Saguinus imperator) is a tamarin allegedly named for its similarity with the German emperor Wilhelm II. The name was first intended as a joke, but has become the official scientific name. This tamarin lives in the southwest Amazon Basin, in east Peru, north Bolivia and in the west Brazilian states of Acre and Amazonas. The males and females Emperor Tamarin look alike. Males are the ones, who are carrying babies on their backs. The Original nominated image shows female Emperor Tamarin. The image was taken in San Francisco Zoo.

Articles this image appears in

Emperor Tamarin

Creator

Mbz1

• Support Edit 3 as nominator Mbz1 14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, i love these animals, and the picture is great. You'll need to get rid of the noise in the background before i can give you my support, though. --Aqwis 16:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, Agwis for your vote and for the kind words about the images. --Mbz1 16:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support Edit 1 --Aqwis 17:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Support Edit 2, much sharper. --Aqwis 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 edit 2 nice shot! --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Original and Edit 1 - despite the downsampling, the poor quality of the original (Image:Tamarin portrait.JPG) is not fixed in these versions. Weak Support Edit 3 - this brings back some sharpness, however the blown highlights are unrecoverable and an unfortunate failing of the image, hence the weak support. --Fir0002 22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Fir002. Your version is much, much better. If nobody minds, can I please delete two originals from the nomination just to clear the space. I'd also like to delete Edit 1 as soon as Muhammad Mahdi Karim quits his support for it. Thank you.--Mbz1 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I nuked everything but edit2 and replaced it in the article, but one of the developers has borked the thumbnailing algorithm. MER-C 10:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, MER-C.--Mbz1 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 2. Cacophony 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question. What's that coming out of its mouth? --ffroth 23:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your question,ffroth. This Tamarin is behind the glass with a very strong reflection. When the image was taken, the Tamarins had babies and visitors were ordered to stay 5 feet away from the glass do not disturb them. I hardly could see anything at all leave alone to take a picture. What you are seeing coming out of her mouth is probably a reflection from my flash. I've tried to remove it in my new edit, but of corse I'd rather Peter would do it, if he has a time and wish to give it a try. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • • Nah you seem to have done a good job. Thanks for the compliments :) --Fir0002 08:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems pretty unlikely that the reflection would center itself perfectly within its mouth --ffroth 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • So in your opinion it was not a camera artifact? --Mbz1 02:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not in the original or edit 1, so my guess is that is was a slip while Fir0002 was making edit 2. thegreen J Are you green? 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you for your question,thegreen. There was no slip in Fir0002 edit. He did a great job.
            Let me, please, explain how it happened. Remember Fir0002 mentioned that I downsampled the image before nominating it? I not only downsampled it, but also got rid of this "sweet spot". That's why you could not see it in my original or Edit 1. It was present at the original (before downsampling) as you could see in this image: . Fir0002 has used original (before downsampling)to make his edits. That's why you could see it at his edit.Of course it is ma fault. I should have mentioned in the description of the downsampled image that it was retouched. I just did not think it was so important. Sorry about misundersdanding.--Mbz1 03:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Ah. Sorry, I didn't see the original. thegreen J Are you green? 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I think that the little gleam in the middle is a reflection off whatever the red thing is. But what's the red thing? --ffroth 04:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 3. Very nice picture and great work done by Fir and Mbz editing it.H92110 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your vote and support ,H92110, but I really cannot accept the credit. All of the credit is going to Fir0002.--Mbz1 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 3. Wow! Acarpentier 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 3. Quality is not perfect, but given the conditions it was taken in it's a very good, well composed shot. --jjron 08:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tamarin portrait 2 edit3.jpg MER-C 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Operation Upshot-Knothole

Original

Reason

This is a bit more than your average cannon...

Proposed caption

A gun-type fission weapon was fired from an 11-inch artillery piece called "Atomic Annie" on May 25, 1953. The 4.5-foot long shell produced a 15-kiloton nuclear blast 6.2 miles away. This was the only nuclear artillery shell actually fired in the US test program.

Articles this image appears in

Nuclear artillery

Creator

Department of Energy[1]

Altered colors

• Support as nominator Mike Serfas 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral The image is recognizable, I will give you that, bu the picture needs some cleanup before I can support it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to alter the color balance to improve contrast and white balance - but bear in mind that I have no idea what the sky should look like during a nuclear blast. I'm not sure how many times the colors have been altered previously in the image's history, either.

• Comment, how unique is this picture? In my opinion, this picture, being as unsharp as it is, needs to be very unique to become featured. In any case, it needs some clonebrushing before i can support it. --Aqwis 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Irregularities removed

It looks like the image may contain dust or scratches from an original scanned photograph, but it's very hard to tell them from actual shrapnel of the explosion. Still, further retouching might make it look nicer... but is it appropriate? I've made an attempt, though. Mike Serfas 00:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit - An iconic image. Most of the public test images from that time are pretty crummy. --Sean 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but to be fair this image isn't exactly brilliant either... --Fir0002 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's a video of this test, and some others, if anyone wants to do the conversion. MER-C 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support either per nom --Mbz1 14:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Whichever one looks best... Boom. ^8thstar 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Yes no doubt this is rare, iconic etc - but there are only so many such images we should make FP - otherwise basically every war photo predating the 70's ends up as listed amongst wiki's finest. The 100% image is utterly useless - it's just been blown up with the scanner without providing anymore detail than the 800px thumbnail. So on quality grounds - despite historic exceptions - I don't think this image is up to FP standard --Fir0002 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Fir. It seems like the temptation around these parts is to promote historical images on the basis that they're historical, which I don't agree with. The image quality is... okay, but not up to FP standards. Especially seeing that video footage of the event exists (which no doubt falls under the same license), no reason to promote a poor image, no matter how historic it is. SingCal 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I'm sorry - it's a great image for the articles, but it's so blurry and damaged that I think the actual resolution is about 450x300px or smaller. The movie, provided we get it at reasonable size, has to be at least as good as or better than that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fir. Sorry Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose not wow material H92110 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The video is compelling despite the poor quality, but the image by itself needs too much explaining. The image doesn't tell the story. Also, the article Operation Upshot-Knothole is weak, and the image used on that article is not the one we are discussing. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Convention center (Night)

Original

Edit Less noise, no ghosts, better colors

A small section of the sky zoomed in a little, with a bit of the foreground for scale

If calibration means I can't tell them apart, I don't want to be calibrated

Reason

Cool night shot. Sharp and informative. As a side note, you may be interested in what looks like a drug deal in the lower right corner. ;-)

Proposed caption

The Oregon Convention Center is a convention center in Portland, Oregon. It is located on the east side of the Willamette River in the Lloyd District neighborhood. The Oregon Convention Center is best known for the twin spire towers which provide light into the building's interior.

Articles this image appears in

Oregon Convention Center

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support Self-nom. Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

* Oppose. The people are sharp, but the actual subject isn't really that sharp, and in fact it's pretty grainy.. the sky especially is very grainy. The surrounding city takes up too much of the image, and the blurry moving people mixed with solid people are distracting. Also, are there legal issues with this and that drug deal? --ffroth 03:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Is your monitor calibrated? I don't see much grain and the sky should be all but black... No legal issues with the "drug deal" I would be surprised if that is what it really is. Plus there isn't enough information for an arrest, much less a conviction. kinda funny though.-Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My monitor is fine, and besides when you zoom in with Paint, the grains are obviously part of the image data and not a monitor artifact. My second monitor is calibrated to display black-and-white text and when I put the picture on it, it looks like a starry sky from all the grains! (because the contrast is up so high). --ffroth 19:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Froth's comments, also the image needs a bit of tilt to make the verticals properly vertical. I could live with a bit of graininess in the sky given the brightness of the windows, but the ghosts are pretty distracting. "Drug deal", heh, makes ya wonder... Matt Deres 15:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I do not see grains in the sky. The sky is black. The image is sharp. I could read the name of the street. A drug deal adds a special interest to the image IMO.--Mbz1 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you not see it? Look at the crop --ffroth 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I did and I still cannot see any grain in the sky. Looks just black to me. Sorry.--Mbz1 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak support the composition seems unbalanced. I don't see any grain in the sky with my calibrated monitor. de Bivort 20:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I took a random spot, sampled 2 adjacent sky pixels, and blew them up to 2 large rectangles. Are you telling me you can't see the difference between those 2 rectangles? --ffroth 20:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And what the heck, I can see the graininess in the 300px thumb that mediawiki generated! --ffroth 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not a matter of being unable to detect the variations in shade - I'm simply saying that I don't perceive the grain with my calibrated monitor. de Bivort 00:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I see no grains, no shade variation. Even if I did, I like the image enough to give support for it anyway. SingCal 04:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Technical quality is good but I don't really see anything worth the front page in that picture. In other words, the Oregon Convention Center is not recognizable.--Svetovid 11:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC
  • Comment None of the FP criteria put any value on the notability of the picture's subject, so it doesn't really matter how recognizable the OCC is. If this is your only reason for your vote, please reconsider. SingCal 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is nothing special. --Aqwis 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, sky is very grainy. Abstain - Edit removes grainyness but also blacks out some real data. Kaldari 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You may be interested in the edit. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Finally a believer! --ffroth 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I still think you may have a monitor problem but you may be interested in the edit which also has the ghosts removed, and (while I couldn't see it!) I tried to remove the noise. : P -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, that resolves it entirely. In fact, what I thought was a mountain barely visible in the background was actually graininess from the city's glow o_o I withdraw my oppose, and abstain from voting on edit 1 --ffroth 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I probably would have done better to upload an edit earlier instead of moaning about monitor calibration. ;-) -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeRagged stitching error just above the guy with the red backpack watching the drug deal. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Schematic diagram of a tugboat with parts in English.

Original

Edit 1 More modest color scheme, pointer line reduced thickness, pointer dots removed, Arial font.

Edit 2 Original color scheme and dots, fixed captions in arial font and reduced pointer line thickness

Reason

Great picture with great encyclopedic value

Proposed caption

A tugboat, or tug, is a boat used to maneuver large ships in harbours, over the open sea, or through rivers and canals. They also tow barges, disabled ships, and oil rigs. Equipped with powerful engines producing thousands of horsepower, extensive rigging equipment, and a fender of tires for protection, tugboats can push or tow large vessels with high precision and speed.

Articles this image appears in

Tugboat

Creator

Al2

• Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose another nice diagram that doesn't render right at full rez. Many of the words are cut off when viewed in firefox... How long until SVG is deprecated? de Bivort 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, i can't see the cut-offs you're talking about - maybe you just need to upgrade your browser?--Aqwis 21:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • doubt it. It auto-updates. The words cut off are "fender" and "bridge". de Bivort 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Odd, those two words appear correctly here. Must be something else than the browser causing it then, maybe your screen resolution? --Aqwis 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Also looks fine to me in Firefox 2.0.0.9. Neither word is cut off. --MichaelMaggs 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Works in my firefox. ^8thstar 23:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Works in my firefox. ffroth 03:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Works in my firefox too. 41.222.30.20 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
        • ::shrug:: guess I should get a new computer. de Bivort 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Doesn't work for me. "Fender" and "bridge" are cut off. Using Firefox 2.0.0.9 on MacOS 10.4.10. Kaldari 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2. Works perfectly in Konqueror/KSVG. Nice clean enc illustration. A bit childrens-bookish, but not in a bad way. WP could use more of this kind. --Dschwen 01:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very good diagram, reminds me of The Way Things Work book. Cat-five - talk 07:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I'd prefer a picture of a real tugboat labelled up, rather than an animated one. The text also renders poorly when you zoom in. Pstuart84 Talk 11:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support though 'signal lamp' or 'Aldis lamp' seem to be more common than 'Morse lamp'. Matt Deres 16:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it's more common in British English. (Notice the spelling of "tyre").--HereToHelp 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very informative and encyclopedic. H92110 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a problem with the font used in this SVG. I'm assuming it's just a font that isn't on my Mac. The reason the labels are cut off for some users (myself included) is that the labels are rendering in a large typewriter font at full resolution, while the generated thumbnail seems to have them in something similar to Trubuchet. We desperately need some kind of guideline for what fonts to use when labeling diagrams in Wikipedia. Support Edit 1 or 2 - Looks great now! Kaldari 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If I pull it up in Firefox on my PC, it looks fine, so I assume it must be using a PC-only font. Kaldari 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose What bothers me the most about this image is the red dots at the end of each rule leading from the labels. Those rules also seem a bit heavy (I guess they are the same weight as the lines defining the edge details of the illustration, thus where they overlap creates a hierarchy issue). I'm also bothered a bit about the placement of the labels. Two sets of columns are flush right while the rest are flush left. Then there is the one label floating in space for the hull. Placing the labels along a proportional grid would help structure the illustration better than the arbitrary, but not random placement of the labels now. I also don't like the placement of "Tugboat". Perhaps a strong title label in a corner could help. By itself, it is a decent illustration (the colors help contribute to making it seem "cartoony" in addition to the style). Perhaps I'll give it a shot of revising the image (but no promises).-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 I chose a more modest color scheme, reduced pointer line thickness, removed dots, arial font. I'm willing to do other edits and change the color scheme. Do the captions render correctly now? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1, to be honest i like the original better, but we can't feature it if it doesn't render correctly in everyone's browser, of course. --Aqwis 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2, --Aqwis 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 Agree with Aqwis; I actually prefer the original, but if it's rendering incorrectly the edit works for me too. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Support edit 2 CillaИ ♦ XC 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I strongly prefer the original. There is nothing wrong with an up-beat color scheme and I found the red dots very useful. The new color scheme with the dark shades makes it hard to see where the pointer lines end. The only positive change in the edit I can see is the new font, if it really improves cross platform rendering. --Dschwen 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment OK, I'll re-do the diagram with the original formatting but with arial font. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here is another version with the original color scheme and pointer dots, but the font is arial so it will render correctly and reduced pointer line thickness. I still prefer edit 1, though. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new edit! --Dschwen 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good, clear illustration. I'll leave it to others to decide which version. —Pengo 06:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tugboat diagram-en edit1a.svg MER-C 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Moringa Oleifera flower

Original

Reason

Good picture showing the flower in detail. Also showing a bug (in the original pic) and an ant (in the alternative) providing pictorial evidence of the plants "attraction" towards insects.

Proposed caption

Moringa oleifera, commonly referred to simply as Moringa, is the most widely cultivated variety of the genus Moringa. It is an exceptionally nutritious vegetable tree with a variety of potential uses. The immature green pods, called “drumsticks” are probably the most valued and widely used part of the tree.

Edit 1 Cropped

Alternative 3

Articles this image appears in

Moringa oleifera

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeNeutral, poor composition, there's nothing in the top and left of the picture. Try using a macro lens and getting closer next time. --Aqwis 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of cropping would help? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The crop is an improvement, but i still don't think it's good enough to be featured. I have changed my vote to Neutral, however. --Aqwis 11:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - It's a lovely image, but the depth of field is just a bit too narrow, leaving it as a good photo, maybe even great, but not a fantastic one. And with all the flower FPs, I think we need to set the bar at fantastic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Suppot Edit 1IMO the quality of the flower is quite good. I wish a beatle would have been sharper. BTW do you know what beatle it is?--Mbz1 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a shield bug. Unfortunately, I do not know the species. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 08:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have uploaded another picture with clearer bug. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 09:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Muhammad. Of course the main subject of the image is the flower, so IMO Edit 1 is still better in representation of the flower. May I suggest that the last alternative would be included as other version in the description of the edit1.--Mbz1 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Have done that --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my vote. I do like your flowers pictures.--Mbz1 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 1 but t'would have been better if the beetle were clearer. H92110 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Per above composition concerns - as it is it's neither about the flower or the bug. For the bug I'd want something closer - for the flower the bug is just a distraction. --Fir0002 08:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote. Just like to point out that the bug is not a distraction. It occupies a very small portion if the flower. The bug also shows the disadvantage of having this plant in your backyard, adding to its encyclopedic value. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 09:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose all pictures are compositionally lacking (I, too, believe that flower and bug detract and distract from each other). Original has awkward empty space on the left, while the edits are too closely cropped. And per Adam, the standard for both flowers and bugs is very high. --Malachirality 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Murraya koenigii flower

Original

Reason

The pictures, I believe are of good quality. They are also of great encyclopedic value, and are the only pictures available (on wikipedia) which show the flower.

Proposed caption

The Curry Tree, Murraya koenigii is a small tree growing 4-6m tall. Its leaves are highly aromatic and are commonly used as seasoning in Indian cuisine.The leaves are also used in the traditional treatment of diabetes. The flowers are small white, and fragrant.

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Articles this image appears in

Curry Tree

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi

• Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 08:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose original, alt 2 and alt 3, Neutral alt 1, which is quite obviously the best of the pictures. However, i still doubt it's good enough for FP - the angle and lack of contrast makes for a not very interesting composition, and it's quite unsharp. --Aqwis 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose allper Aqwis H92110 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• I withdraw my nomination. Thank you for voting.Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten Explorers of Antarctica

Original

Reason

Almost everybody knows something about exploration of Antarctica. Most people would name Robert Falcon Scott, who tried and failed to be the first at South Pole, Roald Amundsen, who did it and Ernest Shackleton and his amazing story of survival. I've nominated the image to bring attention to all of the brave men I've mentioned above and to countless forgotten others. The image could be two times historic. First because the drawing was made in 1899 and second because, if Wikipedia is correct about this, Borchgrevink's Cape Adare hut still existed as of 2003, but was being destroyed by the effects of penguin guano.

Proposed caption

In February 1899, Borchgrevink's party of Southern Cross Expedition landed at Cape Adare - the northeastern most peninsula in Victoria Land, East Antarctica,where they built a prefabricated hut (the first human structure ever built on the Antarctic continent). They wintered at Cape Adare and were picked up in January of 1990 by Southern Cross ship.
At the image you could see a drawing above Kolbein Ellefsen's bed in Borchgrevink's Cape Adare Hut. Ellefsen was one of the members of the Southern Cross Expedition. He was a good sailor and also the Cook on the expedition and a talented artist. While looking at the image, please, try to imagine a young man (Kolbein Ellefsen was in his yearly twenties) during unforgiving Polar night, not knowing what's going to happened next (one of the expedition members did not make it), who used a Kerosene lamp or a candle with its ghostly light to draw portrait of a beautiful woman above his bed. The image was taken in January of 2001.

Articles this image appears in

Carstens Borchgrevink

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 15:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The image is a scan of my old print. The resolution is high enough to downsample it, if needed. Thank you.--Mbz1 15:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose quality isn't there - flash glare, out of focus for a stationary object, muddled composition. Not appealing. de Bivort 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like it, and think that the artefacts actually bring out the feel of being there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Low quality, low detail, unreadable inscription, etc. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-11-13 21:26Z
• Oppose, doesn't give me any kind of "feel of being there", very poor technical quality. --Aqwis 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to thank you all for taking your time to vote and to comment on the image.--Mbz1 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• I withdraw the nomination. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pentagon Fireball

File:Pentagonfireball.jpg

Original

Reason

Yes, yes, I know the image doesn't agree the featured picture criteria (low resolution, jpeg artifacts, low techinal standards) but this is ONE-OF-A-KIND image of historic american event that will live on forever.

Proposed caption

Frame of security camera footage taken 20 feet away from where American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. All 64 people on board are killed, as are 125 Pentagon personnel. The section of the where the plane crashed was, at the time, being renovated, so most of the offices were unoccupied.

Articles this image appears in

• Arlington County, Virginia
• September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks
• List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft

Creator

Latitude0116, Noahcs

• Support as nominator  Noah¢s  Talk / Contribs 02:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't even know that images of this event exist. Certainly a very powerful image. Too bad the quality is so low. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The quality is just too low. I'm willing to overlook a lot of technical shortcomings for a genuinely historic image, but I'm not sure this qualifies. The events of that day were certainly historic, but this image doesn't illustrate any of them. Yes, there's a big fireball, but it could be a fire from anywhere at anytime; we can't see any details at all. Matt Deres 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Aside from the photo itself, I honestly don't believe that event happened. Kitkatcrazy 07:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • For anyone tempted, please remember: DNFTT. As for the vote - invalid. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-13 14:55Z
    • I think the vote's fine. I assume you're claiming it's invalid based on her second comment about the event, but the first part "Aside from the photo itself" indicates she is opposing based on the quality of the picture itself. --jjron 08:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I took the "aside..." comment to mean that aside from the existence of the photo, ... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-15 14:50Z
        • Good point, you might be right. --jjron 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is the only image of the pentagon attack that has been released - I've seen it in documentaries so I can vouch that it is indeed unique. There are about 4 frames of video (of which this is one) from the pentagon carpark security camera - hence the bad quality. And as for Kitkatcrazy, I'm pretty sure that's not a reason for voting on Featured Pictures... Witty Lama 14:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose not particularly encyclopedic. I would also rather avoid an influx of related photos onto FPC. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-13 14:58Z
• Support Yes, the quality is way too low, but the value of the image overwrites the quality problems for me.--Mbz1 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Every encyclopedic image does not deserve to be FP. This image is just too small. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Muhammad Mahdi Karim. --Aqwis 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The image is far from meeting size requirements, it has lens glare at the top-left corner, and there is no indication the building shown is the Pentagon. --Bowlhover 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to Bowlhover's comment, this image was indeed taken at the pentagon on 9/11 [2]  Noah¢s  Talk / Contribs 03:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think he was necessarily disputing that, rather just making the point that image quality is so poor you can't even see for sure that the building shown is the Pentagon. --jjron 07:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muhammad Mahdi Karim. H92110 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MIT great dome

Original

Alternative reduced noise

Problem areas highlighted

Reason

I haven't been doing HDRs that long but this was definitely a situation where it couldn't have been done any other way. The highlights on the dome were like 8 stops brighter than anything else... There is also an edit where some noise is reduced, from COM:FPC where this is passing pretty handily.

Proposed caption

A HDR representation of The Great Dome at MIT, which sits atop Building 10 and is featured in most publicity shots, is modeled on McKim, Mead, and White's Low Memorial Library at Columbia University.

Articles this image appears in

MIT

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support as nominator Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is there an image without any noise reduction? The tone mapping just doesn't look right, and playing with the original, I get the impression that it itself was under a fair bit of noise reduction, and the edit, well, looks like plastic... thegreen J Are you green? 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no noise reduction on the original. The edit is not mine. I can see bad noise anyway so people tell me things are noisy and with my calibrated monitor I don't see why they get worked up... what exactly doesn't look right? If you mean the posturization around lights in the inside, that is just a result of the HDR compression which sorts luminosity values and around light sources you sometimes see it. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• <sarcasm>Oppose You can't see stars in the sky! It's sooooo underexposed!!</sarcasm> Support Either with slight preference to Edit. Good tone mapping, looks weird at thumbnail but realistic at full resolution. However, why is there a sharp border between the sky and the dome? --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are wondering why it doesn't look like some HDRs where there is a soft boarder that is just PS3s merge to HDR thing, it is sharp. If you are wondering why there is a small halo... I don't know. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a sharp edge, almost aliasing, between the dome and the sky. It looks like a badly done mask or something had been applied to it. PS: You used PS3 to merge it? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, File > Automate > Merge to HDR. it merges the files into a 64bit PSD file, which I converted into a 32bit tiff and then an 8bit JPG. and even though the metered difference was like 7 2/3 stops I only took 4 exposures. From the metered average: +5 stops, +2 stops, -1 stop, -4 stops -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 12:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • • Oh you mean Photoshop CS3? PS3 is an acronym for something else you know... --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
            • =) ha ha, I meant to write CS3 not PS3, CS3 I didn't even notice. Now that you mention it, I should convert a PS3 to run CS3. I don't know where I am going with this... : ) -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose both I think a better picture could be taken. The original is not terrible, but the patchiness/graininess of the trees and shadows leaves it a bit short. The edit *is* terrible - the trees and foreground are blocky green smears - not one of our "best". Matt Deres 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop being so pedantic. Of course a better one could be taken. If we were to say that if a better picture can be taken the picture is not FP then we would have a few high resolution scan of some ancient tapestries and nothing else! Instead of getting worked up over the grainyness of the sky or some loss of detail on some leaves, ask yourself if you think this is a visually impressive picture that shows some of wikipedia's best work. I think FP is about stunning photographic contributions. Something on a white BG is not stunning. An HDR where a bright dome is accented against some orange clouds and the building is properly exposed as well in my opinion is stunning. If you disagree that this is a beautiful picture, but if you just don't like that the leaves are a little smeared, I think you should look at this for what it is. Its a photograph, not an SVG graphic. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Your reply is an excellent example of why people shouldn't nominate their own work. Calm down. Your picture is good, but it doesn't match the high standards set by pics like this or this, both of which are also night shots of large buildings. Look at them honestly - does the MIT dome have the same kind of clarity or detail? With the utmost respect for your ability (which far outweighs my efforts behind the lens), it does NOT. Hence, my opposition. The edit took the minor drawbacks of your photo and made them much worse. Matt Deres 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • • "...people shouldn't nominate their own work...". Please note that one of the two pictures you link to was a self-nom, and in fact Diliff who did both of them, along with many (probably most) of the best contributors we have, all usually self-nominate. --jjron 04:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Completely true, Jjron and if Diliff responded to criticism of his photos with an ad hominem attack, I would say the same to him. But he doesn't. Matt Deres (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, it is true that the pixel dimensions of this are not as high as either of the diliff shots that you mentioned, those are stitched though. This one isn't so there is no way I could have gotten them that big. You are entitled to your interpretation of the FP standards, which is fine. But eventually, it comes down to this question: "Is this as good and artistic picture of the 'thing' that we can reasonably get and does it have visual appeal to the point that it would make a good main page picture?" I mean, I can go back, or diliff could go, during the day, and take a 15 segment stitched panorama and all that, and it would probably be less grainy, it would have more pixels but would it be better? I mean, how much to pixels matter anyway? sure, you can make larger reproductions, but when you blow it up on screen, you are lost. Sure, you can see every little rivet, but what does that have to do with the actual appeal of the picture. Do the colors evoke emotion? does it show the glow of the dome that could never be captured without HDR? does it make we look? stare? You yourself opened it up to full size. Presumably because it caught your eye, you liked the look of the dome, or the tone mapping or the subtle clouds. But once that full size opened, you were no longer looking at it for beauty. You were no longer looking at the colors, or the composition, or thinking about art. You were looking for noise, for lack of sharpness, for ghosting, for lens flare, for blown highlights, for crushed shadows, for stitching errors, for all those things that actually don't have much at all to do with photography. I believe that you know art, and I believe you know the technical aspects of photography. If you truely think that the technical aspects of this photograph get in the way of enjoying its beauty, I can live with your oppose vote. If not, I urge you to think about this picture for what it is. Does firs temp file with green lines showing god knows what and red lines show I don't know what else matter, no. Not unless it gets in the way of the picture. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • 8 Shots at 1 stop interval for HDR, times 6 for a 2x3 stitch, times at least 2 for errors/people in the building, and you shall have the über-stitched FP you want! --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Aesthetics tho important are only one aspect of an FP - and to be quite honest it having a HDR look isn't overly stunning. I've seen plenty of good (and bad) HDRs and have made a few myself (eg Image:Yarra and bank by night.jpg) and so I'm not overly wowed by this example. So no it doesn't make me look. It doesn't make me stare. The colours evoke no emotion. Also if you took the time to read my comment, the green areas highlighted some areas of particularly poor quality due to what I assume was some very aggressive lifting of shadows. Red areas show sections where I believe digital manipulation and/or stitching/HDR merging faults have occurred. --Fir0002 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
            • You clearly looked long enough to come out of your wikibreak to comment on it and upload a temp file.<sarcasm> Tho I suppose you look at every fpc candidate in full size. </sarcasm> -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
              • ? I do view all FP candidates that I comment on at 100%. As for the wikibreak I'm glad to say that it's over! Y12 is finished so I'm back for a few months and will be reasonably accurate. However when I did comment on this I still had one exam to go and wouldn't have commented except that I feared it might receive a similar response to COM:FPC - big on looking at thumbnail but not so big on evaluating the image at full size. Having had a reasonable amount of experience with HDR I know that most HDR's do not come out particularly well at 100% - which is why whenever I see a HDR (and usually it's pretty easy to tell) I automatically assume it's not of high technical quality. And so if I see it up for FPC I'll view it at 100% and confirm/deny my fears. In this case my fears were realized and so I felt compelled to vote and point out the flaws to voters who might not notice them (as appears on commons). Without wishing to offend you, I'd have to say that stunning imagery was not the root of my interest. --Fir0002 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Very poor quality - noise is rife and the edit is hopeless, it makes the image worse if anything. I also think that this isn't a particularly good HDR - it's attempted to lift the shadows too aggressively resulting in very poor quality and artefacting (refer to highlighted green areas in my temp file). Also of concern are the red areas where it seems there has been a few stitching errors - although I have no idea what was going on in the right most red area - seems like a very poor clone job? PS: I would hesitate to nominate an image just because it is doing well on commons - they seem to have much lower standards in terms of IQ over there... --Fir0002 08:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • • Stitching errors? There is no stitching in this picture. I've had pictures that pass here and fail commons. So, one could reverse the argument. There is no cloning on the wall, only cloning of a sign that was on the grass out. one of the few areas you failed to highlight in red. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 12:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well what's going on with that area on the RHS - as far as I can tell it's either a clone job or some serious artefacting. No stitching? Perhaps it's coming through from a misalignment in the HDR sequence because that looks pretty dodgy. Could you provide the longest exposed frame so we can see whether it actually looks like that or if it is some kind of error. --Fir0002 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But seriously, why are you looking at the grass and the tree? FWIW as long as the encyclopaedic parts (the building) is okay we shouldn't pick faults in the non-critical areas. Of course, there are way better pictures of grass and trees and other assorted foliages, but is it the subject of this photo? --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • • Ummm... because they're part of the picture. Photos have been slammed on quality issues much more minor than that - such quality is unacceptable even if it is not the "main" subject. We're not just featuring a small segment of the photo but the image as a whole. Hence it must be of high quality throughout. --Fir0002 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • They do take up about half the image. Matt Deres 04:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • So is the night sky, which is awfully underexposed to see the stars. Therefore this and all the other night architecture shots can't be FP! Seriously, complaints on the grass and the trees are totally irrelevant: They AREN'T the subject! They're simply minor elements, and it doesn't really matter if they're blocky or blotchy or whatever, unless it really cause a problem and distracts from viewing the subject (which doesn't apply in this case). --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • If the grass and trees were in the background, it would be perfectly fine for them to be blurred out somewhat. In a related way, we kind of expect the backgrounds in Fir's macro shots to be wiped out; at times, I think it actually makes the bug or bird look that much clearer and cleaner. We're okay with it because the bug could really be anywhere; we just want to see it well. The MIT dome isn't just anywhere - it's sitting on the lawn and is surrounded by the trees - they're part of the subject. IMO, while they don't need to have quite the clarity we demand for the building itself, as part of the subject they can't just be dismissed. At least, IMO. Matt Deres 13:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Well the other thing with macro it is a technical impossibility due to the affects of diffraction to have much more in focus - this limitation does not apply here. And yes in a macro and wildlife shots bokeh is very useful in isolating the subject. But that isn't to say that noise or artefacty bokeh should be excused. It must be high quality bokeh. The "minor" elements here do not help isolate the photo and are of unacceptable quality. --Fir0002 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Hmmm I wasn't the one that said your macro's background aren't good so I'll refrain from commenting on that, but are you saying that you can't tell the difference between the grass and the stairs/building? Or by "isolate" do you mean making the photo stand out? Isn't that the subject's job? Your HDR contains what, 3 stops of dynamic range? Everything is well lit (even the sky), and the effect of HDR is not that apparent. In this HDR, however, the difference between the dome and the grass is 8 stops (as said by Fcb somewhere above), and in real life it would be quite a dark place, without any direct illumination on the grass, versus a brightly illuminated dome. In effect it encompasses the dynamic range of the dark shadows of the trees and the street lamps in your HDR (bright light + white reflector ~= street lamp) without blowing out either, and retains a nice transition between the two. In 8-bit RGB this means 16 values for each stops for the texture, which is very little; personally I can't see the difference less than 5 values (also maybe because of the cheap 6-bit LCD panel), and this is probably the reason why the grass and the trees look smudged. If you want grass and tree textures, there are lots of high quality, high resolution, properly exposed pictures of them around, but are they the things that make this picture encyclopaedic? Are they the things that the picture is trying to illustrate? FWIW we can simply crop out all the grass and trees, does that mean that it's better? --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
              • I mean by isolate stand out - as in Image:Young grasshopper on grass stalk02.jpg. My HDR contains 4 stops (-2, 0 and +2) combined to make a realistic image. And in your comment (inadvertently I think) you've raised an issue which I thought might have been discussed before now in a different context. Because the fact that it portrays the a dim scene completely unrealistically - if you went there you wouldn't see it anything like that. Which IMO - unless this is on the HDR article - is a negative rather than a plus. Furthermore I think you'll find that the tonemapping from to 8-bit has little or nothing to do with the quality - I suspect it's merely the HDR engine attempting to remove all black areas (as they tend to do) and in the process lifting the shadows aggressively. Perhaps Fcb could upload the longest exposure image he took to confirm/deny this as I asked earlier? The smudging in the edit is solely to do with (fairly poor) noise reduction - the original suffers from noise and artefacting rather than the smudging of the edit (except in the RHS red highlighted area which looks really odd). True you can get high res images of trees and stuff, but that doesn't excuse the failings of these components - as I mentioned earlier even pure gradients like in the grasshopper image I linked need to be free of noise, artefacting etc (in short of high technical quality). The trees are part of the scene and must be judged as such. Cropping might remove some of this, but will destroy the composition. --Fir0002 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative, i supported this on Commons and i will here, too. I honestly can't see any of the problems mentioned by the opposers - the noise, which was a problem in the original is mostly gone in the edit. The grass in the foreground doesn't look very nice, i agree, but the crop in the edit makes the grass area less dominating. I like the composition a lot, and love the HDR/tone-mapping effect. --Aqwis 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the noise is gone in the edit, but so too has any texture - it looks smudged and plasticy. --Fir0002 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose original and edit Looking at the article now and with the old image [3], I actually prefer the article with the old image. I think it's the fact that, in the thumbnail, there is more contrast in the dome itself than the new night shot. This by itself wouldn't be enough to get me to oppose the image (as Fcb981's image really is of much higher resolution and really does show more detail than the daytime shot), but the ghostly trees and lack of contrast between the outer column and the building do really kill it for me. Enuja (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose a shame, as it's obviously taken a lot of work, but I can't see a version which doesn't look over-processed and artificial. At first, I thought this was only in the foliage, but I've just discovered that the dome is actually spotlit stone, not backlit glass as it first appeared... I love mapping but it's way too easy to go OTT with, and I'm afraid this is an example of exactly that. --mikaul^talk 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Progression of World War Two

File:Ww2 allied axis.gif

Original

Reason

Crisp informative and shows the progression of the war very well

Proposed caption

World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a worldwide military conflict; the amalgamation of two separate conflicts, one beginning in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the other beginning in Europe in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. It is regarded as the historical successor to World War I.

This global conflict split a majority of the world's nations into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. Spanning much of the globe, World War II resulted in the deaths of over 70 million people, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.

World War II was the most widespread war in history, and countries involved mobilized more than 100 million military personnel. Total war erased the distinction between civil and military resources and saw the complete activation of a nation's economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort; nearly two-thirds of those killed in the war were civilians. For example, nearly 11 million of the civilian casualties were victims of the Holocaust, which was conducted by Nazi Germany, largely in Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union.

The conflict ended in an Allied victory. As a result, the United States and Soviet Union emerged as the world's two leading superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War for the next 45 years. The United Nations was founded in the hopes of preventing another such conflict, and self determination gave rise to decolonization/independence movements in Asia and Africa, while Europe itself began traveling the road leading to integration

Articles this image appears in

Allies of World War II

Creator

Astrokey44 i think

• Support as nominator Hadseys (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This image was nominated twice before: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ww2 allied axis (May 2006, not promoted) and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/WW2 Allied Axis (June 2006, not promoted). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; as a creator of similar animated timelines, I think the need for clear information outweighs the language-agnosticism of this map. That is to say, I'd like a short explanation of each jump on the timeline, as it's a large map and it can be difficult to notice every change. This has been nominated unchanged for the last year and a half; it's time someone improved on it. --Golbez 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to Golbez, I think it needs rather more frames to really give a true view of the course of the war - for instance, the island-hopping of the pacific campaign doesn't appear Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I really like the idea but tend to agree with the two opposes. A concise explanation / more detail might be useful. Also, the caption is too vague since presumably this will be in an article that already states the premise of WWII. gren グレン 14:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alanya Panorama

Original

Full edit with girl

Edit 1

Reason

A great panorama that shows all the important elements of this city including: The Taurus mountains, the peninsula the city is on, the citadel in the foreground (important as Alanya has been a military stronghold), the busy tourist district and beaches. Awesome encyclopedic work and a great visual look.

Proposed caption

Alanya is a seaside resort in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. Because of its natural strategic position on a small peninsula into the Mediterranean Sea below the Taurus Mountains, Alanya has been a local stronghold for many Mediterranean based cultures, including the Ptolemaic, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empires. The relatively moderate Mediterranean climate, natural attractions, and historic heritage makes Alanya a popular destination for tourists.

Articles this image appears in

Alanya, Geography of Turkey, Turkish riviera

Creator

User:Patrickneil

• Support as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Several stitching errors, particularly in the mountains. Cacophony 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment As creator I've long known about this. If you'll give me a day I'll have a version stitched with PTGui up tonight.--Patrick Ѻ 09:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support as creator Corrected aforementioned stitching. Please consider this edit.--Patrick Ѻ 14:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, I also have a wider version which includes a little girl peering over the castle edge.--Patrick Ѻ 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose still some stitching errors (most noticably: approximately from left: 1000 px, 1675 px, 3250 px—though I think I see more; the downsampling makes it hard to tell.) thegreen J Are you green? 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose.. Agree, there are still stitching errors. Patrick, consider using Smartblend to stitch instead of the build in PTGui stitcher. It'll do a far better job. Alternatively you could email me the originals and I'll stitch them. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to, only this panorama was taken so long ago, I've lost the original left and right most images, and only have the middle. I've been working from a Photoshop file, which I can send along if you think it will help get a better image. Regardless, I am happy with my image and proud to have it nominated; I understand the featured system on Wikipedia is simply a reward for technique.--Patrick Ѻ 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. FWIW, I love this. If you ever go back do be sure to shoot it again, maybe using the camera in portrait format to overcome the distortion which seems to be screwing up the stitch, and also to give a bit more foreground detail, which is noticably lacking. --mikaul^talk 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

USP .45

Original

Reason

Very sharp and clear- basically IMO this is the best possible picture we could reasonably expect of this weapon, and it's under a free license! Ergo the FPC nom. It's a nice big shot of a deadly weapon, obviously machined to perfection with its sleek, modern composite materials and rubbery texturing.. pretty scary! (oh and if one of our masters could play with the white balance I think it could look a little better)

Proposed caption

H&K USP .45 Full Size with a Surefire X200A light attached via a Picatinny rail adaptor. The gun also has a Hogue rubber grip. The gun is equipped with Trijicon night sites and is surrounded by .45 caliber Hornady TAP (+P) jacketed hollow point rounds.

Articles this image appears in

Firearm, Heckler & Koch USP

Creator

User:Bobbfwed

• Support as nominator ffroth 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, sharp and encylopaedic. --Aqwis 12:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support de Bivort 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Just curious-- is the safety on or off? It's hard to tell from this angle. Spikebrennan 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The background is pretty unappealing. Do you know if it is in any way encyclopaedic to do with the guns? --jjron 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As there is apparently no reason for using this background (I've waited almost a week for a reply), I feel the bg seriously detracts from the image; something staged like this will tend to struggle for 'wow' anyway, so IMO needs to have things like the background perfect. Also seems too tightly cropped, especially at the top - again little excuse for this in a staged shot. The actual gun, etc, seem OK. --jjron (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good picture, but I have to agree with jjron. The background is not very attracive.H92110 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't illustrate the subject in a compelling way with the awkward background. Also, it could be argued that a picture of a gun will fail neutrality due to the issues surrounding gun ownership and the deaths caused by guns. There are some images that by themselves will provoke a reaction - a gun is one of them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So, you think we should censor pictures of guns just because someone may be offended by it? I thought we had a guideline against doing that... --Aqwis 12:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Where is the censoring? I'm saying we shouldn't promote - which is a different thing. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That is exactly the same thing - Wikipedia isn't censored in (well, almost) any way, which includes not censoring FAs, FPs, and so on (and censoring FP is what not promoting this image (given it meets the quality requirements) is). Do you also think we should not promote the Holocaust article, or the Gun article, as FAs? --Aqwis 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • _LOL_ what? --ffroth 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly - I also laughed at the notion that my comment could be seen as censorship! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think froth's comment was a reply to that, as far as I recall it was posted after Aqwis first reply. Also, I do agree - not promoting an image because it might offend some due to gun-related deaths is not valid. We have plenty of holocaust pictures, and that had plenty of death involved in it. Cheers. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It really can offend someone? Doublesupport!--Svetovid 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support- It's a good pic, and I don't find the background bad at all. As for whether people will like a picture of a gun.. who cares? We're in the encyclopedia business. Value judgements be damned. Friday (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But these pictures are being selected for promotional purposes for the landing platform. This "featured picture" process itself is not encyclopedic! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • _LOL_ again, featured content isn't meant to be promotional.. the main page thing is meant to showcase featured content, featured content's not identified to put something on the main page. --ffroth 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Terrible background + unappealing placement of cartridges. --Janke | Talk 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor lighting and choice of composition. It's fairly noisy in any case. -- Chris.B | talk 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

five-seven

Original

Reason

Very sharp and clear- basically IMO this is the best possible picture we could reasonably expect of this weapon, and it's under a free license! Ergo the FPC nom. (same reason)

Proposed caption

Photo of a Five-seveN USG model. It also has attached a Surefire X200a light, and is surrounded by 5.7x28mm cartridges.

Articles this image appears in

FN Five-seven

Creator

User:Bobbfwed

• Support as nominator ffroth 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, sharp and encylopaedic. --Aqwis 12:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose jpeg artifacty. de Bivort 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Prominent jpeg artefacts. -- Chris.B • talk 14:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as above. It doesn't illustrate the subject in a compelling way with the awkward background. Also, it could be argued that a picture of a gun will fail neutrality due to the issues surrounding gun ownership and the deaths caused by guns. There are some images that by themselves will provoke a reaction - a gun is one of them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Will provoke a reaction" is an argument for featuring a picture, not against. A good picture should provoke a reaction. This is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia which means the subjects of some articles will bother some people. These articles should have FP-quality images whenever possible. The image is neutral if it accurately and fairly depicts its subject which this image does. --D. Monack | talk 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As I indicate above - this process of selecting images to feature on the landing page is not part of creating an encyclopedia, it's part of the process of promoting Wikipedia. Arguments which relate to creating the contents of a comprehensive encyclopedia won't always relate to the Landing page of an online encyclopedia which is intended to promote certain aspects of that encyclopedia. It's a different thing. You are not creating an encylopedia by !voting for images to appear on the landing page, you are creating a marketing tool to promote certain favoured aspects of the encyclopedia. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You have it totally wrong. Featured content is identified to certify wikipedia content as our best work, and to reward the contributors who make it happen. The main page thing is tacked on to the process. (though it wouldn't surprise me if content "featured" on the front page predates actual Featured Content) --ffroth 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • ffroth is right. This isn't a discussion about what should go on the front page but a decision about what is Wikipedia's best work. "Provokes a reaction" is a factor that should count in the image's favor. As an aside, if we were deciding what goes on the front page, I see no problem with this image. Is a picture of a gun lying on a table more disturbing than much of what goes in the "current events" section which right now, for example, includes a headline and photo of Cyclone Sidr which has killed at least 1,100 people. Anyone shocked by this image of a gun is probably too emotionally fragile to be perusing the Internet at all. --D. Monack | talk 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Louvre Panorama

Original

Reason

The recent Louvre image nomination had me looking through the article and I found this image. Highly encyclopedic and technically excellent. Already FP on Commons.

Proposed caption

The Louvre museum in Paris, France.

Articles this image appears in

Louvre

Creator

User:Benh at Commons

• Support as nominator -- Noclip (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent in highlighting different (some would say "clashing") architectural styles, although the caption needs expansion.--HereToHelp 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please note that per the discussions that are referenced Napoléon at night - Louvre.jpg here, the French copyright law concerns with this image have apparently been satisfied. (The issue is that French copyright law appears to cover some works of architecture (with the result that the holder of the copyright in the architecture can prevent use of photographs of the architecture) but this photograph, under the circumstances, apparently falls under an exception. This is not legal advice. -- Spikebrennan (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, assuming no problems with copyright issues of derivative works. And can we use this picture to replace the current lead picture in Louvre? It's of similar composition, but of higher resolution, etc. ---- Malachirality (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed Caption:

Panorama of the Louvre’s Court of Honor; in the center is I. M. Pei’s glass pyramid that serves as the main entrance to the museum. Originally a medieval castle chartered by Philip II of France in 1198, the current structure of the Louvre was begun in 1535 by Renaissance architects Pierre Lescot and Jacques Androuet du Cerceau. Over the next 200 hundreds years, it would undergo several additions and expansions by various monarchs, including the Grande Galerie under the reign of Henry IV, the Denon and Richelieu Wings under Louis XIII, and other projects by Louis XIV and Napoleon III. Although the Louvre served as the formal seat of government for France from its inception to the end of the Old Regime in 1789, it is perhaps famous today for being the most visited art museum in the world. Among its collection of 380 000 objects (including 11 900 paintings) are the Mona Lisa, Venus de Milo, and Winged Victory of Samothrace.

Too long? --Malachirality (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine by me.--HereToHelp 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support per HereToHelp. Great picture! H92110 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic --ffroth 06:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Great picture in many respects --Fir0002 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Ryo 15:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Its been said - a great addition to the pedia.
• Support There are some quite major problems here, like a lot of ghosted figures and slightly odd perspective distortion, but they're offset well enough by great use of daylight and neat composition. Compelling enc shot. --mikaul^talk 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support with improved caption.--Svetovid (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cour Napoléon at night - Louvre.jpg MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

John Doe

Original

Reason

I think the photo is well composed.

Proposed caption

John Doe is an American singer, songwriter and bass player who was the founder of the seminal L.A. punk band X. His musical compositions and performances are varied, including country and folk music. Doe also performs with the country-folk-punk band The Knitters. He is also a well-known film and television actor, notably playing Jeff Parker in the Roswell television series.

Articles this image appears in

John Doe (musician)

Creator

Paul Zollo

• Support as nominator --evrik ^(talk) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- The composition is nice, but not really for an encyclopedia. It isn't the sharpest either to be frank about it. End to end tonality doesn't help it (sections of all black and all white). Its a good photo, but not for a FP imo. Cheers, Ryo 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As much as I like portrait FPs, not sharp, no detail in shadows, un-encyclopedic composition. de Bivort 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ryoutou. H92110 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Odd crop. Disappointing beyond thumbnail size. Good expression, just not very well rendered. --mikaul^talk 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, just a snapshot. Sorry. --Dhartung | Talk 00:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Louvre Museum in Paris

Original

Reason

This is the best image of my life.

Proposed caption

This image is from Paris, France. This is the exterior of Louvre Museum.

Articles this image appears in

Creator

Brískelly

• Support as nominator --Brískelly 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Random fountain and glass structure blocking the building.. --ffroth 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, unencylopaedic composition. ---- Aqwis (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurry; blown highlights in the fountain; and the view of the Louvre (which is the alleged subject) is obstructed. CillaИ ♦ XC 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above; plus it's crooked; plus there are funky French-law copyright concerns that relate to the pyramid being in the photo. -- Spikebrennan (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacks a clear view of any one subject, so enc value is almost null. Sharpness is a good as you'd expect, looking at all 6MP of a shot from a compact. --mikaul^talk 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Honus Wagner T206 Baseball Card

Original

Edit 1 - removed hole

Reason

Moving over from picture peer review. An excellent scan of a historically important baseball card.

Proposed caption

The T206 Honus Wagner baseball card is a rare baseball card depicting Honus Wagner, a dead-ball era baseball player who is widely considered to be one of the finest players of all time. The card was designed and issued by the American Tobacco Company from 1909 to 1911. A total of only 50 to 200 cards were ever distributed to the public, and as a result of the card's rarity and popularity, prices have soared. In 2007, a collector paid $2.8 million for one, making it the most valuable baseball card in history.

Articles this image appears in

T206 Honus Wagner, Honus Wagner, and others.

Creator

National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, uploaded by Wickethewok

• Support (original only) as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• While we're at it, why not photoshop out the crack in the Mona Lisa, or perhaps the crack in the liberty bell?

• Support original, Oppose edit. Iconic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-15 19:35Z
• Weak Support Original, Support Edit 1. I can see no problem with someone removing that big dirty splotch (and hole?) above his head, but it would sure improve the image. Change to full Support if someone does a good fix (I'd do it myself, but don't have time). --jjron 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably shouldnt try to touch up a museum photograph of an old relic --ffroth 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It says there are up to 50 - 200 of these. So the photo here is of a copy that is flawed; it doesn't mean they're all flawed, and presumably it wasn't flawed when it was made. The reason for the flaw is never mentioned in the nom or image description. Now if the flaw was a result of Honus Wagner burning a hole in it with his cigarette while admiring his own card or something we should leave it, otherwise it's adding no encyclopaedic value so can be repaired. The other option is we could say that there are many versions of this card out there somewhere, there must be better quality ones, so lets wait till we get a photo of one of them. --jjron 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you read the card's article, you'll see that there has been heavy scrutiny and criticism of cards that have been altered in order to improve them. To photoshop out the problem would only muddy the waters; this example is one that is owned by the baseball Hall of Fame and that adds some enc value as well. Only 50-200 were ever produced; only a tiny handful remain, and only one other in such good condition. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Most likely memorabilia experts in this area know each of the 50-200 cards by heart, and could easily identify each one in a lineup. I believe we would be reducing encyclopedic value by creating a photoshopped example that no expert could identify, or that they could potentially mis-identify (unless they knew it was photoshopped). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 18:22Z

• Yeah, sure, but most likely memorabilia experts would also read the image description that tells them it's been edited and links to the original. Personally I'm more interested in the billions of people who aren't memorabilia experts and just want to see a good image. --jjron (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Those people can go watch TV; wikipedia is for enc. Also whoever keeps switching to the stupid ::* notation for indenting, stop that! --ffroth 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support original, oppose (my) edit - Enc., and a great scan. I don't think we should "fix" that hole, but uploaded a version without it for the hell of it. --Sean 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support either per nom.--Mbz1 03:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 either per Brian0918's comments. Though I still prefer the edit if it weren't for misinformation. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What are you doing, don't support the edit! The card has a hole it it, it's not a fault of the photographer that we can fix up. You're changing the subject! --ffroth 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The original card, when manufactured did not have a hole. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Neither did the Mona Lisa have cracks... --Dschwen 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • See above for jjron's great answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk • contribs) 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
          • See above for jeff dahl's great answer! --ffroth 17:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose edit 1 - encyclopedic value is lost, not gained. Weak support original. Mgiganteus1 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, i was going to support the edit, but the clonebrushing has been done poorly. --Aqwis 15:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree it could be done a bit more neatly. I'd support a re-edit. --jjron (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original - I started up(or at least got someone to) this on the peer review page. Historical value is great and it's not too bad of a scan. -- NyyDave (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Has great encyclopedic value which is lost in edit 1. H92110 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support original. Notable card. Interesting history. Oppose Edit 1. The original is of an actual card in existence. The edit is not the actual card, but a picture made up one afternoon on Wikipedia. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose edit per SilkTork. Cacophony (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, strong oppose edit. The edited version should not be featured under any circumstances. As distracting as the hole is, removing it obliterates the history of the card in question. We might as well fix the crack in here. Matt Deres (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support original, even stronger oppose edit Matt took the words out of my mouth (except for the Liberty Bell part, but that was an excellent analogy... even though it wasn't actually an "analogy" in the strictest definition of the word... you get the point). Making the card look more perfect is unnecessary and just plain wrong. -- Mike (Kicking222) 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, the damage is part of it. It's the one owned by the hall of fame, so they obviously thought it worthy enough. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:HonusWagnerCard.jpg MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Forest Crepuscular Rays

Original

Edit 1

Original 2

Reason

Wikipedia already has two beautiful FP for this subject:

and .
The nominated images however represent a different type of the rays, created by the sun the mist and the trees. That's why IMO the nominated images may be considered.

Proposed caption

Crepuscular rays, in atmospheric optics, also known as sun rays or God's rays, are rays of sunlight that appear to radiate from a single point in the sky. These rays stream through gaps in clouds, or trees or other objects. The rays are beams of sunlit air, which are separeted by dark shadowed regions. These shadowed regions could be shadows of clouds, trees or any other object. The image shows that the rays are actually three dimensional shafts of sunlit air. Look for tose rays at misty mornings or evenings.

Articles this image appears in

Crepuscular rays

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Of course only original image is in the article now. Whatever image gets more positive comments would be placed in the article. If you do not believe that the image should be in the article at all, please say so and it will be removed from the article as soon as the nomination is over. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Pretty, but after reading the Crepuscular ray article I'm confused as why you'd think your tree shadows would be crepuscular rays?! The pictures do not add to the article, they actually subtract by picturing someting else by definition. --Dschwen 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Dschwen; the opening line to the article (which you've adapted for your caption) doesn't mention tree shadows at all. I agree it's a similar phenomenon, but it doesn't appear to be quite the same thing. If you can point to something which backs up your point then fine, but otherwise I'll have to go with strong oppose based on it not being encyclopedic of the topic at hand. I will also try to read up on it as well. 99.236.51.219 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign in. Matt Deres 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I did mention the trees in my caption before nominating the images. Thank you.--Mbz1 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for your comments and vote,Dschwen and Matt Deres. I'll try to explain why atmospheric optics experts (I'm not one of them, but I read their books) call the phenomena in the nominated images crepuscular rays. Yes, you are right you see shadow of a tree, but you also see the rays - the beams of ligt in the gaps of the trees. Here how tree shadow looks and it is still crepuscular rays. With cloud crepuscular rays you see shadows of the clouds. With trees vrepuscular rays you see the shadows of the trees. Here how famous atmospheric optic expert Andy Young explained to me fog shadows when I asked him about this :
  "These fascinating shadows look odd since humans are not used to seeing shadows in three dimensions. The thin fog was just dense enough to be illuminated by the light that passed through the gaps in a structure or in a tree. As a result, the path of an object shadow through the "fog" appears darkened. In a sense, these shadow lanes are similar to crepuscular rays, which are caused by cloud shadows, but here, they're caused by an object shadows." So in other words there is no difference in the rays we see in gaps of the clouds, or in gaps of trees or other objects. Crepuscular rays article also talks about shadow in few places. IMO it is rather article that does not give the complete pictures of crepuscular rays than the image does not belong to the article. I would have corrected the article, but with my English I'd better not. When I said that I would remove image from the article, if community decides so, I did not mean that the image is not of crepuscular rays (it is), I meant that maybe you find there are too many images in the article. IMO image adds value to the article by showing a different kind of crepuscular rays. I'd also like to mention that there are few images at Commons in category crepuscular rays with trees here. They were taken by different people at the different time, but all of them ended up in crepuscula rays category (the right one IMO). Should we remobe them too? I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a reliable source, if one wants to know more about atmospheric optics in general and crepuscular rays in particular.Please feel free to ask me more questions. I'd like also to ask Matt Deres to share with us what he found on the subject, please.Thank you.--Mbz1 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW I think Mbz1 might be right that these are a type of crepuscular rays, and it could well improve the article having this info and the pictures. Having said which, I would find it hard to justify having 3 FPs for a 450 word article, especially when, from what I can see, that's the only thing any of them illustrate. --jjron 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comment, jjron. If we had this conversation the day before yesterday, I would have tend to agree with you that three FP for such a short article could be one too many. It is why I said in the image introduction that Wikipedia already has two FP for the subject. However after reading the comments from Dschwen and Matt Deres and getting not just oppose, but a strong oppose for the reason the image "not being encyclopedic of the topic at hand",I've started to believe that the image should be considered for FP, if for nothing else, at least for the educational purpose. I've been interested it atmospheric optics for few years and,when I look at a phenomena, I know what I'm looking at most of the times. I believed so called "forest crepuscular rays" or "tree crepuscular rays" are very well known phenomena. I see it is not the case.I've improved the caption of the image and tried to explain the image better. Thank you. --Mbz1 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually I was almost thinking the same thing :-). It still seems overkill, I wonder if we really need both the others featured since they basically show the same thing. BTW, also kudos to you for identifying that there were already two FPs of this in your nom. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Jiron.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Nice picture Mbz1, Why not try nominating it at commons? H92110 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. MER-C, does no votes at all count as promoted? :) --ffroth 06:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "no votes" I've got at least one vote - strong oppose ;)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Quorum is 4 in favour. MER-C 09:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination for the lack of interest. As Dschwen commented on another candidate: "Lack of votes = lack of interest = not an interesting picture = not FP material". Thank you all for looking and for the comments and for the sole vote the image got.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think this may be worth a renom once it's verified that this belongs in the Crepuscular rays article; I suspect that lengthy discussion and those doubts may have put off many voters. This would be especially true if you limited it to just what you consider the best picture to nominate at first instead of three to help avoid confusion, and if there weren't already those two featured. --jjron (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, jjron.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypotrochoid

Original (click to view)

Reason

The picture shows an excellent example of how a hypotrochoid is constructed, and it significantly adds to its article.

Proposed caption

The construction of a hypotrochoid. As the smaller orange circle rolls around the inside of the larger green circle, the point attached by the blue line traces out a curve known as a hypotrochoid.

Articles this image appears in

Hypotrochoid

Creator

ipi31415

• Support as nominator Piis314 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Changed image to a link due to size (2.4 MB original, 1.3 MB thumbnailed). MER-C 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question Why all the colors? Some people are colorblind, you know. Suggest making the circle gray, at least. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The red hypotrochoid has a 1-pixel wiggle for a while in the beginnig. There needs to be a pause after the curve is completed. Fix this, and I'll support. --Janke | Talk 09:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This certainly could be fixed up: There are lots of dithering on the background inside the grids when the background should be white; the grid lines are like the marching ants, constantly moving; the unnecessary antialiasing of the Y-axis should be removed by moving the Y-axis half a pixel either side; the antialiasing on the major grid lines should also be removed or at least made the same colour as the minor grid lines; these improvements would improve the palette used and reduce the unnecessary dithering, reducing its size. --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, i feel it's quite laggy - would it be possible to add more frames? (although i do understand that would increase the loading times for people with poor connections in non-Western countries) --Aqwis 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with most of the above comments, but I think the most important thing is a pause at the end of the animation sequence.--HereToHelp 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's too much shifting of the red line. Doesn't compare with Image:Foucault pendulum animated.gif, which is a stunning animation. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Olympic Stadium of Montreal at night.

Original

Alternate

Reason

Taken from Commons FPC, very beautiful picture.

Proposed caption

The Olympic Stadium in Montreal, built as the main venue for the 1976 Summer Olympics, is a 56,040-seat multipurpose facility. It is the fomer home of the Montreal Expos and is currently an alternate host to the CFL Montreal Alouettes. The building has been wrought with problems since its conception. It was not completed in time for the 1976 Olympics and finished over budget. In 1986 a large piece of the building fell during a MLB baseball game. In 1999 a large piece of the roof caved in on workers preparing for the Montreal Auto Show, causing the show to find a new venue. The stadium is now closed for four months every winter as the fire marshal has concerns about the roof being unable to support snow loads.

Articles this image appears in

Olympic Stadium (Montreal)

Creator

User:Acarpentier

• Support as nominator Cacophony 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support either but prefer alt, because it shows more of the rear of the stadium rather than two symmetrical halves of the front.--HereToHelp 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support original per nom.--Mbz1 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alt per HereToHelp (the original is also very good but I find the alternative better). – sgeureka ^t•c 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support original Thanks for nominating Cacophony, Hi Mbz1. I didnt know this place exist like in commons ;) Acarpentier 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, Acarpentier. Welcome!--Mbz1 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternate because it gives a better sense of being a building. The original doesn't have any sense of scale --ffroth 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternate per HereToHelp Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support both, i like the lines and composition of the original, but the alternative is slightly more encyclopaedic, showing more of the building. --Aqwis 08:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative what a very odd looking building --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alternate very interesting picture, makes me want to find out more Tenio 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support alternative per Hadseys. The picture arouses my curiosity. H92110 (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alt. I think this also serves as a reminder to people that building FPs don't have to be Diliff size, resolution and quality to be featureworthy. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Alt Per above lovely light and sharpness --Fir0002 11:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support alternative, fantastic shot! That said, neither of these pictures (nor any of the pictures on the article page, for that matter) get to the heart of what this building really looks like. If you have access to it, I'd like to see the exact same shot taken from a different location / angle. See how dramatic this structure can be? . In any case, I do think both of these pictures are brilliant, and I support them completely, but if you ever decide to snap a better angle, I'd definitely support the replacement. tiZom_(2¢) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Le Stade Olympique de Montréal Nuit Arriere-Gauche.jpg MER-C 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Coppice Sand Dunes

Original

Edit 1 (downsampled and reduced saturation)

Reason

Interesting, encyclopedic image of a beautiful phenomena of the sand and the wind

Proposed caption

Sand Dunes in Death Valley National Park. The image shows coppice dunes , which are formed around vegetation. These dunes are usually found in the deserts in semiarid regions. Like with all sand dunes the coppice dunes form, when there is lots of loose sand,a wind, which is strong enough to move the sand and some kind of obstruction, where sand particles settle out. The size and shape of a coppice dune depends on the amount of sand available, the characteristics of the wind and on forms of vegetations they form around. As you could see from the image the dunes are very much symmetrical. The image also shows wind ripples. They form, when sand grains bouncing and rolling up the windward surface of a dune land on the windward side of each ripple and produces a low ridge. Here's the image, which shows the same dunes from above:

Articles this image appears in

Dune

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The emphasis is on the whole landscape, not the dunes themselves. At full scale, the picture is not sharp, and that artificial saturation is not fooling anyone. Lipton sale (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I always wonder, why sometimes an image gets no votes at all. Is it too bad to support, but not too bad to oppose? Is it so boring that there's no use to spend a time voting? I like, when the images I've nominated get votes. I like supports better, but I like opposes too.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here, but for me I didn't vote on this one because I had already shot down an image or two and just didn't feel like disappointing someone unless the image started racking up positive votes. Call it a simplistic weakness. For my part, the issues I have are focus, the color of the image has an unnatural tinge, and the dune's size don't have a reference point outside the mountains in the distance - which I think makes them seem smaller than they actually were. The best, Ryo 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment,Ryo. I used to be very much disappointed, when my images were opposed. That time has long past. It is a good point about the size of the dunes (I'm talking only about the dunes around the vegetation). They were rather small maybe 50-70 centimeters high.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, oversaturated and not very sharp. We've got better illustrations of dunes anyway, such as this picture. --Aqwis (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote,Aqwis. I agree the picture by Luca Galuzzi is much better and much more ineresting than mine. I've nominated my image because it gives an introduction to a different type of dunes, which is not mentioned in the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support original An attractive shot, albeit the notably strong saturation. The second, however, is far too dull and washed out. -- Chris.B | talk 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - low technical quality for such an easy-to-obtain subject.--Svetovid (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, the colours just look too artificial, even in the edit. You did ask for votes ;). --jjron (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I did and I love them all. Thank you for your votes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Original

Reason

This Picture of Jimbo, in my opnion, shows the founder of Wikimedia in a manner that fits the Featured Picture Candidates.

Proposed caption

Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia.

Articles this image appears in

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia

Creator

Andrew Lih

• Support as nominator The Placebo Effect (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• No I don't think the image is of necessary quality, and, personally, I don't like the idea of Wales' picture being featured, for several obvious reasons relating to eponymousity in Wikipedia's featured content. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's too cult-of-personality-ish to have an FP of him, in my opinion. It would be like the default Apple desktop background being a big portrait of Steve Jobs (not that that's outside the realm of possibility). --Sean 18:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly which criteria do you believe that doesn't fit? It doesn't matter who it is, just as long as it meets the criteria. --The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good technical quality (except for that black dot on his beard) but he looks very weird in this shot. Like he's silently locked in the middle of a psychic mind battle with someone across the table, who's staring back with an equally threatening grimace --ffroth 19:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How does that pose compare to this featured picture. --The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well that guy looks foreign; Jimbo looks deranged --ffroth 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • O_o gren グレン 12:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not an engaging picture especially in terms of facial expression. In the picture pointed out by the nom the subject has a more engaging facial expression and cultural context. This picture doesn't make me want to read the article because it looks like he could be made of wax.D-rew (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Black dot on beard. Pstuart84 Talk 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose black dot makes it unnecessary to think of how I'd otherwise vote... gren グレン 12:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as above, unappealing composition. Plus the pirate spot. -- Chris.B | talk 15:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support All hail dear leader! --Elfer (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose No, not the Black Spot. So, that's where it is. (Ultimately, per Chris B. above.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Caffinch

Original

Original edit 1

Edit 2

Reason

I feel it is a really good photograph of the avifauna in question, and shows good contrast between bird and background.

Proposed caption

The Chaffinch, (Fringilla coelebs), is a small passerine bird in the finch family Fringillidae, also called a spink. Its large double white wing bars, white tail edges and greenish rump easily identify this 14-16 cm long species. A male is seen here; a breeding male caffinch is unmistakable, with a reddish underparts and a blue-grey cap.

Articles this image appears in

Finch, Passerine, Chaffinch, Fringilla, Vinkensport, List of birds of Egypt

Creator

MichaelMaggs

• Support as nominator -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support -- Ryo 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I think this is a fine encyclopedic shot, but I can't help wishing for a bit more sharpness and for a rule of thirds crop. My edit for a rough example of what might have been, but the sharpening really introduces artifacts which aren't pleasing and the crop needed to be done through the lens really. Its a good photo, just not perfect.
• Weak support -- same here. Beautiful colors, great pose and certainly encyclopedic. Focus should be on the face but it's more on the back of the bird... Wwcsig (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • after some deliberation - the sharpness is just not there. Oppose Wwcsig (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was poised to support this, but at 100% it's disappointing. It's one of those great images which should just be left to be admired in context, rather than laid out under the loupe to pull apart and mark down. I can't support it for FP: it has to be sharp under scrutiny, and it isn't. I won't oppose it, either, as it has two supports already and I'd actually be happy to see it promoted.. before running off to nominate a few similar shots of my own ;) --mikaul^talk 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I will oppose the edit, though, as the original crop is one of it's best points (sorry, Ryo..)--mikaul^talk 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I agree at least partially. The best, Ryo 00:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support either Some minor problems with the focus, but I love the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, i agree with mikaul - it looks great on the image page but it's just too blurred when looking at it at 100% or even 50%. --Aqwis (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• If anyone wants to try an improved edit I can email the original raw file. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Holding off on any vote at the moment, I'd at least like to have a look at the RAW file. It's not clear whether the artifacts/blur are processing error or are unavoidable. I won't promise that I can help but if I can I'll happily upload an edit... my email is: ebaetscher@gmail.com. thanks -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak support No, it's not the sharpest image, but it's a very large image of a fairly small bird. At 50% size, it's still larger than life on my monitor and tolerably clear and sharp. I can't quite give full support, but it's a shot in the wild, encyclopedic, and with plenty of detail present. Matt Deres (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a wild bird. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral The composition is just amazing, but the lack of sharpness is quite unfortunate. -- Chris.B | talk 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The raw image is being looked at by Fcb981 now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded an edit. I managed to pull a bit more texture from the feathers, retain better sharpness and minimize sharpening artifacts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcb981 (talk • contribs)

Hmm, that probably makes it a weak support edit2. I think I have a penchant for the composition in this shot, the photographer has caught the subject with a very nice expression. -- Chris.B | talk 15:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately the motion blur is too much, and I doubt it's introduced by editing: to the contrary, it had been quite aggressively sharpened already. People say 1/[equiv. focal length on 35mm] is the fastest shutter speed you should shoot photos, and 1/60 is just way too slow for a 600mm (effective) lens. Or at least, move up to a higher ISO: a clear image with noise is better than a blurry image without noise. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 2 I am happier with the processing in it. It looks more natural. The other two are to artificial to get my vote. pretty bird -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose All Nice bird and lighting, but quality fails it unfortunately. Sorry! --Fir0002 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Low flying Cessna 150

A low flying Cessna 150L in Swifts Creek

A sharp and interesting shot of a Cessna 150L - the low flying swoop providing an interesting backdrop to the typical blue sky image of planes in flight IMO.

Appears in Cessna 150

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I feel teh cluttered and uninspiring background ruins it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Confused shot - background and foreground merging. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Ryo 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC) And a hard decision on this one. Fantastic focus on the aircraft, and being able to see the pilot is great. But I agree that the background muddles things, sadly.
• Support, i love the backgrund. Yes, i'm serious - the contrast between the pin-sharp airplane vs the motion-blurred background adds to the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support here too. You couldn't wish for better depth of field, I think complaints about the bg are a little misplaced. Unlucky with the light (from the left would have been great) and a little higher in the frame, and less tightly-cropped.. ..all forgivable nitpicks. Well-captured, good enc, bonus hilarious face in the cockpit. --mikaul^talk 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I could see the pilot's face!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral the picture is good but the background spoils everything. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel that way, perhaps you'll prefer the 182P I nominated above featuring a backdrop of the wild blue yonder... --Fir0002 07:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Caption please! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposing on a caption is not a valid rationale except if it doesn't contain information on what the subject is. A POTD style caption is not required on FPC - all we want here is the same style caption as you'd get in an article. We're not here looking for a rehash of the first paragraph of the image's home article. We're looking for the best pictures wiki has. Please reconsider your vote. --Fir0002 07:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • So you mean "A low flying Cessna 150L in Swifts Creek" is supposed to be the caption? I was looking for it in the usual spot. I suppose this technically meets the criteria, but these 8 words are not much of an effort; enc value stems from the image and the text. A caption is supposed to put the image into context, draw the reader into the article, and so on, as described here. "A low flying Cessna..." didn't do this job; I certainly didn't feel a desire to read the article, and I didn't even notice the caption the first time I looked at it! The FP criteria say the image has to have a good caption. I'll support your other Cessna image above if it gets a good caption. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry Jeff but you're position is flawed on several counts. First - where is the consistency? The Louvre Panorama below gets by at a mere 6 words without comment. Second the caption provided described the situation perfectly - it says what the picture is of (a Cessna 150) what it is doing (flying low) and where it was taken (Swifts Creek). Any further information is superfluous. A caption shouldn't draw you into reading an article, the image should draw you in. And it's all fine and dandy to refer to WP:CAP but if you care to actually take a look at it this caption fares pretty well covering most requirements: identifies the subject (Cessna 150); is succinct; it doesn't really establish the relevance to article as this requirement doesn't apply to FPC (unless you count the reason for nomination); provides context (it was taken in Swifts Creek); perhaps the caption doesn't draw the reader into the article, but the thumbnail does and that is what is important on a page about pictures not about the subject the picture depicts. I think you should take a look at WP:CAP - your caption on the Wagner card is not succinct weighing in at 93 words (enough to start a stub!). And while we're onto the subject of your Wagner card caption, I'll move onto the third flaw of your argument. The captions you seem to desire are worthless rehashes of the article. Over half your caption is taken directly from the first paragraph of the article, with the rest stringing on a few other sentences from the article. And it's not just yours, to pick another current candidate at random check out the Downy Woodpecker. Beyond 10 or so words giving the kind of detail that is in my caption, the rest is taken from the article. And what is the point of that? If you are interested enough on the subject go get that info from the article!! I mean if an image appeared with that kind of caption in an article what would people do? Strip it back to that which describes the image alone. Even the details I provided here go beyond what an article would want - check this out. The image does have a good caption - it's just a current distorted trend which seems to encourage article rehashes in the guise of good captions. Please return to what FPC is about - identifying great photos, not captions! --Fir0002 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The only thing this pic has going for it in the FP nom is its high level of detail.. but I can see this being delisted in like a year when we're no longer impressed- it's really just barely wowable --ffroth 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The background is a shame, it almost merges into the plane. -- Chris.B | talk 15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Downy Woodpecker2

Original

Cropped version

Edit 2: Cropped and sharpened version

Reason

I am nominating this image because I feel that it is a good image that clearly shows the subject. My main concern was the fact that the background is a tad fuzzy, but I looked at several other Bird FPs, and a few others have similar backgrounds.

Proposed caption

A male Downy Woodpecker eating a seed at a bird feeder. Downy Woodpeckers usually forage on trees, picking the bark surface in summer and digging deeper in winter. They mainly eat insects, and also seeds and berries. However, Downy Woodpeckers can often be found in treed suburban backyards and will often feed on suet at birdfeeders, especially during the winter.

Articles this image appears in

Downy Woodpecker

Creator

Myself

• Support as nominator Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There is too much negative space around the bird, and the bird itself is slightly out of focus. Also, the birdfeeder is not only distracting, but the small wood pole protruding from it cuts off part of the tail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipton sale (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I cropped the image so that the bird is the main focus and there is less of the bird feeder. Is that better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I like the negative space on the original - but unfortunately the quality isn't up to standard IMO in terms of sharpness. --Fir0002 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Not quite sharp enough. I'm usually not a big fan of feeder shots either unless the feeder complements the bird. Wwcsig (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Another decent bird shot (again, the original crop is by far the best) let down by lack of sharpness where it counts (prefocussed, maybe?) Frontal lighting is always a pain when you're looking for detail and this one suffers doubly for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIckStephenson (talk • contribs)
• Support Edit 2, even if it's not as sharp as it could be, it's far sharper than the Caffinch picture which is getting supported by several people above. My crop removes the useless empty space to the left of the bird, while not cropping any of the bird feeder. I also sharpened the bird a bit, and only the bird to avoid getting any artefacts due to the sharpening. --Aqwis (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral It really is a nice shot, nice composition (especially edit2) and very encyclopedic IMO. Unfortunately - as so often is the case - the sharpness is below average. -- Chris.B | talk 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-War Protest

Original

Alternative 1

Original Crop-Not for voting

Reason

It's a high quality, striking image of a anti-war protest.

Proposed caption

Soldiers and civilians march down 15th street NW in Washington DC in protest to the Iraq war.

Articles this image appears in

Protest, Opposition to the Iraq War, Flag desecration

Creator

User: Lipton_Sale

• Support as nominator Lipton sale (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose alt, support original Could probably benefit from a bit of downsampling, but the angle shows a lot of the march, and the selective focus I find moves the attention around nicely. de Bivort 05:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose both Not very illustrative or compelling. It would help greatly to be elevated from the march so that we can see more than a handful of people. Ideally I would be able to read more than a couple of signs. This photo is a good example of what I mean: Cacophony (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I like it because it gives the eye-level perspective, and conveys what it's like to be in a protest. de Bivort 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The encyclopedic value of these images for Protest is marginal. It probably fits better in Iraq Veterans Against the War. Noclip (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The balance of the shot is killing it for me. Is there a version with more of the bottom of the frame? --mikaul^talk 18:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I like the one with the flags a bit more, but there's no proper bottom (and a sign is obviously cut off, would have been very readable). I'm adding this to the image-light Opposition to the Iraq War. The other one shows individuals a little better but has less oomph. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I also added it to flag desecration#United States, as it may be the only photo of an upside-down US flag we have (there's an SVG used only on userpages). Note that it is there as an example of a constitutionally protected use. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose both Per above. ^8thstar 02:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment can you please add more information about the image to its page? gren グレン 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose alt Technically great, I love the colours. It could probably have done with a larger crop, but otherwise ok. -- Chris.B | talk 15:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I added the original uncropped version for comparison, and to show the reason why I cropped it so the large banner at the bottom could not be read. The fact of the matter was that there was nothing there to be read, and that someone's microphone got into my shot. When I took this photo, I saw standing on the back of a moving pickup truck with several other photographers, and could not avoid having something intrude into my photo. Lipton sale (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a very appealing shot, definitely not the best that WP has to offer in terms of shots of this category. Cat-five - talk 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Immortal Game

Original

Reason

If you're not a chess expert, you might not realize that Black is losing badly until it's too late.

Proposed caption

The immortal game was a chess game played on 21 June 1851 by Adolf Anderssen (white) and Lionel Kieseritzky (black). It is one of the most famous chess games of all time, and acclaimed as an excellent deomonstration of the style of chess play in the 19th century, when where rapid development and attack were considered the most effective way to win. In this game, Anderssen achieves checkmate and wins despite sacrificing a bishop, both rooks, and the queen.

Articles this image appears in

Chess, Immortal game

Creator

User:Karophyr, with edits by User:Capmo

• Support as nominator -- Spikebrennan (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Uber support. It doesn't get any more encyclopedic than this. But please change the delay to 3s for all frames, I want to actually see what's going on --ffroth 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is hard to follow which chesspiece moves from where when. I know you're not the image creator, but maybe this could be improved by shortly highlighting which chesspiece will be moved in the next few frames. – sgeureka^t•c 09:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Or by actually animating the move. As it stands, it's really hard to keep up...it moves so fast that you see the space it moves to before you see the space it moves from. I'm going to oppose until it either blinks before the move, or it animates the move. tiZom_(2¢) 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I second that. The pieces should drag themselves over to their new position (hard to do for knights because they jump…)--HereToHelp 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
      • ...And you'd have a 20MB gif on your hands --ffroth 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The game is well known and this animation is compulsive viewing. It's astonishing how badly Kieseritzky plays for a chessmaster. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose if not sourced (otherwise neutral), because as of now it's not verifiable. It's probably not hard to check this against the article? But still, images like this need sources on their pages. gren グレン 13:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This game is included in most introductory chess books, such as The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games (ISBN 978-0786705870). The portable game notation is available here. MER-C 03:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Support Ryo 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I suspect this was made with a chess program. I think anything that raises the interest in chess is great, but it is hard to support an export type file. If it were unique, and easy to discern it from the "Save as animated gif" feature of several programs it would get my support for sure. Cheers, Ryo 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't you recognize it? The creator says that he took every individual frame of the game, ran them through Wikipedia's chess template, and animated the frames --ffroth 16:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh good point and thanks for pointing that out. Revised to support...cheers, Ryo

• Oppose I'd support a slower version with smoother transitions. It's interesting, entertaining and educational, just a headache to watch. --mikaul^talk 18:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Come on nominator, get on it, it's in the bag! --ffroth 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't shoot me, I'm just the piano player. I think the image is fine as is-- and it's consistent with Wikipedia's other chess illustrations. I did reach out to the creator of the animation, though, to alert him (her?) to the points raised by this discussion. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support It's not that hard to follow if you at least know the rules of movement of chess pieces, but the last frame should be a little longer though. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support IF the motions were more apparent. It doesn't need to be actual motion - it could be a line from the source to the destination. The image should also show the sacrificed pieces on the sidelines, since that is an important part of the subject. Also I would hold on the last frame for much longer. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-20 14:29Z
• Oppose but only because of the concerns above; this can and should be featured, but it needs refinement. Perhaps a line showing each move, and showing which move number they're on? --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Despite speed issues it is a very good animation of a chess game, which I think is fairly hard to do well. Cat-five - talk 23:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal British Legion's Paper Poppy

Original

Edit 1

Alternative 1

Reason

Paper Poppies like this one are worn throughout the United Kingdom every year in early November to raise money for the Royal British Legion and to remember those servicemen and women who died for their country. The image is of high resolution and shows the entire subject in detail. The poppy itself is not perfect, there is a slight bend in it, but this does show how they are worn by real people in the real world.

Proposed caption

An artificial corn poppy, made of plastic and cardboard by disabled ex-servicemen, worn in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries from late October to Remembrance Sunday in support of the Royal British Legion's Poppy Appeal and to remember those servicemen and women who died in war. Wearing poppies to remember the war dead comes from the poem In Flanders' Fields by Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae which concludes with the line "We shall not sleep, though poppies grow, In Flanders fields". Although originally worn to commemorate those who fell in the First World War, poppies are also worn for the fallen of every conflict since.

Articles this image appears in

The Royal British Legion, Remembrance Day

Creator

Philip Stevens

• Support as nominator Philip Stevens 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Much as I would love this important subject to be a FP, the glare of the flash is too harsh in this photo. Pstuart84 Talk 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the glare (edit 1), but as I'm sure you know, there is a quality trade-off. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • Do you still have the poppy to re-shoot this photo? Personally, I think it would benefit from a white background and a more even colour range. The leaf, for example, is in quite dark shadow here. Cheers, Pstuart84 Talk 13:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Support Alternative 1. Super, that's dealt with all my concerns. Pstuart84 Talk 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Although the extra effort has greatly improved the pic, it's still short of FP quality, I think (artefacts, contrast, over-sharpened)
  I know it's often hard to detatch subject matter from image, but we are bound to judge image quality way above subject worthiness and this isn't quite there. Seriously though, I wish all Wiki photos were so carefully taken, it's a worthy attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MIckStephenson (talk • contribs)

No consensus MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Leopard Tortoise

Original

Reason

A good closeup view of the tortoise showing its face very clearly.

Proposed caption

The Leopard tortoise Geochelone pardalis, is a large and attractively marked tortoise. It is a large, grazing species of tortoise that favours semi-arid, thorny to grassland habitats. Leopard tortoises are the fourth largest species of tortoise.

Alternative 1

Edit 1 of Alternative 1 by jjron

Edit 2 of Alternative 1 by Ryo

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Articles this image appears in

Tortoise, Leopard Tortoise

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks like an average snapshot to me. Lipton_sale 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Average Shot, is very out of focus Tenio 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What is so average about them?

Both the above votes are these users first FP votes. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, so? Newbies have suffrage here. --ffroth 04:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite typical to mention when new users appear unexpectedly to vote, in case of potential sock puppetry for example. One of these users has only 15 edits on Wikipedia, the other just 25. It doesn't mean their votes don't count, just that they need to be treated with caution until they 'prove' themselves. --jjron 06:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I could just about understand that rationale if they were supporting but as it stands they were making an opposition, which if they were a sockpuppet perhaps wouldnt be in their best interests. I think that, despite them being new, they gave valid reasons for their objection and this should be noted rather than the legitimacy of their vote --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• It has been known for users to create multiple socks in order to post multiple opposes (or its equivalent) as part of some type of 'revenge' against a user. It's not that hard to come up with such simple 'valid' reasons as were given here. --jjron (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What is so exceptional about them? Lipton_sale 3:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What is so exceptional? Its a great shot! It shows the details of the tortoise's facial expression. It makes you feel as if you are there. I have not seen any other such picture of a tortoise on wikipedia. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • i'm not really sure where to put this in the article (i'm a noob) but I am not a "sock puppet" or whatever you call them just because this is my first vote doesn't mean that I can't have a say, and also I have made only a few edits to articles b/c I thought I could add to those articles.Tenio (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I really like Alternative 1, but in the same way as I might like a portrait of a family member or a pet that displayed some of their more endearing characteristics. Yet this does not automatically translate into FP status. Unschool 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. What features do you wish to see? I still have the chance of taking photos of this specie for a few days. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Would people stop posting comments under the Template:- line? Kthxbi. --ffroth 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support Original or Alt 1 (see below). OK, Alt 1 has better composition (though I'd rather it just a little further back), but you can see right in there to view how the head retracts into the shell, the mouth structure, etc; high encyclopaedic value. The exposure is better on the Original, the Alt looks a bit overexposed, probably too much flash. So I'd full support something like Alt 1 with the exposure/colouring of the Original. --jjron 07:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support either with preference for alternative 2, encycloped and crisp, wikipedia sure gets its moneys worth from its editors --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Alternative 1 for a better composition.--Mbz1 13:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to lighting and due to the fact that you can't see the entire tortoise. My personal opinion is that as a general rule, an image of an animal that doesn't show substantially the entire animal ought not to be eligible to be featured unless the animal is very commonplace, or its general appearance is widely known, or the image is illustrating a specific unique and distinctive feature of that animal. Spikebrennan 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This image is illustrating a specific unique and distinctive feature of the animal. It is showing the face, it is showing the scale like projections on the legs which are unique to this tortoise. These close up views also show clearly features which can not be seen with the entire view. Even the nostrils can be seen! What more could you ask? I have added two more pictures. Sorry for so many pictures but, after all the constructive criticism I took a few pictures which I hope will suit your demands.---- Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support alt 3, oppose others. -- Spikebrennan (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't you strike-through your original oppose (i.e., the vote, if not the comment)? --jjron (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose all sorry, their compositions and lighting are just too snap-shotty. They lack the wow-factor that is the first requirement for an FP to me. de Bivort 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support alt 1 -- Ryo 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Alt 1 is a nice, though not encyclopedic and has harsh flash. A lot could be done with a bit of curves adjustment and a touch of saturation to lower that effect. The new angles are more encyclopedic, but feels dead since is shot from above. The perfect should would almost have to mean putting the thing on a rock or something elevated so you can both step away with the flash and yet remain at eye level or below it to create a sense of size. Cheers, Ryo

• Oppose all the flash lighting in the closeups is bad. The composition of the other is too sloppy, too eye-level. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • still oppose, unfortunately. Its a great picture, but I can't say the edits helped. The higher contrast and increased saturation don't help IMO. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 03:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support any, with preference to alt 1. H92110 (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1 of Alt 1 uploaded.

• Support Edit 1 of Alt 1 per my previous comments, I think this addresses the lighting issue on the original of Alt 1. Perhaps this also addresses some other's concerns? --jjron (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this edit helps quite a bit. I made some further minor edits - reduced the accented hotspot, reduced grain in the off focus top corner, and was a bit more aggressive with sharpness on the lower face (where I think it can stand it without losing anything). The licensing variables on my upload is imperfect, still learning the tools here...cheers, Ryo 14:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose all. This nomination is verging on the absurd! I have no idea which to offer an opinion on, which to ignore.. please, if you have any doubts, consider using picture peer review before nominating images here. --mikaul^talk 09:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Offer opinion on all of them if you dont mind. Your reason for opposing is unfortunately not justified. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • While it may be true that there are too many choices here, that is not a valid reason to oppose. To do so would seem like a violation of WP:Point. --jjron (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Violation? Well, the reason I'm opposing is because the original nom was clearly not FP material. The image closest, in my opinion, to FP quality (alt 1) doesn't appear in any articles. The second, third and fourth (!) alternatives successively weaken and demean the original nom to the point of absurdity. The only point to make here is that there's clearly no chance of any of the above being promoted, something a preliminary visit to WP:PPR would probably have avoided. Here's a point: I believe we should limit the candidate images in a nomination (not edits, which are generally beneficial) to one. I've suggested as much on the talk page, where I'd direct any further comments. --mikaul^talk 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The alt 1 was provided together with the original. Both can not be used in the articles. Hence the one that is selected by you guys to be the best would then be used. You say that alt 1 is close to FP quality. Do you support it? Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
          • With respect, that's not how FPC nominations are handled at all. You can get an assessment as to which is the most encyclopedic image of the two at the peer review page. The one selected by those guys would then be nominated. The FPC page is for assessing images which appear in Wikipedia articles; the fact that Alt 1 doesn't is reason enough not to support it. Also, I'm not at all keen on the colour and tone rendering from the flash lighting, and find the context – the tortoise seems to be, erm, perched upon another – a little distracting and confusing, but maybe that's just me ;) --mikaul^talk 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Tortoise perched on another? There is only one tortoise. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
              • QED.. --mikaul^talk 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose all. This is my first vote on an F.P. nom, but I've checked this page daily for at least six months (hopefully I won't get marked down therefore). None of the photos here is of F.P. quality, so I'll direct my comments at Alt. 1, which is the best in my opinion. At full res it's artifacted, overly bright and lacking sharpness; the large patch of blue on the right hand side is also distracting from the subject. Conversely the edits are over-sharpened and over-saturated; I think these clearly show that editing out the image's shortcomings from the supplied jpeg would be nigh on impossible. bad_germ 19:10, 18th November (UTC)
  • Your vote seems reasoned enough (but what is it about this nom that's attracted three new voters?). However I'd like to point out that you say that Alt 1 is "...lacking sharpness..." while "...the edits are over-sharpened...". Interesting, because in doing my edit (Edit 1) I did absolutely no sharpening whatsoever (I remember this clearly, because usually I would do a bit of sharpening, but I was surprised by how sharp this was). --jjron (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe my eyes are deceiving then, and the increased saturation brought it out. The quality of the image in the most important area (eye and mouth) is just not there when viewed in full resolution. I for one came out of the woodwork because the uploader has had a number of self-noms (here and here), and would perhaps be better served by the peer review. Whilst enthusiasm is no doubt encouraged, when nominating your own pictures ruthless objectivity must also be used to avoid disappointment. bad_germ 11:41, 19th November (UTC)

Note. It appears the integrity of this candidate may have been severely compromised by possible sock puppetry at the beginning of the process - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sxenko. If not promoted, I propose that this candidate be closed without bias and renominated at the nominator's discretion. --jjron (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose All I'm not really much of a fan of any of the close ups - the composition and lighting is lacking in my opinion. Alt 1 is probably the strongest of the close-ups but it should have been taken at a wider angle. And when I say a wider angle I'm not just saying I would prefer more of the carapace showing (which I would) but also the wider angle would provide a more interesting perspective. I also dislike the dirt and stuff around his mouth. Alt 3 has softer (nicer) lighting and a full body composition (which in my opinion is better) but looks a bit messy - with the grass and stuff obscuring parts of the body and the poor background with all the pink flowers and stuff. A good photo, but not quite FP standard IMO --Fir0002 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Arc De Triomphe

Original

This version is already featured.

Reason

It's a nice full frame image of the building on a cloudy day in Paris.

Proposed caption

The Arc de Triomphe stands in the middle of the street in Paris, France.

Articles this image appears in

Arc De Triomphe

Creator

FoxyStarshine

• Support as nominator FoxyStarshine (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• We already have a featured picture of this subject. MER-C 06:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the subject being blurred. It is not outstanding compared to the other images in the Commons category. The existing version is the quality we're looking for. Cacophony (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but existing FP version is considerably better. On a different note I see that your only contribution to Wikipedia involves uploading this image and nominating it here - can I suggest you spend a little more time around the FPC project to see what type of things we are looking for. --jjron (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above. ^8thstar 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. There's also the matters of the distracting vehicles in the foreground, the bad lighting, the crookedness, the unattractive coloring, the scaffolding that is not a normal part of the monument and so diminishes from the encyclopedicness of the image, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

===Snail diagram=== of insides

Original

Edit 1 English captions, reduce dot size etc.

Reason

Good encyclopedic image.

Proposed caption

A snail is a mollusc of the class gastopoda. Snails are extraordinarily diverse but all have coiled shells as adults to protect them and a strong foot coated in mucous for locomotion. All land snails are hermaphrodites and have two sets of tentacles which carry the eyes and olfactory organs.

Articles this image appears in

Snail

Creator

Al2

• Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Good diagram, but I think it would be perfect if the key was in the image itself rather than just having numbers label the parts Lipton sale (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment re comment: The image couldn't be used on other language wikis, if the key is in the image... --Janke | Talk 07:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This is the English wikipedia, so captions should be in English. The numbered version remains on commons for use in other languages. Since this is an SVG, it is a piece of cake to rename, and I will make a new version right now. This image needs a caption, and right now it has no caption at all. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Suuport Here's a caption. Just to note, this diagram applies to common land snails and not as much to marine species. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support - If we get a decent caption, and no factual errors are noted. Looks great, though! --Sean 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. I wish this diagram like this was around when I was studying biology. Would be nice if it mentioned what species/genera it was based on.. Looks like Helix aspersa. —Pengo 02:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 - Looks good. ^8thstar 13:54, 21 November 2007 (
• Conditional Support, otherwise STRONG Oppose. Needs a note as to the source species, if that goes in, thumbs-up. Other than that, I must strongly protest, as it would give people the idea that this chart was applicable to all snail species. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Snail diagram-en edit1.svg MER-C 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange Pelican Behaviour

An Australian Pelican apparently turning his beak inside out, Lakes Entrance, Victoria

I'm nominating this shot mainly on the grounds of the rarity of the image. And I do mean rare. This shot wasn't taken by me but my Dad and he was taking a landscape style shot of Lakes Entrance - not even aware of the pelican! Luckily I noticed this bizarre behaviour when I was looking through the shots. However, because it's a 1:1 crop off a wide angle landscape shot, please be a little lenient on the quality.

Appears in: Pelican and Australian Pelican

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Btw if the red pole in the lower centre is distracting people I can easily clone it out...--Fir0002 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Main subject too small in frame, no explanation for behaviour (where's the proposed casption?), how do we know this is "strange" - I would guess every yawning pelican would look like this... "apparently turning his beak inside out" doesn't really explain anything. --Janke | Talk 08:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Proposed caption for what? In case you too are under the impression that a POTD caption is a prerequisite for a FP please read my comments here. But I guess what you are saying is fair enough about the size of the main subject, but that's the thing about rare scenes - there is no way to plan/expect them. I highly doubt that this inverted beak is typical - I'm not saying I've made a study of pelicans but I certainly have seen nothing like it even on Attenborough. --Fir0002 08:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Proposed caption for why the beak is inside out... If something is extraordinary about a photo, I want to know why. "Apparently turning inside out" isn't enough for me. This is WP, not Commons. (Explanation now in link by Mbz below.) --Janke | Talk 14:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's certainly an interesting snap, but I'm not even sure, if you don't know why it's inverting its beak, that there's any enc value here at all. Was it really windy, d'you s'pose? ;o)) If you can find out and add the info to an article, fair enough, but an image like this is crying out for an explanatory caption. That said, I really don't see anything here crying out to be FP at all. --mikaul^talk 10:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I found out why the pelican has done this thing. Please read here. They call it a pelican yoga.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that link. So, it's not that rare after all... My objections because of small subject still stands. --Janke | Talk 14:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it is rather rare. I observe pelicans a lot and I've never seen one doing something like this.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the link Mbz - how did you come across it? A google search? --Fir0002 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I did a google search.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like rare shots very much even, if the quality is not perfect.This image made me want to know more about the subject and IMO it is the most important quality of FP images.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, get closer. --Aqwis (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Aye, my (main) issue is the crop. It has me wanting to submit an edit, but I don't think a proper crop has a chance of holding sharpness on it. But you have to figure that in an encyclopedic shot pointing out the bill that that should make up most of the photograph, just my view. Interesting subject though. Ryo 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Very curious behaviour and an intriguing subject, yet it looks rather snapshotty and lacks colour. The composition is probably substandard, and that pole thing in the centre is awfully distracting. -- Chris.B | talk 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose but only due to size of the image. If this can be cropped while keeping decent resolution I would probably support.D-rew (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the original nom, this is a 1:1 crop - a high res version is not possible w/o interpolating --Fir0002 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose You should've used your 70-200mm for this shot. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly! I may as well forego putting anything other than the picture! Please read my initial comments before complaining about size/quality! --Fir0002 11:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Burden isn't on us, its on you as the nom, don't be offended. IMO for nature shots FP = top quality + rarity, you've got one of those, but the other just isn't there (again in my opinion).D-rew (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes I appreciate that and your stance is perfectly reasonable (with regard to not enough resolution of main subject) but comments such as "If this can be cropped while keeping decent resolution" are not particularly useful given the fact I've already said that this is the best possible resolution I can offer. --Fir0002 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Gee Fir, why didn't you zoom in more on this? ;-) Fair dinkum, all these complaints about images not having captions, etc; do most voters even bother to read any preceding votes or anything the nominator writes in their nom??? It sure doesn't seem like it in most cases. It is very interesting, and now that Mbz1 has added some info on what this behaviour is, it now has increased encyclopaedic value that was missing initially. However the bird is unfortunately too small a part of the image for mine, leading to insufficient detail on the behaviour depicted, and sadly nothing can be done about this. The colours also seem a bit off. Could I suggest that once you're no longer worried about the size requirements for FPC that you do crop in on the bird down to about 500px, as that will make the image far more interesting in its article context (as is, looking at the thumb you really only see it as a pelican on a post). --jjron (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since we can't do any better on the resolution, I'd say go out and camp and wait for another shot. ;) Apparently it's not all that terribly rare (thanks for the info, Mbz1), so the 'rarity' shouldn't be used to outweigh the limited resolution. If you manage to snap a shot at high res, bring it back! :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Western Crowned Pigeon

Original

Reason

It's a sharp high res image of the bird

Proposed caption

The head of a Western Crowned Pigeon, showing the blue lacy crests on its head.

Articles this image appears in

Western Crowned Pigeon,Vulnerable species,New Guinea

Creator

Lipton_sale

• Support as nominator Lipton sale (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. It says the creator is Sxenko, but the only name I can find in the file history is Lipton sale - can you explain? Also you might like to check the Featured picture criteria; Criterion 5 is Adds value to an article. This image is only used in the gallery in a single very minor article, which would not generally be regarded as satisfying this criterion. --jjron (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, accidently put down my AIM screen name. I have also added it to a few articles wherein it would help. Lipton sale (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a funny suspicion about the nominator. I'm of the opinion he is a block evading sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sxenko. MER-C 10:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Poor focus on crown. --Sean 14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would have been an easy Support, but the DOF issues (as noted by Sean) make it a non-starter for me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

James A. Garfield assassination

Original

Reason

Good scan, nice period engraving of the event.

Proposed caption

An engraving of James A. Garfield's assassination in the ladies' room of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad depot on July 2, 1881. Published in Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper. President Garfield is at center right, leaning after being shot. He is supported by Secretary of State James G. Blaine who wears a light colored top hat. To left, assassin Charles Guiteau is restrained by members of the crowd, one of whom is about to strike him with a cane.

Articles this image appears in

James A. Garfield

Creator

Engraving by A. Berghaus and C. Upham and uploaded by Mdd4696

• Support as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think it would make a good addition Lipton sale (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question. As this is apparently nominated as a historic piece rather than an artistic piece, is there any evidence to support that the scene shown ever actually occurred, rather than just being an artistic interpretation of the assassination attempt? I'd be somewhat dubious myself.--jjron (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ?? strange question.. it was made to accompany the news item of the day, in lieu of on-the-spot photography I assume. The event has a whole section in the article, if you care to look! --mikaul^talk 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, no, not strange. Yes I have read the section in the article, thank you very much for your concern, and it didn't satisfy my doubts. While it may be true that at the least the key individuals depicted were present, it would be like featuring a drawing of the Kennedy assassination with the noted individuals concerned all conveniently fitted in there; it might be kind of interesting, but not verified as accurate. As I said originally, this is supposedly showing a specific historic event, that in reality most likely never occurred as depicted, so therefore I would suggest it lacks encyclopaedic value. --jjron (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a second depiction here. In the second image, apparently drawn from a few moments afterward, the lady in with the white apron is now supporting Garfield; in both images her costume is the same, which suggests historical accuracy. Two new figures appear, the guy in the white suit and the kid covering his eyes. The sec of state is now on the other side. From comparing the images, it is reasonable to assume they are historically accurate depictions of the same event but not quite the same moment in time. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said above I'm sure some elements are accurate, e.g., the key figures such as Blaine and Guiteau. It would interesting to know who that woman in the white 'apron' is - being so prominent in both pictures she must be someone significant, perhaps his wife or a daughter. Looking at this image she looks suspiciously like the woman in pink at the back centre (so why isn't she identified anywhere?). I also wonder why Colonel Sanders is so prominent in the second one ;-). I spose the real point of my comment though is that it is highly unlikely that any artistic representation will truly depict the events of situation like this as it really happened, and will thus lack that encyclopaedic value we look for. Maybe if it was a great work of art you could overlook that in favour of the artistic merits of the work, but for a line drawing/engraving/whatever - ehh, probably not. --jjron (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't agree with this line of reasoning. The engraving was the medium of choice for what is now "spot news photography". The technology simply did not exist in terms of portability or exposure speed to capture events such as an assassination. Although clearly there is some level of interpretation going on, the engraver took the same responsibility as any reporter or as courtroom illustrators do today, with allowances for the era. Given we understand today that photographs can mislead or even lie, this seems an odd position. This would have been seen, and taken at face value, by millions of newspaper readers.--Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really an outstanding example of its kind. The cross-hatching has some odd moiré going on in it, spoiling the shading, while outlines seem a little heavy-handed. There's some residual merit in its historical value but nothing so great as to thrust it into the limelight, so to speak. --mikaul^talk 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose as the scan is subpar. This is a familiar image of an important event but we have much better scans of engravings. If a better scan of this one could be found I would support. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both the scan and the engraving itself are not what I consider to be FP quality. It's interesting and historically valuable, to be sure, but that's not enough IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Alighieri (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Pioneer Plaque

Original

Reason

This picture is very interesting and very informative

Proposed caption

The Pioneer plaque

Articles this image appears in

Pioneer 11, Pioneer 10, Pioneer plaque, Information graphics

Creator

NASA image GPN-2000-001623, Vectorized by User:Mysid

FP image

• Support as nominator PhilB ~ ^T/_C 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This image is already an FP. de Bivort 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep. Please withdraw this Philip or MER-C --ffroth 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: It doesn't say that it is on the picture page :-s PhilB ~ ^T/_C 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's because it's a different image - this one here to be precise. - Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It's worth noting that in the original nomination a monochromed (though not SVG) version was offered, but considered by most to have less historical value than the unprocessed photo of the actual object. TSP (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --PhilB ~ ^T/_C 11:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cessna 182P

Cessna 182P, Swifts Creek, Victoria

Another high quality shot of a plane - this time with a sky background. Hopefully this background appeals to the people how didn't like the bg of the 150 I nominated below...

Appears in Cessna 182

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice shot! Do you have a larger version? It would be better. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I do have a larger version but I'm not willing to release it at higher res under the GFDL. If wiki had a non-com license I would. This res is more than sufficient for guidelines --Fir0002 04:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice shot indeed, and a lot better than the other one with the distracting background. By the way, as much as you may feel there is no need for a caption, I strongly suggest that you write something as I am certain most people would like to know a little more about the plane. -- Chris.B | talk 15:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well than surely the sensible thing would be for people to head over to the article rather than the caption. I mean what value is there in me rehashing the article into a suitable caption - eg. "The Cessna 182 is a four-seat high performance, single-engine, light airplane" (copied from the first line)?--Fir0002 03:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but the fact of the matter is that few people will actually head over to the article, that's why it's only in your interest. -- Chris.B | talk 11:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral This kind of shots baffles me: yes it's technically competent, but not exciting, nothing that will make you say "Wow". To be honest this is an easy shot, just going down to local recreational airport and you'll get plenty of opportunities. If it were an architectural shot people will start opposing on the grounds of "a better one can be taken", but apparently that only applies to architectural shots, so I'll remain neutral in here. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I did try the out-of-the-square shot below but not many people liked it. However, given that it is a high quality and enc shot I think it is worthy. But just my opinion. --Fir0002 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what make this picture a FP that is not present in another fine shot, other than the fact that you have a better camera (better sharpness, more natural tone mapping) and a slightly more dynamic angle. IMHO the failure in your other attempt is that the background falls in the uncanny valley: it's too blurry to be a "freeze-time" shot, and yet not blurry enough for a shallow DOF effect. Maybe check out [4]? They have some great, dynamic aircraft photos. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's really a less dramatic example of the above Arc de Triomphe - the technical edge makes the difference between FP and non FP material. Shallow DOF has nothing to do with shutter speed (except for the fact that contrary to what you seem to be saying is that it is achieved at high shutter speeds) - the blurred effect you identified is partly due to a relatively shallow DOF, but mainly to do with a slow shutter speed which gives it the motion blur (which is one of it's key features IMO). Anyway you're welcome to your opinion. --Fir0002 11:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice illustrative photo. Cacophony (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support- all the criteria met.--Svetovid (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This is really just a nit-pick, but I would have liked to see a slightly slower shutter speed so that the propeller didn't look "frozen". A bit of motion blur there would have given some life to an otherwise very static and (IMO) unappealing picture. Still, it's quite useful for what it is... very illustrative. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cessna 182P.jpg MER-C 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Brussels Great Marked Square

Original

Reason

This image is a truly exemplary shot of the Grote Markt and the surrounding buildings and square. —Animum (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed caption

The Grand Place in Brussels — the second largest tourist destination in Brussels, next to the Atomium — with the Town Hall at the left.

Articles this image appears in

Brussels, Metropolis

Creator

Ssolbergj from Commons

• Support as nominator —Animum (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Pssst I don't think it looks too good, given the fact that the tower is cut off. Brace yourself. Nice colours though, if not a little over-exposed. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Cut off and would have preferred it darker with less blown out areas. Maybe I'm being a bit cynical here but it's interesting the different treatment of users - "psst = oppose?" --Fir0002 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's obvious enough from my tone... --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh come off it fir; you should consider it a compliment that people know you well enough to be brutal with their criticism instead of babying you for fear that you'll leave. You know how it works- LIKE: support praising some random good thing, DISLIKE: oppose with some technical flaw or find some other reason to reasonably oppose. More brutal criticism doesn't mean the pic is worse than another, it just means people are freer with their tongues (fingers?), or like scrutinizing a well-respected photographer's work for any error at all and triumphantly sharing it with everyone. A common psychological phenomenon. Also, not sure where this is going --ffroth 18:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it stops being a compliment when you've spent several hours making an image you think is great only to find others don't, but yeah I guess that's the drill. Thanks Dr Froth for the psychological analysis :) --Fir0002 01:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, Orderly Fir. Now get that patient back into his straitjacket- his yearly exposure to sunlight is nearly over and I grow tired. And send in the physician to bleed him a bit, he seems of sickly pallor lately. --ffroth 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, tower is cut-off. Deserves a panorama. --Aqwis (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This'll be opposed for composition, but I love the colors! --ffroth 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dreaming of spires. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fir0002. Composition really is the breaker and it is a bit over-exposed (and maybe shot just a tiny bit too late) which is a shame, cos the colours (and pretty much everything else) are just lovely. --mikaul^talk 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Appears too digital. Blurry light. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice colours but the cut part... H92110 (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan Bridge Construction

Original

Reason

This is a good, high resolution image of a very historic photograph that was taken during the construction of the Manhattan Bridge. I'm surprised it wasn't nominated earlier. In the bottom center of the image, you can even see police officers and a horse drawn wagon. The copyright mark adds authenticity. Great image!

Proposed caption

This picture of the Manhattan Bridge was taken on March 23, 1909, nine months before the bridge opened to traffic on December 31 of that year. The photograph was taken by Irving Underhill, who was famous for his shots of metropolitan life in New York City. His original copyright mark can be seen directly in the center of the photograph, which reads "Manhattan Bridge, D - 941. Taken, March 23rd, 1909. Copyright, 1909 by Irving Underhill, 18 Park Place, N.Y."

Articles this image appears in

Manhattan Bridge Suspension bridge

Creator

Irving Underhill

• Support as nominator AutoGyro (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This can also be used to illustrate how bridges are constructed. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, high quality and informational. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Amazing! Cacophony (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support high quality old photos are hard to find. Teque5 (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support and added to suspension bridge. It's a great photo of construction as Spikebrennan notes. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment FYI, added to two more articles. The brick building on the left with the arched window is the "Empire (Store) Warehouse" and still stands, awaiting redevelopment. All the other foreground buildings are obliterated by later construction. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Very nice historical shot. Cat-five - talk 23:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Awesome! Great picture. Support. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I just dont see what is so great about this picture. H92110 (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment: you mean besides the fact that you have a picture from 1909 with high WP:ENC value and in such good resolution that you can actually see the workers on the bridge? --AutoGyro (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Excellent for era and strong WP:ENC value. Pedro :  Chat  12:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg MER-C 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry

Original

Reason

crisp, clear, illustrates the subject well and its used as the main image on the chemistry portal

Proposed caption

Chemistry, from Arabic language khemeia meaning "alchemy", is a branch of science. Modern chemistry focuses on the study of elements of the world and the bonds between elements. Chemistry also deals with composition, structure, and properties of substances and the transformations that they undergo. In the study of matter, chemistry also investigates its interactions with energy and itself. Because of the diversity of matter, which is mostly in the form of compounds, chemists often study how atoms of different chemical elements interact to form molecules, and how molecules interact with each other.

Articles this image appears in

Dielectric Shader

Creator

Mehran Moghtadai

• Support as nominator Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Previous nomination here. Pstuart84 Talk 20:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, doesn't tell me anything about what a dielectric shader is or what it does. Fully deserving of being FP on commons, however. --Aqwis (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. What a sleek, iconic pic for Chemistry! But it just lacks that certain FP factor.. if I saw this image featured, I wouldn't think "of course, nice find FPC people", I'd be suspicious and look up its nomination discussion and see if it's some 3 year old pic that needs delisting. It just lacks that elusive FP quality. Hm, that should be a catch-all criteria so we don't have to make up technical reasons all the time to oppose :) --ffroth 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Synthetic image, has nothing actually do do with chemistry, and the proposed caption has nothing to do with dielectric shader... --Janke | Talk 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This image was nominated in April of this year: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glass is Liquide. Cacophony (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ...as pointed out by pstuart above --ffroth 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not high enough resolution. This was clearly a desktop at 1280x960 Teque5 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• While I'm also Opposing, it's a tad pedantic to object to an image on resolution grounds when it's only 40 pixels below the threshold. If it weren't for the other valid objections, you could simply extend the top edge of the image with a minimum of photoshoppery. It's not like there's any important information in that region. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW it's not below the minimum requirements at all; requirements "...are a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height...". This is 1280px in width so it's fine. (Some people argue on the useable part of the image however, so might claim the informative part of this is below requirements, but that's a hazy argument). --jjron (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, shallow and pedantic. On an extremely related note, STOP switching to *, :*, ::*, :::* syntax for indenting bullets! Everyone else on wikipedia uses *, **, ***, **** --ffroth 01:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen both used actually. I prefer :* though. Atropos (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose While it is proposed that this image be representative of Chemistry, I fail to see how a rendered image is encyclopedic in this regard. If the 'dielectric shaders' aspect is expanded, then maybe. Also, the shadows from the glasses don't seem quite accurate anyway...is the orange one floating or something? vlad§inger ^tlk 03:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Besides, it's already a featured picture on Commons, and rightfully so for its aesthetic qualities. vlad§inger ^tlk 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. An excellent Commons FP. Not so useful here. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

London Underground Zone 1

Original

Reason

This SVG map is a geographically accurate version of the familiar Tube map of the London Underground. It's informative, clear and well-executed.

Proposed caption

Zone 1 (central zone) of the Underground (and DLR) network in a more geographically accurate layout than the usual Tube map, using the same style

Articles this image appears in

London Underground, Tube map

Creator

Ed_g2s and Jdforrester

• Support as nominator Pstuart84 Talk 15:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - from the image page: "NB: Routes between stations are interpolated and are not geographically accurate". Therefore it is not a "geographically accurate version of the familiar Tube map". It's a good map, but it'd be nice if we could see the routes the tunnels take as well as the layout of the stations. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You're quite right - the stations are geographically accurate but the lines are interpolated between them. In that respect the proposed caption is accurate, even if my reason was not quite so. Pstuart84 Talk 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not really an interesting picture. ^8thstar 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Font is quite large and often overlapping itself when I view it on my Mac. Not sure what is causing this. Kaldari (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose:It looks rather cluttered to me, plus I'd like a key that tells me what all the various colored lines represent --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • More information about the lines here. Pstuart84 Talk 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Even so though, I think the information about the lines should be incorporated into the image itself somehow, for ease of reference --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose to this map-- this is a map of only part of the London Underground system. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not onto a winner here, but just for your interest, there is an equivalent map for the whole system here. Pstuart84 Talk 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • On both maps, what does the illegible gray lettering mean? It looks to me like: "Bob" (the word "Bob" crossed out). Spikebrennan (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not lettering - it's a little picture of a train, to show that the Underground station is also a railway station. Pstuart84 Talk 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Eggfruit Caterpillar Moth

The adult of the eggfruit caterpillar, Sceliodes cordalis, approx 20mm in size. Taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria

Single frame at f/11 to show how the wings etc actually look

Thanks to a 7 image focus bracket this image shows an exceptional level of detail with all of the moth in focus. High technical and enc value make it a worthy candidate

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Lipton sale (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-20 21:45Z
• Support Fir, you've done it again. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, ah, a perfect one. Could be a bit larger, but it's above the minimum size. --Aqwis (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral (see below) As shown by the temp file, there are some technical faults. Red, in the left corner is posturisation. Blue arrow shows a strong focus stacking seam. The turquoise box shows a suspicious line traversing all the fur of the moth. It looks like a bad stitch job. Yellow is more posturization. Purple looks like a touch-up error. Red is some focus stack problem. Orange is a large square artifact that is unacceptable. Not to mention that it is not a great example of focus stacking. And a better picture could be taken. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes well done Fcb very mature - I see you even went to the length of using my voting symbol! --Fir0002 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We all have our little moments of immaturity. Not that I didn't have a chuckle at it. Yes, I thought the voting symbol was a classy touch. It is actually a good picture, nice vivid light. I still think you ought to get some strobes. You can get a pretty nice 3 strobe set for under a $1000. I also think you are a little too afraid of diffraction, I have plenty of really sharp pictures at f/22. Anyway, I'll probably change vote to a neutral, I don't fancy these white background as FPs for lack of wow factor. I just don't feel like doing so at the moment. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes quite true. Well to let you on an a little secret I bought a Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX in October this year - so once I get through my backlog you'll see some shots with that. Strobes would be cool but they'd only work in a studio setting - you wouldn't be able to take them out "into the field". Well it's possible to get OK sharpness once you downsize, but full res beyond f/13 you'll be getting degraded quality even on a top of the line canon like the 180L. Basically from a sharpness point of view it's all downhill after f/5.6 and it reaches kit-lens level by f/22 --Fir0002 03:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So this was taken "in the field"? I know what you mean that you wouldn't want to haul around a multi-light set up but I guess you take your white BG with you? As for the diffraction, I trust you did the MTF tests etc. but from a practical purpose, I really care most about end use. At my 6 mega-pixel full resolution I have few problems with diffraction (both with my kit lens and higher quality 70-300 VR), maybe you see it more at 10mp but I doubt it is so prominent. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well as you may have noticed not everything is on a white background. Hence the need for in the field lighting. I didn't do the MTF tests, they merely scientifically show what I can notice see with my own eyes. I'll upload some crops when I get the chance - it's all overcast at the moment so lighting is pretty poor for most things. --Fir0002 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand your need in many instances for more portability than a strobe set up. In any event, I imagine the Macro Twin flash has been helpful? From what I read, they are pretty useful. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They are really good, but as with all specialist equipment they take a bit of practice to get used to - don't expect to get brilliant photos straight away you need to learn how to use them properly. --Fir0002 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd take that with a grain of salt. The pics would still be better than a kit-lens could perform (in terms of edge-sharpness and CA), and the key-question is would the circle of confusion be significantly larger than a single pixel (in particular in your downsized versions)? I doubt it, and as a matter of fact I have the same lens as you (on a 5D) and I'll double check it over the Thanks Giving weekend. --Dschwen 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in terms of CA it would but not sharpness - head over to photozone and check out the MTF charts. A f/22 my lens is about the 1350-1400 mark. The 180L is slightly better at approx 1400. The 18-55mm kit lens comfortably trumps this at 35mm at at a rough average of 1550. Even at 18mm it beats it beyond f/8. At 55mm it has an average of 1500 through most f stops improving as the aperture gets smaller. I'm not sure what you mean by "circle of confusion" but look forward to seeing what your test reveals. As I mentioned earlier it probably would look ok once downsized but I want an image which is sharp even at 100% --Fir0002 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me be frank here, I don't care at all about the 100% version as long as it's not uploaded. And you are basically compromising the quality of the already crippled version to have a nicer private full-version which we'll never get to see. --Dschwen 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than slam me for not providing a full res image (which is only due to wiki's lack of NC licensing) be glad I upload at 1600px rather than 1000px or less. --Fir0002 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't twist it please. It's not about slaming you for uploading a downsized version. --Dschwen 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what is it about? Me wishing to take high quality images not just for wikipedia? --Fir0002 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I could just copy+paste my statement from above where I explained it, then again you could just try and read it again above. Now with italics for emphasis. --Dschwen 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The image does not look natural at all. It looks over-processed and extensively photoshopped. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in specific you dislike? Or is this a response to my criticism of your caption demands? Because this has had almost zero photoshopping beyond minor levels/sharpening/color balance tweaks. --Fir0002 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The most obvious one for me is the antennae vs. the body; it looks like they were made in two separate photographs that were pasted together. It doesn't "read" true. Also problematic is the uneven level of focus across the image, some places are very crisp, others are blurry, and not in a good way. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. No way that's the bug's real shadow.. is it? It does look kind of shoppy then, I see what they're saying. --ffroth 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't it look like it's the real shadow? Let me assure you that it is entirely real. I would have hoped people would have a little more trust in me. The moth was backlit with natural light and gently fill flashed to expose shadow areas properly. That is how it received that shadow. Why would I bother shopping it in? --Fir0002 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Don't make it personal :x --ffroth 08:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• OpposeNeutral Unlike others, I think the white bg approach is uber-enc, particularly for this kind of subject, and the shadows are gorgeous. I agree, though, that this has gone astray technique-wise. There's an inordinate amount of compressed blacks and mid-tones there which makes the more distant detail look over-sharpened, something I wouldn't expect from a 7 frame focus bracket. Focus comes and goes mid-frame, giving a smudged appearance to odd areas like mid-leg and mid-thorax. In all it looks heavily over processed. I'll not labour the point, but I would agree with Dschwen et al that you'd most likely get a sharper, more realistic and convincing shot in a single small aperture frame. --mikaul^talk 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the moth did have those black areas - they're not compressed blacks or mid tones - that's how it looks. I actually don't see any smudging at all, except a little that Fcb pointed out on the leg - seems to be more like nitpicking to me. But no matter. I'd also like to point out to Dschwen et al that f/22 would be inadequate to capture the entire moth in focus - any minor smudging you see in this focus bracket is far offset by the large amounts of OOF area you'd get at f/22 --Fir0002 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for uploading the extra frame, I can see where you're coming from. I can see the source of the blurring isn't tone compression – maybe mis-registration? – but it's no biggie really. Here's the thing: I'd personally much prefer a small-aperture shot like your blowfly one > with a little bit of natural-looking focus fall-off, than one which looks rather unreal and over-worked. I can see from the example you posted that you're on the right tracks and this sort of ambitious DoF technique may well pay off on another image (or another crack at this one.?), it just hasn't on this occasion. --mikaul^talk 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem - probably should have from the start. Well the thing is, with moths such as this which keep their wings down (unlike butterflies which raise them) you can't pull the standard macro side-on view as with the fly (which achieves reasonably DOF) because you wouldn't capture interesting detail/features of the moth. the only way would be a top down (which wouldn't show face and legs) or do something like this which illustrates the moth exceptionally well (at least IMO). So personally I stand by my using a focus bracket here as the only way possible to effectively illustrate this species. --Fir0002 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Per mikaul, It does have a smudged appearance. ^8thstar 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment' I just realized that some people may be confusing a "smudged" appearance with the way the moth actually looks - there is no sharp definition between scales or whatever, it's all very soft and "smudged". Anyway I uploaded a single frame from the bracket to show you how it looks. --Fir0002 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per mikaul and others. Meniscus (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dschwen wasn't slamming you. He was saying he wasn't taking into consideration (hi-res) images which you do not provide. You really shouldn't reply to every single oppose. It makes you look stubborn and rude. Let people have their opinions, and accept it, whether you think they're misguided or not. The shadow looks fake, not because it is artificial, but because the area around it has been whitened. Take that into consideration for future images, and don't take it as a personal attack on your integrity. The image has blotchy focus. Perhaps you need more than 7 focus spots. I don't know. I'm not the photographer here. I just see that there are faults that are being pointed out that you are outright denying exist, and you need to work on them, and you need to find the solutions yourself, rather than swearing that your technique is flawless. This is fairly high quality image, and a good contribution to Wikipedia, but its small technical faults prevent it from getting a universal thumbs up. Don't take it personally. —Pengo 02:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, I'm (fashionably) late to this party. To be honest, I think you guys are being pretty harsh towards Fir0002/his image. I completely support his using f/11 and focus bracketing rather than f/22 in a single shot and losing sharpness (and still not having anywhere near all of the moth in focus). I agree that the antennae look a bit peculiar and 3D-like and, but I think its mainly due to the fill flash rather than the focus blending, and doesn't really distract significantly. If anything, it helps to separate them from the moth's body. Another thing that may be leading people to oppose is the fact that a moth's wing texture is extremely difficult to photograph 'accurately' and very typically ends up looking smudged, when really this isn't the case. The only thing I can think of that could improve the image is to use smaller increments of focus and therefore more images in the bracket, but I honestly can't imagine a textbook having a significantly better image of a moth. While I respect everyone's views on the image, sometimes I think that unless you've attempted to take similar photos, you aren't qualified to say with certainty whether it is a good, bad or easily-bettered shot. In the end, while we do have a base-level expectation of quality, what we as a community are willing to pass as FP does depend on the subject matter and whether it is the among best that can be offered. In this case, I think it is up there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah more frames would have been good - but with a live animal more frames = more opportunity for things to go wrong. I think I shot 10 sequences in this shoot and this was the only one which came out well (the insect didn't move). Thanks for your perspective too Diliff --Fir0002 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Diliff, I disagree with everything you say except the last two sentences, which I have to say made me think again. I'm fairly sure the choice of technique (and the resulting haloing) got in the way of the sort of pukka image we've come to expect from Fir. Ultimately though, the decision to shoot at this angle, giving a fairly unique head-on perspective, created less tech problems than it revealed enc value, so I've changed my oppose to neutral.--mikaul^talk 14:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support - This image meets the high bar that Fir0002 has set for bug porn. I'm still not sure if Fcb981's annotated version is a prank or not; I just don't see any errors there. --Sean 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was a prank... I removed it as I actually think the picture is pretty good. I tried to make that clear in the following discussion, as well as the fact that I eventually pointed out that I was neutral. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 18:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support on condition that the doubled middle protrusion on the right side of the abdomen is fixed. (Not seen in single shot so it must be an artifact). Also, this discussion has grown faaaar too long. Period. --Janke | Talk 12:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - sorry it wasn't noticed earlier! --Fir0002 22:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support. As per Diliff, a difficult, well-executed, and valuable textbook-worthy picture. Technical excellence (focus, sharpness, etc.) is there, and enc. is indisputable. --Malachirality (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support 'cause it's a pretty picture .... errr, support per Diliff. Enuja (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Enuja per Diliff. H92110 (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sceliodes cordalis.jpg MER-C 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Monte Berico

Original

Reason

Great picture of a famous basilica in the Veneto. Shows the main part of the church. Brilliant picture with great color and contrast.

Proposed caption

View of the front Facade of the basilica Monte Berico

Articles this image appears in

Monte Berico

Creator

User:Redmarkviolinist

• Support as nominator The Nominator (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - fails 34 criteria (1., 2., 3., 7.).--Svetovid (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats 4 criteria... ;-) You fail the counting test! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, added the 7. one there too ;)--Svetovid (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the light is poor, the image is far too small and distorted. --Aqwis (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad lighting. Reywas92^Talk 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. As per above, the picture is far too small (plus, it is very distorted and/or needs a clockwise tilt-correction); please read the criteria before nominating. You might want to acquaint yourself with what is considered FP by taking a look for yourself. You should also consider submitting to Wikipedia:Picture peer review beforehand. Thanks! --Malachirality (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Doesn't look too good. ^8thstar 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: User may be in violation of WP:SPA. However, this is not an accusation. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bad lighting. For buildings, you either need to wait for the sun at your back or use a really good fill flash at night. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comet 17P/Holmes

Original

Reason

It is one remarkable comet, really once in a life time opportunity and you do not need a telescope to see it. It is not as spectacular as Comet McNaught was, yet it is really, really unique.

Proposed caption

17P/Holmes is a periodic comet in the Solar System, discovered by the British amateur astronomer Edwin Holmes on November 6, 1892. In only 42 hours in October 2007, the comet brightened from a magnitude of about 17 to about 2.8. This represents a change of brightness by a factor of about a half million times, and is the largest known outburst by a comet. Few days ago this comet was bigger than the Sun! The image shows the ion tail of the comet. Now the comet has lost her tail and you could see it no more. The nomited image was published on APOD

Articles this image appears in

17P/Holmes

Creator

Ivan Eder

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The image is small, yet the subject is taking the whole frame, so should be OK IMO. Please, support the image, or oppose it or do not vote at all, but do go out and look at this amazing comet.Here's the image, which I took today from my backyard with 55 mm lens, which shows the comet as an easy naked eye object. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Image is on the small side but the subject takes up the whole image. It's been mostly cloudy the last week so I haven't seen the comet in a while. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-20 17:29Z
• Support - Great photo! ALSO - a high res image online at [5] if the author will allow it to be uploaded instead! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Tom, I'm afraid I cannot upload a higher resolution image. The author gave me personal permission to use his photo, yet he specificly allowed only this small image to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to see more info about the picture before supporting the nomination. It looks stunning. But how was it taken, using what equipment, what post-processing (Photoshop, gimp) has been applied? Acting the devil's advocate here, I am not even sure it is a real picture without more information. Mlewan (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Here are picture details:
    instrument: TMB 130/780 apochromat with field flattener
    camera: modified Canon EOS 350D (Baader filter inside)
    mount: Synta EQ6 + Boxdörfer DynoStar
    guiding 72/500 refractor, SBIG St-4
    exposure time: 15x5min at ISO800
    location, date: Mount Pilis (near to Budapest), Hungary; 11.04.2007
    observing conditions:transparency: 7/10, seeing: 2/10, temp.: +3°C
    processing:Iris, Registar, Photoshop Neat Image
    I'd like to add few words about astro photography to explain a little bit what this all means. The creator of the image used a telescope with equatorial mount. This type of mount could follow the sky movement (for at least some time) in order to show the stars as points and not as star trails. He took 15 exposures (for 5 minutes each) and then he stacked them in one image using Registar. It is a very common practice in astrophotograpgy. I hope it answers your question. Thank you --Mbz1 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - Just what I wanted to know! Thanks! Mlewan (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great photo, and although its size is below the usual FP recommendation, it is already enlargened (and still has a really good quality). Actually, it's so good that it almost looks fake. Not your everyday photo. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Great photo, but this is the only image that shows any kind of tail. From my understanding, the tail is pointed away from the Earth. Others have used more exposure and not imaged any tail. I would advise caution until the image can be verified or repeated. Robogun (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you are mistaking, when you stated that it was the only image, which shows any kind of tail. I'd say it is the only image at Wikipedia, which shows any kind of tail. Please take a look at NASA site and you could find quite a few other images, which show the tail. The tail was visible only for few days and only with very good scopes. As I mentioned in the caption the image was published at APOD. I'm very sure they did a good verification of the image. IMO before opposing the image for such a reason it may be better to ask a question first. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. I now support the nomination. Robogun (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe it was my fault. I should have mentioned the story with the tail in the beginning. Could you, please, cross out your Oppose? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A higher resolution version exists. Look here.[6] If that image is recognized, I will vote to support, becuase the image is beautiful. However, I oppose the small version. TheOtherSiguy Oppose, due to it's resolution being far too small, and there are better high resolution images of the comet out there.TheOtherSiguy (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - This is the best Holmes picture I have seen on the web.Bandi bacsi18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC) — Bandi bacsi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• 'Neutral'Oppose: Seriously? This is the highest resolution we can get? A little on the small side? I think you lose a lot with an astrophoto that is at this low resolution, a lot. I am leaning oppose because of the size, it isn't just a bit on the small size, it's downright tiny. IvoShandor (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• IMO the nominated image is the best image I've seen (and I've seen many). I was not able to get a higher resolution of this image, but of course you're welcome to try. After all even, if the image will get FP status, it always could be de-listed, if a better one would became available later on. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Historical importance and irreproducibility of the shot negates the low resolution. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note, the comet is still observable, hardly irreplacable.IvoShandor (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the tail of the comet is gone and the brightness is diminishing. She still could go to other outburst and obtain an other tail. After all it is not the first known outburst of this comet. It happend 115 years ago and btw also in November. It is how otherwise a very dim comet was seen and discovered--Mbz1 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• (Sad face).IvoShandor (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• If a similar photo is to be taken there's a window of only a few days, after the moon clears. It would have to be from a dark-sky site. (unless for some reason another outburst happens) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sagittarian Milky Way. You are absolutely right about the Moon light. I did take the image of the comet today with the full Moon present, but it became increasingly difficult even to find the comet and to see where to point my camera to. Even, if the Moon light would be out of the way, a similar photo cannot be taken because the tail of the comet is there no more even with a very, very dark sky and with a very good telescope. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. This photo was taken earlier than I thought. Given the diameter, it's surface brightness should still be above that of a dark sky. Must be the dust cloud hogging all of the brightness.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose due to inadequate resolution. -- Moondigger (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose (sorry!)Even though the subject takes up a large part of the picture, b/c of the low resolution, the picture does not have the degree of detail that we have come to expect of FPs. Moreover, there's something about the appearance of this picture that seems somehow artificial; almost as if it were CG or something (the head of the comet and the aura surrounding it especially). (see my comment 5 indents below for details) --Malachirality (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  (Comment) It is processed to some degree, but I'm sure nothing artificial. Its hard to get such faint detail without brighter elements washing out, or without any movement. FP or not, I'm certainly glad for even a lores version on Wikipiedia. Comparative images I know of: [7] and [8]. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's a useful/valuable picture no doubt, but I was more addressing FP concerns. That is, the the head of the comet almost appears stationary, is so perfectly round, and so evenly shaded (it almost looks like an .svg), when in fact comets are large, dirty, chunks of melting ice/dust hurtling through space at great speeds. Because of this, the picture appears unrealistic (I have never seen a picture of a comet, or any space image for that matter, look like this image, although my experience in this area is admittedly narrow). The point being, I guess, that this picture does not seem true-to-life to me, which undermines its essential EV (enc. value). If you or someone else can prove to me otherwise, then I'll gladly modify my vote. --Malachirality (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ummm... I don't think anything can be proved, but the center is white for being completely overexposed, and even the overexposed center is still merely a diffuse sphere of dust. The comet itself is smaller than a single pixel, so it's all dust we're seeing. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• What's EV? The picture is looking down the comet's foreshortened tail at only 14 degrees, weird stuff can happen at that angle. Like an elephant's view of it's nose. How do you know it's stationary? This is not a movie. What you see is so big (100x Earth), it could be going 13 miles a second and still take a whole day to move it's size. The icechunk itself is 0.001 pixels wide. It's symmetrical basically because this is an explosion, all of this came out of one event, — before October 23rd, there was nothing there, (maybe the tiniest 3 pixel ghost). In space, an explosion never ends. You haven't seen anything like this because this hasn't really happened before (not to this degree). Anyway, if you look closely you can see it's not completely round.

Minor note: the comet moved about 5 (wikipedia resolution) pixels upwards against the stars during the time it took the picture to be taken. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So I guess I kind of didn't really know what I was talking about/looking at earlier, but even though that that's been cleared, the original concerns still remain. Namely, this image is misleading (and thus not enc.) because it does not actually depict the comet (I thought for the longest time that the white "ball" in front was the comet head). Moreover, the most important part of the picture, the explosion, is overexposed and contains no detail; b/c of this, it's difficult and confusing to discern what the giant white mass actually is. It's obviously an interesting shot (once I actually figured out what it was) and the difficulty reflects the prowess of the photographer no doubt, but it fails on several FP criteria IMO. --Malachirality (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it's an attractive image, though I'm not convinced that it's telling us anything much about the comet and why the comet is interesting. I notice on the spaceweather site some pictures which attempt to show how the comet grows in brightness, and I find those more interesting and helpful. This image lacks context and self-evident explanation, is small, over processed, and looks like a painting for the cover of Sci-Fi novel. I do like it, but not as a FP. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not overprocessed, just really long exposure. This isn't even a short+long composite. If your eyeballs were hugely sensitive telescopes the size of rooms or dinner tables you'd see this too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment IMO one of the prove that the image is real is that it was selected out of hundreds of images to be published at APOD. Two guys, who select the images for APOD are great specialists in astro photography. The other prove could be found by looking at the other pictures of the comet at Spaceweather.com site, for example. In any case the main idea behind nominating the image was to evoke interest to this amazing comet (and in this my goal I have succeeded (IMO)). Thank you all very much for the interest to the subject and for your votes and comments.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I would point out that the dirty snowball theory of comets, expounded above, was kind of knocked on its heels by the Stardust spacecraft's visit to Wild 2. Comet composition is the subject of scientific debate.IvoShandor (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'll defer to you on that point, but IMO it's a moot point, as the picture does not represent what I thought it depicted when I made the "dirty snowball" criticism. --Malachirality (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The mention of dirty snowball reminded me one funny story from few years ago. I've asked my supervisor, if he's seen the comet, which was visible at that time. He responded: "What is there to see, just a fuzzy ball". Then I wrote the poem. Here it is:
  

She really looks as fuzzy ball,
But one can use imagination,
She's faint and she is rather small,
Yet she bears magical sensation.
Like bride would fly to handsome groom
She flies to Sun in time and space,
She's very old, yet she's in bloom,
Her tail as train filled up with grace.
She dreams their first, their wedding night,
Her ring is asteroid belt,
And yes, she's ready to excite,
If even it would mean to melt.
Sorry for the poem and for my English. I just could not resist this "dirty snowball".--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Washington National Cathedral Twilight

Original

Alternate

Reason

Beautiful building, interesting lighting.

Proposed caption

The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington, known as the Washington National Cathedral, is an Episcopal cathedral in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It is a listed monument on the National Register of Historic Places and the designated "National House of Prayer" of the United States. In 2007, it was voted one of the three most beautiful buildings in the United States in a survey by the American Institute of Architects.

Articles this image appears in

Washington National Cathedral

Creator

User:Noclip

• Support as nominator Noclip (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - technically brilliant. I'd prefer a larger size though, I'd like to be able to zoom further in. Any higher res versions available? E8T9A8 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support but I find the moon looks like a dirty spot on the thumbnail. The moon is also of "poor quality" compared to the otherwise high-res building (e.g. does not enhance the encyclopedicness of the image), and should be considered to be edited out if possible. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Maybe a little harsh, as it's a perfectly good shot in many ways. On the other hand the bar for these shots gets higher with every architecture-related submission, and this one doesn't quite clear it. There's some softness and CA at the sides, some jpg artifacting, and very awkward-looking distortion that makes the building to the left appear almost two-dimensional. The crop is too tight at the bottom and lighting-wise, I'd have waited maybe 10 minutes until the sky darkened just a little more and let the artificial lights dominate. It looks "flat" without this contrast, where it could really "pop" with just a bit more. --mikaul^talk 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Firstly, it's quite an awkward perspective, I feel. Secondly, as Mikaul pointed out, there is some distortion and CA. I really do like architecture photography mind you, although this shot doesn't really do justice to what is an otherwise very nice cathedral. -- Chris.B | talk 15:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party

Original

Reason

Historical signifigance

Proposed caption

An 1846 lithograph depicting the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor during the Boston Tea Party

Articles this image appears in

Boston Tea Party, American Revolution, Honourable East India Company, History of the United States, History of international trade, Taxation history of the United States

Creator

Unknown (claimed as PD)

• Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose very blurry. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-23 15:01Z
• Oppose despite historical significance - horribly blurred. Unless the original document has been destroyed I can see no reason why we can't get a higher quality version, especially as the document is US PD. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose A photograph would mitigate the tech problems over historical value, but a lithograph just needs reproducing properly, surely..? --mikaul^talk 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brian.D-rew (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oxya yezoensis

Original

Edit 1 - noise reduced & enhanced -- mikaul

Edit 2 - noise reduction by Fir0002

Edit 3 - compressed a little by ffroth

Reason

High resolution photograph of Oxya yezoensis (Locust).

Proposed caption

Locust ( Oxya yezoensis ). The rice grasshopper, the length of the imago is around 30mm males, around 40mm females.

Articles this image appears in

Locust

Creator

Laitche

• Support as nominator Laitche (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely composition and colours. Looks good to me. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Jiron--Mbz1 (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-23 15:01Z
• Support Edit 1 or 2 The ideal encyclopedic shot in many ways. Reduced noise edit removes any remaining doubts I had. Lovely pic. <edit> My preference is still for edit 1, as all excessive chromatic noise around the highlights is removed. OTOH edit 2 retains a little more detail: I'd be happy to see either promoted. --mikaul^talk 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Which enhance effect did you take ? --Laitche (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I de-noised (chroma only) in NoiseNinja, then gave local contrast and sharpness a tweak in Photoshop.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see. Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support original, lots of detail is gone in the edit. --Aqwis (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Edit 2 Nice macro work - I've reduced the noise selectively retaining detail in the leg area etc which was lost in Mick's edit --Fir0002 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Erm... What is edit 3 for? It's gif, and all I see is a lot of dithering... thegreen J Are you green? 03:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I just thought we needed another 350px tall thumbnail obnoxiously taking up even more space. It was a statement --ffroth 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • hehehee.. --mikaul^talk 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 great shot and nice noise reduction. Oppose edit 3 H92110 (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The original file size is 2.19 MB but Edit 2 is only 776 KB. I think that's too much down sampling and lost detail. The surface of stomach is not a colour noise. That is a detail. Actually that is not smooth then edit 2 is not real, that's fake. --Laitche (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Oxya yezoensis November 2007 Osaka Japan Edit2.jpg MER-C 02:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt map

Original

Reason

Clear, clean map of major cities and regions of ancient Egypt. Color scheme is the standard listed at the maps wikiproject. I'm happy to make any modifications suggested.

Proposed caption

In antiquity, ancient Egypt was divided into two lands: Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. To the south, it was bounded by the land of Kush, and to the East, the levant. Surrounded by harsh deserts, the river Nile was the lifeline of this ancient

Articles this image appears in

Ancient Egypt

Creator

Jeff Dahl

• Support as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd love to support this (even though Safari doesn't cope well with .svgs) but 'Ancient Egypt' covers at least three millennia, some indication of to what kingdom/period this is referring would be needed before I'd vote for it. Other than that reservation, I think it's a great contribution. bad_germ 09:58, 23 November 2007

Most of the cities (except Cairo, Alexandria, etc) were active from the very earliest times until into the Roman period, so this is a very general map that is independent of any one time period. I didn't mark in any territorial boundaries because they were always changing through time whereas the cities/river were constant. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Jeff Dahl nominated a PNG version on Picture Peer Review and appears to have learned to use Inkscape to get an SVG version to nominate here. There were no comments on content at WP:PPR, and the map looks very detailed and appropriate to me. Enuja (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose unless better sourced. There needs to be some way to verify that this map is not only well made, but correct. gren グレン 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added sources to the image description page. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak support, well done... but I have examined it closely enough to give full support. gren グレン 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This is a very useful map, but I concur that the fact that it's not referencing a given time period makes it less attractive to me. What I'd really like to see is this map used as a template, and then several maps generated that cover specific points in the various dynastic periods of Ancient Egypt. So, oppose, but I think it'd be worthy as an FPC if it was the source map for other maps, savvy? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? Every single book on ancient Egyptian history contains this kind of map, which is basically the geographic outline of the country with cities delineated along the Nile and no specific period mentioned. The map here is better in that it is more detailed with more of the minor cities, and of course is free and easy to edit. If I drew a map specific to one time period, it would look pretty much the same in 2500 BC as it would in 300 BC, with only a few cities different. Ancient Egypt was not at all like Europe, where borders changed and kingdoms came and went. Ancient Egypt was pretty rock solid for more than 3 millenia. If it would help, I could specify that the map applies to Dynastic Egypt (Early Dynastic period until the Roman period). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Dahl (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would help. I guess I was under the impression that things changed more often, but that seems to be incorrect. :) If it's accurate for the period of XXXX-YYYY and labeled as such, I suppose that'd be good enough for me to go to support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. One more little question, should Jerusalem be on the map? Was it under Egyptian control from 3150-30? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Like Cairo, I added Jerusalem mainly for reference; The Egyptians did have trading relations with the Levant and Kush from an early date, and a few pharaohs waged battles against the Kushites and the so-called Asiatics living in Palestine, but the Egyptian homeland stretched between the Nile delta and the first cataract. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the reference cities (those not under direct Egyptian control) could have different colored dots to differentiate them? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair suggestion, I've seen some maps that put them in italics. I'll make a new version that distinguishes them. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, changed vote to support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great work, clearly a lot of effort has gone into this on the part of the uploader. bad_germ 22:39, 27 November 2007
• Support Very detailed and well-sourced. One minor quibble: can you rotate the names of the Mediterranean and red Seas so they are right-side-up like the cities? (It might be a little harder for the gulfs, but try those, too, please.) I think this will make the map look more formal and less haphazard.--HereToHelp 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/Question It's probably something that's wrong on my end, but whenever I view this at the 1500x3200 resolution and scroll around, the lettering keeps disappearing. Has anyone else experienced this? And on a smaller note, could you please rotate "mediterranean sea" so that it's parallel to the edge of the map (I'm fine with Red Sea and the other orientations, but Mediterranean is kind of annoying). --Malachirality (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll rotate mediterranean sea. One solution for the lettering might be to convert the text into true vectors; the upside is that the user doesn't need the font installed (but who doesn't have arial font?) but the downside is that in the future it makes editing the text impossible and new labels would have to be created from scratch. Which browser do you use? Either way, it is pretty easy to convert the text labels into vector labels but I'm reluctant to do it unless it's necessary. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ancient Egypt map.svg MER-C 02:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Renamed to File:Ancient Egypt map-en.svg. MER-C 07:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Large Stigma Closeup

The stigma of a cultivar of Lilium longiflorum

A highly detailed closeup shot of the large stigma of a cultivar of Lilium longiflorum. The anthers in the background give context and interest to the image but since they are out of focus they do not detract from the main subject - the stigma.

Appears in Carpel

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful colors and a very nice macro.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The male organs (stamen) mess up this pic. The amaryllis stigma on the carpel page is better in this respect, even though way too small for FPC. --Janke | Talk 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I actually think the anthers enhance the pic as Fir0002 says in the nom. Love the detail on top of the stigma. --jjron (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The stamen do look a bit dishevelled, I'm fairly sure they're supposed lie parallel to each other. Although I'm really not keen on the top-heavy composition, it's the harsh lighting that really spoils things; I feel a much softer, lower-key light would focus attention on the tip, instead of which I'm distracted by the yellow "collar" below it, the stamen beyond and the hard shadow beneath. There's no denying it's incredibly sharp, it just misses the spot for me. Sorry! --mikaul^talk 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The composition just doesn't work for me, I want to be seeing this from the side... at least a little bit from the side anyway. As it stands, it just looks like a big puffed kernel of corn, too hard to see the style. I get that the stigma is the main focus, but top down is still not the way I'd prefer to see it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Encyclopedic alright, but not wow material. Sorry. H92110 (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Blue Heron fishing

Original

Reason

Another wonderful image from Acarpentier.

Proposed caption

The Great Blue Heron is a wading bird in the heron family, common over most of North and Central America as well as the West Indies and the Galápagos Islands. Great blue herons can be found in a range of habitats, in fresh and saltwater, but always near bodies of water. They feed by using their long legs to wade into the water and then catch fish or frogs with their long bill.

Articles this image appears in

Great Blue Heron

Creator

User:Acarpentier

• Support as nominator Cacophony (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Excellent image! stand by for complaints on the caption! --Fir0002 06:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A little blown highlights here, some blurry feathers there, but more than made up for by the fish!--HereToHelp 12:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great action shot!--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Weak because of general messyness, support because it's a good catch! ;-) And yes, Fir is right, we need a caption... --Janke | Talk 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's a shame the fish is so small, and the image lacking in colour contrast, but on the other hand, it's a great wildlife shot that captures the atmosphere of the environment. It works for me. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on Commons re color de-saturation of the bg, but it appears this might be the unedited version. If not, I'd really prefer the original. --Janke | Talk 07:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the original, I think. --mikaul^talk 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support per Janke and Samsara. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great "moment" shot. Colours look really natural on my monitor, and I really like the setting: the mess adds to the shot for me. Could maybe do with a selective sharpen to pop it out a bit but it looks every inch an FP as it is. --mikaul^talk 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per mikaul --LucaG (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support While the background does make it look a little noisy in the thumbnail, that's only a thumbnail problem; at any reasonable resolution the background is so obviously blurred that the bird stands out quite well indeed. However the caption needs work. It's obvious just from this image that Great Blue's don't "spear" their food; this bird is tossing the fish after it caught it, to arrange the fish longitudinally to go down the bird's gullet. The bird did catch the fish with its long bill, but it was done like using forceps, not by impaling it with a spear. Enuja (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The article could use some work also. I changed "spear" to "catch" for a simple fix but the caption probably needs even more work. Cacophony (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Doesn't do it for me, there is absolutely no sense of scale, these birds are something like five feet tall, this one looks about two feet tall, more like a Little Blue Heron. I just can't tell how big it is at all, which hurts its encyclopedic nature. Good shot otherwise. IvoShandor (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great shot. I cannot understand the assertion that there's no sense of scale... you've got water droplets, water turbulence, leaves, grass, and the fish... all work together to give an impression of the size of the bird. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, surely we can get a better picture of Great Blues. IMO this one just doesn't do them justice. D-rew (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Le Grand Heron.jpg MER-C 02:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Macro of SIM Card Internals

Original

Reason

Picture is of high quality and represents a significant addition to wikipedia.

Proposed caption

A closeup of a chip extracted from the AT&T Mobility SIM Card.

Articles this image appears in

Subscriber Identity Module

Creator

user:Teque5

• Support as nominator Teque5 (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This is something that should be done with a scanner: You'll get a nice even background, much higher resolution, less noise and you can change the exposure so much more easily (did you take this with the pliers in your left hand and camera in your right hand?). --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • haha, i really did Teque5 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose That's not the chip, it's the circuit board carrying the chip. The chip can be seen in the microphoto I shot for the smart card article (scroll down to "Nordea" card). --Janke | Talk 14:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That smart card 'chip' is a very tiny picture of the silicon substrate itself. If you want to be picky, the chip is the Integrated Circuit clearly visible below the layer of protective glue in the center of my photo. Teque5 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant. You'd really need to see the chip here - now it's just a little black rectangle (no details at all) on the larger carrier board, so even the caption is misleading. --Janke | Talk 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Muscovy Ducks

Original Edit 1 by Fir0002 - sharpening

Reason

Encyclopedic image of the wild birds, which shows close up portraits of both male and female as well as an interesting behavior.

Proposed caption

Male and female Muscovy Ducks, Cairina moschata. The male is engaged in Social grooming

Articles this image appears in

Muscovy Duck

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question Do you have a high res version of this - I wouldn't mind having a shot at sharpening it a bit better --Fir0002 07:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your question, Fir0002. I do have original (taken in JPG format) May I e-mail it to you please?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes no problem, I prefer to keep my email confidential so go to my userpage and use the "email this user" function in the toolbox and I'll reply with my email. --Fir0002 01:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. For encyclopaedic value we prefer pictures of the whole bird. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment Samsara. If I may, I'd like to address your concern please. Generally speaking you are right and an image of the whole bird would have been better, yet IMO the nominated image has at least two reasons to be cinsidered for FP status: first - it shows the male and female together (it was very interesting for me to observe different colors of their eyes.)The second reason IMO is that it shows interesting behavior. IMO the image adds value to the article. If I may, I'd like also to mention that Wikipedia FP has few images of not the whole birds. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I counted three. One is included in pair bond, another in beak, and the bald eagle is an FP of almost three years. It's only significant use is as an afterthought in bird of prey. It may have to be reviewed at some point. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too difficult to discern the subject, much of the subject is cut off (reducing encylopedic benefit), and it appears to me to have been taken using an on camera flash, if not the lighting is terrible. IvoShandor (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Fir0002, thank you for working on the image. You've done a great job with it.
    Thank you for your comment, Samsara and for your vote, IvoShandor. I do agree that the whole bird would have had much more value and that the lighting is very bad (there was no flash, just a bad lighting). May I please ask for your opinion? Do you believe that the image should be removed from the article Muscovy Duck for the lack of encyclopedic value and for a terrible lighting and be placed in the gallery at the end of the article instead? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Millerite prophecy chart

Original

Edit 1

Reason

Fascinating (and legible) document of religious history.

Proposed caption

A prophetic chart illustrating numerous interpretations of prophecy by the Millerite sect yielding the year 1843 as the date of the Second Advent. The failure of Christ to return to earth on the prophesized date caused many sect members to abandon the sect.

Articles this image appears in

Millerites, Great Disappointment, History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Creator

Originally published by J. V. Himes. Scanned from P. Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans (1977), p310. Uploaded

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Pictures are Grainy Teque5 (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's the halftone dot that looks grainy, something I'm sure the original illustration wouldn't have had. The copy this was scanned from looks like a particularly coarse screen, probably for newsprint, which means it'll always look awful on-screen. Undoubtedly valuable enc asset, just not a FP version of it.--mikaul^talk 19:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You can get away with things on engravings you can't with photos: I've done an edit that partially salvages it. Still, there would be far more detail in the original, and the edit should NOT be FP. In general, I think no engraving or lithograph should be FA unless you can see the lines or speckling (as appropriate) that makes it up. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

La grande odalisque

Original

Reason

It's a very high res image of Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres's most famous work.

Proposed caption

La grande odalisque is a painting by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres in 1814. It is considered a masterpiece of neoclassicism.

Articles this image appears in

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

Creator

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

• Support as nominator Lipton sale (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Licensing makes it ineligible for FP. Per astoundingly stupid rules that enforce almost-as-stupid American law, it's barely even eligible for use on wikipedia. --ffroth 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• 'Scuse me, but isn't a painting from 1814 public domain in any and all jurisdictions? --Janke | Talk 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • • I don't know, apparently not. The licensing information on file is "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted." --ffroth 21:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Not true. See below. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-21 21:32Z
• Comment, scale it down a bit - it's unsharp at 100%. --Aqwis (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Plenty of institutions request non-commercial/educational-only use of public domain works to which they provide access, but it's not a law or even remotely enforceable. Once you have a copy, you can do with it whatever you want. It's public domain and can't be recopyrighted (unless significantly modified, such as in the case of a parody). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-21 21:32Z
• Oppose This photoreproduction is not really true to life, and not good quality. Halftone dots(?) visbile, esp in flesh areas. Stitching visible down the middle and toe is cut off so probably missing something around the edges. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)