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)