Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-2006

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.

African Hawk Eagle[edit]

An excellent image, which I think meets all the criteria. Used (to little effect in the taxobox) in the species article and in the article on bird flight. Also demonstrates the excellent free content that can be found on flickr.

Nominate and support --Peta 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good photo, I'm a little disappointed with the legs cut off. Is there a way to get them? --Will Mak 050389 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose primarily due to the subject being cut off at the bottom of the frame, and the tight framing / cropping at left and right.-- Moondigger 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cutting the legs off wrecks the picture - Adrian Pingstone 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject unfortunately cut off, so it's not encyclopedic enough in my opinion. --mstroeck 09:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully, due to cut off legs. HighInBC 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's so sad to see opposes because there is one thing wrong with an otherwise featured picture. I think this image could do good in showing the wing, but of course, as everyone else has said, the full animal isn't shown, so I'm neutral. --Tewy 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His legs are not in the picture, and he is too far in the bottom right corner. Dinosaur puppy 01:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very, reluctant oppose. The legs and tail are cropped off.--JyriL ^talk 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Towers of Bologne[edit]

I recently returned from a computer science conference in Italy. While there, I got to tour Bolonga, and see the two towers, featured in the picture to the right. I wanted to see if wikipedia had any images of these towers prior to me uploading images, and I found this picture in the Bolonga article. The quality of the image was much more impressive than anything I took while visiting the towers, so I figured I would nominate it here.

Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, neighboring building in the midle of the subject. Distracting stuff at the base of the building (bicycles, people, etc.).Nnfolz 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Nnfolz, and I find the wires a little distracting also. --Will Mak 050389 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good pic but spoilt by the wires and the dark building on the left - Adrian Pingstone 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to poor framing, and obstacles. HighInBC 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above, and an overexposed sky. --Tewy 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wires, dark building on the right does not help the picture --Digon3 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chopsticks[edit]

A detailed picture of a chopsticks courtesy of the commons. The image is hi-res, and appears in the article chopsticks.

Nominate and Support. -- TomStar81 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The image is pretty simple and boring, and besides, most people can imagine what chopsticks look like. --Dark Kubrick 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FPC guidelines state "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". If you find the image boring that's fine, its an opinion and I can respect that, but I can not in good faith address those problems as it is a matter of taste. Could you maybe give a more valid reason, or perhaps change your vote to neutral? TomStar81 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps boring was the wrong word. I'm just saying that the subject matter itself, used here, is not very interesting to most people, and it's not hard to imagine a pair of chopsticks. I would go with Howcheng's idea, and find a more stylistic, cultural pair of chopsticks. That would be a nice picture. --Dark Kubrick 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's a lot of noise in the background. Also, if we're going to have a picture of chopsticks, they could be a lot nicer than the ones pictured here. Some nice black lacquer ones with a good pattern on them would look a lot better. howch e ng {chat} 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but, I too find it rather boring and un-appealing. The composition does not make it 'pleasing to the eye. Maybe executing howch e ng {chat} idea would be nice.Nnfolz 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too plain. needs to be jazzed up somehow. -Ravedave ^{help name my baby} 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Plain, no context. Perhaps an image of them by a meal or held by hands. The photo tells me nothing of what they do. HighInBC 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are several quality issues, such as the noise in the background, the subject not being completely in focus, and it being so dark. It's also at a funny, almost upside-down angle. --Tewy 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Chopsticks come in many different shapes, sizes, materials, and colors. To limit the concept to these two chopsticks in a rested static state does not contribute enough. A child trying to master the eating utensil by picking up noodles from a bowl would do a great job. It should be more like the picture (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image082.gif) illustrating different uses of a mouth that was included in the Golden Record on the Voyager probes. Sudachi 07:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half Dome Side View[edit]

A unique photo of half dome showing how perfectly flat it is; appears in Half Dome, Created by Reywas92.

Nominate and support. - Reywas92 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all due to dull colors. The color edit looks better, but the colors look as though they were brought out from an understaturated picture. I think rephotographing the subject is the only solution in this case. HighInBC 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it looks more like an old Ektachrome slide in terms of color balance -- like something taken 30 years ago and only recently scanned. (Not saying that's what it is -- only that it looks like it.) -- Moondigger 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too hazy. SteveHopson 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made a couple edits. I wasn't happy with the sky in the color version, so I tried converting to black & white. The sky still doesn't look right to me. However I think both images are improvements on the original. -- Moondigger 04:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edit 1 is still better but colors kind of make it look clustered. 24.254.92.184 12:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good shot, but the colors are beyond fixing IMO. --Tewy 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the colors, of rock & sky separately. Is edit 3 better? --Janke | Talk 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1. Jesse 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since I've just been there last weekend and yet have pictures to upload which I think are better than this one. --Dschwen 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. Like HighInBC says, I don't think this pic is salvageable. howch e ng {chat} 18:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. Not salvageable. I think I've made better ones during my visit there last year. Mikeo 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Goose in Flight[edit]

Maybe not quite as tack sharp as the Brown Pelican, this is still sensational (and for those that were concerned it doesn't have a visible halo)

Nominate and Support --Fir0002 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. Good composition, lighting, and image quality. A crop might improve, but it's fine the way it is right now. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Support edit 1~~. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support edit 2. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artisticly and technically excellent. Encyclopedic, a good FP. HighInBC 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit #2 Another great upload by Fir0002, very artistically displayed bird, and encyclopedic with a caption on Canadian geese. --Will Mak 050389 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Pharaoh Hound that cropping may enhance the image, but excellent regardless.--Melburnian 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- update support to edit 2 for cropping and tweaking of noise. --Melburnian 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Very nice image - I agree it could be slightly sharper and could be cropped at the bottom slightly (quite a lot of out-of-focus wasteland underneith the bird). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done a cropped version for all those interested. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for duplication Pharoah Hound, I just noticed that the background could also do with some slight noise reduction, but thats just a minor thing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 — Much more clear now that the noise has been reduced. ♠ SG →Talk 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 Nice goose. - echidnae 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. The image speaks for itself. --Tewy 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Beautifully captured. Halsteadk 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 Kudos to Pharaoh Hound & Dilliff for great edit work on the image! Jam01 10:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 very nice shot and the edits take care of any issues I'd have with it. Cat-five - talk 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. I don't care about which edit because I haven't been able to find any noticeable difference, but the original owner and/or uploader should be mentioned in the edited version and you can't release the edited with the GFDL when the original author only used a CC share alike. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wonderful image. Original is good, editing is not needed.--JyriL ^talk 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Canada goose flight cropped and NR.jpg Mikeo 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80486DX2 200x[edit]

This image provides a good visual for explaining integrated circuits and microprocessors, and is an unusual find on Wikipedia at this resolution. I think it's rather striking and is a good supplement to Image:80486dx2-large.jpg. At the very least, it's a nice change of subject compared with the typical featured picture nominees. Note: I had originally uploaded a slightly different image ([1]), but went with this one because it's a good bit sharper.

Nominate and support. - uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 00:47Z
Weak oppose (prefer Edit 1) ~~Low saturation,~~ vignetting, and ~~barrel distortion~~ HighInBC 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's pretty difficult to avoid with my microscope setup. For an extra $2k or so I could probably do something about it. Anyway, if this image is doomed because of prevailing circumstances, so be it. I doubt there are many other folks on Wikipedia who could produce this picture, though. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 04:15Z

I know how you feel, I have been trying for months to take a FP with my $300 camera, and I have not even got one I would nominate. HighInBC 04:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do with that image in photoshop. HighInBC 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool... By the way, the color (or lack thereof) in the image isn't incorrect. The materials you're seeing are most likely aluminum and silicon dioxide. The colors you see in the whole-die shot are largely from diffusion, refraction, and the very different lighting condition. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 04:38Z

HighinBC ... yeah me too... I have like 6000 pics with my canon S500 and not one is FP material. I have some close ones but nothing that is Fir quality. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose This is a very interesting picture. Too bad you cannot obtain a picture quality comparable to your featured whole die picture of the processor. Glaurung 06:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose it's a great picture, and that's most obvious in how much I really really want to see beyond the edges of the black, but I really would rather have a picture with more in the frame, since we can only see a single small part in this one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys do realize this is under an optical microscope, right? 200x magnification, remember? Used an optical microscope lately? The limited coverage of the objective is due to the magnification, comes with the territory, and is unavoidable; as is the circular viewing area and to some extent the vignetting (though it is admittedly worse here than it could be). Sure I could tile several of these things together and produce a lovely rectangular picture, but that has its own problems and I'd prefer not to seriously mess with an image other than to correct minor defects (like the barrel distortion). Lordy, would you folks fault an AFM picture for not showing enough of the target? Images produced by good microscope optics will NOT look the same as those produced by a 35 mm lens and while I don't claim that this picture is perfect, I rather think some of you are expecting a microscope to be a super macro lens pointed at a well-lit target. I can't help but notice that most (all?) of the featured micro-"photographs" on WP are produced by SEM, not by optics... Am I to understand that microscope optics produce sub-standard pictures and that I must use SEM in the future? If that's the case let me know and I won't bother nominating pictures produced by optical microscopy in the future. Sorry for the rant. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 20:14Z

That's fine, nobody is saying that the photograph was poorly taken, as you explained the problem clearly lies in the equipment used. The fact that there were technical limitations to the photo does not excuse it from the aestetic opinions of those who vote here. The standards of featured pictures is kept high on purpose. It is a great picture worthy of inclusion in the enclyclopedia and surely helps it's article greatly, but a featured picture needs to be an example of wikipedia's best. There are images that are much like yours such as Image:Microphoto-butterflywing3.jpg and Image:Microphoto-butterflywing4.jpg, and their are others of higher quality such as Image:Wirebond-ballbond.jpg and Image:Diatoms through the microscope.jpg. Now ask yourself if we are really being unfair or unreasonable opposing based on these technical faults? Is this image an example of wikipedia's best work? This is about the picture, we are not trying to judge you. Sorry for the rant. hehe HighInBC 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I didn't meant to suggest I perceive some slight towards me. No, far be it from me to get upset about something like this. I just think that there might be some irrational 35 mm bias going on... Not that my conspiracy theories are likely to change anyone's opinion, but I thought I might as well comment on it. To directly answer your question, yeah, I do think this is some of the best work you will see from an optical microscope on Wikipedia. Maybe I could do a bit better with some more time and maybe I could spend a week trying to get time on an SEM, but I obviously thought this was a possibility for fulfilling FP requirements, otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it. Anyway, I'm done ranting... I respect the validity of most of the criticisms raised. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-27 01:30Z
Oppose I can appreciate the difficulty, but the colors/vignetting combined with a none to sensational subject just don't make this image special enough for FP status IMO. A nice image all the same. --Fir0002 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I already explained the color. I don't know what else I can do other than inaccurately add false color to match whatever prior expectations you have... -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 20:27Z
Oppose. Per Fir0002. --Tewy 19:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Quarter[edit]

A rather well detailed image of a standard US Quarter as seen from the "heads" side. The image appears in the article Quarter (United States coin). I am nominating this image for its excellent detail.

Nominate and support. TomStar81 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it's as good as the other US Mint photos that are already featured. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 21:51
Support, Nice detail, even the artist mark is very clear. HighInBC 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just a good overall image; about the same quality as the featured penny image. --Tewy 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice. Cat-five - talk 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not special coin, not special photo. In principle, this coin has few details to be interesting.Olegivvit 11:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So would you delist the current featured pictures that are US Mint photos? This picture illustrates the subject excellently--the very definition of what a featured picture should be. Are you suggesting that Quarter (United States coin) is part of a special subset of articles that are undeserving of featured pictures, because the subject itself is "not special"? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 15:40
  I would delist. Why this photo should be featured but not, for example, many of these [2]?
  - I think this is an invalid oppose; FPC guidelines state "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed", and this one does not. TomStar81 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note the first two word is that quote. say1988 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am aware of that. For me, if you can not give a specific reason for opposing that can be adressed I think to be either a boring picture, or something someone just does not like about the picture. In either case, I believe that to be beyond my ability (or anyone elses, for that matter) to fix or improve. I am not saying that the people who dislike the photo can not vote oppose unless they have a valid reason, I am just saying that it seems a little hard to count a vote that states something that can not be addressed. TomStar81 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Some pictures just plainly aren't good enough and can't be improved. Hence the "Where possible" You get an image from NASA that has part cut off, you obviously can't fix that, so oppose votes for being cut off shouldn't count much in that case? say1988 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully photographed, I love it! - Adrian Pingstone 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Encyclopedic, high resolution, good image quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Personally, I don't think any of these kinds of coin shots should be featured, primarily because they're product shots produced as advertising for the sale of proof sets and the like by the U.S. mint. Also, they don't appear to be legitimate photographs -- every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin). At best they started as photographs, but are so artificial-looking in their final forms as to be best described as illustrations. Now that alone doesn't mean they aren't feature-worthy, but to me it means that since every coin the mint produces ends up with a similar illustration, we're going to end up with dozens and dozens of product shot featured images simply because each nomination couldn't be said to be worse than the last coin image nomination. -- Moondigger 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I bet you could make that lighting effect with a flexible piece of reflectic mylar. HighInBC 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Give it a try and post the results. ;^) Seriously, there's no way you're going to get a border between shadow and highlight with that even, gradient-tool transition. And even ignoring the border, the lettering isn't going to magically form neat black outlines in the highlight area to set it off from the background. The more I've studied this image the more I doubt it ever was a photograph at all. -- Moondigger 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Skim through these Google images (or [3] or [4]) and you'll find some photos exhibiting this effect, such as [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. There are also examples on eBay, such as [15]. Most coins aren't proof with deep cameo. This illustration depicts such a coin. You should be more careful before influencing so many other voters in the future. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 04:37Z
Support I find no problem what so ever with product shots - they're the most encyclopeadic images possible. And I actually like "yin-yang" lighting - I always wondered how they did that and I am slightly envious I can't do it. Makes it look really shiny in a bizarre way. Good image --Fir0002 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure they do it with the paint bucket and gradient tools in Photoshop. That's what I mean when I say they're not really photographs. -- Moondigger 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well photographed, high resolution, and deserving of featured status. Hello32020 12:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shiny support - Shame that there are no shiny coins like that on American streets. Iola k ana•T 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per moondigger --Vircabutar 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Moondiger, it looks artificial. What's so special about this pic again?Nnfolz 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Moondiger. No different than the dozens of other US Mint product shots. Nothing special, not a FP. Chicago god 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Moondiger. I think he is right that it has been manipulated - on the upper right part of the head, in the black part of the field are edge highlights that look like sloppy masking in clearing out the background to make it black, same along some of the letters, none of which have black components as dark as the yin-yang. Debivort 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't been manipulated; it's just a drawing, not a photograph. The shading effect is not fake, whether or not you think it looks fake. See my reply to Moondigger's vote. The Susan B. Anthony coin is not a cameo coin, so of course it wouldn't show this effect. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 13:39Z
Oppose per Moondigger -- mcshadypl^Talk ^Cont 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've got to agree that the lighting looks highly artificial (that was the first thing I thought when looking at it; the lighting is too perfect) and thus smacks of photo manipulation, but I don't think that in particular should prevent the image's promotion. However, I don't think it's particularly interesting, just high quality. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-27 03:35Z
Oppose Per Moondiger and Chicago god. Chris Quackenbush 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think people are getting too hung up on aesthetics and are forgetting the fundamental purpose of FPs, which is to illustrate the subject. This is aesthetically pleasing enough to qualify as a FP because it is such a valuable, demonstrative illustration. Dylan 23:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a better illustration of a quarter would be an actual photograph of one. I don't believe this is a photograph; it could have been put together in Illustrator and Photoshop without even starting with an actual coin. I'd prefer something like the Anthony dollar image we have here, posted above for comparison. -- Moondigger 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Moondigger and Debivort. I also think that if the image was manipulated, the author (if present) or the nomitor (if he has knowledge of this) should release the information. --Chaos Reaver 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me be clear -- I don't think the manipulation itself is reason enough to oppose; the U.S. Mint web site doesn't even claim they're photographs. (They're product illustrations that many will assume are photographs.) My opposition is because I think a better (more accurate, more encyclopedic) illustration of a coin would be an actual photograph of a coin. -- Moondigger 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per Moondigger. I would also be in favor of an actual photo of the currency. This illustration just looks way too fake, especially when you compare it with the photo of the Susan B. Anthony coin. --Nebular110 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But the shading effect is not fake, whether or not you think it looks fake. See my reply to Moondigger's vote. The Susan B. Anthony coin is not a cameo coin, so of course it wouldn't show this effect. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 13:39Z
  - There are cameo Susan B. Anthony coins, though obviously this one isn't one. There are also cameo quarters, but the vast majority of quarters are not cameos.
    - Well, obviously... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:40Z
  - The U.S. Mint images were designed to look like the cameo images you linked to, but the blacks are too perfectly black, the highlights are too perfectly smooth, and the border is too perfectly graded, clearly done with a gradient tool in a graphics program. The letters in the highlight areas of the photos you linked to aren't all perfectly outlined in black to set them off from the light background -- sometimes they're imperfect because of the way the light source hits them. Here's one of the images you linked to for comparison: [16].
  - I'm a bit confused by your objections to my comments anyway. You admit the U.S. Mint images are "drawings, not photographs," which is what I said. That they are thought to be photographs by casual viewers is a big part of my objection. I believe a photograph makes for a better, more encyclopedic depiction of a given object than a drawing of that object does.
  - As for my "influence" on others' votes -- I voted and gave my reasons for voting the way I did. You voted and gave your reasons for voting the way you did. How is what I did any more objectionable than what you did? -- Moondigger 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I only objected to your claims that manipulations were necessary to create the yin-yang effect, and those incorrect claims influenced later voters. Specifically, you said, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:40Z
      - No, as I explained below, I mentioned the yin/yang shadow/highlights as evidence that the image isn't a photograph, which (contrary to your objection) is absolutely correct. I elaborated shortly thereafter, mentioning the gradient-tool border between shadow and highlight, the pure blackness of the shadow, etc. None of that corresponds to any kind of lighting used in product photography, and is indicative of either a drawing that never began as a photograph or a heavily (and unrealistically) manipulated photograph. If the way I phrased the comment caused confusion or misunderstanding about what I meant, then I encourage those who may have been influenced by my comment to reconsider their votes. -- Moondigger 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment with respect to the feature-worthiness of this particular image. It's being used to illustrate the articles Quarter (United States coin), Gallery of coins and Gallery of circulating Western hemisphere coins. Since it's clearly a drawing of a cameo coin, as you point out, it's entirely inappropriate for a gallery of circulating coins. It's also not a terribly good choice for the Quarter article since the vast majority of quarters people are likely to come across aren't cameos or proof-quality. All IMO, of course. -- Moondigger 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reading back through the discussion above, I think I understand your objection now. I mentioned in my Oppose vote paragraph that the yin/yang shaped shadow/highlight sections didn't correspond to any lighting scheme I could imagine. You're pointing out that dark/light sections are common in photos of cameo coins, and that therefore such lighting isn't 'fake.' I get it, and you're right -- it's not 'fake' from that POV. But my comment was only meant as evidence that the image was not a photograph; I focused (excuse the pun) on how the border between shadow and highlight was clearly done with the gradient tool, and how perfectly black the shadow section was, etc. My point is that this image is almost certainly not a photograph, though it might appear to be one by casual inspection.
- The truth is that I have a coin collection, including several proof sets and cameos, and I get the U.S. Mint brochures/catalogs in the mail all the time. The illustrations in those catalogs are the same as used on the web site, and I believe they are poor representations of the actual coins. I would prefer legitimate photographs, and find such photographs more feature-worthy even if they don't have perfectly smooth borders between shadow and highlight, etc.
- If anybody's vote was swayed by a misunderstanding of my comments, I encourage them to reassess their votes and change them if necessary. I didn't mean to imply that such shadow/highlight areas were impossible in a photograph -- only that the nature of the shadow/highlight areas in this particular illustration are indicative that it's a drawing rather than a photograph. -- Moondigger 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To adress Brian0918 - while the images you link to as examples show high-contrast fields, they are clearly photographs as evidenced by the noise in the fields. The black parts of this image have absolutely no variability - their RGB value is #000000. To get this from a camera is essentially impossible over a large field because of instrument noise. Should it be considered as an illustration? Perhaps, but I say no because it looks like a photo, people will view it as one, and walk away thinking coins could actually be as shiny as the one portrayed here, which they cannot. Therefore it deceptively illustrates the very topic it is supposed to portray. Reiterate my opposition. I might be more sympathetic if it had been created by a wikipedian rather than a governmental marketing department. Debivort 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it's an illustration. I only objected to Moondigger's claim that, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:46Z
      - A statement which remains true despite your objection. See my comment above, beginning "No, as I explained below..." -- Moondigger 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is very clear and the shading/shadowing is very appealing. It is also a significant coin to the United States. --midnight_rider 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf structure[edit]

I randomly found this image, and think it is a very simple and clear diagram. It was designed by DynaBlast, and is used in Leaf and Palisade cell.

Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - It reminds me of the drawings they had us draw in high school. Very encyclopedic and useful to wikipedia but I don't think it is as visually interesting as a FP should be. HighInBC 14:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think that it's nice that it is reminiscent of drawing in textbooks - it is certainly of that quality. It's svg as well - if the English is a problem, the numbered version might be better to consider InvictaHOG 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And the words/numbers can be altered in the SVG format. --Tewy 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! I guess I didn't make that so clear. InvictaHOG 01:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. A bit on the dull side, but gives a good, simple model of the structure in SVG. I prefer either, but I like the white background on the second, numbered version. I personally don't know if having words on the diagram is better or worse for a FP, though. --Tewy 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A solid design, well-executed, and in a flexible format. This is the kind of thing we need more of.--ragesoss 15:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it in principle, but this just isn't that good a diagram, especially when compared to Image:Ant worker morphology corrected.svg. Just doesn't look that proffessional/clean --Fir0002 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The diagram could be a lot better. It reminds me of something done with Paint. Jesse 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The diagram could be far improved. My main issue is the way that the cells overlap a little at the top. Adenosine | Talk 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christus Ravenna Mosaic[edit]

I found this image during a debate over what image should top the Jesus article. This picture is of a mosaic at the Church San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy and I think it demonstrates the beauty of early Christian art.

Nominate and support. - —Aiden 04:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historic, and beautiful. HighInBC 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear, historic image that is impressive even at thumbnail size--Melburnian 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, provided that the colors are accurate. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 12:28
Neutral. I had a look at it full sized and there is clearly a lot of jpeg artifacts due to overcompression. They blend in a bit due to the tiled nature of the image, but they are there and don't look great. I would support a re-upload of this image with much lower compression. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure those are artifacts and not just the surface structure of the mozaic pieces? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 14:10
  - No, there is definitely heavy and noticible artifacting. You can see the block quantization in many areas extends between tiles in the image. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 14:35Z
Weak oppose. Excellent except for the jpeg artifacts (I noticed them too on close examination). If the artifacts are fixed I will support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worthy, competent, engaging photo of a significant art work. The technical matter is the question of whether it meets the criterion "free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed jpg files)." In my judgement, this photo meets the criterion. It is not completely free of compression artifacts. Artifacts are present, but I would not have noticed them until they were pointed out to me. It is free of compression artifacts of the extent that is visible in highly compressed JPEG files. So while I wish for more technical quality, this image has plenty. Fg2 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I would support this if a) it were larger and cleaner, or b) if a Wikipedian created it. But this is not outstanding compared to a lot of PD art scan images floating around out there. A good find, but not quite FP quality.--ragesoss 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment The PD seems valid, why should it matter if a wikipedian scaned it or not? HighInBC 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant if a Wikipedian had taken the picture, rather than it being a scan of a printed reproduction of a picture.--ragesoss 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't think those are artifacts at all; that's what tiles look like. I don't think we should discriminate against images not created by Wikipedians. --M@rēino 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look in the bottom-right corner. That's where it's most noticible. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 02:13Z
Oppose, artifacted, blurry (look around the eyes) and cut off on the right side. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally don't think it's large (high-resolution) enough for us to see the details of the artwork. Although I think it's a beatiful artwork, the shot seems rather ordinary --Vircabutar 07:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curlew[edit]

Another terrific image, sharp, well composed and shows great detail of the bird - what more could you want?

Nominate and Support --Fir0002 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More source info, for one thing. I checked the site and I coudl not find anything on it that indicates that the images are under a ShareAlike 2.5 license. If the photographer released it under that license in the eamil, could you copy it to the discussion page? Hbdragon88 08:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From the front page of their web site, in the first paragraph: "We consider each image to be in the Public Domain with the proviso that their use conform to the general spirit of the rules governing Attribution-ShareALike 2.5 as described by Creative Commons in their summary deed." I have copied this statement into the image description. -- Moondigger 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense, since PD means you can't put any restrictions on it. Maybe someone should suggest they simplify the statement one way or the other (PD or CC-BY-SA). --Davepape 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I sent them an e-mail requesting clarification of their licensing terms. Their response indicated that they wanted their images used in compliance with CC-BY-SA 2.5. The ambiguity of the statement on their webpage notwithstanding, the license Fir0002 applied to the image is correct. -- Moondigger 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - To expand on that a bit... they do seem to be a bit confused, as they equate "public domain" with "CC-BY-SA 2.5." But the terms they require are equivalent to CC-BY-SA 2.5, so I believe the license Fir0002 specified is valid. -- Moondigger 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm the one that suggested to Al that a CC license might be more suitable than public domain, since it "ensures" attribution. He then asked for my opinion about the new language on his web site, and I said what has been identified above. Also, technically, all current images on his site (until he adds a new gallery) were already released into the public domain, so I suggested that he make that clearer on his web site... eg. galleries 1-x are PD, and galleries x+1 onward are CC. Maybe I'll go check my email to see if he responded. Also, Fir, hit FPC with too many bird pics at once and people will stop supporting them!! I was going to put up some Gannets next but I think we're good for birds right now. :-) Outriggr 23:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent photo. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 01:22
Support. Excellent depiction of the animal. (And Outriggr is right about too many similar pictures at once. People start comparing them to each other). --Tewy 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Purty. - echidnae 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The bird is too far to the left. Jam01 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's ok. Sometimes it is deliberate to place the subject on the side of the image opposite the direction toward which it faces. It provides a space into which that subject looks dliao 2006 August 30 06:19 UTC.
Support. Lovely. --Nebular110 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent pic, particularly the composition - Adrian Pingstone 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Curlew - natures pics.jpg Raven4x4x 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Pelican[edit]

Another great image from Nature's Pic's. A mid flight shot is very hard to get, and a perfectly focused one like this is exceptional.

Nominate and Support --Fir0002 08:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is incredible. Little uglier than ours though. --liquidGhoul 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent. Ugly bird though. --Billpg 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great shot.--Melburnian 09:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its a good pic, but when i first saw it the first thing i noticed was a kind of weird light glow around the bird, i was just wondering what it actually is?? Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 10:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it, do you see it at full size? --liquidGhoul 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Renata 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version, it's suffering from severe shadow/highlight haloing. Would support a version that hasn't been so heavily photoshopped, if we can get hold of the original. --Yummifruitbat 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as Yummifruitbat. I've noticed in just about all of this contributor's images that the shadow detail has been overcooked. Shadows appear too bright and false. Otherwise I would support it, but it just doesn't look natural to me - something pretty important in a nature photo. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Fir0002. Stevage 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wonderful picture, but is it just me or is there a glow about outside of the wings?? HighInBC 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a very nice image, but the halo around the bird is a bit distracting. Could be due to shadow/highlight carelessness, but looks more like what you get when you aren't careful about local contrast enhancement. -- Moondigger 15:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Beautiful Imaninjapirate 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per moondigger--Vircabutar 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded the original image Nautre's Pic's sent me. The image I initially uploaded I applied some contrasting as I felt the original a little flat. But anyway, see what you think - the "halo" may not be as visible in the original. --Fir0002 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, the 'original' is quite flat, but I don't believe that it is straight out of the camera. As I mentioned before, the shadows appear artificially lifted (a little is fine, but too much is a Bad Thing) and contrast is lacking (in both copies). I admit that shadows are not as strong towards sunset (and this image has sunset-like light), but it still doesn't look like it should, and as I mentioned also, I have noticed other images by this contributor that exhibit this issue, so I don't think that it is my imagination. Ah well, post processing is always a very subjective exercise, but I think he does need to be a bit more careful of the result. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 — Very nice photo, and very difficult to capture with such precision. ♠ SG →Talk 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not as good as the goose pic. The edit is exagerated. --Dschwen 02:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. This photo is amazing except for the haloing, but I think the exceptional quality makes up for that. --Tewy 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . Quite close, though. Raven4x4x 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthrise[edit]

For your consideration, the first-ever photo (by humans) of the Earth rising above the surface of the moon, taken on December 24, 1968, during the Apollo 8 mission by Bill Anders.

Nominate and support. howch e ng {chat} 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support TomStar81 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it looks dull. The gray surface of the moon doesn't make it too apealing IMO.Nnfolz 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either/both I love it! I'm not sure how you could spruce up the moon's surface - plant flowers? The gray surface juxtaposed with the earth is part of what really draws me to the picture. InvictaHOG 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LOL! Now that I see the color image i would support that one rather than the black & white one (can I do that by the way?).Nnfolz 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is undoubtedly an historic image, but I think it doesn't have the emotional impact of the colour image taken a short time later, which I believe (and according to the article) is the more famous image. Seeing the contrast between the stark, barren and monochramatic moon and the colour and life of Earth, as well as seeing our home planet rendered as something so tiny had a profound effect on how we regarded the planet from that point onward.--Melburnian 02:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like that one too. I guess it's a question of historic significance (first photo) or greater cultural impact. I could go with either. howch e ng {chat} 03:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are nice, in my opinion - InvictaHOG 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. may not be color, but historic, clear, and nicely framed. Outriggr 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Glaurung 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support colored image per Melburnian's reasoning. --Will Mak 050389 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Historicaly notable. --Billpg 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support color image; Weak oppose black & white. The color image is more famous for a reason -- it's a much more compelling image, IMO. -- Moondigger 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support color image; Oppose B&W The color image is more appealing and just as historically relevant Rtcpenguin 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support color image - more historically "iconic". --Davepape 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support colour image -formalising vote as per my earlier comment--Melburnian 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support monochrome image, but strong oppose color — The color image is far more blurry than the monochrome, plus, Earth is further out. The reason the monochrome version was nominated was because of the sharpness and position of our planet in the photo. Beautiful art doesn't have to be colorful. ♠ SG →Talk 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support grayscale. Like SG said above, the color has some technical issues, while the grayscale is sharper, more historically significant, and the position of the moon is better. I like the color for its contrast of grayscale and color, but that's all I like about it. --Tewy 01:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The difference in sharpness isn't nearly as dramatic as implied above, and the position of Earth w/r/t the moon's horizon is a subjective matter -- I prefer it up and away a bit, which makes for a more balanced composition in the color image. The sharpness of the color image could easily be tweaked with unsharp masking. -- Moondigger 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wonderful picture, much detail, good subject, etc. Generalnonsensecomic 19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Support either/both, especially colour one. --jjron 07:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colour image, Oppose B&W. Excellent framing on the color version, poor framing on the B&W. Both are historically significant, but the colored version highlights the "pretty blue marble" by the very nature of being in color. Autopilots 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support The colour image is better because it shows the contrast between the two bodies. One is uninhabited and the other is full of life. It is also a great picture because of its sharpness and greyscale. --midnight_rider 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg Raven4x4x 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca pilgrim[edit]

I really like the composition of this. I know there's a blown highlight on the top of the guy's head, but this picture has such great encyclopedic value that hopefully that can be overlooked. Used in Mecca, Pilgrimage, Hajj, Islam, Prayer, Haram, and Saudi Arabia.

Nominate and support. howch e ng {chat} 00:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject of the photo seems less like a pilgrim than a leader, given his position high above the majority of pilgrims. Also, the description on the image page calls him a "supplicating" pilgrim, which seems a bit strange in context. -- Moondigger 00:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At full res, you can see other people standing at the top level of the building across the plaza, so it's my assumption that due to the angle of the photographer, you just can't see the other pilgrims standing to either side of this person. howch e ng {chat} 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overblown sky, crowd is just a bunch of dots(I know, it's a crowd and crowds look like dots.). Good shot though, I am sure it improves it's article. HighInBC 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Guy blocks the shot, people blurry, and too much sky. --Digon3 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Above --Fir0002 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of sky, fuzziness, etc. I think the man adds something for certain articles. gren グレン 02:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, due to the leader impression you get from the shot. The crop should be wide enough to include more people. The photographer probably made his descission because he assumes his viewership knows about the mecca pilgrimage, but for an encyclopedia I'd prefer a different version. --Dschwen 14:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen --Billpg 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The image page for this photo states that this picture is already a featured picture. --Billpg 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's featured on Commons, not here. -- Moondigger 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chihuly in Miami[edit]

Note image text linked due to fair use status HighInBC 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chihuly in Miami.jpg A glass sculpture by Dale Chihuly. Notice the floating sculptures in the backround.

A unique photo of a Chihuly glass sculpture in the Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden in Coral Gables, FL. Cannot be retaken as the exhibit was taken down in May. Perhaps someone could edit the picture to reduce the amount of shade.; appears in Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden and Dale Chihuly, Uploaded by Reywas92. Taken by his grandfather.

Nominate and support. - Reywas92 00:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice sculpture but the top is cutoff with the current framing and the shadows greatly detract from the overall impression - Peripitus (Talk) 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Spectacular sculpture. I am sorry that the lighting was not right as this is a fatal flaw in my opinion. Once something is made into a jpeg, it becomes very hard to brighten shadows, something that is hard even on a raw image. Trying to get detail where there is none in a picture usually results in heavy noise. HighInBC 15:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A neat subject but unfortunately all the shadows are way too distracting. --Nebular110 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ineligible, unless the statue was donated to the public domain. Under US copyright law, statues and other 3-D artworks are copyrighted (see Commons:Derivative works). Additionally, you cannot declare this photo GFDL-self. Please use the {{Statue}} fair use tag instead. howch e ng {chat} 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then a fair use image should not appear on any page except the articles about it, including this one. HighInBC 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not eligible for FP because of lisencing issue. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fair use is not an applicable liscnece for FPs. Sorry :-/ TomStar81 02:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Copyright issues. besides i find the sculpture ugly.Nnfolz 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Systems of the World[edit]

A map of the different writing systems of the world colored by orthographic category.

This is a highly informative map of the world beautifully and intuitively displaying the different scripts in use today, their orthographic relationships, and their geographic distribution. It appears in Writing system and List of writing systems. It is free and GNU licensed and many people have colaborated on it. Most recently Nickshanks has improved on work by Denihilonihil and Kwamikagami.

Nominate and support. - Chris Quackenbush 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks confusing Reywas92 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets every criteria of WP:WIAFP. It's illuminating on the subject of languages throughout the world, something important for the wikipedia being the multi-lingual site that it is. --Mitaphane _talk 04:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mitaphane. Glaurung 05:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The map shows Hokkaido as using katakana in solid red, Honshu as kanji and kana in yellow with a red outline, and Kyushu and Shikoku in solid red. A person who looks at the map might conclude that (1) Hokkaido uses katakana (written side to side), but neither kana nor kanji; (2) Honshu uses kana and kanji (written vertically), both of which are different from katakana; (3) Kyushu and Shikoku use red (syllabaries) but not yellow (logographies). All three conclusions would be incorrect. Certainly, the map would have to communicate more accurately the writing systems of Japan in order to be featured. Fg2 07:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work - it's pretty messy at the moment, and the different sized fonts are distracting. I also noticed the katakana thing, and found it odd that I had to search everywhere until I hit South America to see what script England and Australia use. The legend at the bottom left is quite oddly arranged, and would be better if it had the examples of the different scripts there. The mass of unlabelled scripts around India is just too much - a better way of presenting that is needed. The overall idea is great, but it needs polishing. Stevage 09:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with all the objections above. In addition, I don't see why the Chinese characters are unlabeled and why there isn't a example of writing for Yup'ik. A sharper, antialiased version of the world map should also be used. Redquark 14:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great idea, but still needs work. The map its to busy and i'm having a hard time figuring everything out I would suggest correcting the color so that they look more diferent (and don't put similar colors next to each other) and removing all the examples from being on top of the countries and instead placing them on a more elaborate leyend.Nnfolz 14:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully. This is something that would be wonderful, if the map was large enough to hold all the text, it is too cluttered. Also the reported errors by Stevage concern me, as accuracy is essential in a FP diagram. HighInBC 15:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Stevage. It's way to cluttered in Asia, and overall it's just too confusing. And SVG, again, would be nice as well. --Tewy 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with all of the above. It's an interesting map, but not good enough to be featured. Chacal 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Oppose Weak Support~~ Neutral ~~Iranians and Persians writing is far more different than ARABIC. Go learn something~~ The image needs a lot of work as mentioned above. Ok I'll be civil. I still believe that Persian writing has changed a lot during centuries from Arabic. It's my opinion. Even if I'm wrong (which I think I am, lol) this map is very busy and too small for such a great number of writing used in the world. Arad 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. From Persian language: The Persian alphabet adds four letters to the Arabic alphabet, due to the fact that four sounds that exist in Persian do not exist in Arabic, as they come from separate language families.. So Persian writing really is not very different from Arabic writing, imho. Could you elaborate? --Bernard 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A very interesting and well-done map. I've never seen the world's different writing systems laid out geographically. You can learn a lot just by looking over this graphic for a minute or two. If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a picture of a thousand writing systems worth? Kaldari 03:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Way to busy. Numbered with a legens would be FAR superior. say1988 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice idea, poor implementation. The information is not presented in a terribly clear and easily-understandable fashion. But, I do like the core concept. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a similar FP: Image:Langs N.Amer.png. howch e ng {chat} 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how about simply colouring the map and using {{legend}} in the caption? That would make the image useful as a thumbnail. Zocky | picture popups 10:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image formation from pixels[edit]

Self nomination. Inspired by the FPC below. ~~Pic shows how an image gets progressively distorted as an observer gets closer to the screen. Used in LCD and pixel articles.~~ Picture shows difference between the image we view and the image actually displayed. The top and bottom images are not the same size, its actually been magnified several times to make the pixels visible and then scaled to match the original.

Nominate and support. - ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why the confusing enlargement numbers? 64x is the same size of the original image as 1x... The first two don't even show the LCD pixels at all. --Janke | Talk 12:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ oppose ~~Nice idea, but 1x = 64x and 8x = 512x.~~ per unclear subject. I think a picture should be understandable without the caption. HighInBC 14:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reworded the caption to make it less confusing, also added arrows to the image --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 17:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I removed it from the pixel article, put it into the talk, and asked for clarification and got none. It's probably better to nominate pictures that are at least tolerable in an article. Dicklyon 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC) -- and now I reverted it from Liquid-crystal display, too.[reply]
Oppose, bottom right picture quality is poor, not FP standard.--Andeh 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't get that 1x = 64x and 8x = 512x. The images are clearly at the same magnification... This is rather confusing -Glaurung 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Neutral I get it now. Second image and second caption are much clearer. Glaurung 06:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what's happening is that in the bottom image, the graphic was actually zoomed out, then a photo taken with a big zoom in. It's weird, but look at the concentric circles in the 1x image - clearly, the circle is very round, and at least 100 pixels wide. The image below it is of a much "smaller" circle - around 25-30 pixels wide. Other that that, I really have no idea what the image is trying to show. Stevage 09:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Author comment I agree, the magnification factors were confusing (although they were accurate) so i have removed it. The purpose of the image is to show the differece in the pixels that store color information in an image and the pixels of a screen which displays the the image. Hopefully this will make it easier to understand. Please take a look at the image again and reconsider your vote --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still very unclear what the relationship is between the image pixels and screen pixels, which seem to be at unrelated sizes; and the image of the screen is still not sharp. And why are the colors so different? And your image is not yet accepted in any article, is it?

The top image is a screen shot while the bottom one is a photograph of the screen, so it really is not possible to match the colors. There doesnt have to be a relationship between the two, it just illustrates the role of pixels to store and diplay color information (which is why i removed the misleading zoom factors). --^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: this is obviously an LCD screen, it's probably worth mentioning that in the image description/caption etc. A CRT screen would look completely different. Stevage 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The "dot" on the 'i' is composed of only 9 pixels in the blown up image, but far more than that in the "large" image. What gives? This is not a valid comparison if the resolution of the image is different left to right. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset at Grain Elevator[edit]

It's a beautiful, GNU Free Documented image; Appears in Illinois,Venus, Twilight, Evening Star, Observations and explorations of Venus, created by Shakil Mustafa.

Nominate and support. - -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose becauaw it's too fuzzy and the lights are all blown... although, I suppose that is part of the effects... gren グレン 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ~~Grainy,~~ too much sky, and does not depict the subject(s) well. About the only good place for this would be in evening star, and even then there could be a better picture for FP. --Tewy 03:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I posted an edited version with reduced grain. I kind of like it because of the moon and Venus, though I agree it's not a particularly encyclopedic image of a grain elevator. -- Moondigger 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I love the fact that a photo of a grain elevator had to be altered because it was too grainy. TSP 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Illustrates the Evening Star rather well. Dr Zak 04:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blurry, jpg artifacts. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very little data, subject is not clear for either grain evelevator or evening star. HighInBC 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much sky, too dark Reywas92 23:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LCD Pixels (Public domain version of previous featured picture)[edit]

Nominate. - Noclip 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the source of the original image? NASA? Whatever the source the status of the original image needs to be cleared up on the image page. HighInBC 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a good look at how LCD pixels operate -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Mostly because the original image is grainy. Since just about any image could be used as the original in a remake of this picture, I think one of those (such as a current FP) should be used instead. I will support a version with a better original image, but for now, I don't think this is FP material. --Tewy 03:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it's a poor choice of image for this example, because the large amount of action in the background is distracting from the small piece that depicts what's actually being shown Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Image:Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example zoom.jpg illustrates the subject much better. Dr Zak 04:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That one was stripped of featured status because it isn't fully free--it contains the copyrighted wikipedia logo. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a picture displays the details that that picture shows it can't be featured. Dr Zak 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You cannot see the pixels here, only colored stripes. You really need an authentic micro image of the pixels, showing the small "dots" of transistors, too. There are black lines between the pixels in an actual display, missing here. --Janke | Talk 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Get it more like the previously featured picture, without much action or anything else distracting, just without anything that may have bee copy righted. Then properly display the pixels and it will be near perfect. say1988 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. At first glance I thought it was a poorly cropped image of a shuttle. Then I noticed a oddly looking "building" behind the shuttle. Only after reading the title I realized that it is about LCD. One should immediately understand the context of the image (at least vaguely) when seeing it, without the need of zooming.--JyriL ^talk 22:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too busy. The concept is sound, but this choice of base image is inappropriate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless man NYC[edit]

A well-composed b&w portrait of a homeless man in New York City by User:CGP. Used in Homelessness in the United States, Poverty in the United States, and Social conflict theory. Yes, it's tilted, but the angle of the shot is such that the pillar and the line separating the black and white glass panes cannot both be straight vertical.

Nominate and support. howch e ng {chat} 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 Despite minor noise. Good picture, well expossed and encyclopedic subject matter. I like that he is shown in situ. Also, not a bad example of the rule of thirds HighInBC 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting composition. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 18:11Z
Support — Nice picture, but I've also uploaded an edited version to reduce some noise and not make the ground so bright. I support either version, though. ♠ SG →Talk 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In thumbnail size, I had trouble picking out features like the man's head. --M @r ē ino 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What kind of monitor are you using? I can see the head clearly in thumbnail view. HighInBC 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the original photo. IMHO, it looks better than the edit. TomStar81 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original photo. Interesting, adds great value to the article. --vineeth 06:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, artsy composition detracts from encyclopedic illustration of the subject. Most of the image is occupied by the background, crowding the subject against the bottom and left. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice image, looking good should be a reason for supporting it, not opposing it. Iorek85 08:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either version with preference for edit --Fir0002 12:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Per Night Gyr. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Night Gyr --Vircabutar 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original or edit 1. Per Night Gyr, and the fact that there are some blown highlights in the shoes and such. Otherwise a very aesthetically pleasing picture. --Tewy 18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pic is tilted. Correcting the slope improves it greatly so I do not understand the remark above, saying that the tilt can't be corrected. I've brought it into my graphics program and correcting the tilt is easy and greatly improves the look of the pic. I've not uploaded it here because I'm too lazy - Adrian Pingstone 22:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 I rotated the Edit 1 version of the image so that the column is vertical. If requested, this can easily be done to the original image, as well. -- mcshadypl^Talk ^Cont 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, Oppose edit 1,2. Edit 1 just blurs the pic, edit 2 ruins the composition by cropping to close to the feet, plus in a pic like this the collumn doesn't have to be exactly vertical, the slight slant emotionally intensifies the picture. As for the original, great picture, the background is absolutely needed, I creates a feeling of desolate lonelyness. --Dschwen 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is obviously impossible to align the image without cropping it, as white edges would have appeared at the corners. -- mcshadypl^Talk ^Cont 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why my point was: Don't align it! --Dschwen 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support either of the three with preference for the original. Definately meets enough Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? critera to warrant it becoming featured.--Jersey Devil 18:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Its amaizing how an image that is both artistic and encyclopedic looks. Id rather have the second edit without so much croping, the feet are way to close to the edge of the picture. if none can come up with it original is better.Nnfolz 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. The original is an interesting attempt, but is cropped a bit too closely in the lower left and the sneakers and cart contents are almost completely blown. It's also more of a subtle political comment (given the prominence of the flag) than it is an encyclopedic image of homelessness. Something that shows a homeless person asleep in a doorway, on a steam grate or in a shanty would work better to illustrate homelessness. -- Moondigger 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fantastic shot, but WAY too much grain/noise (film or digital?) for FPC, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above and the other people who have voted oppose and there is also some blown highlights.. this image is OK but not an FP. Arad 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Artistic and encyclopedic. - Darwinek 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Artsy depiction detracts from the plight of homeless people, which should be what an encyclopaedic pic focuses on. --jjron 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above: not encyclopedic. Good candidate for the same category in Commons though, which it already is. —Jared Hunt September 4, 2006, 22:49 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anole[edit]

Technically excelent macro image of a Green Anole Lizard on a railing in Hilo, Hawaii. This appears in Polychrotidae, which contains no other images of this detail. I am the creator of this image. I avoided cropping the image further so as to show more of the full form of the creature. I am open to suggestions of cropping to show more detail in smaller renderings of the image.

Nominate and support. - Phirst 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, despite cut off tail and out of focus foot still a great picture with awesome resolution. --Dschwen 06:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 2 Support due to it being a great picture, the weakness of my support is due to the face and tail being soft on focus, and the foot being out of focus. HighInBC 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Right rear foot is somewhat out of focus but the quality of everything else kind of overrides that in my opinion. --Nebular110 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's unavoidable. To keep everything else in focus, stuff that's not on the same plane will have to get out of focus. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1. Great image - good detail and composition, although as mentioned by others, the whole tail would have been better. Edit 1 is a minor (but justified) improvement. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus is in the wrong spot - center of the lizards body, hence the most important part (head) is out of focus. --Fir0002 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prime focus spot is actually the eyeball; you'll notice if you zoom the image that the bright ring near the edge of the eyeball is very sharp. The center of the body just happens to be at the same focal distance. Certainly the eye is the nearest part of the face and the shallow depth of field unavoidable is many macro shots like this does mean that the more distant parts of the face are soft. However, I believe it's generally best to ensure good focus on a subjects eye for images such as this. Phirst 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A full depiction of a really long tail would (in a likely scenario) take away the nice detail. –Outʀiggʀ 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's exactly what I thought! Phirst 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from the article, it seems that the green anole is the same as the Carolina anole? It shouldn't really affect voting here, but the Carolina anole page contains a picture of the lizard which is already a FP (which I personally prefer, though not enough to oppose this one) InvictaHOG 04:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 2 good detail and colors --Luc Viatour 07:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tail is cut off. Head is out of focus. Mikeo 10:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 Jesse 22:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear and contrasting. My only concern is that the image is incomplete because of the missing tail. --Midnight Rider 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice pic, but IMO cut-off tail precludes this from being FP. --jjron 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Good detail, saturation, the edit has good sharpness. I'm not particularly bothered by the cut-off tail. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Missing tail spoils encyclopedicity, too shallow DOF. --Janke | Talk 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The detail is great, but at the resultions it will be most seen at (thumbnail and the medium resolution on the image page), the vices stand out and the virtues are still hidden. The tail is th biggest problem.--ragesoss 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Pharaoh Hound--Vircabutar 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't care about which edit. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Anole Lizard Hilo Hawaii edit.jpg +12/-5 with most of the support going for edit 2 or showing no preference. howch e ng {chat} 22:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Sea Lions on Pier 39[edit]

An interesting photo of sea lions with the one in the middle standing up; appears in California sea lion and sea lion, Created and uploaded by Reywas92.

Nominate and support. - Reywas92 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over exposed. chowells 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting and composition. Can't see any detail on the sea lions themselves.Nnfolz 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by nnfolz, lighting is too harsh, environment too artificial. Sorry, looks rather like a tourist snapshot. --Dschwen 06:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Stylistically and technically it has some problems, but the content I think is good. It doesn't matter if the environment is "too artificial" because its a picture of one of San Francisco's most famous (though certainly not the most famous) tourist attractions. Anyway, these are wild animals behaving as they do in the wild choosing to sun themselves here without being baited, what’s artificial about that? I say a shot like this with a little better composition and a lot less glare would make a great FPC.--Niro5 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject, encyclopedic, but the technical issues preclude me from supporting this. Specifically the underexposed shadows and the glare off the animals. HighInBC 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nnfolz. howch e ng {chat} 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per all oppose. Cropping, composition, and lighting are poor. --Nebular110 17:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not pleasing to the eye. Sorry Babayi 21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: User's only 6 edits are to FPC nominations. howch e ng {chat} 23:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Fir0002 23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tourist snapshot. Mikeo 14:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arge Bam[edit]

I think it's a well taken photo with a good quality which deserves to be FP in my opinion. It apears in Bam, Iran, Arg-é Bam, Iranian architecture articles and in wikimedia commons. I created the photo.

Nominate and support. - Arad 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your votes.

The building is currently destroyed by the 2003 earthquake and is pending for reconstruction. It was built some time before 500 BC. It's the largest adobe building in the world

Oppose. Very blurry, and there appears to be a "halo" effect around the building (artsy, but not appropriate here). The composition is nice, as is the lighting, but the technical issues mentioned above are too large for the image to gain my support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment but the halo is because of the Citadel's nature of refelcting the light. It's an adobe building. Arad 19:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The other images on that page don't have problems with a halo so I'm inclined to think that it can be photographed without a halo. I find the halo annoyingly distracting and unnatural looking so I'll have to Oppose edit 1. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Observing the same blurriness as Pharaoh Hound, I've uploaded a 50% downsampled, sharpened, level-adjusted version as Edit 1. It's probably not the best edit possible, but it improves it a lot for me, and it's still over the minimum size (if people feel it's too close to the mark, I can see if I can do the same with a less severe downsample). TSP 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, in my opinion, you improved it a lot. Greatly appreciated. if you could just make it a bit bigger (so it'll be 1000 X 1000 it'll be much better since some users don't like it under this). It's good anyway. Thanks again. Arad 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a play, but the main chunk of 'magic' seems to be in reducing the resolution by 50%; this means that every block of 4 pixels turns into 1 pixel, dramatically improving sharpness. Using any other ratio means that pixel values have to be interpolated, which re-introduces some blurriness. The size criterion, though, is for at least one dimension to be over 1000; so this should still be satisfactorily large.

What I did, for the record (all in Adobe Photoshop) was:

- Selected just the sky and did a three-pixel remove dust and scratches, to get rid of various errors (not sure whether they were dust on the lens, JPEG artefacting, or what, but the sky was pretty speckly in places).

- Resampled down by 50%, using bicubic resampling.

- Did an auto level adjustment (I always check the adjustments before applying and see if the default is what I really want, but I almost invariably find that it does better than I can).

- Applied a lightish unsharp mask across the whole thing (40%, 1 pixel, no threshold, I think).

TSP 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not sharp at 1000px then it's not meant to be. It's not sheer pixel size that counts, but size vs. sharpness. --Dschwen 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1. A beautiful picture of a noteworthy and now vanished building; fit to replace the fair use picture which currently heads its article. TSP 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The composition half sky half Bam is a bit suboptimal. When did you take the pic and what kind of camera did you use? In front of the gate a bit of a car can be seen, which looks very old. Also the whole picture has the feel of a toy model shot, and I cannot quite figure out why. --Dschwen 07:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is exactly a car, but the photo was taken a few months before the earthquake. The reason it looks like a toy, which I agree in a way, is that the building it self is well preserved for 3000 years and is an adobe building. it's easier to make a nicely formed adobe building than a stone one. About the car, maybe it's because people living there aren't as rich as those living in Tehran or other major cities. Thank you for your comment. Arad 12:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what kind of camera did you use? --Dschwen 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe I don't remember? When I moved to Canada, I left many things behind. Sorry Arad 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The other two pics in the article add more to it. (although quality and choice of format are worse) --Dschwen 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It`s an amazing photo from a building that is not in a good shape anymore which makes it more rare and important. It's good quality and well taken. It`s a FP. I prefer Edit 1 QAZ 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: User's only 3 edits are to FPC nominations. howch e ng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Overexposed. howch e ng {chat} 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would use a bit of Photoshop to touch-up the picture for optimized contrast.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zereshk (talk • contribs)
Weak oppose. It's a really nice pic but there are just too many other issues (somewhat low-res, the car (or whatever it is) in the lower right) for me to support even though the structure is now gone. --Nebular110 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The edit 1 looks good and the building itself is very old. the car doesn't bother me non. The quality is good too. I think it qualifies as a FP. 66.36.155.198 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Six of user's seven edits are to FPC nominations. howch e ng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mix of the colors. I think the blue sky and Bam look good in this picture. And it represents the Persian Architecture too. Babayi 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to mention that both images are good. Edit 1 has a better contrast. Babayi 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTE: User's only 6 edits are to FPC nominations. howch e ng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights - looks like it has had a bit of Diffuse glow applied to it in Photoshop. --Fir0002 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually the first one is untouched and the edit 1 is just a bit sharpened and downsampled. Thank you for your vote Arad 12:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support it desreves Featured Picture--Pejman47 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good pic for the article, but appearance of being overexposed detracts from its appeal as an FP. --jjron 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: This is an ADOBE building. The natural look of the castle is bright not overexposed. Arad 13:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Due to quality. This photo is looking as if it was photographed through a window. The object might be a bright one in reality, yet this cannot be a reason for this odd, unsharp, unreal- and overexposed-looking caption. It is not at all pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean from "looking as if it was photographed through a window". And "odd, unsharp, unreal" are not a factor for FP. thanks anyway for the vote. Arad 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not least (although also for the reasons given by others above) because I'm a little concerned as to the provenance of this image. I'm pretty sure the object near the gate is a car, but it looks like a very old one indeed - my guess would be 1930s or earlier - even if this is a poor region, it still seems unlikely that you'd come across a vehicle that old in everyday use. Secondly, if you look at the original version uploaded to commons here, a moire pattern reminiscent of the methods used in printing books and magazines is evident in the dark areas. Thirdly, the overwhelming impression I get when looking at this and other images on Arad's page is that they were taken using an old camera and old processing methods, but by someone who knew how to operate that camera - although not up to normal FP standards of quality, they are pretty reasonable exposures (particularly the night-time ones) for what looks like fairly antique equipment. This seems out of sync with Arad's assertion that he "can't remember" what sort of camera he used - even though he only took the photo around 4 years ago. I don't wish to jump to conclusions, and I'll gladly apologise if Arad can prove he owns the copyright to these images, but I'm reserving the right to a little skepticism for the time being. --Yummifruitbat 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point you've raised there - I've actually noticed that as well. --Fir0002 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, you've got A REALLY GOOD POINT. Intelligent one indeed. Yes, my camera was old. I liked it, actually it was my dad's. I left in Iran and now i bought a Digital camera. The photo's are mostly older than 5 years old. Then because my camera wasn't digital, I had to scan my images (quality will get reduced for sure). So I had to edit the scanned one for a better quality. As you said, the original version has noise, that's because of my "old" scanner I had. I'm not sure if the car everyone is talking about was a car or a "kiosk", you know, information and etc (because thrust me you see wierd things in Iran) or just a old car left there for some reason. It's not a region so poor to use such cars but sometimes you can see one or two maybe the owner like old cars. No one can be sure as we can't see the car for real. (If the photo is taken in 1930 then the image wouldn't be in color). It's possible some of the pictures I've uploaded on my name are taken by my father, which also gives all the rights of his works to public. I hope I've answered your questions. No offence was taken from your comment (I liked it actually). Thanks for the comment and even your oppose because you've taken your time to vote. Arad 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention because I travelled with my father and we took photos with same camera, i cannot tell you for sure which one of the images are mine or my father's. Arad 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I think I figured out what is the car. It's a Patrol (somthing like a Jeep) which has an old look but it isn't that old. It's for sure not the Godfather movie sort of car. Arad 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's overexposed and haloed. —Keenan Pepper 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when my works become controversial. It's obvious not that this image's chance of being FP is low, but the discussion we had was great. Thanks again for your votes. Arad 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to know, the camera used, was probably Canon AE-1 lens mounted. Arad 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Both images suffer from clear distortions in the cloud and probably elsewhere too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagasaki Explosion[edit]

The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises 18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) into the air from the hypocenter.

This is a historic photo already used by many articles (War, Nuclear weapon, Nuclear warfare, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ...) at a prominent position. It definitely deserves to be an FP due to its historical significance.

Nominate and support. - Mikeo 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I'd perfer not to "feature" a picture that represents the killing of 40,000 people and wounding of 25,000. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a historically significant event. The picture is a prominent illustration of the subject. Mikeo 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said it wasn't either of those, I still strongly oppose. It is not "pleasing to the eye" to me. I also object on moral reasons as well that are out side of the FPC criteria. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "pleasing to the eye" criteria has exceptions for historical images which make your first objection invalid. There is nothing in the criteria that deal with "moral issues", and it's a personal feeling towards the event, which is not what we're supposed to be judging images on. A "moral" objection is no more valid than opposing an image of a bacteria or a maggot because the subject is hideous (if the photo is well executed). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The criteria reads "be pleasing to the eye". It is not pleasing to my eye, you can say whatever you want, but that is my opinion.-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image, if it's real, is very rare and is historically important. Which I think makes it FP. Neutral as I think again it's true, why are we told that if a picture is historically significant then it should be FP? This image has nothing special and the only reason people are voting is because they are told to do so. Arad 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and am a little surprised to hear opposition based on a moral argument. Perhaps a reconsideration of the wording "pleasing to the eye" in the criteria could be considered for future images. InvictaHOG 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't find it pleasing to the eye. It't not all that special, there are better mushroom cloud images. The "historical" argument doesn't really work for me as there were hundreds of nucular mushroom clouds. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's not unique for mushroom cloud, but it's certainly a unique image for the bombing of Nagasaki, a very important historically in its own right. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right about the criteria as it currently stands. I understand that you don't find it pleasing to the eye. A separate discussion will have to be had about any changes to be made to that wording if the community feels the "spirit of the law" is not being adequately conveyed. As it is, I respect your opinion on the matter. InvictaHOG 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Extremely unique, and historically significant (totaly irreplaceable). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While historically significant, probably not as much as the bombing of Hiroshima. There are better pictures of bombings, nuclear mushroom clouds, Nagasaki (before & after bombing), nuclear destruction, etc, etc, etc. Whatever is trying to be "featured" here simply isn't. Chicago god 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Pharoh Hound said above. Reywas92 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The level of Grain (or is it called noise?- please correct me cuz i'm no good with these technical terms) in the backround is to much for me. Can it be corrected. if it is i will support. By the way: disagreeing (is that spelled right?) is nto a valid reason to oppose I think that particular vote shouldn't be counted.Nnfolz 22:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is not only an important picture historically (one of the first atomic bombs to be used) but it is also a pretty appealing picture.--midnight_rider 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support This is a great historic picture --Luc Viatour 04:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per ravedave and Redquark. Image doens't have enough 'Nagasaki' or historical context to distinguish as an FP --Vircabutar 07:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, mainly to offset ravedave. --Golbez 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Where as I agree with ravedave that the killing of 40,000 people prevents this from being "pleasing to the eye", it's that unpleasantness that make this FP-worthy. FPs can't all be flowers and sunsets.--Niro5 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Despite technical problems with photograph, this is a very important picture. It is precisly that so many people were killed that this is an important photograph. To forget would be a greater violation of morality than to feature it(imo). HighInBC 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Quality of this just isn't enough. If this was the first test explosion or Hiroshima the historical significane would increase enoguh to be a weak support. But as it is, the quality just isn't high enough for me. Don't bother responding saying that historical photos are exempt from quality/size requirements, because I look for a balance in them (as in historical photos must meet lower standards, but still meet them). say1988 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support & Comment. This is the best (detail and proximity) image taken of the bombing. In addition, the photographer was aboard Bockscar, the B-29 that dropped Fat Man. I am highly surprised by the unreasonable comments made by Ravedave. Objections on "moral" reasons will be ignored. No where in FPCriteria does it entail judging an image based on moral fiber. However, images of great and historical images, such as the the image in question, are almost guaranteed entree into FP. Personal emotions and unrelated comments of this kind are not suitable on this page or on Wikipedia as a whole. I highly suggest a closer examination of FPCriteria and all users who boast their personal opinion of the event, instead of the photograph, to restrain from commenting at all. -- AJ24 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Objections on "moral" reasons will be ignored - scary statement in any context. –Outʀiggʀ 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If we aren't told by a caption that this is the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, there's no way to tell it apart from any other nuclear explosion. So I'm not sure where the supposed historical value is. (For pictures with geniune historical value, see for example [17] or [18], which tell us a lot about their eras.) We should feature more recent, higher-quality pictures of nuclear explosions instead of this. Redquark 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be missing the point of historically-important images. It is usually necessary for there to be a caption to explain the content/importance of the image. See any of the other historically-significant FPs (such as the only known photo of Chopin, the first photograph ever, or the map of Lewis and Clark's trail). Those images are all historically important, and it is precisely their captions that convey their importance. This situation is no different. Your claim that high-res, modern photos of atomic bomb explosions are better completely misses the point of historical significance. If an image is trying to be FP based on aesthetics alone, then of course we should judge it on its resolution/clarity. This is not one of those images. We could have an FP of a high-res explosion as well another FP of a historically-significant explosion. There's no limit to the number of FPs on a subject, especially when they illustrate the subject in different ways. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-01 03:59Z
  - I'm not missing the point; we just disagree. This criteria seems to me analogous to treasuring some dirt just because a famous person walked on it. It's just dirt, indistinguishable from any other dirt, but if you mention that the Beatles walked on it, suddenly it's supposed to be special. From my point of view, if it has no informational value, then it has no historical value. (Note also: all of the examples you gave convey more information about their unique historical subject than this one does about Nagasaki, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose them. This picture looks much like any other similarly-sized nuclear explosion.) All this image illustrates is what a nuclear explosion looks like in general, and therefore one with more color and detail would be superior to it. Redquark 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree; i don't think the image has enough 'Nagasaki' or historical context to be an FP--Vircabutar 07:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Redquark. My impression is that many of us can't wait to cast our "Support" vote when we're told that something is "historically important". For idiots like me, who have no idea what is "historically important", the label doesn't mean much, though.--K.C. Tang 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While historically-significant photos are given a lower bar to to meet, there's a big difference between lowering the standard (proportional to the image's historical significance) and totally ignoring aesthetic and technical considerations. I don't believe this image has the historical importance or the informational content (such as some visual indication of a city below) necessary to overcome its technical and aesthetic deficiencies. -- Moondigger 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for opposition based on "moral" concerns -- people here are asked to give reasons for their oppose votes. Ravedave gave his reasons, though he didn't have to. He could have just said "Oppose" and left it at that, or could have lied and gave some other reason for his oppose. We have to remember that ultimately, these are subjective considerations. If the criteria were totally objective, there would be no need to collect opinions (votes) at all -- somebody with a good understanding of the criteria could simply promote images at will. Ravedave's vote should count equally. -- Moondigger 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per users above. - Darwinek 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good photo of this event, and not something we want to be repeating to try to get better photos. --jjron 06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well said jjron. --Fir0002 09:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this picture is FP-worthy. Remember that even though this picture is not nessisarly a happy picture, it is historically significant. Under the critira for a FP picture, it mentions that quality can be sacrificed if the picture is significant. I agree that "FP pictures can't be all sunsets and flowers. bfissa. 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose has historical significance, but as a picture itself there is nothing noteworthy about it. Michaeln36 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have always found pictures of mushroom clouds striking. PPGMD 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, There are lots of pictures of nuclear explosions, and while this is one of the few of the nagasaki bombing, it doesn't illustrate that event very well because there's nothing to indicate in the image itself what is occuring. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. +13/-11 howch e ng {chat} 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThirteenthGreg[edit]

This photo is a clearly-constructed panorama photo of a well-known bay in Hong Kong, famous for its view. What makes it additionally interesting is that it was taken from the building up on the hill which has a hole through it - another Hong Kong landmark. It has been used to support the Repulse Bay article.

Nominate and support. - ThirteenthGreg 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blown sky, distortion around the edges, poor saturation, the buildings take up more of the image than the subject itself. For me it also fails WP:WIAFP criteria 7: be pleasing to the eye. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Everything Pharoah Hound mentions, and there is quite poor stitching between some segments (most visible on the brown building left of centre and on the water). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Diliff sys, the awful stitching on the brown building rules it out for me - Adrian Pingstone 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stitching? This is just a few pics pasted next to each other. --Dschwen 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor stitching, not pleasing to the eye. Chicago god 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very overblown sky, other issues but the sky is enough to oppose. HighInBC 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herzegovina[edit]

File:Hercegovacko Neretvanski kanton - edit.jpg

Edit to remove powerlines

This is my image that i took during my visit to Herzegovina. Truly beutifull landscape that everybody should see, and even visit! It appears in Herzegovina article. It is geographical, historic and beautifull region! Subject of the picture is to show how beutifull Herzegovina is, and there is no much words to explain that - image tells 1000 words, and i want to express that everybody must see and visit!

I, HarisM, created this image.

Thanks in advance for any vote!

Note: Some of this debate seem to be on another page: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hezegovina, I have moved content from there to here. HighInBC 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - HarisM 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I do like this picture in technicallity (though I should note the powerlines), but I'm not sure what the subject is. Maybe you could enlighten me and get a support. --Tewy 03:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded and linked up a version without the powerlines in it, though that may be going to far in terms of how far an FP should be edited in post production. Cat-five - talk 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For once I don't support the removal of the powerlines. I think taking them out is really distorting reality too far - it's one thing to get rid of an ugly man standing in the corner of the shot or a couple of tiny pink poles. It's another to get rid of what is obviously a permanent, and prominent feature of a landscape. Stevage 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like that original photo stays, and if someone like please support it. HarisM 08:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. I like the photo but I don't think it contributes enough to an article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, agree with Diliff, Strongly Oppose edit IMHO this modification does definetely go too far. --Dschwen 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very ordinary (although beautiful) scene, it could have been taken in dozens of countries. So, even though I like the pic a lot, I don't think it's FP material - Adrian Pingstone 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sharp shadows in forground, hazy in background. Nice photo, but the content of the photo contains nothing I can see that is unique to it's subject. HighInBC 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a very nice picture. I don't know, but i prefer the Edit. But it's true, the power lines are a reality. Arad 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but although is a beautifull ladnscape it's nothing special. it doesn't illustrate the subject well either simply because there is no defining feature that really tells us its hezergovina. if i wanted i could take a bunch of pictures that would look almost the same and i'm sitting on the other side of the world.Nnfolz 22:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good picture, but I agree with Nnfolz. Strong oppose edit. Image manipulation in the form of adding or removing objects cannot be accepted in this kind of pictures.--JyriL ^talk 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Adrian Pingstone Jesse 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sweet photo. It isn't ordinary in any way in my view. - Darwinek 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose edit. The edit was presumably intended to remove non-natural features - however, several have been modified (hedges/bushes have grown/disappeared) near the closest pylon. On these grounds, the edit is incomplete as there appears to be a pylon just right of the second-from-left foreground bush. The edited version is 3x larger (in KB) than the original, presumably because the original was JPG and it was re-saved with minimal compression to minimise quality loss. I would expect any re-touching of FP images to have been done by working on a non-lossy master. Halsteadk 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Île de la Cité[edit]

I'm a bit hesitant to nominate this one given the recent disagreements regarding self nominations. I don't think there was any clear consensus there, though, so I'll continue to put images up every now and then for your consideration. :) This image contributes to Notre Dame de Paris and Île de la Cité. It is high resolution, of a pleasing composition and does a pretty good job of showing the shape of the island, notwithstanding a diagram or map, I suppose. Its a 4 segment panorama taken by myself with my Canon 5D and trusty 24-105mm f/4L IS. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and Abstain. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good, sharp, and high resolution image. I would prefer to see it on a sunnier day, though. --Tewy 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support edit - full support for a version with slightly higher contrast - thr weather looks hazy and rather ugly here.--Janke | Talk 05:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the edit look? It doesn't look hazy to me, and the clouds are atmospheric imho ;), but I agree that it could have been a little brighter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit - sharp, high quality, encyclopaedic image of an interesting subject - unusual angle, too. Even with the weather, I really like this photo, and nice composition with the bateau mouche on the left. Stevage 08:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the angle and the composition. It would be nice if we could get the same with better weather! InvictaHOG 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most excellent in every respect - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very good. And it's good quality so i vote for it.
Oppose Sorry, but this just does not do the subject any favours. It is an unappealing photo of something which has millions of photos of it. There must be a pic out there with better weather, without the bateau mouche (which is too far away to get detail but too close to ignore) and without the sign in the foreground. It's just not a pretty picture. Witt y lama 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Plus i find the picture a little bit too busy (with the people here and there)--Vircabutar 07:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed, good exposure. Encyclopedic content. HighInBC 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Techinically great as usual, but for a subject inherently beautiful like the Notre Dame, an extra element is needed in the photograph to make it special. Particularly since this is a building and going nowhere fast, it would have made a huge difference to have had it in better lighting. Even though Image:Notre-Dame-night.jpg has perhaps worse composition it has better atmospheric lighting. Just as a side issue, I wonder if you could consider uploading all your future images in a more web compatible format - it's nice to have all the dashes etc in the right place but it does play merry hell with the address bar, not to mention the fact that often you are unable to "flashgot" the image to a download manager - something very handy when downloading your super high res images! --Fir0002 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While sharpness is excellent, lighting is poor. Grey sky, grey buldings - not pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 10:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not pleasing to the eye, I think. The almost cut off spire somehow ruins the composition for me. --KFP 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Marmot[edit]

A closeup shot of an alpine marmot on the mountain side in the Massif des Écrins national park. Used in the Marmot gallery and the Alpine Marmot page. I took it myself.

Nominate and Support. - DevAnubis 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture, but soft focus on the animal. HighInBC 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while soft focus may be appropriate for such a cute little bugger, I have to agree focus is a problem, as well as the shadow that obscures much detail. Debivort 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Out of focus. Also blends in too much with the background. Mikeo 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 03:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - looks like digital zoom was used, or it was blown up afterwards to meet the size requirements. Stevage 08:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, digital zoom was not used, nor was the picture blown up. To be fair the camera isn't exactly perfct for this kind of use, and I wasn't really expecting this picture to do really well. Thanks for the criticism though. DevAnubis 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 14:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow is very distracting. The composition isn't exceptional either. Saurabh Rahurkar 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Tree[edit]

File:Burnt tree.jpg

Burnt Tree from a forest fire at Yellowstone National Park.

File:Picture2.jpeg

Cut version

I think this would be a good picture because it is not too crouded and it looks pleasing to the eye. This appears in the Yellowstone National Park article. I took it myself.

Nominate and support. - Jake (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From an aestetic point of view it strikes me as nice, but it has limited encyclopedic value and there is little detail on the tree itself(I know it is supposed to be black). HighInBC 00:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. From the position of the tree (near a hot spring) I would suppose that this one was rather killed by a change in activity of that spring, causing it to be exposed to volcanic gases at a higher degree than before. In these cases the tree trunks usually turn black or grey. You can see this in Yellowstone National Park (besides the many burnt trees resulting from the big fire). Besides that I do not like the composition. The tree in the center of the picture is making it look very dull. I also would like to see more details of the tree. Mikeo 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above; more detail in the actual tree would be better. --Tewy 02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a cut version. --Jake (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get the point of this pic. A burnt tree is not, in my opinion, a worthwhile addition to the Yellowstone Park article. Much better to keep that space free for an informative pic of the park. - Adrian Pingstone 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with most of the previous comments. It isn't a significant enough addition to the article to be considered FP. As Adrian Pingstone mentions, I'm not sure if its even significant enough to be in the article at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, big deal.Arad 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unencyclopedic (all it tells you about Yellowstone is that it has trees and forest fires), boring, not pleasing to the eye. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not striking. Jam01 06:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales[edit]

Iconic shot of the man who "makes the internet not suck". Appears in Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia and FOSDEM. If Wikipe-tan can make it, this certainly can.

Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothing that makes this picture special, other than Jimbo. HighInBC 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - not FP material. Renata 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the above, this is a nice shot but even technically it's flawed by the skewed centering, and there's hardly anything significant to this shot other than that it is of Jimbo. Cat-five - talk 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subject not prominent, too much background, a lot of noise (could be fixed), and not very interesting; if you look at this image from the standpoint of the subject being a typical person, the image is quite boring. And this better not end up like Wikipe-tan did (but that was far better than this picture). --Tewy 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad composition. Focus of the image is hard to see in thumbnail. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Colour balance is off, framing could be a lot tighter, poor focus and slightly motion blurred. 1/25s exposure at ~100mm focal length is asking for trouble. Not the best choice of lens for this situation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm learning a lot from this image. hmmm very encyclopedic. This guy is very handsome, is he friend of my teacher or brother of my neighbor? (Per above) Arad 02:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by the way Wiki-tan is another mistake of being nominated. Arad 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He is too far to the right in the image. Jam01 06:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm gonna go out on a limb here and try and explain why this composition works for me. The offset nature of the subject creates a more dynamic image - the eye is drawn to the right and creates movement. The space to his left is important, looking at his expression one imagines what he might be dreaming of in that space it's a big implied think bubble space. Proportionally I've had a stab at breaking it down into the golden section - the proportion of the image itself is a little out from the golden section (1:1.5 rather than 1:1.6) but it's pretty close, stay with me here - if we discard some backround above the image - call it border - take a look at the Edit 1. For all here calling for better composition I'm curious to learn what criteria for this 'bad' composition might be - yes it breaks symmetry, but for me creates something more dynamic and alive. But hey it's late at night, I'll probably regret this tomorrow. Please address hostile posts to erm......User:JWales. :-) Mcginnly | Natter 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think my comment was hostile, what I mean from my comment is that the image is not encyclopedic. Arad 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, we really are worried about WP:NPA aren't we........The above post was pretty tongue in cheek all round (A golden section proportional analysis of Jimbo Wales? - Come on, we can have some fun here) Really no offence taken. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Does this pic have to be FP just because it is of Jimbo? There are already too many pictures of him already.He is the only significant thing in this picture.--Chili14 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not FP material. Punkmorten 07:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Moon.png[edit]

Earth and Moon to scale. Line below Earth represents distance of Earth's centre from the system barycentre. Line below the Moon represents perigee and apogee with the moon at the semi‐major axis position.

Edit 1 - both lines removed and image cropped, but still to scale

Edit 2 - Original image with thickened white lines.

Edit 3 - Higher brightness, thickened colored lines, less tight cropping.

Edit 2 shown at default thumb scale.

Shows the relative distance between the Earth and Moon to scale. Most pictures of the solar system (understandably) show a vastly reduced relative distance. This picture shows how much empty space there really is between us and our nearest neighbour.

Appears in The Moon's orbit. This picture wonderfully (IMO) illustrates the concept.

Nominate and support (Orig or Edit3). - Billpg 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support (Edit 1). I prefer it with the moon's line, as it shows how much the moon's distance changes, but even without the lines, its still good. --Billpg 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support (Edit 2). Edit 3's lines look better IMO. --Billpg 12:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 1 - ~~While the white lines are explained in the image talk page, on the image itself it is confusing. I would support a version of this without the lines.~~ I like it, alot of blank space, but that is accurate. HighInBC 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, per HighInBC. Also, the white line below the moon forces the image to be wider than it needs to be - Jack (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit 1 - Jack (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Copied description of white lines from Image page. I'll have a go at cropping the white lines later. (If anyone else wants to do it, please do.) --Billpg 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jack (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 ~~modified version~~. Excellent illustration of the subject. The lines in the original, and in edits 2 and 3 require too much explanation. Edit 3 is way too bright. Mikeo 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. A sharp, dramatic depiction of the distance. Be sure to include that that is the mean distance wherever the picture is shown. --Tewy 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version. Give a good comprehension --Luc Viatour 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 3, Edit 2 or original. White line brings interesting information and is quite self-explanatory, so there is no need to add text on the picture. However, I think the image would benefit from a thicker white line, which can be seen on reduced images. I had to see the image full-size to notice the line. Glaurung 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Submitted as Edit 2 for your consideration. --Billpg 08:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version or edit 2 I think the white lines are necessary since the image importance is because it's precise and if you don't put the lines, then why do you bother putting such a big empty space between earth and moon? The original or edit 2 are best ones. And I love it even more since Iran is in the centre of the image. hehe. Arad 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I realize the lines are pretty informative, but I think they're a little distracting as far as the aesthetics of the image go. Anyone else agree? For instance, the thickness of the lines on edit 2 seem a little over the top. And is it really necessary to see the lines on "reduced images", as Glaurung said? --Tewy 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if the line was visible at least on its image page (which is not the case for the original nomination). There is no need, however, to have the line visible on the default thumbnail size. Glaurung 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support original only - I agree the lines are a distraction. Kaldari 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or edit 2. I prefer edit 2 slightly.--ragesoss 05:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original, oppose all edits. The original is an ok illustration I like how instructive it is vs. just describing the distance verbally. The edits all just step it down though. --Dschwen 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Reywas92 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. great pic! Jawed 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps my point is somewhat OT, but if the image shows relative sizes and the distance of Earth and Moon correctly, perhaps it should show also their relative brightnesses. Earth's surface is as much as three times as bright as Moon's (hard to believe at the full moon). Note that Moon in the last image is far too bright relative to Earth. But probably Earth would be too bright and Moon too dark making the image hard to view. Maybe another image is better (with other Solar system bodies included to give an idea how dark Moon actually is).--JyriL ^talk 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original only. Interesting image, although I find the cropping on the LHS of the earth too tight --Fir0002 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 3 Jesse 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no preference for edit number, although I would like to see the vertical version as featured pic (which is on the Moon article). --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's comment. Personally, I prefer the horizontal version, but I'd be happy to throw this version in as Edit 4, but it seems rather late in the day for this new one to get a fair hearing. I suppose we could abandon this discussion and re-nominate, but I'd like to get opinions from those who have been doing FP discussion for aeons on the best course to take. (This is my first FP nom.) --Billpg 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could never be featured on the main page or in any portal becuase of it's Wack proportions. Tobyk777 06:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Image:Earth-Moon.png This one seems to be the most popular. howch e ng {chat} 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moulting cicada[edit]

A moulting cicada, by User:Jodelet. Used in ~~Ecdysis~~ Cicada.

Here's another one by the same photographer... I think it has fewer technical problems, but I like the framing of the first better.

Nominate and support. howch e ng {chat} 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good one, --vineeth 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A, Support B—B is easier to interpret and better in technical quality. ~~the amount of shadow and the graininess are problems.~~ –Outʀiggʀ 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC) & Outriggr 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Shadow is a minor problem, and the grain a little less minor of a problem. But the photo is very depictive of it's subject and you can see detail throughout. HighInBC 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Grainy, blurry, bad lighting. On the other hand, it is very encyclopedic. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Just a few technical issues (grain, lighting, etc.). Otherwise good. --Tewy
Support Awesome picture. RyGuy17 03:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per above oppose--Vircabutar 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a few technical glitches, mostly blurring, but otherwise illustrative and encyclopedic to a degree I find the glitches too minor to object for. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I don't see how pic a is better than pic b. And both pictures do not clearly show that the cicada is moulting (i.e. crawling out of its old skin) they could be two animals behind each other. If that point were clearer I'd support either. --Dschwen 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least in the first picture, if you look near the head you can see that the animal is indeed "crawling out of its old skin", because part of the actual animal is in front of the skin and part is behind. --Tewy 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And in the second picture, you can see a bit of the actual animal through the semi-transparent skin. I guess it does take some examination, though. --Tewy 21:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support first picture, an interesting subject Reywas92 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness, lighting --Fir0002 23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honeybee[edit]

A honeybee collecting pollen. Photo by Jon Sullivan and used in Bee, Honeybee, Palynivore, and Pollination.

Nominate and support. howch e ng {chat} 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Despite narrow DOF and barely meeting size requirements, it's good, and illustrative. Outriggr 17:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the size requirements as more guidelines than rules and it won't be an issue :) Cat-five - talk 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love this beautiful picture - Adrian Pingstone 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Good profile of a bee, and excellent depiction of pollen in situ. HighInBC 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-28 21:53Z
Support. It has a narrow DOF, but still displays the bee and the pollen very well. --Tewy 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice lighting --Luc Viatour 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Glaurung 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Vircabutar 06:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. Cat-five - talk 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Vibrant colors; excellent subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The wing looks broken off, and the bee looks dead and dried. Olegivvit 10:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - The bee was alive and buzzing, but it was late in the summer and all the bees there seemed to be pretty beat up. Not sure why that was. But this was a chance shot in the park, and handheld with a very tight macro, so I had to take what I could get. Out of nearly 100 shots this was one of only three that came out well at all. The broken wing is certainly annoying. I actually like this photo from the same session better, but the DoF is even worse there. Oh well.--y6y6y6 19:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's true the wing is broken but the image is well taken. I hate bees, this image is an exeption. Arad 18:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, love the detail. Stevage 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it anoying that half the subject is out of focus, to me it's artistic, not encyclopedic. Still, props on taking the time & effort to shoot stuff like this.Nnfolz 22:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject is pollen, then it is in focus. HighInBC 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true Arad 23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic macro shot! --Fir0002 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Magnificient picture. - Darwinek 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice picture, and good macro. —dima/s-ko/ 22:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the best insect shots to come along in a while.--ragesoss 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to the too-shallow DOF and the damaged wing. -- Moondigger 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strog support. Awesome! --D e on555 ^talk_Review 08:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bee Collecting Pollen 2004-08-14.jpg howch e ng {chat} 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse 1999[edit]

Self nomination. Hi encyclopaedic interest Corona ,Eclipse , Sun, Stellar atmosphere, Allais effect, Skygazing, Solar eclipse --Luc Viatour 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support. Already a FP at Wikipedia Commons.Spikebrennan 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd have nominated this one myself, but I thought it was already featured. -- Moondigger 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. A very good example of a solar eclipse. Good job with the noise reduction. HighInBC 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. Great capture of the corona. --Nebular110 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was getting around to nominating this myself. howch e ng {chat} 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - perfect - Jack (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Overall very nice. Unfortunately grainy, but as there's basically no sharp details to speak of in the image the graininess could be readily fixed. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. I've reduced some of the grain and feel this is a more aesthetically pleasing image now. There are still some artifacts around the edges that could be cleaned up, but I didn't want to be tinkering with actual details. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. The edit is making this very encyclopedic picture more pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 01:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on edit 1. Some bad artifacts around the edges, but very good otherwise, so I'm not sure where to stand. --Tewy 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The artifacts existed in both images, but just stand out a bit more when the grain is removed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on edit 1. the "grainy" belongs to the original document, it is film. And it once gives a structure printed on paper.--Luc Viatour 05:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true, but it is the resulting information that concerns many wikipedians, not the original document that the information is on. I can appreciate both arguments though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - if a wikipedians prints the picture, the picture is more “real” with the grain (sorry for my English) --Luc Viatour 07:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't agree that a photo is more 'real' if it contains the imperfections inherent in the capture of the image. I think that what should be determined is what is, visually, the most representative of reality. In this case, I don't think you could say that the grain is part of what makes the image 'real'. Just my opinion though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Imperfections caused by the medium are something to be avoided in a clear illustration in my opinion. I think film grain is just as distracting as jpeg artifacts and are both equivilent. HighInBC 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Either versions are fine. The subject is very difficult to photograph at such detail, good work.--JyriL ^talk 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support consensus version. --jjron 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Solar eclips 1999 4 NR.jpg howch e ng {chat} 23:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baghe Eram Shiraz[edit]

It's a photo of good quality taken from one of the most famous Persian Gardens in Iran. It represents the elements of a Persian garden. It Appears in Shiraz, Iran, Persian Gardens articles and I took the photo.

Nominate and support. - Arad 12:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - Blownout highlights, jpg artifacts along the top left of the photo. Nice looking place though.--Niro5 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic. Deserves to be a FP. Good job. QAZ 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: User's only three edits are to FPC nominations. howch e ng {chat} 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over compressed resulting in jpeg artifacts. Wall is so overblown it bleeds through the fence. HighInBC 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Niro5 and HighInBC. howch e ng {chat} 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's a pretty good shot actually. The building area is always saturated with tourists, and the suns angles make it difficult to get a good shot like this one. (Unsigned by User:Zereshk 2006-08-31 18:34:30))
Oppose. Overexposed central part, blurry in full size. --Janke | Talk 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Downsampled edit uploaded as Edit 1, as per the Bam photo. I couldn't do as much for this one, though. For what it's worth, there aren't any substantial blown areas of the photo in the technical sense; though there are quite a few that skim the top of the histogram for a pixel or two. TSP 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support As have already mentioned Zereshk, This garden is always full of tourists and once I tried, the results were disappointing. Support either. Good job. 66.36.155.198 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Six of user's seven edits are to FPC nominations. howch e ng {chat} 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It does what it says, elements of Persian Garden. I say good. both are good but edit 1 look a bit better (not much) Babayi 21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: User's only 6 edits are to FPC nominations. howch e ng {chat} 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too washed out, too out of focus -- doesn't convey the information that it should. SteveHopson 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean from washed out. The building is white, doesn't mean it's washed out. And the focus is fine in my opinion, specially on Edit 1. Arad 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Vircabutar 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The pierced wall below the two columns is far too bright, spoiling the picture for me - Adrian Pingstone 07:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak support--Pejman47 12:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the water and the wall are severly blown out. Hbdragon88 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peterhof Cascade[edit]

I believe that this photograph does a good job of illustrating what the palace and fountains look like. There was a recent nomination of a photo this part of Peterhof, but there was a lot of concern about an overexposred sky; this version overcomes that with the help of a clear day and a polarizer. Dependign on what computer I'm on, the highlights may still seem a little overexposed, but I can fix that.

Nominate and support. - Tokugawapants 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This might sound silly considering there are tourists all over the place, but those people in the lower left really bug me. howch e ng {chat} 16:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not just because of the people since considering the location that probably can't be avoided, but more because of the odd angle the shot is taken from giving it a weird view. Cat-five - talk 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle and the lighting are both weird. People in shots don't bother me, but these people are looking away giving the impression that the scene is uninteresting. SteveHopson 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I know people can't be avoided, but people in the foreground can be, and the ones on the left spoil it for me. HighInBC 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Cat-five. Mikeo 15:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant planes comparison[edit]

A while ago an png version of this file was nominated, but failed because there were too many objections to the filetype. Here is an svg version, improved significantly from its predecessor. Authored by Clem Tillier, and appears in Aircraft, Boeing 747, Airbus A380, Hughes H-4 Hercules, Antonov An-225, and List of large aircraft.

Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really liked the prior version (had seen it before it was nominated) but understood that png was less desirable than svg. However, now that it's svg, I say it's a wonderful diagram deserving of FP! InvictaHOG 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The text runs into itself on the length captions, and the first width caption. Also, the "m" is cut off on the height captions. --liquidGhoul 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Mediawiki thumbs look ok, but KSVG and Inkscape reveal the problems. Weird. --Dschwen 07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any of the problems you mentioned. I'm using firefox under XP and in wiki software, none of these problems arise. Is there any way the problems you say exist can be fixed? - Jack (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I have spotted one further problem that does show up to me. Under the word "scale" the image states that 10px = 1m. Even a novice like myself knows that SVG images don't use pixels. This should be removed - Jack (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - some technical problems, as above, plus: In firefox/Mac, the full size doesn't get any text in the wing span! Also, there's a credit line in the right edge, not comme-il-faut for FPs... Fix the problems, and I'll support.--Janke | Talk 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Oppose - for above technical reasons. I myself have never had much luck with fonts in SVG. Can an SVG expert address these problems at some point? I think it may help to embed the used fonts in the file. Debivort 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed the scale, and removed license text from the image. Hopefully closer to comme-il-faut, but I have no idea how to fix the fonts. I created it in Inkscape on XP and it renders fine on Firefox/XP. I would appreciate any help from the SVG font gurus out there to make it work across all platforms and viewers. Thanks. --Ctillier 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought: I could convert the fonts to path objects... kind of a crude solution, because it would prevent editing the text (such as for translations), but it would force the correct text rendering. The text is fairly minimalistic and translation needs would probably be limited to the word "scale" and perhaps some commas instead of periods in the numbers.... as in all things in life, it's a trade-off... all opinions welcome. --Ctillier 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think on a wiki, ease of editing the text should take priority. Redquark 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've looked into the font problem, and it appears impossible at the moment to have SVGs where text is guaranteed to look exactly the same on all platforms, since SVG fonts are not yet supported by major SVG editors like Inkscape. So unless we resort to the ugly workaround of replacing text with paths or require all FPC nominators to have an array of different computers around to test on, the font problem seems insolvable. We can't start insisting that nominators use SVG and then shoot down the nom when they do because of technical problems associated with the format, so I think the only technical requirement should be that the SVG appears correctly when converted to PNG by Mediawiki. Redquark 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks great; if there are technical problems, just upload a PNG copy as an alternative. Fredrik Johansson 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a png version right here, didn't make the grade, though - Jack (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice image. chowells 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite comprehensive; caption would need links to the articles on planes. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, less cluttered and improved colour over the last version.--Peta 05:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very encyclopedic. Pleasing to the eye. Professional-looking. Mikeo 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why non-existing Boeing 747 Intercontinental listed here ? Was there any flight tests to measure it's actual size ? This seems to be violation of NPOV as it's very pro-American. If used non-existing why not 747-8 Freighter ? Use existing aircraft version and remove wildcard notes. --TAG 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's well-known what size the Intercontinental will be; Boeing has released full statistics on it, and prototypes have been built. There is no particular reason to exclude it from the image. (Also, the Frieghter and the Intercontinental are the same plane; the Intercontinetal will have a different interior as it is a passenger plane, but the exteriors will be identical.) —Cuiviénen 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is well-known, what is the reason for wildcard in image ? As well - if we are listing here future aircrafts - how long in future we can look ? BTW, One of original JPG/PNG images was for 747-400. --TAG 00:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The length of the 747-8 is not yet set in stone, and won't be until 2007. I drew the diagram with the same length as the 747-8F, relying on the latest industry news [19], which says the passenger model is all but certain to be the same length as the freight model. I find it amusing that this would pass as pro-American lack of NPOV, when leaving the 747-400 would have led to complaints that I was showing the smaller 747 (anti-American lack of NPOV). Bottom line: I drew this with the best and latest information I could find. --Ctillier 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - four largest aircraft ever built ? --TAG 09:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great pic, illustrates the subject very nicely. Tempshill 04:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Giant planes comparison - Updated.svg Raven4x4x 09:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female Mallard[edit]

Not only is it an excellent illustration for Mallard Duck, it makes a good illustration for motherhood.

Nominate and Support --Fir0002 09:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely pic, great focus and colour. I know some will object to the off-focus ducklings but remember that the subject of this photo is the mother - Adrian Pingstone 09:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. Renata 11:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awwww duckies! --Billpg 11:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice saturation and composition (not to mention being insanely cute!). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Awwwwwwwww. And good technical quality. HighInBC 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply Flawless. The Best of Wikipedia. Nilington 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely this image has already a foot in Featured Pictures and congradulations. But I find it grainy. If that is the case, then do you need an edited version without noise? I like this image too. I had little duckies when I was a kid. I gave them to a farmer because the I felt their place was too little. Anyway I'll be more than happy to reduce the grain. Arad 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2. I actually think the composition is slightly busy, particularly in the thumbnail, but the detail is good and the scene is natural. I agree with Arad, I noticed the noise/grain as well and have uploaded an edit which fixes this issue. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet Nice job Diliff, but if we're gonna go with the silky smooth bg, may as well go the whole way. I've uploaded another edit which futher reduces noise, particularly above the ducklings in the shadow. See what people think --Fir0002 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sweet. - Darwinek 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet Please vote on the image and the quality of it, not because it's cute. if that is the case, I'll upload tons of cute cats for FPs tomorrow. Arad 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Awwwwwwwwww kitties! --Billpg 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm busing taking photo from the neighbors' kitties. You'll see a new series of Featured Unbleivable Cute Kitties (for kids under 18 please do not focus of the upper case letters) by tomorrow. Arad 04:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]