Bacterial cells of Staphylococcus aureus, magnified 50,000 times. S. aureus is one of the causal agents of mastitis in dairy cows. Its large capsule protects the organism from attack by the cow’s immunological defenses.
Extremely high-detailed image of Staphylococcus aureus bacterial cells, captured by a transmission electron microscope, magnified 50,000 times. The original 60MB source file is 4000x5000. If anyone can improve the sharpness while keeping the image large, feel free; it should be pretty easy.
Comment - I know that the source says TEM, but I'd swear that's not a TEM picture! I'm not sure that there's any way to resolve it, just saying. InvictaHOG06:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can email the three people at the bottom of that page; they'll know. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-24 06:52
The Common Crossbill or Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) is a small passerine bird in the finch family Fringillidae. Pictured are two males. The unusual bill shape allows the Crossbill to extract seeds from the cones on which it feeds.
This is an artful, detailed photograph illustrating the Common Crossbill. (Admittedly, it is not 1000 pixels wide, and seems to render somewhat blurrily at small sizes.) The two birds together, almost mirroring each other in position, make it more than just another wildlife picture—they intrigue the viewer, who will want to find out more (one of the FP criteria). Photograph released into public domain by its source, http://www.naturespicsonline.com/. (For the record, the original version at lower resolution is at [1].) Outriggr23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just too small, you can't make a high quality print out of it. Also not sharp enough, given it's size. Lastly (and this is a "fixable" problem) it needs a caption. --Dante Alighieri | Talk17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a caption (which I thought was required only on the image page). It is unfortunate that pictures primarily meant for monitor display in an online encyclopedia are judged on their resolution. Outriggr18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I wasn't opposing it on the basis of a lack of caption. As for the resolution, please see criteria 1&2 here. Not only is it not large enough to generate a quality reproduction, but given how small it is, it has quality issues. Aside from being too small in an absolute sense (i.e., to fulfill criterion 2), it's also too small subjectively for this image. Many features of interest in the birds (fine detail in feathers, particularly around the eyes) are simply too small. --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the response above, but I'd like to add that not everyone has a low ~800x600 resolution display, either. I personally use a 1920x1200 resolution monitor and it looks positively tiny on my screen. An image meant for monitor display these days should be typically full screen on most typical resolutions. This means at LEAST 1280x1024 which is the defacto standard for most new LCD monitors bought these days. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution is enough to be half a page of a magazine. Do you think it's really necessary to push resolution requirements higher and higher ? Ericd23:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Although quality and technical concerns have risen, the birds are posed in a way that allows the viewer to see an incredible side of the two. Even with technical concerns, it is an exceptional photograph. -- AJ2418:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Support. It's a fantastic composition, just beautiful. But the resolution is so low, you can tell there's positively oodles of detail hiding behind its undersized goodness. The new high-res version looks great! --Marumari03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you may want to hold on to your votes, as I am attempting to line up a hi-res version with the photographer. Thanks.Outriggr03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As of 21:12 the image has been re-uploaded with a resolution of 1440x960. I trust replacing the old file is sufficient (cuz it's more efficient). Thanks to Mr. Wilson for providing this.Outriggr21:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we're compiling a wish-list, I'd like to add that it looks like this particular image's shadows have been lifted a little too much and it looks quite fake to my eyes. If it is a bit too contrasty, I can understand the need to bring some detail out of the shadows, but don't over-do it as it loses contrast as a result. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice pic. Bizarre beaks on the birds. Resolution is fine by me (I never saw the apparently smaller version). --jjron10:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it interesting also that the mandibles seem to develop either way—the top bending to the right in one bird and to the left in the other. Outriggr23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. With the slightly different colouring of the birds I originally wondered whether this was a male and female, and then thought that perhaps the different bending of the beaks may be another type of sexual dimorphism. Would have been nice, but alas you've said that they're both males. --jjron09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a female image here in case you haven't browsed that far. I'm no expert, but perhaps the less bright one is a juvenile. Outriggr13:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd actually find a single bird better, since the one on the left is out of focus. The one on the right is gorgeous, and the bit of branch he's perching on is so photogenic. Having two males is, to my mind, redundant - a male and a female would have been more "useful", or a single male, centered (or better still, to the left since he's looking right) would be a more pleasing composition. It's still a very good photo, but the hypothetical single-bird reposition could have been an absolute stunner. Stevage13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but having two males shows us that sometimes the bill crosses over to the left and sometimes it crosses over to the right. With one male, you might be inclined to think that *all* males cross to the same side. So, in that sense, it's more encyclopedic to show both types. --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not supposed to read sarcasm into that, forgive me. At any rate, a crop of the right bird would put us below the size threshhold, and while it would certainly be a nice picture too, there is a quirky, aesthetic quality of these two birds together that must be acknowledged! Why are they looking different directions? Are they looking for chicks? These things must be considered. Outriggr23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you were getting sarcasm, but I was being serious. The direction of beak curvature could well be an example of sexual dimorphism... it ISN'T in this case, but by showing two males (one curving left, and one curving right) we can SEE that it's not the case with this species. --Dante Alighieri | Talk21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great focus/bokeh. Other images on that website are similarly brilliant (taken with fantastic equipment too!). Some one should really transfer more to wiki... --Fir000209:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(fixed your image link) Very observant. The photographer(s) practice "controlled perch" photography according to their website; basically, luring birds to the best place to take a photo of them. No studio - although I am now imagining the birds getting dolled up before their photo shoot, choosing the backdrop they want, and being told to cock their head just a bit. Outriggr03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under some atmospheric conditions, forming and descending snow crystals may encounter and pass through atmospheric supercooled cloud droplets. Contact between the snow crystal and the supercooled droplets results in freezing of the liquid droplets onto the surface of the crystals. This process of crystal growth is know as accretion. Crystals that exhibit frozen droplets on their surfaces are referred to as rimed. When this process continues so that the shape of the original snow crystal is no longer identifiable, the resulting crystal is referred to as graupel.
A striking high detail image of rime (frost) on both ends of a column-shaped snow crystal. Again, the 24 MB source file is linked on the image description page, if anyone wants to improve the sharpness/lighting/contrast.
Comment – It's interesting, but I can't really tell what I'm looking at. Morganfitzp
The giant column-shaped structure with hexagonal end-caps is a snowflake. Here's another photo of a "capped column" snowflake. The bumpy stuff on either end is the rime. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-24 01:14
Neutral (bordering Support). High image quality in magnification and an amazing image, but I remain unsure if it is suited for creditable FP status. -- AJ2416:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean?? What is wrong with the image? High quality, amazing, and illustrates rime (frost) perfectly. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-24 16:44
That doesn't make any sense. It's a microscopic phenomenon, so to say that we shouldn't allow featured pictures of it because it's just toooo small is ridiculous. You can clearly see the snowflake, and you can clearly see the rime on either end of the snowflake. Where's the problem? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-24 23:41
Support - amazing!! Looks like a manmade architectural column. Especially good with the integrated scale, although it could stand out more - Jack(talk)21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great picture. Meets most FP requirements with flying colors. Except, I think the caption could be more concise. -Seidenstud04:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Small hail that has been fractured to show internal structure; 246x magnification. The inset shows the original hail.
Hail, up close... and personal! ... fractured to reveal the internal structure. If anyone wants to improve the sharpness/lighting/contrast, the source TIF is linked on the image description page.
Oppose. Some of the other magnified images you've put up are wonderful, but sorry, this does nothing for me. I find the image neither attractive nor particularly informative about hail. --jjron09:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. See Jjron. Maybe I'm too used to SEM images, so the novelty factor doesen't exist for me. Also these kind of images are too detached from normal people's reality. It might work with a fly at 50x, but with this pic it is hard to make a connection to hail. --Dschwen17:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The picture even includes an inset showing the balls of hail that were magnified. I don't see how it's "hard to make a connection". I could understand if it was something 10,000x magnified, but not at only 250x. There is even a scale. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-24 23:39
I think what he is saying is that with a fly, you can usually recognise which part of the fly you are looking at, but when you look at this SEM of the hail, it is difficult to know exactly what you're seeing. Is this a tiny fragment of the hail? The entire hailstone? Why are there two similar objects next to each other? Are they two halves of the same hailstone or is that the symmetry of the hailstone as-is? What is the inset showing me? Four hailstones? (they're basically unrecognisable as hailstones to me) All these questions remain in my mind, and I would imagine that a lot of others would have similar questions. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
World's second tallest Totem Pole, Beacon Hill Park, Victoria, BC. Carved by Mungo Martin, David Martin, and Henry Hunt. Dedicated 2 July, 1956. This pole is 127 ft 7 inches tall.
This picture of the second tallest pole, is not only composed well, but is technically excellent. It has very little noise, a good depth of focus, great lighting and color, and is very high resolution.
Comment - I have seen this pole in person, and the white areas are extremely bright and without detail in reality. But yes, it is overblown in places. HighInBC18:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The color and detail are great; it's a beautiful picture. A shot from farther away would show no detail; the pole would look like a very tall line. And frankly, I find all the worry about highlights to be overblown in places. -- Robert Southworth02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Robert. Angle adds to encyclopedic value because it shows the totem's height. You wouldn't be able to see any color or detail clearly if it was taken from a distance. - Mgm|(talk)21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Robert. Yeah, it's not the best angle but I don't know what other angle you could use on such a tall structure and still get this amount of detail. --Nebular110
Panoramic view of Buffalo's skyline.Edit 1 to remove some of the grain.
I am nominating this image, as I feel that it shows Buffalo in a striking manner. It appears in the Buffalo, NY article, and was taken by myself on 9/18/2005.
Support apart from the green lighting, I actually prefer the existing one in some ways. The tilted board is more engaging, and the uncluttered middle makes it easier to read the word MONOPOLY. They appear to be different versions of the game though (OIC the old one is German). I'm curious that both pics put jail closest to the viewer. The new pic is also slightly less encyclopaedic in that the "free parking" money in the middle is not actually in the rules - it's a widely played home variation. I like the dice on the new version, and tecnhically speaking, it's a better photo. I wonder where the bank is, though :) Incidentally, what version of the game is it? My one at home had very different colours for the money (500s were orange, 100s were red...), and the Community Chest and Chance cards were pale red and blue (respectively?). Ok, I've talked myself into it. :) Stevage10:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! You're probably right about the free parking. We always play like that :-). I don't know the exact version, but that set was bought probably only 4 months ago. --Fir000210:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Nice photo, Fir. That's the Australian edition, I assume... the colors of the various bills are the same as in the U.S. edition, but the street names are different. My suggestions for improvement would be to rotate the board slightly (the nearly square left edge makes the composition somewhat static); to eliminate the 'free parking' money from the center of the board (though it's a common variation to play that way, it isn't part of the official rules); and to arrange the money, property cards, etc a bit less rigidly to better simulate an actual game in progress. (Maybe you could play an actual game with a few friends or family members, without telling them you intend to photograph it, and stop partway through the game to take a photo.) That would lend the image a more authentic look, I think. All that aside, I don't think I could support any version of a photo such as this one... I'm afraid nothing about an in-progress board game says "FP" to me. In the end that's why I didn't end up taking a similar photo myself. I'm not opposing, though, since it's clear there's a desire to have such a photo in featured status. That said, I hope this doesn't start a trend in which we get a bunch of game-in-progress photos for various games to judge for FP status. I don't think they're nearly as informative as some would suggest, since the viewer has to know something about the game ahead of time for any such photo to have much meaning for them. Plus it's pretty much impossible for a board-game photo to have anything in the way of a "wow" factor. Now, if somebody found a photo of Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Robinson and Gandhi playing a spirited game of Monopoly, I might support that one. :) -- Moondigger12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, British version actually. This is however the most common version sold in Australia too, but there is a special Australian version with Australian locations. Re Stevage above, I think I have the same version you describe as the colours in mine are what you say, obviously they've 'updated' it with this one. This is not the deluxe version. (I don't think it would be fair for anyone to oppose because the colours in their home version are different.) --jjron00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – Good photo, and I agree with Moondigger. Rotate it a bit (and maybe put somebody in jail?). What's up with the image compression, though? It's very noticable in the red areas of the image. ♠ SG→Talk14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I was hoping for an overview photo of the board to replace the grainy image we have now on FP. They appear to be at the same angle and quality, except an English language edition compared to the German edition currently featured. If it is impossible to find a greater image of the board then it should not be featured. -- AJ2415:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe it is because it is in English but the writing seems much clearer (It is not because I know the wods already either, I use the American version). I don't like the slight tilt though. I like the large angle better though just leveling this would be an improvement. If you try another picture, here are some suggestions: remove free parking money, move the dic to white space (off the word Monopoly). Add a fourth player (just to balance the image). If you angled it I would prefer GO to be closest. I am note sure If i will support as is, but it first must be put in an article. say198815:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like the angle of the board in the current FP, and it feels more like a "game currently in play". I don't remember ever stacking up the bills the way you do in the photo; we always stuck them in separate piles, halfway under the board, as in the current FP; also, the name of the game is clear in the current FP. If you could replicate the current FP's scene, especially the angle, then I would support. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-26 18:56
Comment. This is already a lot better than the old pic, but what about reshooting? Some people voiced valid complaints about orientation of the board and angle. A good portion of the image to top is wasted with lots of plain white bg. If you made the angle a bit steeper it would also make the board mor legible. --Dschwen19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think one featured picture of Monopoly is enough, the existing one is already more interesting anyway.RyGuy1720:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant how many edits I made, also my contribution may as well be more to this page for the future as well. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!!--Pedit02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-28 04:25
Oppose. I glanced at the first image, then saw the second and thought "ooh, that's quite striking" - before realising that wasn't the candidate. Sorry. Halsteadk21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose i personally don't like both images (the current FP and the nominated one). I don't find it that striking and exceptional--Vircabutar07:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article shows the emotion of the crew prior to the attack.
Historically, a limited number of photos are in existence that portray a kamikaze attack on a US Naval vessel.
Unique, historical photo depicting the realities of war.
Photo illustrates the subject (the vessel, airplane, and crew of the USS Missouri).
The quality and size of the photo is not up to standard; however, given the age of the photo, it is exempt from these requirements. May not necessary be aesthetically-pleasing (given the age), but it significantly adds to the article and is of historical importance.
Comment. Is it possible to (carefully) crop the right side of the image, devoiding it of that distracting section? -- AJ2402:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I'm a noob when it comes to wiki and croping/editing photos, so if someone does not mind doing a little editing...? However, put your self in the shoes of the sailor: you spot an incoming Zero. In a split second you snap a photo, right before impact. To me, the mast of the Missouri being in the photo (while some might consider distracting) adds to the historical and emotional nature of the photo. -Rangermike02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but im scrutinizing the image, not the author or the situation depicted in the photograph. The far right side of the image is distracting from the incoming kamikaze. Of course, we automatically assume that the situation in the image was emotional and obviously historical, but that should not interfere with judging the image's quality and distraction. -- AJ2423:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The crew of the Missouri are peering over their turrets, pointing towards the incoming aircraft, and bracing themselves for the violent impact. Others are scanning the skies for approaching enemy targets. Imagine what’s going through the head of the Zero pilot? This type of raw footage is seldom captured. Not seeing the emotion should not be the sole basis for opposition. -Rangermike02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, there is also the low resolution and bad composition. Actually I didn't even see the plane at first glance. Sorry, it might be a rare occasion depicted in the shot, but the picture quality is way too low to consider it to be among Wikipedia's best images. --Dschwen03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The Zero blends in too much. Took me a while to find it. Quality is not entirely disregarded when looking at a historical photo, the rules are just relaxed. I would advise cropping it to remove the empty space. Although that cropping would improve it, I could not support cause I can barely see the Zero. say198815:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
INCREDIBLE**!! Zero blending in gives it it's appeal and shock value.....photo demonstrates casual observer in non-casual situation. Why crop, why do anything? Criticisms are way off....this photo is an award winner.
This animation of a rotating carbon nanotube shows its 3D structure.
Shows a carbon nanotube in all its glory. Adds a lot to the article, despite being small and cut-off (impossible to avoid with these macromolecules). If anyone can find a larger version, that would be greatly appreciated.
Oppose. Not terribly more useful than the static FPs we have of the nanotubes. Also, I don't know why the thing is "jittering" as it rotates. --Dante Alighieri | Talk22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find it plain and not very helpfull or informative. A caption would be needed to even moderately inform the viewer of its purpose, while diagrams and animations are for the most part self-explanatory. -- AJ2401:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment i really do not undestand how an animation "galloping horse" (in de-listing nomination) could be more FP-worth than this.--Vircabutar04:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very informative. Sure, I wish it wouldn't jitter, and yes, it would be prettier if it had color (although I don't know quite what for), but I find this image, as it is, very helpful for understanding the three-dimensional structure of the molecule. Fg205:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support this but I'm afraid that I believe anything involving lights at night its actually copyrighted by the owner/designer of the lights. For example one can have a picture of the statue of liberty or the Eiffel tower in the day but can't have one at night when the lights are one. Sorry. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats crap. I far as I can tell its up to the guy who took the photo to decide what he or she wants to show. Furthermore this is a public display, like for everyone to see. The dude(s) runnin this thing could no more stop people from phtographing it and doing with it as they please than they could charge admission to people for looking at the sky. --129.108.96.22422:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crap?? WP:FAITH please read this. They can stop people from photographing it and posting it on a public place like wikipedia. They could also stop someone from taking a photograph for financial gain. I'm afraid I can't find a WP source stating the situation with architechtural lighting at night, however at DeviantArt a website in a similar legal position its prohibited. I'm 99% sure thats also the case here. There was an enormous discussion about whether a photograph of the Eiffel Tower could be allowed for this reason. Please check this out Eiffel Tower Copyright Information --WikipedianProlific(Talk)23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down, lets not turn this into an edit war. I see both sides of the coin here, but I do not think the picture is in violation of any copyright issues with regard to the FPC. This photograph is in the public domain since it was taken by a sailor or employee or the United States Navy. Since the image comes from the commons I do believe that if it were in any violation of copyright laws those guys would have been all over it, especially considering that it has been there for over a year. Lastly, while the light arrangement may be copyrighted the paris photo page you have linked to states (and I quote): "copyright could not be claimed over images including a copyrighted building if the photograph encompassed a larger area". I take that to mean that an exception could be made if the image was to be taken as part of greater scene involving the city, and this photo has a rather sizable chunk of NYC in with the lights. TomStar8123:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then seeing as it doesn't seem to be an issue I give this a precautious Support unless its found that the FPC states it isn't ok which I don't think is the case in light of whats been discussed. However with regards to the paris situation further reading has shown that despite the court ruling discused in the previous link, it remains ambigious as to whether it is or isn't copyrighted. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe the copyright issues with the Eiffel Tower are due to the peculiarities of French law and don't apply here. This is a stunning, historical photograph. --dm(talk)23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pretty cool... but the image quality isn't so great. It reminds me of flak in the clouds, for some reason. grenグレン11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The subject looks great, but the image is slanted at an awkward angle. It seems that at a different time of day the image would be better. -- AJ2416:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like the composition that AJ called "slanted", but I have to agree that the distracting thingy in the corner and the lack of resolution kill the chances of this image. - Mgm|(talk)21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what it's worth, the distracting thing is a balcony (see [2]). It's difficult ([3], [4]), but not impossible [5] to not get one in the shot. I had the same problem, but mine was at the bottom. Stevage11:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone who's lived in Melbourne will know how easy it is to take a photo like this... I'm sure I've got better ones myself but I wouldn't nom them for FP! 219.89.69.93
Oppose. Blown out upper right left area is distracting. Red glare from sun (presumably) is also unsettling the subject. If only the angle was slightly shifted to the right, it would not be an issue. -- AJ2416:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The camera is at a tilt with the subject. A fairly small error that could easily be adjusted in photoshop. However it still wouldn't get my support as I feel it doesn't show anything especially unique or special to WP.--WikipedianProlific(Talk)19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Handsome image, but it only illustrates the Cupola, not even an entire facade of the building. A shot that enabled the building to be recognized would be more encyclopedic. Something more like this.Spikebrennan21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is an excellent view of the cupola from the street level. It's what most people see from the street, and while it may be gray, it is not grainy.
Oppose. It helps very little in illustrating the subject. I looks like any small-town church. And the wall on the bottom left is distracting or at least not well included in the composition of the image. --Dschwen17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The sky is distracting and depressing, the image though of good quality and in focus needs some work done on the lighting especially around that top spire which is obscured in white. Resetting its contrast may help.--WikipedianProlific(Talk)19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I find the statues in the extreme forefront a bit 'busy' - but hesitate to clone them out. Let's hear some other opinions on this first before getting fancy. --ThePromenader15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, the picture is published here under a non-commercial license for non-commercial use, so already there are no profits or commercial gains to claim, and the SNTE states clearly that it is only commercial use they want to "control". That aside, the tower takes less than 25% of the image with lots of scenery and movement around. --ThePromenader16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The creative commons licence does say you are able "to make commercial use of the work" as long as the author is attributed and the licence is referenced. At least, thats how I read into it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the person wishing to make commercial use of the image will have to seek permission to do so. This in no way concerns the image's presence here in Wikipedia. --ThePromenader18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was made quite clear to me when I inquired about licensing issues prior to posting my images here that Wiki use is considered commercial use, for the purposes of Wiki print editions and other 'future projects.' All images used on Wikipedia must be licensed for free commercial use. This one is not, despite what the image licensing section might say, and should be marked for fast deletion. --moondigger19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have licensed this photo for free commercial use. It is extremely doubtful that that any reglementations apply to this image because a) as noted above, the tower is not the only object in the photo, and b) in no way will Wiki be using this image as a keynote image of a profitable venture; at best it will be but one small photo among thousands. If it will make the disgruntled happy we can append a "please note that some rules may apply should it be used as a central element for large-scale profitable ends" note to the photo summary, and let it be the end of this. --ThePromenader23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the authority to commercially license nighttime images of the tower, even if you made the photograph, as the light display is copyrighted by another entity. It does not matter that there are things other than the tower in the photo, since it is obvious that the tower is the primary subject and dominates the image. It is unfortunate that this is the case, as yours is a very nice photo. But that is the way it is, and your insistence that copyright law does not apply to this image is without justification. It does not matter whether the image of the tower will be used for "large-scale profitable ends," -- only that Wiki requires free commercial licensing, and such licensing is not compatible with this image. The image should be removed lest it cause Wikipedia (and the foundation) legal problems. -- moondigger23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really think this is much ado about nothing. I'll get in touch with the SNTE myself tomorrow and see what they have to say on the matter. If they say no I will remove it myself. --ThePromenader00:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are correct. However, I was told (when I inquired about licensing) that Wikipedia and the Wiki Foundation do not want any images that are licensed Wiki-only or no-derivs. Period. So even if you get permission form SNTE for publication on Wiki, Wiki may reject it anyway. Good luck. -- moondigger00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting permission for Wikipedia alone will be insufficent. The images must be free for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, by any person, in any medium, and at any size. --Gmaxwell00:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right on all counts except the size - rather, you forgot a detail: the photo will be never be any 'bigger', in any good quality, than the size it is published. Also, submitting fair use material is perfectly acceptable to Wiki as stipulated in the just-aforelinked page. If permission I need, it will be for Wiki only, and this is all that's neccessary. The photo will have to appear under a fair use license and accompanied by the permission in that case. --ThePromenader00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I took this image for Wiki, but now it's just becoming a big headache. I don't have the time to debate on the mays or nays of the existence of perhaps infringements, so even before I contact anyone to ask anything, it would be kind if someone suggest a Wiki place where people more experienced with this sort of problem can examine this image and give concrete answers and conditions to meet. --ThePromenader07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your frustration. It's a good picture, but unfortunately there's this controversial copyright situation in France concerning the illumination of the tower. See also Wikipedia:Public domain. Lupo15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, sir. Not so much frustration as "unexpected annoyance" - was my gift to Wiki (and an aid to a 'featured article' drive) - no loss, but it spoils the fun for sure. --ThePromenader15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec, can someone please explain this to me: "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." ... this is the license appended to copyright-free pictures, with a clause allowing for 'maybe' circumstances. Is it this the simple answer to this question? Thanks for any advice. --ThePromenader20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it refers to the fact that some legal scholars think that current copyright law makes it impossible for one to dedicate anything to the public domain any more (Jessica Litman has written about this - see http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/read.htm#FN106), rather than being about possible but unknown legal entanglements like SNTE claiming control of the image of the Eiffel Tower. Davepape00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. All I can do is contact the SNTE about this. Most probably the best that will come out of this is their waivering by writ any 'rights' they may or may not have on this photo - and this, more than likely, on the condition of its present size, if use can't be controlled here. This would seem most logical, but I have yet to hear any professional advice on the intricicies of Wiki legislation. Isn't there a 'lawyer' page for questions like this? Again, I don't want to spend too much time on this, it's already gone overboard. --ThePromenader09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - after having spoken with the SNTE and shown them the image in question, they have absolutely no problem at all with the picture's presence here, nor with its eventual use in a printed version of Wikipedia. I have yet to have a written answer but this will soon be forthcoming. --ThePromenader18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, we will not accept the image if it is not permitted for any use or modification (commercial or otherwise), by any person (not just Wikipedia), at any time (the grant must be perpetual), without outside obligation beyond attribution, and in any form (i.e. I should be able to sell tshirts with the image). If these criteria are not met, then the image is not free content. Because they have been so aggressive in the past protecting images of the tower, we will need to be quite sure that they understand that they are agreeing to these terms. --Gmaxwell18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to know who 'we' is, so that 'we' may speak directly on this matter. Anyhow, they are quite up to date about the conditions imposed on all images published on Wiki. --ThePromenader20:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim at the top "First and foremost, the picture is published here under a non-commercial license for non-commercial use" shows that you do not understand what we require on Wikipedia and what the license you've released your work under permits. I'm concerned that you may be misrepresenting Wikipedia to the SNTE. I love your photograph, but it seems very likely that you are confused. I see you also claim that we will permit this image as fair use, but that is incorrect as this image would not meet our fair use criteria and in any case we will never feature a fair use photograph. You've also claimed that permission for use exclusive to Wikipedia is good enough, but this is also not true[7]. I am not trying to be mean to you, so please do not respond with hostility. --Gmaxwell20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I most am certainly not confused, and I still would like to know what qualifies your use of 'we' - my questioning this is not hostility. I am most certainly not misrepresenting anything - I made it quite clear to the SNTE that they must waive all rights to this photo as it is published here, or I must ask that it be withdrawn from Wikipedia. --ThePromenader21:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'We' as in the collective components of Wikipedia and Wikimedia that handle these matters on a frequent basis, and we as in the standing policy and practice on Wikipedia. In any case, on reconsideration, we probably could make a reasonable fair use claim, but it would preclude the image from being featured and would be the least desirable outcome. So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying... That I could take this image, print it on tshirts, open a shop in Paris selling them, not pay anyone for the privledge, and SNTE would not protest? --Gmaxwell21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I do not agree with your use of 'we' : ) As for the t-shirt question, although it is off the mark for several reasons, I can only answer again that I have yet to have a written reply. The situation is simple, and this: there is a photo here on Wiki that the SNTE may claim rights to - should they decide not to, they must stipulate this in writing. This done, all can do what they may with the photo present here - but I severly doubt that, at its present size, that any t-shirts will be made. --ThePromenader21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think one can copyright a building under U.S. law (and thus on the Wikimedia servers). It boggles the mind that this is possible in other countries. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lighting is indeed copyrighted, but the biggest problem is that the SNTE gives no clear indication for what and how. They have given written permission to publish here, but this was not enough - by phone they were in complete agreement but I am still waiting for them to return the wiki "copyright permission" mail template I sent them last week. Wiki seems a little more concerned about this than they are : ) But rules is rules. --ThePromenader18:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't realise that. How can we have GFDL or PD pictures of recently constructed buildings or sculpture then? This makes things quite difficult. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case 't'aint the buiding, but the lights. Yes, very bothersome to leave such an obstructive rule in the middle of such a busy intersection without leaving any indication of how it is applied... it makes pedestrians like us run around it and wave our hands in the air to unanswered shouts of 'what? where? how? why?' --ThePromenader13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've spoken with the SNTE Monday and they looked at the photo. They have absolutely no problem with it appearing here or in any (Wiki) commercial publication, especially at the size it is, but are spending their sweet time sending the writ they agreed to send. I'm probably getting it and the other commercial documentation I asked for by land mail. Cheers. --ThePromenader07:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support If copyright issues don't conflict, full support, a stunning image. However, if copyright conflicts, then it is changed to Oppose and Delete. However, reading the full argument above shows me that the picture will be legal in a matter of time, so once it is, I give FULL SUPPORT. --Chancellor Alt 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
Update - Bad news, maybe. After not getting my template back, I gave the SNTE a call - they said they had "already given permission" but obviously misunderstood the conditions, as today they tell me (and insist) that a "copyright - SETE – illuminations Pierre Bideau" must appear under the photo. As I the authour have freed all rights, but a third-party hasn't, Wiki doesn't have much documentation on what sort of permission needed or available in these conditions. This is becoming a real headache so I am forwarding the matter to WP:CP - so this image may be deleted. You will see soon enough the results of any decision. --ThePromenader09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly accept a requirement for attribution, so long as it isn't excessively strict. (I.e. it can't force us to credit in the article when our standard location for attribution is on the image pages). I'm very hopeful. Thank you for all your work. --Gmaxwell13:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gmaxwell, thank you for your thank you, in fact it makes it all seem worthwhile, but I must ask again that you desist in your usage of 'we', as this denotes a superior kabal-esque position that you absolutely do not have! I would be only too pleased to base my respect on the wisdom you contribute, and already for that you have my thanks. --ThePromenader18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I'm still in negociations with the SNTE. They don't seem to want to free the photo for commercal use. As a last-ditch effort I have asked them if there was a set of publication conditions they would set on the photo here - but this doesn't look promising. THEPROMENADER05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'm getting a bit tired of these people witholding a yea or nay on the matter out of their doubt that this image will be used for some sort of commercial venture. At its present size this would be very difficult, but they don't seem to understand that. I'll give it the week for a reply, but my patience is pretty well at an end. I do have one last question though - since the entire purpose of this image here is for the free information/illustration for the greater public: what are the chances of this image being published as a "free use" pic ? THEPROMENADER17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It actually doesn't matter what the chances are, however small they might be. Licensing is not based on the odds of something happening. I chafed at the idea that my images would be available for commercial use by any entity just because I wanted to give them to Wikipedia for use there. But it was made quite clear to me that if I would have any problem whatsoever with finding any of them used for any purpose by any entity anywhere in the world, I should not bother uploading them. The SNTE will probably not grant such permission. -- Moondigger21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. "The chances of" was just a reflection of my not having extensively researched the question. I'll try to find some time to have a look around for an answer this weekend. I don't have much hope for the SNTE either. If anyone has any advice on "free use" I'd much appreciate it. THEPROMENADER21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update After asking for a copyright review of this image, I've just been informed on my Talk page that this is much ado about nothing. Any other views on this would be welcome. THEPROMENADER22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your desire for the copyright issues to go away does not make them actually go away. The SNTE controls all commercial usage of the light display. Unless they grant permission to publish this image under a license acceptable to Wiki (meaning, free for everyone, anywhere, for any use) it can't be used. Just because somebody thinks it's too restrictive to be real does not mean it isn't real. -- Moondigger01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stay rational in this - there are no dreams or desires at work here, so address the question directly please. One of the two contributors above say a such copyright would never stand (or doesn't exist) under US law (Wiki's publishing base). This does seem reasonable, but I have asked for some sort of solid evidence or other case example supporting this. Based on this logic, it does seem difficult for Wiki to hope to avoid copyrights for the laws of every country, on the content of all photos uploaded, especially when such copyrights don't apply in US law (see also the Wiki disclaimer). This would also explain why there exists no such legislation here - the only copyright restrictions existing are for a photo itself. The closest I could find was {{Template:Statue}}. Please also be reminded also that the above questions were asked where copyright questions are treated. All the same, I'm still looking for a clear, factual and referenced answer, and the above are the closest I've had so far. THEPROMENADER09:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Son of Update - this is really looking to be much ado about nothing. Not only is the 'image content' copyright claim not applicable in US law, the same copyright claim where it is registered here in France may only be exercised if the use of the image "causes excess trouble" to the owner of the object photographed. Still waiting for a final word on this, and will post a conclusion with references when I do. THEPROMENADER09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image is fairly small and has lots of blown-out parts. Not worth all the thouble. Although I like the rays on the top of the tower this pic needs to have a) way higher res b) HDR/Exposure blending. Then we might start talking about copyright issues. --Dschwen18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the way I see this (and please correct me if I'm wrong) as it is the only way this iamge can be used on Wikipedia is as a fairuse image, which it unarguably qualifies as since the main subject of the image (which ironically disqualifies it from free licensing) is the tower and it's lighting display so if it can be agreed that this is the case then it's perfectly acceptable for use in an article but unacceptable under the FP Criteria. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely right - so far. If you've read around the discussions on this on this you'd see that the 'fair use' angle is just a speculative safeguard - to date no-one has found any stipulation at all in US copyright laws pertaining to a building's lighting, or even lighting as a visual work of art, but still looking. So to finalise: if we (myself and those kind enough to help clarify this) do find a protective clause, the photo is usable under 'fair use', but if not, a 'fair use' license will not be necessary. If anyone would like to help comb through this you can find the complete list (in all the site) of possible US copyright coverage here - the clause indicated is that covering pictures of architecture - this at least is quite clear. ThePromenader07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it. First off, this picture was not even being judged until copyright issues are sorted out, so it isn't even question of declaring 'not accepted'. Secondly, I suggest a re-reading of my last comment - the 'fair use' license is needed only if there is a US copyright law protecting such lighting, and to date no such coverage nor clause or even definition of such coverage has been found. ThePromenader23:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ThePromenader, you can re-nominate any time. It pretty useless leaving this open until you get the copyright figured out. All if it's doing is wasting space. Thygard did the right thing. -Ravedave00:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Removing it from 'suspended nominations' didn't seem the right thing to do, but true that this has taken up space long enough. At least I don't have to be so stressed out about it because it's here. All the same, please take into consideration my comments. ThePromenader00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The basic morphology of a sterile female worker wasp. This particular diagram is close in likeness to that of a yellowjacket wasp found commonly around the world. It can be identified as female by both the number of division on its antenna and by the presense of its sting.
Reasons for nominating;
I am self nominating my latest work which shows the basic morphology and anatomy of a female wasp. I created it for the wasp article which was extremely lacking in any kind of anatomical or even scientific detail. Its has accomponied my continuing efforts to make the article good article status. This includes adding many more sections on wasp reproduction, behaviour, biology etc. I believe it is up to wikipedias featured pictures for the following reasons:
It was created exclusively for Wikipedia by me
It is of high resolution and detail
Aesthetically pleasing and simple to follow
Anatomically correct and useful for all kinds of people researching wasps
Common to all species of wasp
I can just imagine a child having to go and research wasps at school and coming back with this image and a report on them based on my work. And thats just the best feeling, that somewhere someone will learn something from this. Of that much I'm sure! So I hope you'll join me in wanting to give this featured picture status. Thanks!
Please upload the original. Mediawiki has very efficient and high-quality image scaling algorithms, but the larger the original image, the better. —Keenan Pepper21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which Software did you use to create this image. I cannot believe you used a bitmap based program for this kind of work. --Dschwen01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drawn in adobe photoshop 7.0.1 using mostly the line tool (which is vector based) it then lays a raster stroke in place of the vector line. This creates a base lineart layer under which colour can be added (each on a seperate layer. If your interested in seeing how its composed your welcome to see the .psd file if you have a program which can read layer based raster formats? Let me know your msn and I'll send it to you. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm changing to support. This illustration is superb in terms of clarity and style and it is great to see that you have more of this kind. But I'm still doing this with a sad eye, because I cannot help but think that your talent is sort of wasted on using a bitmap based program. Please check out Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, a vectorized verion would be a lot more valuable, think tack-sharp prints, next gen monitors, easy translation in other languages, clickable links and image parts, linking to wikipedia articles etc. --Dschwen22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think that the encyclopedicness overthrows the wow-factor in this case, and I'm not going to throw a fit over a 300 pixel difference. - Mgm|(talk)21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The terms oculomalar space, ocellus, vertex, tergum, etc don't appear in the wasp article; it would be helpful to explain them on the image page, as well as in the article. Looking at the "vertex" disambig page, I guess I know what it's pointing to now, but I don't know why it's important. For "ocelli", I wonder how much of the head it's meant to indicate. Some of the parts have numbers that I presume are counts, but not all (surely it doesn't have just 1 antenna!) - I would favor removing the counts. (In general, a nice diagram; I'd probably vote for a higher-res copy if the article & it were tied together better.) --Davepape21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dave. I only came across the article today. I'm in the process of having it entirely wewritten from a factual scientific point of view. It'll probably take me about a week. I think based on the subject matter it has a real possibility of being a front page article. This diagram is just a small part of it. Those are things I will be sure to include. When I upload a higher res version i will also remove the 'part counts' as suggested.--WikipedianProlific(Talk)21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent work. I am also impressed with the nominator's goals in creating the diagram. -- AJ2401:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I hope you can upload the svg version so other languages could translete it for themselves. Also, I would think about removing the heading "Basic Morphology...", but that's just a comment/suggestion and does not influence support/oppose vote. Renata01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (I reiterate SVG comments; I think the title font could be more appealing (initial letters look over-boldened) and the white space between title and illustration reduced; and I suggest uploading your work to Wikicommons.) Nice job! Outriggr01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice design, but I'm not too sold on the color scheme - don't really like the gray, and it seems disproportionate to the yellow compared to something like this: Image:WaspBuildingNest wb.jpg. Also the labelling isn't really that clear. I'm refering in particular to "Ocelli" (is that the skull or the top of the head or what), and "vertex"/"gena" (they seem to be pointing to the same thing. --Fir000209:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid to say they are literally what they are pointing at. The back of the neck and the back of the head. Although this may not seem important enough in a diagram, it is immensely so. The vertex and gena are used to differentiate between different insect species. Telling the difference between say a big wasp and a small hornet can come down to those two regions as its where structurally almost all insects are different. I take on board comments on the colour scheme although I would say firstly: its a diagram not photography, but more over - some wasps are entirely grey, some are white suprisingly, when born they are pink. Thanks for the comments. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I actually like the color scheme a lot, it looks clean and professional. It is neat how the principal colors of the insects are used to tint the greyish background. To appreciate it you shoud check out Prolifics illustrations side by side. --Dschwen17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would also prefer it if "Basic Morphology of" were omitted (and of course, an SVG version would be nice).--ragesoss14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Beautiful image, plenty of detail and an enormous size. A little more information in the description would be nice like what its on (it looks like paper to me?) but otherwise a good candidate IMHO. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unextraordinary and insignificant? Can you elaborate? Does it not illustrate the article well? Which criteria at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? do you believe it doesn't fit? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-25 04:22
Support What an incredible image! By far the best EM so far. I really can't see how these are "insignificant". It is an entire phylum within the animal kingdom which is almost void of illustrations. This is also the best way you could illustrate them without an exploded diagram. --liquidGhoul06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I really like this image, but have been troubled about something since it was first nominated. The caption says "...nematode, and its egg", but there's no way (that I can see) that this egg belongs to this nematode. It doesn't really gel with what the article says about the life-cycle either. Now perhaps this is a recently hatched nematode alongside another unhatched egg, or something like that, though again I'm not sure how that fits with the described life-cycle. I tried to do some other research on the site it says the photo came from, but couldn't find the pic, much less any more details about it. Can you possibly clarify? Thanks. --jjron09:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the egg, there are two explanations I can think of. The article says the males are usually much smaller than the females, and they have a bent tail. This may be the case, as I can see a bend in the tail. Also, the egg may have been pretty old, and continued to grow since it was fertilised. However, I don't know the growth pattern of Nematodes. As they have an exoskelton, it wouldn't make sense that they continue to grow, it has to be stepped. --liquidGhoul09:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This explains it in more detail, the juvenile undergoes two molts while in the egg, when the egg hatches the juvenile is at the second stage. So the edd must expand after it is laid.--Peta10:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, the egg would have to feed in some way - I don't believe this is the case. It can moult in the egg without the egg growing (like a butterfly in a cocoon). Another possibility: this is the dead female that has become the cyst, with a live male (but the caption still seems to be wrong). --jjron00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Butterflies metamorphose in their cocoon, it is completely different to molting. They will actually die, and digest themselves into a few stem cells so they can be completely "re-built" as a butterfly. Molting, though it takes a lot of energy, takes much less energy than metamorphosis and the nematode either has a primitive yolk, or some way in passing its food through the egg wall (I think it says this on Peta's link). --liquidGhoul01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simile. Eggs don't feed. The link was good (thanks Peta), but I didn't see anything about the egg feeding; if it was there please tell me where. The egg may continue to grow while in the female, but surely not thereafter. --jjron02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rightio, I read it wrong :?. I think you are right, it is probably a cyst which contains the eggs, but it should be good to ask someone who knows. --liquidGhoul02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason a high protion food reserve in the egg cannot let the egg gain volume. Of course it cannot gain mass without feeding, but it can get bigger, by getting less dense. (just a guess) HighInBC14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically perhaps, but unlikely. Yes, a gas could be produced inside the egg as part of the molting, which could then allow it to gain volume without feeding. But the eggshell would have to be very soft and flexible to allow it to expand this much (Peta's link suggests there is an eggshell), and unless it was very specially structured to retain this shape, it would tend to become spherical as it expanded (and why would it need to retain this shape?). --jjron00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the technical side, there is a fair amount of purple fringing in the kids' hair. I like the composition of the shot, but technically it's not that strong. It would benefit from some artificial depth of field applied, to blur out the spectators in the background. Stevage22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's highly informative and just the kind of photo I'd love to see featured... except for the text at the bottom. Wikipedia gives attribution to photographers on the image page, not in captions or on the image itself. Also, FYI, Wiki requires you to license images freely worldwide for any use, commercial or otherwise -- just want to be sure you understand that. -- Moondigger13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's definitely something not quite right about this - how, for example, did the photographer manage capture the moon in front of the clouds? --Yummifruitbat18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it looks like a standard technique in which multiple exposures are made on a single frame from a fixed location. The clouds were probably present in the second exposure, forcing him to use a longer shutter speed to get the moon to shine through. For subsequent exposures the clouds had cleared, but since the clouds were already present in the frame from the second exposure, the moon appears to be in front of them. By the time the moon had risen much in the photo it was probably fully night time, but because the sky was exposed during twilight for the first few exposures it looks blue instead of black. -- Moondigger19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. neat idea, but the foreground is rather bad, plus there is that annoying copyright notice. Cropping will only worsen the pic since it'll lack a sense of scale then. --Dschwen19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, the photo is not a “fake”, however, it is a composite of many exposures with the moon spliced into the BG of the original exposure made shortly after dusk. The initiated may read about the process here. It's been received well everywhere else it's been shown ... but here. I withdraw the nomination. -Mactographer
Ah, I see. This kind of image is much easier to do on film, which is what I thought you did. I would suggest that you upload a version that doesn't contain the text at the bottom -- I would definitely support a version that complies with Wiki guidelines. -- Moondigger21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might take you up on your suggestion, Moondigger. Your comments were the most constructive. But since I am giving up copyright in uploading to Wikipedia — which is anathema to most professional photographers who live and die by getting paid, and/or getting credit for their hard work — I wanted to make sure of attribute by using the standard convention of embedding such in the image when placed on the web. I suppose the Creative Commons licenses cover attribute, but in practice, images on the web get snapped up right and left, often without so much as a tip of the hat to the creator of the work. -Mactographer
I didn't say the photo was faked, just that it didn't look right. I maintain that (particularly since it isn't a multiple exposure, and the moon has, as Dschwen said, effectively been pasted on top, albeit by a somewhat more elaborate method) the image looks artificial with the moon in front of the cloud. Aside from that, I don't find the image all that striking; there isn't enough detail in the moon itself to make this a particularly good illustration of a lunar eclipse. On the subject of the copyright notice, surely you've no greater guarantee of attribution with the notice, as anyone willing to rip off your image without giving you credit is unlikely to have any qualms about cropping the text? --Yummifruitbat01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, Fruitbat! Didn't the remaining eclipsed moons on the dark blue sky rather than black night sky clue you into the fact it was a composite? Of course all the separate moons were pasted over the remaining original photo of the early evening sky. Cuz the "point of the photo” was to show the progression of the moon as it came in and out of the eclipse, relative to the location it was in the sky at any given moment during the lunar event. The point was NOT to detail the moon in close up fashion. That kind of photograph has been recorded ad nauseam. Who hasn’t seen a close up shot of a red moon? However, I’ve never seen another lunar eclipse photo quite like this with the horizon as a reference point. In any case, it’s been highly rated in other forums. Only this forum has seen fit to shred it. So for the 3rd time, I withdraw my nomination for FP. I’m finished defending my position on it. (Note the time stamp on this message post-dates the one below. This is my last round on this subject.) --Mactographer08:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
jjron Can you explain? What kind of SPAMing are you suggesting I'm guilty of? The fact that as a photographer, I wish to have a little credit for my creations? Then clap me in irons and throw away the key, I'm guilty!! Besides, as I have mentioned above, I withdraw my nomination for FP. If that means I should delete all the messages here, then I'll do that if that's the wiki-protocol.Mactographer07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the Spam guidelines? What I'm saying is that the text in this photo directs users to an external website that does not further any user's understanding of this topic. The website (correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially a site which advertises your services. In Wikipedia (again, someone correct me if I'm wrong) this constitutes spamming. This is nothing about the FP nomination, any text added to a pic (unless for a pupose to add meaning to the pic) would result in opposes here, this is about the nature of the text itself. --jjron08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. It's the photographer's personal website which (in addition to advertising his services) is also a link to provide information about the photographer and contact information should someone seek to license the photograph in a different manner. I see no problem from a "spam" standpoint with the text, but agree that text of any sort that's not "informative" about the subject should not be there. The website info can go on the image description page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is necessary to visit an external site to get the required information about the author. Any information relevent to the licencing and attribution should be on the userpage. An external link to a personal site is almost always just a vanity link or an attempt to draw commercial work from wikipedia viewers, which is not what wikipedia is about. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a great idea, conceptually, but I think the implementation is flawed. While I understand, per Macto's explanation above, WHY the moon is in front of the cloud, I find that it distracts from the image. Add that to the text at the bottom and you've got an oppose. Now, without the text, I would probably change my vote to Neutral, but I doubt I could Support the image with the "cloud issue" unresolved. On a side-note, it's nice to see someone local on the FPC page (I'm from Fremont). --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a great illustration of a human newborn, both in appearance and behavior, and it appears in the Infant article. I took the photo, and it is my daughter, just seconds after delivery.
Oppose. Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. The photo is of acceptable technical quality but it doesn't seem particularly feature-worthy to me. -- Moondigger15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a fairly unique moment in a person's life captured nicely. And it would really be missing if it weren't in the infant article. --Dschwen18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. congrats. but this picture is not feature-worthy to me either. If you have got another angle which illustrates what your caption says, with less distractions, it would be great.--Pedit20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant how many edits I made. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!--Pedit02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The foot/sock and the rest of the background is distracting. The doctor or nurse holding the baby seems robotic due to the composition of the picture (cropped head, holding position, visible portion of the hand looking more like a tentacle than a human body part) and the flapping, unnaturally colored protective gear (light blue and neon green -- the worst hospital colors!). Compare, for instance, this photo from Flickr where the staff is wearing form-fitting white or dark blue coats and more naturally colored gloves. For the subject of childbirth, I'd like to see a series of pictures or a movie rather than a single snapshot, though of course a nice snapshot might always qualify for FPC status. All that said, congratulations to bringing a new life into this world. Maybe you can make another baby for us and try shooting some more pictures. ;-) --Eloquence*21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Green gloves and blue coat I like it ! At least we see the oposition between the newborn baby and the medical environement. Ericd22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but they often are. Seriously I think the use of unatural colors might contribute to security, for instance a green glove will make a surgeon's hand contrast with the patient body. Ericd22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's true -- the flesh-colored gloves in the example above may be a bit extreme. Neutral white would be a reasonable compromise.--Eloquence*23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the protocol for a FPC is to support what you nominate, and I guess I am slightly biased, but: The distractions - the foot, the doctors hand, and the extreme coloring of hospital garb are an integral part of the scene. Those first seconds of life are rather difficult to capture, and I think it would be impossible to frame the subject with some more esthetically pleasing surroundings in this case. Although, I will try again next time ;) Ernest F13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The S500 is a perfectly capable point & shoot. You should be able to get decent quality photos out of it, if you work around its limitations (flash, mostly). -- Moondigger13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, flash, I think, is the biggest obstacle for most point and shoot cameras. This picture came out as well as (I think) it did because of the overhead hosptial light. --Ernest F14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ambient light is often enough to get something without flash at 1/15s or 1/8s. Stop breathing and try not to shake camera. With some training you should be able to have an unblurred shot. Ericd16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - technically it is acceptable, despite the blurring... but to me it's not at all aesthetically pleasing - the opposite. No offence. Jono(talk)17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - you just cannot get a realistic picture of an infant just seconds after delivery without mess. I like it because it's real, not artistic; it's real life, real blood, real flesh and not some photoshoped & spotless landscape photo. Renata21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good illustration of the subject. That is just the way it looks like! My congratulations, Ernest_F! Mikeo18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The picture is only OK, and it doesn't add as much as it could to the article. Key parts of the body are obscured and half of the face is not even visible. --Hetar05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only thing keeping me from supporting is that is not 'pleasing to the eye'. It's a photo that i would place on top of the TV if I were a relative or something, but not one i'd like to have as a FP (with all due respect, of course).Nnfolz21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being there, I can tell you that the event itself was not necessarily 'pleasing to the eye'! However, I don't believe a FPC needs to meet that criteria. For instance, the 'Warsaw Ghetto' candidate below is certainly not pleasing to the eye, however, it captures and illustrates the subject in a vivid manner.--Ernest F18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Captures the warmth of the surrounding landscape in Autumn, set in the context of the Great Alpine road. I've nominated this version with the truck in it as trucking is a key characteristic of the road. I've uploaded a second version: Image:Great alpine rd outside omeo02.jpg which was taken after the truck passed by (no cloning - promise!).
Oppose. Technical merit as always with you. But the significance of the Mt. Hotham/Alpine Road/Swifts Creek region doesn't strike me high enough to to feature the twentieth (?) picture depicting it. And if this weren't a panoramic image would anyone consider featuring some truck on some road? --Dschwen17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lol, and here I am drooling over it - then again, I'm from Victoria but have been out of the country for the last year. I kind of have to agree - let's just all agree that yes, it's yet another stunning panorama of country Victoria by Fir0002, but we have enough for our collection. Actually, having said that, I just checked out Great Alpine Road, and it is everything we want in a FP - despite the fact only a small part of the road is visible (by necessity), the picture does a fantastic job of conveying the surrounding countryside. This is exactly what pictures about roads, rivers, regions etc should be. Stevage22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Dschwen. Photography is not only about technicalities. I do not find any way that this picture add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.--Pedit21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant how many edits I made, also my contribution may as well be more to this page for the future as well. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!!--Pedit02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-28 04:24
Oh! I did not know. Sorry about that. I did not mean anything bad. Though I am new to contributing, I am have been using wikipedia for years, and I love this project. I thought starting with a newborn baby is a good idea! Thanks for guiding me.--Pedit04:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeYah, this is nice and it makes me want to go to Australia but I just think that maybe we need to give the whole Australian panoramic thing a break.--Henry A-W04:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that, but in the end, disagree. If we have 50 articles about fairly obscure topics, and we have 50 excellent, high quality images to illustrate them, we should count ourselves exceptionally lucky, not reject them. I wouldn't want to see more than two FP's per article, but two seems acceptable to me. Stevage08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great photo, but its not special, the article already has one FP which i personaly believe is better
A small dam in the village of Chocorua, New HampshireEdit 1: Cropped image, less blown sky
The Image was taken by Hossen27 in the village of Chocorua near Tamworth, New Hampshire on May 19, 2006. The Picture does not appear in any article at the moment, though it could be placed on the Tamworth article.
Comment. It's a nice picture, but it has to be in an article before it can be considered. Also, you can't support photos you took yourself. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who says you can't support photos you took yourself? What's the reasoning? People support their own photos all the time. -- Moondigger12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added the image to the article Tamworth, New Hampshire, were the dam is located. All the other images on the article are historic, making it the only recent image on the page and have removed my support because I took the image. Hossens2709:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. Big ole tree on the left kinda spoils it for me, but otherwise I like it. If the tree can be cropped out in a pleasing way, I'd probably switch to Support. --Billpg09:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Beautiful image, good content, taken at a good place (its hardly his fauly where the trees grow.) And to my suprise there are very few if any compression artifacts which is rare for a wikipedia photo.--WikipedianProlific(Talk)12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's okay... the blown sky bothers me a bit, and overall I don't find the scene particularly feature-worthy. However (as I indicated above), I'm pretty sure there's no prohibition against you supporting your own photo. Many nominations here are self-noms, and they almost always self-support as well. When I've closed nominations in the past I counted support votes cast by the photographer, as do the others AFAIK. -- Moondigger13:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says at the top of the page "if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor...", which I always took to mean that the photographer couldn't vote. I suppose under a strict reading you could interpret it to mean "four excluding the photographer, and the consensus including the photographer" but I find that rather a bizarre rule. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather bizarre myself, but I don't take it the way you do. I think it's meant to address a particular unusual situation: one in which there are very few votes cast for a given image. In other words, if there are only four votes cast, then the photographer's vote doesn't count... but if there are more than four votes cast, the photographer's vote does count. Personally I don't think there should be any such limitation. If a photographer supports his/her own photo, I'm fine with that, even in the extremely unlikely case that there are only four votes for a particular nomination. -- Moondigger15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parsing that statement now leads me to think more along the lines you are, that the photographer's vote doesn't count no matter how many votes are cast. However I think it's a pointless restriction with no rational justification, and is contrary to the de facto implementation. Photographers self-nominate and support their own work all the time, and photographers' votes sometimes carry even more weight than others -- I've seen nominations ended immediately when a photographer opposes his/her own photo. Can somebody explain the rationale for not counting a photographer's vote on his/her own image? -- Moondigger15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blown out sky, not the best angle with the tree on the left obscuring part of the subject matter, missing wow factor and no particularly outstanding addition to the article it is in. --Dschwen18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This picture does not add value to the article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.--Pedit21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant how many edits I made. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!--Pedit02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-28 04:24
Oppose. Quite nice, but has blown sky (with a hint of what it could be in the top right corner) and a little busy; seems leaning slightly right to me. Outriggr04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have cropped the image to remove some of the blown sky. I dont know if its much better but the blown sky was the main issue. Hossens2705:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose well constructed panaroma with consistant light, the central feature is where the photographic method is most apparant and are where my reasonings for opposing occur. What has happened is that the buildings behind have been multiplied and the perspective line are diverging instead on converging. This was caused by too frequently moving the camera position to subject. This area should have had very minimual camera repositioning. Gnangarra06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regretfully. Interesting technique - you have moved sideways for each picture, so this picture is actually rectilinear. However, the ever changing viewpoint messed up the pattern of the roof tiles - I bet the roof doesn't look like that! Also, the floor line is a bit wavy. --Janke | Talk06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I liked it. Well constructed. The roof tiles occupy a small proportion of the pic - I only noticed the problem after reading the above comment and going back to check. (Now I know its there, its all I can see.) --Billpg06:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ack Janke, I've just been there last Weekend and the pic doesn't do justice to it. The verticah size is too small, there is strong moiree in the roof tiles. Also there are duplicates in the background. --Dschwen07:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hell of a lot of work in this, problem is it's just not informative (the other pics on the article show me much better how Stanford looks). But, as Stevage says, big congrats for effort - Adrian Pingstone12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This picture does not add value to the article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. Besides this picture will not appear good on the front page of wikipedia as well. Within a propper context this will be a great image--
It is irrelevant how many edits I made, also my contribution may as well be more to this page for the future as well. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!!--Pedit02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really don't like the fountain. I first saw it as a strange hole under the water before I could spotted the fountain sprays. Suggest either the fountain is made more prominant or removed from view entirely. (Aside from the fountain, I liked it and would support.) --Billpg06:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I just don't find it very interesting: it looks like any other city. And I think a photo taken during the day might be more encyclopaedic, because you could see the buildings better. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hummingbirdEdit 1 Image with background blurred, without changing foreground.Edit 2. Noise reduction of background performed by Neatimage in Photoshop. Similar to Edit 1 but slightly higher quality result.Not for voting - an example of how hard it is to freeze insect wings - this image's shutter speed is 1/3200s
This is an excellent capture of this insect taken by IronChris. Admittedly, the fact that it hovers certainly makes it easier to take, but the clarity is quite impressive. The flowers are slightly blown but this is not the focus and can be excused IMO.
I would have said that the wings emphasize the fact that they move so fast. I'm not sure exactly how fast they are but I've been messing around with photography of bumblebees and I'm telling you, their virtually impossible to freeze (the exposures have been approximately 1/4000th of a second, which is at or near the shutter spped limit of almost all professional SLRs. The only way to beat that is with using an extra high speed flash which ends up in specialised and expensive macro photography territory. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of modern DSLRs can do 1/8000s with the electronic shutter, but honestly, I have a hard time getting enough light at 1/500s, f/13... I can't imagine trying to do the same thing with 1/8000s. Eesh. --Marumari00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is an excellent photograph, and the fact that it shows motion wins out, for me, over any notions of sharpness and clarity. A picture of a fast-moving object that doesn't actually show that it's moving can be beautiful, but is often static and flat. The rest of the image is crystal clear, and I find that the blur of wings adds a lot to, rather than subtracts from, the overall composition. romarin[talk ]16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the most remarkable images I have seen of a hummingbird in flight. It's eyes are in my opinion the most stunning feature of the photograph. -- AJ2418:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be quite a feat, discovering a hummingbird with antennae :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 21:41
Despite what it looks like in the image, the moth's eyes aren't directional eyeballs like in birds and mammals; they're just the usual compound moth/fly eyes, but disguised as directional eyeballs. The black dot in the center is just coloring to give the appearance of an iris/pupil. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 21:44
Support edit 2. Excellent photo. I've done some bird-watching, and repeatedly came across an entry for this moth in the hummingbird section of an identification guide... the real thing is much more impressive than the illustration. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 21:41
Support Beautifully shot. As others have mentioned, blurred wings of an insect clearly in flight is not a technical defect. You would need specialized strobes to capture a sharp image in flight, but then you'd also need the camera to have the required sensitivity. --Wickerprints22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 The noise reduction is best in this particular edit, although all three versions seem to have a bit of oversharpening and slight JPEG artifacts going on. But these are minor issues. --Wickerprints18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic capture, even if it does look like a flying turd with an eyeball and three antennas. I guess if I had to pick, I would choose edit 2, although they all look pretty good. --Marumari00:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment either version is fine to me. The difference is so small that i only noticed it after looking at the image very closely. -- Chris 73 | Talk10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 I love the picture, there is some background noise probably caused by a fast shutter speed without enough light. I made a version with a selective blur on the background only. Let me know what you think. HighInBC15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My image seems a bit lighter, I think this is the result of the jpg reencoding and the fact that a blurred image encodes much better than a noisy one. I still like my version. HighInBC16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Angle mabye, and luck. Alot of luck I would say, 1/60 is rather slow, mabye it was cold out and the moth was moving slower. Good question. HighInBC18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its been taken with a flash, for sure. I recognise the 'look'. 1/60th of a second is 'standard' for flash photography but the actual burst of flash occurs for a MUCH smaller amount of time. This method can work well, but as in this case, you will get some blur as the subject will continue to expose for the full 1/60th of a second (although the flash burst will likely account for the majority of the total light). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)00:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you shot it at night, with a flash, it would come out much clearer, even at a slow shutter speed? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-24 00:44
Yes, but (and this is a pretty big but) the illumination from the flash would dissipate rapidly into the background and, as with most flash photography in low-light situations, the subject might be properly exposed but the background would be severely underexposed, possibly even black depending on the distance. And then theres the major problem of trying to get the camera to focus accurately in the dark! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From metadata Flash: 73. 73% power I think. The insect is frozen by the flash but the flower in the background are blurred because they probably received more sunlight. Ericd20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no-one has commented on the edit! I'll have to move this to the 'requiring additional input' section. I can't believe no-one seems to have even noticed it... Raven4x4x09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No hope IMHO. I don't think a B & W photography of a black car could render the volume without some shadows and reflections. Ericd01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but as a FPC those shadows kill it. It is a good pic of the car, just a shame it wasn't in constant lighting. --jjron09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Ericd added this enlargement of the above image (just above the car's windshield). The black lines are perfectly vertical, and it shows that the window is also vertical. Hope that makes sense. Stevage08:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Oppose It is just too shadowy. If it were a sunny day that day, you would have immediate support from me... Viva LaVieBoheme
Pic 1 - glowstick poiPic 1 - Edit 1 by BillpgPic 2 - fire poi
I would love to see a poi picture reach featured status. This is a truely amazing art, and anyone who has seen it live will agree that no picture can come close to capturing the feeling of awe that a good performer will leave you in. The only drawback being that to produce a good picture, the subject has to undergo a long exposure at night, leading to the artist being extremely blurred. But as they're not the focus, does it matter? There are a million and one fantastic poi pictures out there (good examples using: glowsticks, fire & flags), anyone of them is good enough for featured status - just for the "wow factor".
Support I can understand the difficulty of capturing this subject. Although it has some problems, the picture is still quite good. The pattern is amazing. I would probably prefer this if it were availible in higher res. --Fir000209:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By abstain do you mean you don't mind either way? Here is a link to the talk page of the guy who uploaded the fire one: [9], although he seems to have been inactive since Dec 05. If you can do a better job of contacting him than me (i.e. email him in french), feel free to request a re-scan - Jack(talk)21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, neither supporting nor opposing. If emailing him in Friench didn't work, then I doubt I could do any better. --Billpg21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what's interesting is that on seeing the second picture, my first thought on the green and purple trees was "that looks like the Fête des lumières in Lyon, France". And sure enough, yep - December 10 last year, I may have even seen him. The lit-up trees in the background are good for the Fête des lumières article, not so good for demonstrating poi. The glowpoi image is nice, but too noisy. Stevage11:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI love the fire one, but it is a little too small. Annoys me, because I want to see the shapes in the flame better. Does anyone who speaks French want to leave a message on the uploader's talk? --liquidGhoul11:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very beautiful, but neither meets the resolution requirements. Also, the red dot in bottom right portion of the glowstick one is mildly distracting. I would support a higher resolution version of glowstick one. Not sure if I would support a higher res fire one, the background is kinda distracting. --Pharaoh Hound(talk)12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I loved the original image, and was thinking about nominating it myself a few days ago. However, I think Bill's edit is even more beautiful. I think it looks really great. It would be nice if it were bigger, of course. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! By the way, talk about a small world... I was showing the image to a friend today, who is into Poi, who said that he is friends with the guy in the picture. Apparently the spinning community is "quite tight", as he puts it. Huh. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 13:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all the green one to me doesnt look real, i cant see the persons armes, it looks like a a person has been pasted on to a cool green back ground, the fire one looks awesome but it needs to be bigger to real get the feel from the flames so oppose. Childzy(Talk|Contribs)09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fake, baby! See the comment above yours. Even though that sounds so much like "friend of a friend" that I shouldn't really be posting it at all... heh. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support first version – Wow! I've seen a lot of performance of this type, but the geometry in this shot is incredible! What an amazing pic of an amazing performer! A real treat! – Morganfitzp23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jews captured by SS and SD troops during the suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising are forced to leave their shelter and march to the Umschlagplatz for deportation (description from USHMM website)
Support Wow, that's just pitiful. The expresssion on the boys face just sums it up so perfectly. Really touching. --Fir000209:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object – This image is far too small to be a featured picture. Great photo, it's a shame the resolution is so low. ♠ SG→Talk14:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Very famous image and of great historical significance. Usually, quality is not scrutinized so in images of such age and historical background. -- AJ2415:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Extremely famous image, reminiscent of the girl in Vietnam fleeing the napalm attack. This image is prominently featured in Martin Gilbert's book on the Holocaust. Powerful. Antandrus (talk)16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume you mean Image:TrangBang.jpg. That image is amazing, why is it copyrighted? Surely it was taken by the US military and is therefor PD? Seems such a loss, it would be a great addition to historical FAs - Jack(talk)17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I like the pic, but it is small. I will switch to Support if it can be rescanned to at least 1000px wide. --Billpg23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, preference for Edit 1 (if it's given a meaningful filename!). The emotion reaches out and grabs you. --jjron09:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Horse racing at Naadam - a young jockey steers his horse past a second horse which died during the long-distance raceEdit 1 rotated, shadows slightly brightenedFile:Naadam horse race.jpgEdit 2 re-uploaded image after reading more about jpeg artifacts - attempts made through photoshop to increase qualityEdit 3 crop of edit 2
This is an image of a child and his horse participating in the yearly Naadam festival in Mongolia. Naadam is a huge celebration of sporting events which draws participants from throughout the country. Part of the festival involves long-distance horse races across the steppes. The jockeys are children age 5-13. Death among the horses is not uncommon, as seen in the picture. This child is leading his horse past another horse which had died minutes earlier. This picture appears in the Naadam article, which I plan on greatly expanding in the near future.
I think that this picture illustrates the major components of the Naadam horse races: 1) its location on the wide-open grasslands of the Mongolian steppes, 2) the young age of its participants, and 3) the danger involved to the participants
This is my first attempt at a featured picture - I have been reading the page for a month and this picture seems to be relevant, large enough, etc. I don't see any blown-out highlights or jpeg artifacts, but I must admit that I'm a novice! I have cropped the original to limit the amount of sky and to increase the size of the horse/rider. I can provide the original in any format requested. I also have less illustrative pictures (without the dead horse) which offer closer views of the riders, etc. if that is desired.
This picture was taken by me earlier this month and has been released into the public domain.
Weak Support. Although the clouds are blurred (suffering from JPEG artifacting) and the young jockey's face and some of the horse's body are unclear, the image is of great intrinsic value. The significance greatly outweighs the faults of the image quality. Images such as this will bring insight and provoke further research. -- AJ2402:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I understand the jpeg artifacting thing, even after looking at the examples provided. Is it something which is related to the camera that I can't change or is there something that I can do with photoshop, etc. to make sure that the images I submit are of higher quality? InvictaHOG02:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a compressing algorithm is usually at fault in cases such as this, but im not completely certain. You may want to consult one of the users with greater knowledge on image quality. However, I strongly believe and hope that the image will be accepted as-is. -- AJ2402:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On certain cameras, there's a difference between "medium quality" and "high quality" compression - the latter typically takes twice as much space for a pretty small gain in quality. I'm presuming you're already shooting on highest possible resolution. Other than that, some programs like Photoshop have a "remove JPEG artefacts" de-noisifier which may work a bit. I don't see a huge problem in this image. Note that *every* JPEG image has "JPEG artefacts" - the only question is, how much of a problem are they. Stevage11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded another edit after reading more about jpeg artifacts on photoshop. Hopefully this has improved - I was able to fix the tilt, but was not able to recreate the brightened shadows as in edit #1. InvictaHOG20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Extremely moving (the things humans make animals do is sometimes horrendous), however there are to many picture quality issues. I would probably support a similar photo of better quality. --Pharaoh Hound(talk)19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image compares the most common display resolutions at real size. Note how all the resolutions with the same ratios have the same color. And those resolutions that have a standard are captioned with the name of it. Resolutions like 1280x960 which don't have a standard name—but are popular—are simply left with the resolution numbers only. I believe it meets all the criteria. Originally made by Pdurland and modified several times by TheMattrix. Available under the GNU license.
weak opposeWhilst its a brilliant idea and highly resolvable, I do not believe it is very clear to understand (yet). A few things that will probably help: aligning the ratios in a horizontal fashion so its clear what the diagonal lines are for, at the moment they seem, randomly positioned. I think it would be easier to read if the lines showing the screen sizes didn't have shadowing on them. The other small thing is 1280 by 960 doesn't have a code like the others, to an uninformed reader like myself I'm left asking why? can the diagram be adjusted to answer that question by adding a description like 'Popular Size'? With those few changes I'd happily support it. Nice work on the whole, great idea by the person who created it originally. IMHO. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)05:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with you in some point. I think that the ratios tags could be better aligned, but I don't see that preventing the image from being featured. I don't know what else could be placed in the 1280x960 oval, because there doesn't seem to be a standard for it, but it is quite a common resolution. As for the shadows, I don't find them obstructive, but let's see what others say, remember that I'm not the author, but if the image fails from minor things like these, I could make a request list for TheMattrix to change.--Enano27506:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Excellent, amazing and clear. Illustrates all the common screen sizes well, including aspct ratios (very important), to scale. I'll be saving this image on my PC - always needed one of these. It's come a long way since its first incarnation and I believe it's thoroughly great. And informative and well thought out picture. Includes some of the less popular resolutions as well, from the very small videos (320x240), up to 1080i and beyond. Shadows are not a problem - they enhance it my making it look as if the resolutions are shown as different sized pieces of card (or flat screens) overlaid on each other. This is the first diagram I have voted on, and I'm giving it my all. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice idea but I find it a confusing mess of colors. The main problem is that the labels are much brighter and more prominent than the grid lines, when it should be the other way around. I actually think the first incarnation is superior (albeit not FP quality either, but it's at least readable). Redquark13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why isn't this a SVG? If its an SVG then it can be very easily updated when new standards emerge. Also the chart is missing the WXGA on the HD720 tag, it is one of the most popular laptop sizes. -Ravedave18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it SVG because its 1:1 scale with the resolutions it represents. Its a unique diagramitcal situation with regards to format. Having a scalable version of this would eliminate it being to scale and thus hinder the purpose of the diagram. I agree with Redquark in saying the original incarnation was in many regards superior. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About WXGA, I think that the image only includes the "display resolutions" category, and according to the template in WXGA, that resolution would fall in the "widescreen variants" category, that's why it isn't included. Never mind, other widescreen resolution are included. As WikipedianProlific pointed out, a SVG would break the whole idea of it being "real-size". --Enano27519:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, however I beleive the SVG source for the PNG should be available (as a seperate image linked form this one). -Ravedave20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikipedianProlific, you're wrong. Have any of you actually worked with SVGs? When you create an SVG, you must specify some sort of dimensions... you can specify them in pixels if you like. Just because you can resize the image without losing quality doesn't mean that you can't make the original the proper scale. ~MDD469614:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets for a moment analyse what you said. 'WikipedianProlific your wrong' well thats a pretty opinionated and personally aimed comment. How about "WikipedianProlific I disagree for the following reasons..." Please read WP:FAITH. Now, that aside, when someone goes to full view an SVG they have to download it from WP. The benefit of this format is they don't have to download it. They can nativley view it in Internet Explorer or any other such browser at the appropriate size. Until IE supports SVG its generally accepted to avoid putting things like this into that format for obvious reasons. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 1st time I have heard mention of SVG being avoided. Do you know of anyone else that shares your opinion? The user can still get the 800x600 larger view. -Ravedave17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't want to create the impression thats official policy. SVG is officially still the prefered format for block colour diagramatic pictures. But there are several of us users (graphic artists, illustrators and designers) who feel that until internet exporler nativley supports SVG without the need for a plugin that SVG formats should be avoided on diagrams like this which is being kept 'to scale'. It is my hope that the Vista release of net explorer will come with native support for SVG formats and that there will be very little place for raster diagrams in the future. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is a fairly useful illustration, but come on, one of wikipedias best? I don't think so. It's just a few rectangles, how can that in any way compare with an illustration like the wasp below? --Dschwen22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, it's elegant and usefull. It tells the viewer an entire article's worth in a single glance. The only thing I could imagine adding would be the years the standards were created (so we can see the progress). SVG isn't important because it is already huge. Well done. 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrokenSegue (talk • contribs)
Just a tiny remark. A picture being huge does not nullify the need for SVG in general. SVG resolution is infinite and it allows for easy translations.
Thanks for fixing that for me and yes I understand the other advantages of svg. In reality, though, there isn't any translation needed for this image (I assume the standards have the same acronyms elsewhere) and I can't see someone wanting the image much bigger than it is already. BrokenSegue02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New screen sizes come out every year. Having an SVG would make it easy to add them, that is the main reason I wanted it. -Ravedave02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I find it amazing that a user created it, but I also agree with Redquark's statements. -- AJ2401:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to add the year that each standard came out?
I find the whole image a little bit artificial, as no one ever uses any of the terms XSGA, WSXGA, QXGA etc etc. Also, for example, CGA has two resolutions: 320x200 (pictured) and 640x200 (monochrome, bizarre, not pictured). Also, where is EGA (640x350 from memory)
There's also something distracting in the lines being used both to show the screen size and to connect the labels. For example it looks at first glance like SVGA and HD 720 are pointing to the 1280x720 position. It's not good that all the 4:3 labels have to cross the 5:4 line. Is it actually necessary to show the rectangle corresponding to each resolution? Perhaps you could just show the corner, like a backwards L shape? That would reduce the crossing problem.
Also, is there a reason why the purple lines (16:9) don't always have shadows?
I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the image is 1:1 to what it's describing (ie, it's 2560 pixels wide to describe "QXSGA"). Is that desirable? What would that be useful for? Probably an SVG (hence, not 1:1) would actually be more useful?
Definitely don't like the colours of the rectangles - it's just arbitrary which colour is used when they overlap. The rectangles (and their interior fill colours) should all be the same, or coloured some other way. Stevage11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Tells me everything I need to know in one concise diagram. I greatly appreciate the ratio lines, these are very useful. I wouldn't change a thing. Given that I see Wikipedia first and foremost as an informational tool, I support this graphic as a featured picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.188.92 (talk • contribs)
Oppose. It's a great diagram, but in smaller views (i.e., in the article), it is decidely unstriking. Even full size, it's informative but not aesthetically exceptional. Also, I would echo the calls for an SVG version to be provided in addition to the PNG.--ragesoss14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The request to have this in SVG format is strange at best--it seems to me to reflect a lack of understanding of the nature of the image. I see no problems with the diagram's readability; the data it presents is exceptionally clear, organized, and easily understood. Honestly, when I saw the the thumbnail, I wasn't particularly impressed; but upon viewing it in full it was obvious to me that this image is particularly well done. --Wickerprints19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless there is an update to fix the above mentioned issues. Of course if the illustration was a SVG it would be fixed by now... -Ravedave16:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very useful. Aren't we all confused by these display resolution jargon that these merchants throw at us? --Chochopk08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Versaille's chapel is one of the palace's grandest interiors.Edit 1, by Fir0002
I came across this image while browsing Wikipedia and, as many of these FPCs go, I was surprised it wasn't featured yet (probably because it's so new). So, I'm nominating it for it's size, detail, and overall impression. This picture is already a quality image on Wikimedia Commons;
appears in Palace of Versailles, and Diliff created the image.
Comment Oh, and sorry about not being able to add the FPC template to the image's page, but I forgot how to do that when the image is on Commons. If someone knows how that would be great. Thanks --Tewy05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Very nice, though I would have rather seen more of the mosiac on the roof - even if that meant sacrificing the pillars etc. --Fir000223:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most solid and worthy image to appear on this page in some time. I have attempted this same photo and I know how poor the lighting is. Quite an exceptional image and no doubt worthy of FP status -- Nilington04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original. It seems rather bland to me, and I am looking at it on a glossy screen with an insane contrast ratio. mstroeck15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The edited version is too saturated in the ceiling; does it really look like that when you're there? I don't know, but we seem to have gone from real life to movie set with this edit. Outriggr05:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the age old question.. You're right, it didn't look like the second edit. The Chapel was brightly lit from the sides and the ceiling only received sparse reflected light. We went through a similar thing for another FPC image of mine here. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Edits are nice to improve the look of a picture that didn't capture the image as best as it could, and I support them, but overdoing an edit can turn it to "movie set", as Outriggr said. --Tewy17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is grainy, the right side is blown out (especially at the top) probably due to catching part of lighting or the sun or someting while the left side is too dark to really see anything. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it just doesn't have enough context. Presumably we are looking at a puppet show? Unfortunately the cropping makes that hard to tell, and there's no sense of scale, or the details of the scene as a whole. Also, what is so "one-of-a-kind" about a performance at a museum? Sorry for my tone...Stevage12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment to address stevage: yes, the image shows a wayang kulit performance, a traditional indonesian shadow puppet.
to address keenan pepper: it's impossible to capture the intricate detail of the puppets since it's a shadow puppet performance. --Vircabutar04:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intricate puppets cast intricate shadows, which we could see if the lighting were better. I've been to one of these things and they look really cool. This photo doesn't quite do it justice. —Keenan Pepper04:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose grainy, and I utterly hate the top right. all I see when I look at it is the top right which is not the point of the photo Pinkstarmaci04:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the display but on the negative side due to the way the light is hitting it along with the focus point being towards the top left the right side comes off as blurry and blown out. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been playing piano for a long time, and I confess I can't make out from this image (or accompanying text - looked at both piano and aliquot stringing what "duplex stringing" is exactly. This image is blurry, badly framed (I thought I was looking at the bass part until reading the text!), and doesn't seem to illustrate anything particularly well. Overall, a bit of a frustrating FPC - I really don't get what concept it's trying to illustrate at all. Why is there not an article at duplex scaling? Stevage12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Stevage - not an especially good-quality image and not helping me (as a pianist of 15 years' experience) understand the concept of duplex scaling - but if someone does happen to know what that means, could they please write an article about it? This sounds like it could be ripe for a good diagram :-) --Yummifruitbat22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I have been a pianist for 5 years, but this does not help me in any way explain 'duplex scaling'. --Thelb407:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A small pile of Gold Bullion, something that I am sure we have all wished for at some point in our lives. Sadly, I do believe that this is as close to owning Bullion that I will ever come; however, that will not stop me from nominating it here in an effort to share it with other Wikipedians. This photo is from the commons, and is used on several pages here.
Image is all rights released meaning that it can be used by anyone for any purpose, although it's not preferential it is in noways totally against the criteria. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key thing to remember here is that the commons accepts freely licensed material only. As a general rule of thumb images from the commons are acceptably liscenced for FPC purposes here. TomStar8108:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned not to implicitly accept things from commons as acceptably licensed for anything since like the system here the system for filtering out copyvios on commons isn't perfect and never will be. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is ever perfect, which is why I used the word "general" in my commons comment. Life is like the english language: there are rules, and then there are acceptions to those rules. TomStar8108:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrights Lake, located in the Sierra Nevada mountain range.
This appears in Wrights Lake. The image has great color, high resolution, and is of very high quality. It meets all the necessary licensing restrictions, and I am convinced it is one of Wikipedia's finest images.
Oppose Woodland dark and featureless, overall tone too blue, not interesting, and it needs clockwise rotation (look at the tree trunks on the left, on the biggest picture)- Adrian Pingstone
Neutral I created this image and feel like many of my other works are much better...no detail in the trees...blue color caste...I just uploaded it because it was the only image i had of that lake...see my other photos - Phreakdigital18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above, as well as the fact that it's not nearly the resolution nor sharpness of some other panoramas/FPs. --Tewy07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mt. Hood as seen from the Mt. Hood Highway (Hwy-35) in Oregon.
Here is a picture of Mt. Hood that I took from the Mt. Hood highway, I think it would make someone want to learn more about Mt. Hood and the cascade range.
Nice but grainy and not that sharp. According to the EXIF datas it was taken at 1/160s at f/22. Obviously the exposure has been fooled by the white snow. According to the sunny f/16 rule this should be 1/100s at f/16. f/22 is also a mistake as it's not optimal for sharpness. Try to shoot it again by sunny weather with f/6.3 at 1/500s . Ericd20:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but poor quality; grainy. There is also already a very nice picture of Mt. Hood (seen here, in my gallery.) If it were better quality, It would be worth having two pictures. Viva LaVieBoheme
Oppose - poor composition, it totally looks like someone was driving along, stopped, and took a snapshot. The positioning from the right emergency lane tends to support that hypothesis. Would be much more attractive with a lake, river, or even countryside in the foreground, rather than a highway with electricity poles. :) Stevage08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The road is too distracting and does not fit in with he rest of the picture. Besides that, it's a great photo. Try cropping it. --Jake19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image shows an about 0.35 inch (9 mm) long dance fly of the species Empis livida. It's a male. The animal sat at my white-painted balcony balustrade for a few seconds.
Support That is absolutely awesome, and it has been identified! That must be hard with over 3000 species in a family. Great work, I'm looking forward to future contributions. --liquidGhoul14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would prefer a greater DOF, but this is a very insignificant complaint. Stunning photo, exemplifies the best that Wiki has to offer. --Pharaoh Hound(talk)21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...although on a second viewing, it would be nice if the dark area in the background of the right hand side could be made properly white. --Yummifruitbat21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the darker area from the backround just several minutes ago (without compromising the quality of the picture). ---Majestic-10:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This I do not understand. I don't want to sound like someone whining, but how is it that when I nominated an image with a white bg (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Huntsman spider), people thought the white background was not a good idea. Is it because mine lacked a shadow? I would appreciate any feedback as it would help me with future composition. --Fir000222:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it doesn't look like this was cut out from another background; the inclusion of the shadow makes it looks more real. Also, with such a small subject, any background will be very blurred, so it doesn't matter what is behind it, it would only be distracting. --liquidGhoul22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A photgrapher of your caliber should be able see the main difference between the two: shadows. Yours lacked any shadow making the picture look unnatural. Compare also the snail that is an FP, that also does not look like it is randomly floating. -Ravedave
I have no problem with white backgrounds for images such as this, and I loved the detail in your spider photo, Fir, but the lack of shadows in your shot really looked very strange. Hopefully you'll spot another opportunity soon enough, and be able to produce a more 'realistic' looking shot with the appropriate shadows. Good luck! --Yummifruitbat23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This insect looks like it's in real space. Fir, your edits makes the subject look like it was cut out of a magazine. ~MDD469601:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks, everyone, I see now that the shadow is the difference. But I think a lot of you are missing that this is not one of "my edits" but what the photo came out as. I did not cut that picture out as I pointed out in the original nom. Anyway thanks, --Fir000205:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG --Fir0002 08:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, so this is admittedly an unconventional candidate nomination since I am not nominating a single picture, but here goes anyway. I have lived in Armenia for a number of years and have a number of pictures I think would be cool to feature, but the thing is, as I read the comments for the pictures nominated above, I can see that some of the more educated pedians take into account things I've never heard of. So I thought I'd post a list of some of my favorites, which are already on my own wiki - and ask if some of you could tell me which are your top 2 choices (if any). I would have done this on the talk page - only there isn't one... so anyway, here is the list of pics. If it seems one or two are well liked, I can upload them and make sure the WP page is decent as well. If this is all just too unconventional, I guess this nomination can be deleted... --RaffiKojian10:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good technical image, something I believe Wikipedia needs more of. Although I probably could have used a polarizer to remove the burnt areas, I personally rather like the lighting as it is.
Ok... Is it not pleasing to the eye? Or is it not of Wikipedia's best work? I'm just struggling to see how it fails WP:WIAFP for being an "ad shot". Of course if it's just a personal dislike of that type of shot I can understand that too. --Fir000221:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then it's not really a valid objection, if it's something about the image or how it related to the article on it then it would be. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to clarify: IMO, FPCs need some kind of a "wow-factor" for me to support them. This is quite an OK shot as such, but rather mundane - similar can be found in most manuals and ads. This is just a picture of a lens (with some dust on it... ;-) So, I don't think it is WP's "best work" - you need something more to make it that. --Janke | Talk05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although i'm probably sticking my nose where it doesn't belong by saying this i have to point out that the picture does a great job illustrating a phtographic lens and with a good caption (like the one on the Photographic lens article) it can really add a lot to the article. I agree with you that it's not a jaw-droping picture, but remember: that is not a requierement for FP. Still, the encyclopedic value far out-weights any wow factor needed.Nnfolz14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I've mentioned this somewhere on commons, but I see one of these images is up for FPC right now, and it seems relevant (WP:WIAFP 4 and 9)... In regards to the image description page, there is a template with the message "If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you an authorization to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms." This seems to be a bit in conflict with the GFDL tag it has. It also contains a link to a website that offers paid services.. that just doesn't sit well with me. -- Ned Scott10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your concerns, but I based that comment off Gmaxwell's commons page. It's actually not conflicting with the GFDL at all. What it is saying, is that under the terms of the GFDL and commercial publisher needs to include an entire copy of the GFDL with the publication. Not many publishers want to do this, so hence I offer to grant a more liberal permission. Another prominant user (Aka) has adopted the same basic template after seeing it on one of my images. If this has not allayed your worries, please contact me on my talk page and I can give you a more detailed/specific response --Fir000212:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's nothing wrong with making it clear that you MIGHT be willing to grant a more limited/liberal license in a specific set of circumstances. I've said just as much on my user page, albeit I don't have that info on each photo. --Dante Alighieri | Talk16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, that does make sense then. This also warrants your contact info, so I'm going to assume good faith. Thanks for clearing that up for me. -- Ned Scott22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The ad-shot argument has been uses previously to shoot down nominations. If this nomination would be technically perfect i might give it a weak support, but the stark glare on the lens (reflection of the light source) is a knock out for me. You won't find that in professional ad-shots, because it hides details of the product. Lighting must be much softer.
Question why is this picture a better illustration that the picture of the Nikon lens that is currently featured ? Ericd16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect this is not a valid argument. For a picture to be featured it doesn't have to be that another.Nnfolz20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A featured picture should:
(...)
5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.
(...)"
If you prefer : Does it add more value to an article that the picture of the Nikon lens that is currently featured ?
Or help complete readers' understanding of an article in a way that the picture of the Nikon lens does not ?
No, your totally right technically on that point, but think about this: can an article have 2 FP? What if an article with a Fp gets another FP wich 'adds a lot more' to the article? should the other be delisted? Nnfolz05:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right; there's never been a limitation on the number of featured pictures an article can contain. We judge each picture on its contribution to the article, not on the other pictures in the article. Raven4x4x10:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the use of two pictures of similar lenses ? A very different lens would add more to the article ? Ericd16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is implicit. I recently saw a discussion somewhere about how the article "Wikipedia" could not fairly be a featured article on the front page. I believe similar values should apply to featured pictures. Outriggr04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. All FP's don't necessarily need to appear on the front page, just as all FA's don't. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-02 19:23
Brian, you'll have to excuse me if I'm incorrect, but my statement was based on "Featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted. See the featured pictures candidates archive for this order.", from the Picture of the Day page. Outriggr21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does that imply that all FP's should be on the main page? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-06 15:59
Oooh, this is a tricky one. She is adorable, and the image satisfies all the FP criteria except possibly #5 (adding value to an article). It does appear on OS-tan and Moé anthropomorphism, though, and it seems to add some value to those, so I say weak support. (The "weak" is because of the self-promotion issue, and also because I'd much prefer an SVG version.) —Keenan Pepper03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very hard to find quality free license anime images, and often time such articles are forced to make a fair use claim. Thus her worth is more than just being a -tan for Wikipedia. With this in mind I think I'll look for some more appropriate articles for her to show up on, as I'm a bit surprised to see she's only on 2 actual articles right now. -- Ned Scott05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't matter that it shows wikipedia. This is one of the VERY few examples of anime art in wikipedia that is not fair use. It also illustrates the very wierd concept of Moé anthropomorphism well. -Ravedave05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't really find it that spectacular. Image suffers from a lack of antialiasing. Also I personally hate that kind of cartoon - they're degrading good old Bugs bunny and the like! (Eyebrows ontop of the hair! :-) --Fir000212:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing the image because you hate anime is just.. flawed. This isn't about your personal tastes here. The image suffices for all the criteria on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. There are featured articles on subjects that I roll my eyes at, but that doesn't change the fact that the article itself is well written, has references, and everything else required to be a featured article. It's the same issue here, it's not about whether or not you like the art style or like the culture. -- Ned Scott13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not opposing for that reason I simply added that as an extra part to my comment. I'm opposing because I don't find it a spectacular example of cartoons/anime and I think the image should have had antialiasing applied (note the jagged lines on the legs etc) --Fir000221:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I support the pic, Fir0002 has a right to disagree based on taste. See criteria #7 "Be pleasing to the eye." FP is and always will be subjective. -Ravedave21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I don't understand why it would have to be a "spectacular example" for anime. I always figured "impressive yet neutral" was more the Wikipedia way. -- Ned Scott23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You saying this images degrades "Bugs Bunny and the like" is extremely ignorant. You are obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter this illustrates, as if you'd watched some anime that isn't Pokemon or DragonBall Z, you'd know that many manga/anime artists draw eyebrows on top of the hair. Even if you were being tongue-in-cheek, it has no place here, and does not justify your oppose vote. - Phorque08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec, I know such comments can be frustrating for us anime fans, but I already made the mistake of snapping back at this comment (and for that, I apologies). You can see from Fir0002's comments that he has additional concerns besides that, and as Ravedave pointed out, he does have a right to oppose. -- Ned Scott08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not up to the standards of commercial anime/manga. The character design and pose are basic, and the hands in particular stand out as poorly drawn. I don't think I agree with the notion of promoting a second-rate image just because it's one of the only ones under a free license. Redquark14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree with this assertion. Anime style and quality has a huge range on the commercial market, being "simple" does not make something low quality in the anime world. -- Ned Scott00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not horrible, but I know fanart when I see it. I'll bet the artist isn't able to draw characters in anything other than a 3/4 view. Redquark13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I looked at the guy's work a little beforehand to see if I was claiming something false but managed to miss that one. Still, OK, sure you countered what I specifically said, but not the underlying point. Show me the character in a funny position with foreshortening and then I'll concede the artist has more ability than I thought. Redquark13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - not high quality, does not add substantially to or help understanding of the article, self reference BigDT19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be one of those users who just "has to" address every opposing comment, but I really don't understand how you can say that she doesn't help in articles such as Anime or moé anthropomorphization. These totally visual concepts, and if you look, she's the only free use image we have for these articles. She's a perfect example of "typical anime", just as much if not more than the fair use examples that are also used. With this logic, Wikipe-tan and similar images do substantially add to an understanding of what anime looks like. I really don't see how anyone can make the argument that she doesn't show you what anime (or moé anthropomorphization) looks like, or that images aren't needed for these articles. -- Ned Scott23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are not explicitly prohibited doesn't mean there is "nothing wrong" with them. Featured pictures are supposed to showcase the best we have to offer ... and a self-referential picture is not it. BigDT00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this does get promoted, I do not think the POTD caption has to be a self-reference and mention anything about it being a moé anthropomorphism of Wikipedia, or it being a mascot of a WikiProject. It can just basically say it is an example of anime. Otherwise, there will be most likely be complaints posted on Talk:Main Page, etc. Zzyzx11(Talk)23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question In response to the "jagged lines" on Wikipie-tan when you see her at full size: in the case that Kasuga isn't able to provide a version that fixes that, couldn't we just scale the image down slightly and still meet requirement number 2 (which says "images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported")? Her image is large enough to do this, and it really wouldn't "sacrifice" anything. -- Ned Scott00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a good cartoon. Free use, even better. Large enough so that full-size pixelation doesn't matter. Self-reference no problem, a good example of an anime character. --Janke | Talk06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fool yourself. It's a vote. Same with RFA, AFD, etc. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-03 14:39
Wrong. It's not a vote, and neither is AFD. Quote The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. --69.204.179.12417:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're fooling yourself. You can quote anything you want; that doesn't change reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-06 16:01
Support - I'm surprising myself here, but, really, this is a perfect illustration of a pretty bizarre concept. The fact that it's a Wikipedia anthropomorphisation detracts slightly for me, but not badly so. Stevage10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. If the 'jaggies' can be fixed, I'll support. Otherwise, it's an oppose. I'm not bothered by the self-referential nature, because it illustrates moé very well, even without knowing that the image is an anthropomorphism (homomorphism, gynomorphism?) of the 'pedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good, free image, and it certainly contributes to wikipedia as a whole if not any specific article. Besides, she's cute. --tjstrf18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - I dunno, maybe I just have a case of Anthropomorphobia but this seems kinda dull. I don't get why she's dressed up as a maid. And I have to agree with some of the others that some areas are not especially well drawn. Is she sticking out her tounge? --Henry A-W20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Fanservice (and look, she's there too :D). Not sure what you mean about the tongue, the way the mouth is drawn is pretty typical for any animation, not just anime. -- Ned Scott22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which just goes to prove our point in that she is not always a self-reference, depending on context. In the context of her being an example of moé anthropomorphization, Anime, or Fan service, just to name a few, would not require the mentioning of the word "Wikipedia" at all. -- Ned Scott06:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: forget the artwork, where's the encyclopedic content? The image needs an extended caption describing in what ways it is meant to be an accurate representative of *-tans. This is especially important because it wasn't found "in the wild", as it were. Melchoir23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An easy fix, but she's currently protected because she's on the main page, so it might be a little bit before that can be fixed. -- Ned Scott23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, hmm. Well, as long as people are watching, can't we (and by "we" I mean other people) hash out a description on this page? Melchoir23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She's back open, but anyways I have a question. There's a few images of Wikipe-tan, and she has a Wikipedia namespace page at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan that seems to have the additional write up you are requesting. Would be pointing to this page be enough, or should I just cut and paste? Since there's more than one Wikipe image, wouldn't it be better to have an over-all page with the write up instead of repeating it on each image? Not that it would really be a big deal or anything, either way. -- Ned Scott07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On that page the only encyclopedic information is about her name: "The "-tan" in her name is a hypocoristic suffix, in the form of a Japanese title." It says nothing about the image itself. And even though it's no longer protected, Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png is still devoid of content. Melchoir19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She is an example of cell shading, an important feature of anime. She also displays many features non-anime watchers and non-manga readers attribute to the medium (large eyes, childish nature, etc.)--Spyderchan00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Generalnonsensecomic 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support Picture isn't particularly eye-catching or amazing, but being the best free image we have for lots of situations, it's pretty good. -Goldom‽‽‽⁂05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Like many have said, this meets the criteria. Wikipe-tan is a well loved character and I would like to see her as a featured picture. Calicore06:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find that I agree with the nom and most supports above and do not find most people's oppositions because of taste/opinion of the drawing style at all relevant. Anime/manga has a HUGE range of quality/styles, why should she reflect only your personal taste? Other criticisms such as the need for anti-aliasing etc, are easily addressed if it really holds this back from being FP. On a side note: I don't really think "OMFG KAWAII!!!^___^<3" is a reason to support, but hey. - Phorque08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem we'll actually need to "fix" the anti-aliasing issue. Even without Dante Alighieri's conditional support, she's sitting at 73% support.
Considering the size of the image, we could just scale her down and re-upload and she's still be huge and wouldn't have the aliasing issue. However, that seems a bit silly to me, because if we just keep her file the same but scale the image via the browser it will make the exact same effect, and preserve more of the image's quality. I doubt she'll ever be used at "full size", and thus it's not really an issue.. Like I said, any downscaling or filtering would actually reduce the over-all quality preserved and not really change what you see on articles. -- Ned Scott09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because more people aren't holding "hostage" their support votes, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to NOT fix the aliasing. Anyone who wants to use the image in print (or on, say, a t-shirt) will appreciate the highest fidelity image possible. --Dante Alighieri | Talk17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, did you not read what I said? A "fix" would most likely be decreasing quality, via a filter or scaling the image down. -- Ned Scott01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there's more than one way to skin a cat. It sounds like your method of fixing it is a bust... are there truly NO other ways of fixing it? Such as (perhaps) asking the author to do something about it, going back to the original source? --Dante Alighieri | Talk06:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I think it's important for Wikipedia to diversify its featured pictures, and this image displays numerous Anime subgenres extremely well. Moreover, it encourages our image policies and is also very nicely done. — Deckiller17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see it as a good representation of Wikipedia. Cuteness is emphasized but it doesn't fit Wikipedia imho. And the image page is still devoid of explanations. --Bernard03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about her being a representation of Wikipedia, it's about her being a representation of moé anthropomorphization, anime, OS-tan, or Fan service. Also, I asked before and have yet to get a response on the image description page (I've noticed other FP pages with little to no extra-write-up, btw). That is, since she has more than one image and we'd basically be repeating ourselves, is the page Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan considered this extra write-up, or do we actually have to cut and paste it into the individual images, such as the one being nominated here? If so, no problem, it will take less than a minute. -- Ned Scott07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anthropomorphization of Wikipedia is supposed to personify Wikipedia. This image doesn't do a very good job of that, so it isn't a very good example of an anthropomorphization.
Update I've added some additional text to the image description page, as requested. I'm not sure if this is what others had in mind, but I tried to cover as much as I could with the current info available. Does this suffice? -- Ned Scott08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe-tan, drawn by Kasuga. Wikipe-tan first appeared in the Futaba Channel on an unspecified date, drawn by Japanese Wikipedia user Kasuga. She is drawn in the "anime style" seen in many animations in Japan. She is the moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia, similar in theme to an OS-tan. Moé anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena; the subject of which often becomes a bishōjo. Wikipe-tan is shown here in a kind of cosplay of a maid. She is seen with two of the Wikipedia logo puzzle pieces as hair ties, with a third piece decorating the front of her maid outfit. Like many moé characters in anime, Wikipe-tan appears to be a young girl.
In June 2006, this particular image surfaced as a mascot sample for the English Wikipedia's Wikiproject Anime and Manga, after the previous mascot (a fan-art image of the title character from Midori Days) was removed from the commons due to copyright problems.
Support. Pretty high quality drawing. I don't think it HAS to be world-class to be featured. There are plenty of photos that are hardly world-class that are featured just because of the value that they bring, and I think this image does too. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if only to ensure that we don't make it seem like she's got some kind of official status with the project. I could very easily see someone misinterpreting her as being an officially endorsed representation of wikipedia. I'm looking at "the moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia" here, which implies she's the proper one, and a drawing of, say, an adult, is incorrect. That kind of statement is against NPOV. Also, she makes me feel like a pedophile for looking at her. She's sexualized but has the body and face of a ten year old. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the "body of a 10-year-old" comment. On the other hand, she's posed in a maid costume (a typical sexual outfit) and she's even cited as an example multiple times in the cosplay section of fanservice, a subsection of sexual (since it's usually about indulging a cosplay fetish). The image on lolicon is bad enough, we don't need a featured picture of a 10-year-old drawn to be sexy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, this statement: "the moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia", can be easily fixed. And that I did, look again. And, she's drawn to be cute, not sexy; you think too much. _dk00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fan service is about giving fans what they want, which is not always sex! Some fans get their kicks from seeing cute things, and don't get a hard-on in the process. -- Ned Scott09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. While the image was created by a fellow Wikipedian, I strongly believe there are many images that could better represent the topic. But thats simply my opinion with FPC in mind, I personally just dont like it. -- AJ2401:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, her purpose is to be cute. We use her on more than one article.. so.. you seem to be a bit confused here.. She IS an example of anime, used on Anime. I've been reading all the comments, and this has been mentioned a few times.. She's also on Meido (was gonna put her on maid, but then saw that a more specific article had been created) and fan service. -- Ned Scott09:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Ned, I've brought up that she is not an example of anime. Of course we can use her in more than one article, but for the purpose of this FP nom...*EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE* This nom is about using the picture on moé anthropomorphism, not anime or anywhere else. So points such as "she does not represent anime well enough" or "She's being sexualized in the fanservice article!" have no grounds here._dk09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on self-reference Ok, this whole self-reference thing just seems to totally miss the point, so I took another look at WP:SELF, and look what I found:
"Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia."
Avoid self references is far more about how you write an article and making sure you don't confuse the reader, or use an example that won't make sense if the text is reprinted under a different "brand", etc. Wikipe-tan's examples are none of these. WP:SELF is not about ignoring the existence of Wikipedia. Many times screenshots of Wikipedia are used for articles on Web browsers, such as Safari (web browser), but I wouldn't call that a self-reference issue. Wikipe-tan is less of a self-reference than an example such as that.
In addition, Wikipe-tan is used on other articles which do not require the mentioning of Wikipeida at all. She's an example of the style of anime artwork, the cosplay maid theme, and probably more that I haven't thought up of yet. -- Ned Scott09:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments noted, but I haven't missed the point, as you suggest. Wasn't quoting policy; I just believe that we should be choosing featured pictures that aren't based around the theme of Wikipedia. -- Samirधर्म09:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why? The reason we avoid self references is "they are inappropriate in articles for two reasons. The first is that self-references are often considered disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand. A secondary concern is that self-references limit the use of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia suitable for forking, as permitted by our license."
Something being inspired by Wikipedia is a totally different issue. She's a little girl in a maid outfit with puzzle pieces in her hair, in the world of anime I would not be surprised at something like that happening at random. This is simply not an issue. -- Ned Scott09:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia, named "Wikipe-tan", similar in theme to an OS-tan. In Japanese animation, "moé" characters are those designed to elicit a protective or loving response from the audience. Moé anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena. Like many moé characters, Wikipe-tan appears to be a cute young girl.
POV isn't a bad thing on Wikipedia. NPOV does not stand for no point of view, it stands for neutral point of view. Considering being cute is a part of the example, it would seem that being cute for this image is appropriate. -- Ned Scott18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, wait. I change it:
A moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia, named "Wikipe-tan", similar in theme to an OS-tan. In Japanese animation, "moé" characters are those designed to elicit a protective or loving response from the audience. Moé anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena. Like many moé characters, Wikipe-tan is designed to be a cute young girl.
Support. While some may disagree, I like her and, while I am no artist myself, I see no problems with drawing quality or style. At least one person has brought up that it is not "of commercial quality" - well, the images aren't commercial which is precisely why they are valuable since they are GDFL and commercial images are not. I could also find "commercial" images of lower quality with little effort. Shiroi Hane16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a quality image, and useful. Shame about the raster format, but that's not enough reason to object. Jkelly16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipe-tan may not be the highest quality anime out there, but she's such a cute mascot and I think it will draw readers in. --Marumari18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe he was talking about point 7 when he says it will draw readers in: "Be pleasing to the eye. .... The picture should make a reader want to know more."? -- Ned Scott19:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean "understand" as in "why do people come up with this", then no. If you mean "understand" as in "what is moé anthropomorphism" I think it does; see the essay Wikipedia:Grapefruit. An argument could be made that since she anthropomorphizes Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that may not be familiar to all readers of the text, instead of a common household or transportation object, she's not a perfect example of moé anthropomorphism. Are there any free (as in liber) images of equal or higher quality that do that?--GunnarRene01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The moé anthro.-article allready did say that, except that it also includes animate non-humans. No update needed. I said "common household or transportation object" because I'm envisioning a situation where Wikipedia content is used in printed form or on a $100 laptop in the countryside of Sierra Leone. If the content appears under a different brand than "Wikipedia", then Wikipe-tan might be a less suitable anthro. than, for example, an anthro. of a bicycle, book or laptop because it's an object that the reader is familiar with. On the other hand, the only guaranteed common denominator of readers is that they read (bicycles might be less common in mountain villages for example), and for non-blind readers an image of an anthro. of "text" or "an encyclopedia" would be a good object for anthro. Hence, Wikipe-tan.--GunnarRene14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A grapefruit might make a good definition of "grapefruit", but it wouldn't make a good definition of "fruit" or "yellow". I mean understand as in "what is moé anthropomorphism", and this image definitely doesn't help me understand it. Am I missing something, or is this image nothing more than an anime-looking girl in a dress with a few puzzle pieces attached to her? I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but it's hard for me to see how this is even an example of moé anthropomorphism in the first place. MUSICAL02:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moé anthropomorphism is the act of drawing something as an anime-looking girl, essentially. And you're looking at one of Wikipedia, what do you think you are missing? _dk03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that it doesn't show any other characteristic than being "A cute girl"? The character is an anthropomorphization. Some images that show this are below. They show some Wikipedia-like behaviour beyond being decorated with puzzle pieces. It is, however, not a requirement that the character engages in the behaviour in the picture, just that the character is an anthropomorp character. (Perhaps the school girl picture is more kawaii illustrative? Too bad it has a flaw beneath one foot.)--GunnarRene03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe when Wikipe-tan is notable enough to have her own article this one picture will make more sense. Until then, it's really only one picture, and nothing in this picture seems to have anything to do with Wikipedia save a few puzzle pieces which happen to be in Wikipedia's logo. Maybe Wikipe-tan is a moé anthropomorphism, but this picture doesn't illustrate it. MUSICAL11:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me-tan is a notable OS-tan, indeed the first OS-tan, but she doesn't have her own article either. And the picture (fair use non-free) on that article doesn't make it immediately apparent why she's a Windows Me personalization, you'll need to read the article for that. For many of the other -tans one needs to read List of OS-tans to find out how they personalize their OS.--GunnarRene12:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a good argument why none of the OS-tans should be featured pictures either. Does this have any relevance to the current nomination? MUSICAL11:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The OS-tans are not free images. Let me give you an analogy to illustrate my reasoning: There are many pictures on V-2 rocket that I think add significant value to the article. There are, however, no images of the V2 actually exploding in London, just grainy pictures of launches and one that blows up on the pad. The top picture of a V2 on display is perfectly illustrative in the defenition section, even if it's not actually hitting London in that picture.--GunnarRene17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nature of the voting on this nomination, compared to all other nominations on the page, is, let's say, unusual. It is really attracting a lot of notice. Interesting. --jjron11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I agree with many of the reasons previously stated for opposing, and see no need to reiterate them. But I'm delighted that it took you all of 3 minutes to deride my vote. --jjron12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my intention, note that I said "If that's the reason...". When that's all you say then it's easy to see how someone could have made such an assumption. -- Ned Scott20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The image satisfies all the featured picture criteria (Wikipedia:What is a featured picture) and the self-reference here is no big deal. It adds great value to the article moé anthropomorphism as a lot of people above had said and personifies Wikipedia well enough. It doesn't look bad or anything and it's certainly better than a lot of commercial artwork. Worthy of the title "featured picture". WikiSlasher12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While you have right to express your feeling and taste. It's rude to said that with the artist being here. Be civil, Kasuga is Wikipedian as well.L-Zwei18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a statement means absolutely nothing without some sort of explanation. Please explain why it has "little encyclopedic value." I would like to request that the closing admin ignore all voters that refuse to give explanations for their opposition. — DarkShikaritalk/contribs19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: the "reason" for support is stated in the original nomination: Wikipe-tan is a good example of moé anthropomorphism. It can be assumed that all those supporting agree with it... otherwise why in the heck would they be supporting? ;) — DarkShikaritalk/contribs19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a fine example photo of the breed and think it is appealing to the eye. The focus is on the head, showing the facial shape of the breed well. It appears in the Golden Retriever article. It is my dog, Floyd. I took the photo and uploaded it.
Oppose cute dog but the image is blurry, the dog is on a weird angle compared to the shot, and the fact that the picture cuts off right at the near top of the ears detracts from it. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - VERY blurry (you need to use a tripod, mate), would prefer more of the subject (i.e. whole puppy, for both educational reasons and to illustrate that most young puppies and kittens are noted for having very large paws, eyes and heads relative to the rest of the body), strange angle and would prefer a different background - you haven't got a white sheet you could plonk him on for a while, have you? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ10:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to blur. also it's too cutesy I think to represent the breed in an encyclopedia, it looks more like it'd be a good ad for anti-animal cruelty. Pinkstarmaci04:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered this picture while writing Liberty ship articles. When I saw it, I was shocked to see how vibrant and beautiful it was. It was taken around 1912 by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, a man who dedicated his life to the advancement of photography. It appears in the Samarkand article as the first picture. I believe that it is featured material.
Oppose Bottom looks a little dodgy (due to age?), bit on the low side of resolution, seems to be suffering from over sharpening. --Fir000212:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We've seen better (larger) color shots from this photographer before, I see no reason to accept such a small image this time. On a side note, I'd love to see a great frontal shot of this Ulugh Beg Madrasa place... looks lovely. --Dante Alighieri | Talk02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHere's the original. This version has obviously been heavily processed, though, and my editing skills (and monitor) aren't good enough to get a high-res version up to the general quality of this one; someone else may like to have a go. Looking at the original also introduces a new problem: it isn't identified as "Stork nests on the Ulugh Beg Madrasa", merely as "Arched entranceway to a mosque with minaret"; so we may not even know what it's a picture of. TSP14:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shot seems a little dark and also the composition is quite poor since the bottom part of the rabbit is cut off --Newton212:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. For such a common animal (unless this picture is of a particular species), I think the image could be better (larger and with the whole animal in focus). As for the grass, I don't think it's in the way too much, though the part that's in focus is a little distracting. --Tewy07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose it seems to tilty (to the right) which is distracting and the bottom of the animal is cut off...not exactly a spectacular shot. Pinkstarmaci04:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The idea is good, but the picture is mediocre. It could be sharper and more exposed, and I think the blank top half is distracting overall (with only the fountain going to the top; if only there was more stuff up there...). A reshooting of the same picture would have potential as a FP though, as far as I can tell. --Tewy07:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A map of all tropical cyclone tracks, encompassing the period between 1950 and 2005.Edit 1 - addresses commentsEdit 2
This is an informative and detailed map that shows the tracks of all the tropical cyclones to form in the last 55 years. Created by Nilfanion from PD data.
Comment I really like it, and will support if someone can answer. I am worried about copyright. Who owns the map on which this was drawn? --liquidGhoul22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the newer version, both because it's indeed more accurate and aesthetically pleasing, but it is a shame that it doesn't cover quite as many possibilities of tropical cyclones in the past. --Tewy19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Very nice, a good overall edit that took everyone's opinions into consideration. I like the line thickness, the accuracy of the cyclone placement (post '85), and how nothing is cut off. Excellent work, Nilfanion. --Tewy02:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what on earth was the person thinking putting circles, triangles and squares on the image? It's informative really close up, but quite ugly from the normal resolution - a bit less information and a bit more effort on appearance would be nice? Stevage09:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the 3 different shapes is mainly for consistency with the hundreds of individual storm tracks. The width of the lines and the size of the shapes could be increased, which would improve things in the normal view at the cost of some detail in close. It's a balancing act between the two I suppose.-Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be seen except at the highest resolution. Better to make the image just contain one type of storm (if the distinction is important) or blend them all together (if it's not). Stevage07:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The newer version addresses that issue, all the points are circles. The distinction isn't that important and there is a technical issue too.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How different would the 1985-2005 map look? If it is similar to this one, but more accurate I think it would probably be better. Also, it wouldn't be OR as it has already been stated in the article that old reports should be used with caution. --liquidGhoul11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess it will look significantly more sparse. I meant discounting that particular storm, while keeping other older storms would be OR. I'll have a go at generating it.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version of the image. I think this one handles the comments raised by Stevage and liquidGhoul. Only circles have been used to plot points, and I have made the lines significantly wider and the circles larger, individual tracks are clearly visible in the "normal" view. Despite the fact the new version only shows half as many storms as the original, it gives the same overall appearance in the thumbnail. Its probably improved, in that more individual storms can be identified "in close".--Nilfanion (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for going to the effort. I hope it wasn't too hard! I like that it is more accurate, and it hasn't changed the density too much. However, aesthetically, it seems worse because of the think lines. The original looked wispy, like wind. Now it looks blockier. --liquidGhoul22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that much effort actually, the program used to make them is efficient. I may have overthickened the lines that time, but we could tweak things all day…--Nilfanion (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is funny; you're making a FP by request. If it's really not that much of a problem, I like the thin lines too, because there's enough contrast in the colors to see them even when they're that small. --Tewy23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thats not that unusual, photos get edits in response to their FPCs. I think I'll upload a third version later, to try and get it perfect.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you do upload another version i'd rather have with all the full number of storms illustrated rather than with a reduced numer of cyclones. You can really see the diference around New Zeland.Nnfolz05:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that most of Africa and Europe are cut off. Even though they are never hit by tropical cyclones, they should still be included if it is to be a map of the world. (Also, I believe the 1991 Angola cyclone is cut out of the image.) —Cuiviénen01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Is it really necessary to have parts of the globe that never experienced tropical cyclones? It doesn't omit any tropical cyclone tracks, which the picture is. Also, the Angola cyclone, along with the January 2004 South Atlantic cyclone didn't have tracks, nor were they official storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part tropical depressions do not have track data available; you only picked up on the S Atlantic ones as they are obvious. A copy of {{Saffir-Simpson small}} on the image description would suffice. The European cutoff can and will be fixed next one I upload.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've uploaded another version, sorry to be a pain. This one uses only the more accurate post-85 data, has a line thickness somewhere intermediate between the first two, a key on the image description, fixes the European cut-off issue and all but a narrow strip of the globe is now shown.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Underneath one of the Pyramids inside the Louvre museum, Paris.
I think this photograph adds different perspective to what people perceive the Louvre as, it is very different from other Louvre photographs (as seen in the article page), it has symmetry and is aesthetically pleasing.
It appears in the article about the Louvre.
I, Alex Buirds, created the photograph.
Oppose Sorry. Kinda cool photo, but the pyramid obstructs it as a photo of the original building, and the angle is all wrong for a photo of the pyramid. Aerial is probably the best angle for something building sized like this. Staxringoldtalkcontribs00:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support if it weren't for Dan Brown I'd oppose this as per Staxringold but as recent public attention to the building include infatuation with the pyramid I find it fitting and I support it. Pinkstarmaci04:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was made by the Royal Dutch Navy, and is completely free of copyrights as longs as the source is mention (The Royal Dutch Navy). I came across it when I did some some edits on the Dutch navy article and I just thought the dark submarine (Walrus class) made a nice contrast with the colourful houses.
This image is going to get opposed up the wazoo. Sorry. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-03 22:27
Simply too small, I'm afraid - the criteria specify that, except in exceptional cases, images should be at least 1000 pixels in width or height. Other than that, quite nice, but the size is much too far off the minimum to become a featured picture. TSP00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but too small, not enough color contrast, and MAJOR tilt. Viva LaVieBoheme
The picture illustrates the physical process of laser-surface interaction. When a high power laser pulse strikes a surface, a plasma plume is ejected from the small spot where the focused beam hits the surface. The plume then expands into the vacuum surrounding the surface, inside a vacuum chamber. The process occurs during Pulsed Laser Deposition; a process used to deposit thin films for microelectronics, MEMS, dielectrics, etc. I took this picture and added it to the Pulsed Laser Deposition article recently.
From a technical standpoint, the shot is OK, not great. But a single pulse only lasts ~30 nanoseconds! So this picture is an average of many pulses striking a surface. It's a science-related picture and I think there should be more of that stuff here, especially if it is aesthetically pleasing.
Oppose because it isn't immediately apparent what's going on. Perhaps if it were vertically cropped and paired with a parallel schematic depicting the laser path and the target? Melchoir23:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Melchoir, and also because the quality is so-so (unless of course that's the best picture that can be taken in those circumstances) --Tewy06:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; there appears to be a large circular artifact in the way of the plume; is this a reflection of your camera lens, or part of the apparatus? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk)19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in its current form. The problem I always have with HDR images is that there tends to be an obvious halo around areas of contrast. I'm not sure what method you've used to blend the exposures but perhaps you could adjust it for a much smaller radius. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, your edit didn't correct the tilt and has washed out the contrast a bit... I really get the impression that either your monitor is not seeing the same thing that mine is (I admit that the 'fault' could be my displays rather than yours), or you just have a preference for lighter shadow detail. In the end, its just personal aesthetic preference, but I can't help but feel the original's contrast is more natural and just as viewable. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I forgot about the tilt, I'll fix that today. I wouldn't say that I always have a preference for lighter shadow detail, but I think it'd be fair to say I generally do. Particularly with this image, as what drawed me to it was the "soft" lighting. Sure it could be my monitor, but if that is so, chances are it's not just me with that kind of a monitor and an edit should be made so that it looks good on them. --Fir000222:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced about the blending. There's some ghosting on the handrails at to the top of the foreground tower, and in between the crossmembers there's some odd lighter patches and artefacts. Also not a fan of the halos - might support a re-combination of the exposures if the above are corrected. --Yummifruitbat17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Fir0002 - sharp picture and captures the essence perfectly. I can see this picture going far. --Thelb407:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fir0002, does the colour balance look a little crook to you? The foreground seems ok (ie horses and riders), but the hill looks very red-tinged. The whole scene has a 'Taken in the 1970s' vibe to it as a result of that colour issue - you know, back when colour balancing didn't seem to exist (or at least not for the typical corner store labs) and everyone was happy just to see a photo with colours at all. ;) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly, but the 20D generally does a good job with white balance in daylight (I shoot in AWB). Maybe you aren't fimiliar with the color of the hills in the country during the hot dry summer months? Because to me it looks OK. I'll maybe have a shot and doing some color adjustments tommorrow --Fir000211:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty familiar with the colour of the hills, and they usually have a dry grass yellow-orange tinge, rather than red. I've had another look at it though, and it could be the soil which appears quite reddy-orange. The trees look a bit strange too though. Can't quite put my finger on it. :) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered a bit about the colour of the hills too. I think the contrast with the green on the track, as well as the dust in the air contributes to the effect. If there's no wind the dust will tend to hang there and give a hazy effect. The edit improves the reddish tinge. --jjron10:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a sharp image that rewards closer scrutiny at full size as you scroll across -the varying expressions on the jockeys faces, the minimal contact of the horses with the ground at the captured moment (No. 7 is in full flight), clods of earth being scooped up, the action contasting with the hazy sun-baked backdrop. --Melburnian14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Agree with Diliff that a little bit of red correction couldn't hurt. Even the straw just behind the horses seems a bit reddish--on this old monitor.) Outriggr03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose something is very wrong about the colour, it looks very overdone. also on large view the back looks over edited (not saying it is but it looks very odd compared to the foreground) Pinkstarmaci04:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iconic still from Nosferatu. Low resolution, blurry, vignetted, monochromatic, and way too small. But in terms of film, this screenshot is the defining moment of the horror movie genre. Exactly why it was chosen for the {{HorrorWikiProject}} talkpage template.
I'm not sure if that's the "perfect" frame to use. Also, as much as I like the idea of using a screenshot of Nosferatu, the quality issues do irk me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is an iconic shot, but it's a film - a featureable pic should be scanned from a good film print, not grabbed from video (which I'm assuming from the size and the term "screenshot"). License tag should also be corrected - Nosferatu wasn't "first published in the U.S."; 70 years p.m.a. may be more accurate. --Davepape05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Per Davepape; maybe this is just because I'm unfamiliar with this image's significance, but I think the quality should be better. I suppose if this really is "the defining moment of the horror movie genre" and it's impossible to get a better scan (likely, because the film is very old), then I support it under Wikipedia's exception of historical significance. --Tewy07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Davepaper. If it were from a better print (higher resolution without crude bicubic resizing) I'd probably support. As it is it is both too small and has what looks like JPEG artifacts on its edges (which may be just a side-effect of being from an old film, but without a higher res version it is impossible to tell). Also, the copyright information is wrong. It was, as the Nosferatu page says, first published in the US only in 1929. For things published outside the US the date is 1909, anyway. It is, however, 70 years after the deaths of the relevant authors (the director and the actor—yes, actors get copyright claims to scenes under US copyright law, amazingly enough) to be PD. Note that a restored edition may have created its own copyright, though, depending on what is meant by "restored" (if it is use cleaning, probably not, but if they have "enhanced" it in any way the enhancements are probably copyrighted). --Fastfission20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hacha Grande (562m), in the south of the Canary Island of Lanzarote, viewed from the road to the Monumento Natural de los Ajaches (Punta de Papagayo).Cropped version
This is a panorama composed of 7 images which I took while staying in Lanzarote last month. I think it does a reasonable job of illustrating the mountainous desert landscape of south-eastern Lanzarote - an island mostly noted for its beach resorts and the vast area of volcanos and lava flows on its western side. The day had been intermittently cloudy but in the evening the low sun cast the mountains in striking relief.
Image appears in Hacha Grande, Lanzarote, Yaiza, Las Palmas and Canary Islands.
Comment - I can't decide whether a tighter crop improves the image or if it's better to show more foreground to give an impression of the emptiness of the area (there was nothing but scrub for about 2km in front of me). I've uploaded a cropped version for comparison.
Support first version it's amazing to see how the mountains appear suddenly out of the ground. The cropped version looks too, well, cropped. --Thelb407:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's on my to-do list (very busy offline at the mo) - I can't claim to be an expert on the mountain itself so whatever I do create is likely to be fairly cursory. --Yummifruitbat23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like the shot, but would prefer it if the top of the left mountain wasn't in shadow. The right mountain also lacks any depth, although a photograph in which both mountains have well-defined shadows may not be possible. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-01 21:45
I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is unlikely that this would be possible. Firstly, the features of the smaller hills to the right are physically less pronounced, so any shadows will not be as dramatic as on the mountain, leading to a reduction in perceived 'depth'. Also, the hills are curving away from the camera (left to right). None of my shots from other times of day show any greater 'depth' on the hills. Not much I could do about the shaded peak of the mountain; by the time the clouds had moved on it was getting dark. --Yummifruitbat23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. I'm not sure which I like better, because the uncropped version centers the mountain nicely in the middle, while the cropped version puts more focus on the mountain itself, while the uncropped version shows how the mountain comes out of nowhere, while...in either case, good picture (I'll let everyone else decide which version is best). --Tewy07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. My only objection to it was that the dark area at the bottom was a little distraction. But having heard everyone else's opinions, I see that the distraction is insignificant to a balanced photo. --Tewy02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support For either version. Having had close up experience of the subject matter recently, I can say the picture portrays it incredibly. The weather at the adds to this stunning effect. A great picture all in all.Archibald9901:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject: I love boldness and contrast of the yellow/blue/ and red and the moon looks really cool. This picture appears in Iowa and Ames, Iowa, I belive it really conveys a feeling of the place.
Support Votes:
reason - user
Oppose Votes:
weak oppose: I think someone who'd never seen a hay bail before might be misled. But then if this photo illustrated that it wouldnt be as cool would it? --Henry A-W10:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Definitely a good composition (great colors and angle), but the picture itself isn't very sharp and the sky is really grainy. I would support it if it were the same picture of a higher quality. --Tewy03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And isnt there already an image of bales of hay, an image self-nominated by you. Should there be two of the same subject? -- AJ2403:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with multiples of the same subject, although as per my vote, I don't think that THIS is the right one to "add" to our existing shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia Aquarium in the afternoon light. It has been designed to have the appearance of a ship's hull
I took this image back in January and didn't immediately consider nominating it, but I thought I'd give it a go now. It isn't a spectacular image in terms of the 'wow factor' but it is high resolution, well framed and interesting looking. I corrected it for perspective and lifted the shadows a bit from the original RAW file (see previous versions on commons) for the nominations as I felt it could do with some assistance. :) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if it would be permissible to retouch it to get rid of the tree branches at either side. They don't seem to contribute to the picture in any way, nor would it create a fake reality if we omitted them. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly would prefer that the branches were not retouched - not because its my image but simply because I don't think it is necessary and I don't feel they detract from the image. I wouldn't go so far as to say that removing them would not create a 'fake reality' either, though. I strongly believe that any manipulation of the content of the image is manipulating the representation of reality and should not occur. There are many others here who feel the same way, as well as those who disagree. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - with images like this, I ask myself, "would a professional photographer hired by the aquarium come up with much better than this?" I'm not sure, it's pretty good, if slightly lacking in "wow". Stevage11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The interior of the aquarium is what is most amazing and creates headlines. The largest single aquarium on Earth is housed there and is most recognizable. -- AJ2416:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but its largest aquarium (housing the world's only whale shark in captivity) is most famous. I have no idea if there are images already on Wikipedia that could represent what I am describing, but simply because it's the closest to the best, does not necessarily mean that it is. -- AJ2420:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the iconic flower types I think we could do with a daffodil FP. This lovely display of daffodils was captured at Floriade, Canberra, last year.
I think it is particularly encyclopaedic with the central flower front on, but also in good focus the one on the right displaying a side view, and the one on the left showing the rear of the flower. Leaves are also clearly displayed. It appears as the lead picture in Narcissus (flower).
Oppose Nice, but I take issue with the framing. A flower photo should either be of a single (maybe like 2-3) flower to display that singular flower fully, or if you're doing a group shot like this should be wider with a broader depth of field. This is sort of stuck oddly between the two. Staxringoldtalkcontribs17:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - really don't like the composition. One flower dead on to the camera, the back of one, and just the front of another? It's awkward, and the balance of a tiny bit of scenery at the top with quite a lot of fairly dull stalkage at the bottom isn't terribly attractive either. Stevage11:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a picture of the harbor at La Ciotat, France. My sister photographed it while in France as an exchange student. I am not sure if the picture needs editing; if so, I have an uncropped version.
Oppose - pity she didn't stand on top of that blue building in the foreground, she could have had a much cleaner shot of the foreshore. Too much stuff in the way to actually be seeing anything. Stevage11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this photograph is a nice representation of the famous Algonquin, affectionately deemed "Canada's Seaside Castle." The building is in a small coastal resort town in New Brunswick, Canada called St. Andrew's. The structure was pretty eary and deserted on this particular overcast day during the off-season which makes for an interesting perspective as well. (If someone could compress the size of the photo to make it better in focus, it would be appreciated immensely.)
Weak oppose First, I think the shot probably should have been taken from a few feet higher to be level with the ground floor. Beyond that, I see this as similar to my first nomination (this picture). It's a solid picture that displays the subject matter but it's not really... different or spectacular in a FP kind of way. Staxringoldtalkcontribs17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's clear, but not especially remarkable. You wonder, "where is the front of this building?"; "Does this hotel really not have a sign with its name on it?"; "Is this hotel in the middle of the suburbs or in the country?"; "What is the deal with that cannon?" - in other words, there's not a lot of context, and the cropping is *very* tight - uncomfortably so on the left hand side. There's also some kind of perspective distortion that makes the wall at the left look like it's leaning backwards (and ditto on the right). The foreground is also poorly chosen - a bit of driveway(?)/road(?), an unplanted garden, some grass. I get this huge feeling looking at the image that there's a massive bulldozer or three prostitutes or something hidden just out of sight that the photorgapher doesn't want us to see. Stevage11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whole world - land and oceansEdit 1 Whole world - land and oceans - 2.45x biggerComparision of the Hawaiian Islands with edit 1(2.45x larger) to the left, and the original to the right. Click for full size.
Great image. I don't think i really need to say much.
The artifacts disappear when scaled down to any resonable resolution. A huge JPEG with artifacts is better than a small JPEG with no artifacts. I support. —Keenan Pepper19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would strongly support a different format, as there is some coastal artefacting. With that aside, this is a wonderful picture, and I think its the largest I've seen on Wikipedia! Very well done - Jack(talk)02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, it could just be from a lack of information, or an area that changes a lot, if anyone wants my opinion (I really can't say why that's there). --Tewy20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support If this is not a Featured Picture, then what is a Featured Picture? This is an amazing photo made by NASA. It's just the perfect choice. Arad04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I notice this was scaled down for an 8meg limit from the original NASA tifs. I think the current limit is 20megs now right? I will see if I can make a new copy perhaps in png or a higher res, that is if my computer can even handle those huge tifs(640mb total). I am about to leave for Toronto so if I cannot do it today I won't be back for a week. HighInBC15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added a version that is about 2.45x bigger than the previous, reflecting the new limit of 20megs compared to the old of 8megs. HighInBC22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I noticed in the RAW version that since it is a photograph you can see through the water in shallow areas. This create a fuzzy boarder that looks like jpg artifacts. In the larger version it looks less like jpg artifacts and more like shallow water(imo). HighInBC22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Browsers are not meant to deal with huge images like this, save the link and view it in a proper image viewing program, GIMP is a good free one. HighInBC03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Whole world - land and oceans_12000.jpg. I'll leave the link to the smaller version in case the big one is too big for anyone's computers. Raven4x4x00:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It just doesn't really add much value to the articles as they are flooded with pretty good images of gulls, and I agree that there is some confusion about its species. It looks like a Silver Gull to me, and according to the description of a Yellow-legged Gull, it doesn't seem to exist (or at least feature in the article) in Australia so at the very least, the filename is not accurate as it alludes to a species that it doesn't represent. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This picture I took of a cannon at Fort Charles, Nevis while I was on vacation is both highly historical in the area, and a good picture. The only flaw I see with it is that it may be a little dark, which can be fixed.
Oppose Too small; out of focus; motion blur; no sense of context; poor composition; weeds in foreground distracting; not especially illustrative of a cannon or of Fort Charles; no useful information given in caption. --Yummifruitbat17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is blurred and out of focus, but I dont know about the weeds being "distracting". But nevertheless, the Fort Charles article is severely lacking. -- AJ2419:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of acutance, The blur in the image was caused by movement of the camera when the shutter clicked. There's no way to fix that in Photoshop. howcheng {chat}20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re your question 2 please read the first sentence at the top of this page: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." If the article has no content, as in this case, what content is it illustrating and what's the point of attracting readers to the article? --jjron11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This dosen't illustrate anything well. I could get a better pic of cannon by just driving to El morro if I wanted.Nnfolz 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Low res, soft focus, uninteresting subject. HighInBC16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A size comparison of the four largest aircraft ever built.
This image is a great schematic size and shape comparison of four of the largest aircraft ever built. It is used on the articles of these aircraft and significantly helps to give an impression of the diferences in size and shape between the four aircraft. The schematic is well put-together, visually appealing, and is in the public domain.
support - it is appealing, as for busy concerns, I'm not sure how you would show a comparision w/o a direct overlay -- Tawker15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've seen this before, and found it vey useful. These are still the four largest planes ever, right? The SVG/PNG thing seems just so picky... Why does it matter? Why would you ever need an image size larger than the one provided? - Jack(talk)19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, my head is going to explode! This is unbelievable, did you not read my comment? What is so hard to understand about high-quality reproductions and easy translations for other wikis? --Dschwen00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Wikistress alert! Yeah, I read your comment you linked to, and it just seemed just as uneccessarily angry as the one you just gave now. I found this though, which was a bit more helpful. Still, if the image accuracy, usefulness, quality, and copyright are all awesome - like this one - I'm in. I just don't see why you're splitting hairs over the image format. Certainly not to the degree of totally rejecting the image outright, totally dismissing Cyde's efforts over what (to me) seems a trivial issue - Jack(talk)03:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another plus of SVGS: If a larger plane comes out and this is a SVG and Cyde is no longer on wikipedia than the image can be updated. Agree that Dschwen might need to take a deep breath :) -Ravedave
IMHO the "easy translation" comment is spurious. Providing an image in raster format does not inhibit translations. *Failing* to *also* provide it in another format may inhibit translations. This is Featured Pictured Candidates for the *English *Wikipedia and there is absolutely nothing wrong with text in English for images here. Providing the images in easily-translatable format is nice, but not a necessity. Having said all that, SVG would be a more logical format for a diagram. Stevage12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deep breath taken. Two things, I'm not completely rejecting Cydes efforts, I just want to avoid setting yet another precedent of promoting an image with an suboptimal format. If Cyde uploads an SVG version I'm all on board for support. Secondly about the spuriousness of the translation argument, I disagree. This might be en:FPC but the argument transcends this page. FPC isn't the wiki-world. The main point is, there are no reasons for uploading a pic like this as PNG, but there are several reasons to upload as SVG (however little you might think they are). If anyone wants a PNG so badly, SVG->PNG conversion is easy, PNG->SVG conversion is not. From some of the comments I just get the feeling that people do not quite realize the difference. Take this as the wakeup call ;-) --Dschwen15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you write an SVG vs PNG page with pros/cons of both? We probably also need a page on how to create images as SVG. -Ravedave15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What has happened to the outer engines of the 747? They are usually pointing alonside the axis, in flight direction. This really has to be corrected. SVG would really be nice, for the reasons mentioned above. Mikeo06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason for it to be SVG - Wikipedia 1.0. Expandability. On Wikisource, a project is discussing printing small educational leaflets with Wikipedia material - this image would not be very good for print, but as an SVG can be infinitely scaled, the quality of an SVG in print would be impeccable. Oppose because: it's not SVG, it's a little small for a diagram of this type even if it is over 1000 pixels (but that would be fixed by SVG anyway), it's too blurry at full size, and as Mikeo mentioned, the 747's engines are wrong. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It just makes FP in my opinion, and it's not bad for what it illustrates. (And in this case I am not taking into account the PNG/SVG format issue). --Tewy20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since all the information is included on the captioned imgaes, why is it also included at the top of the image in columns, I think it makes the diagram crowded.--Peta01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For a diagram the resolution is too low. You could print this out only 3 inches wide at 300 DPI. It would be pretty hard to read the text. Would change my vote if it was an SVG, which would also make editing it (i.e. adding/removing a plane, re-using the plane outlines, translating it, etc.) trivial. Also, as it is two of the planes have very jagged edges on their diagonal surfaces (Boeing and Airbus) and there are some consistency issues (why is the Mriya the only one which has flaps visible in the last shot?) --Fastfission01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a clever and interesting diagram that provides a high level of information in a clean, easy-to-read format. Madman02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
A really nice good-quality picture, which adds a lot to the article Sark. The article is by itself interesting, and would make for a good Image of the Day entry.
There's a higher resolution version available here: [12].
Oppose. Per above, and it's at a funny tilt. The higher resolution version has jpeg artifacts. The subject is interesting, but the photograph isn't the best. --Tewy20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Map pictures can be of amazing quality, this looks more like something I would find on a menu in a diner on the the island. No offense intended. HighInBC16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because this image is just so great... the quality issues are obvious... but can we ever get another this good? grenグレン21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yeah, it's an ok image, but nothing stunning. It also doesn't really show how the physical properties change - the molten peg is exactly the same shape as the others. Stevage09:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm neutral for now, but exactly how does this illustrate molten iron? The metal isn't even molten. If something is molten it has been melted, and melting is defined as the state change from solid to liquid, like here. This piece is glowing red hot, but still solid. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ11:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Stevage. The metal is not molten at all, just glowing. It also is not the best illustration for a blacksmiths' work. As Stevage pointed out the shape of the peg hasn't changed. I'd rather see it being worked. If it is just about the glowing, including the heat source in the pic would be an improvement. --Dschwen18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Basilica of St. Peter (1630); baroque painting by Viviano Codazzi. Note the two bell towers and the absence of Bernini's colonnade
This painting by Viviano Codazzi is most famous for depicting the two bell towers aside the cupola (later removed) and the intentional absence of the Colonnade of St. Peter's by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Codazzi was a member of the close circle Bamboccianti, a defined group of Dutch baroque artists in Rome during the 17th Century. The painting both captures great detail of St. Peter's Square at the time, the facade of the Basilica, and the Vatican Apartments. The image is prominently featured in the St. Peter's Basilica article. Image is also in Wikipedia Commons.
All other images of the painting I have found (outside of Wikipedia) concur the color of this image. The size problem, in my opinion, is not drastic enough to weigh-in significantly. Thanks -- AJ2403:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tilt, uncertainty about color (there are other images on the web with different hues) and this version is slightly cropped. Oh yes and size is a total knock-out. Especially in a painting like this I want to see details. --Dschwen23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleasantly suprised to see that this image was in the public domain, since it is one of the most enduring WWII home front images ever made. With the men being sent overseas to fight in Europe and the Pacific there came a need to replace the US work force, so the U.S. began a campaign aimed at getting women to work in the factors in place of the men. They were known by the popular press of the time as "Rosies", and became the driving force behind the US war machine.
Neutral I love the picture but the quality is a bit low, there has to be a better scan out there of this picture. Posters.com is selling a 39x54inch version so its defintly out there. [13] -Ravedave03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little a digging for a higher resolution, and found three sites ([14]@[15] and [16] @ [17]) that have the image in hi-res, but it seems that the higher this images resolution is the lower the overall quality becomes. This is not the case with the this image, but the resoultion is still below 1000px. TomStar8104:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that as a historical image the largest size available should still be found but I think historical images where a 1000x1000px image can't be found are exempt from that FP guideline to a certain extent. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are. In rare cases the historical signifigance of an image takes precedent over Wikipedia’s usual minimum size requirements; however, that should not be an excuse to railroad a bunch a low quality FPs through the system. In this case I do believe that the size limitations could be set aside in lew of the overall historical integrity of the photo, but other can (and often do) take a different view. TomStar8105:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is set aside that shouldn't be used as an excuse for us to put a low quality tiny image up I agree but noting the fact that the biggest possible image can and should be found if that is put up (which will hopefully be done in this case) then the size limitation can be waived. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picutres you are find probably all came from the same source and are just resizes of it. This pic can be provided in much, much higher quality. The 'original' of this item is probably at least 24 inches tall. It's not like the ancient black and white photos that are 4x3. The historical waiver is for items that can't be made any bigger and this one ovbiously can. -Ravedave
I uploaded two of the color hi-res versions for show. Of these, version 1 falls somewhat short of size requirements, but is larger than the current photo we have onsite. Version 2 meets the size requirements, but does not capture the entire image (parts of the sides are cut out, as though it was zoomed in) and the entire image desperately needs a photoshop overhaul before being placed in the race. TomStar8107:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose un til better quality found. Not only is it low resolution, there are glaring JPEG compression artifacts all over the image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral One of the FP criteria goes: "It should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." I guess this image is not really "exclusive" on wikipedia.--K.C. Tang07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true, this photo is not unique to the net, but some of our greatest FPs are photographs that have become legendary, to the point where they are litterly priceless. I believe that this is one such photo, a picture that has become a cultural icon. That, I do believe, makes this picture worthy of an FP star. TomStar8107:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying out the format of the Bales of hay nomination by Ravedave because I think it will make things a lot easier to tally, but others may think differently. Opinions are needed! Please leave a comment here on what you think. Thanks. --Tewy02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject: I think this an excellent photograph (size, DOF, etc.) that illustrates the markings on a tiger's face.
Support Votes:
Nice clear shot showing details of a tiger face; adds to article. (BTW, for those that have so far voted on 'Bales of Hay' - note that under this format I do not need to restate my support/oppose as it is covered by the subheading; I just need the reason) --jjron 10:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Preference for edit. --jjron 09:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC). Make that Edit 2 - even better; in fact, lots better. --jjron11:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very exceptional image. The image is clear and well focused; I especially like how this rare Tiger is facing the camera. (Also: Can the voting format of this nomination be discontinued; its very busy) -- AJ2415:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In doubt about what it should look like, support original. Edit 2 looks oversharpened to me, and edit 1 too cold indeed. --Bernard03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2. Exceptional image. I also like the colors and composition. But how about a complete tiger? - anyway, this one is just good! Mikeo19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2. Sharpness, color and just plain beauty. I really like this picture.
Weak oppose - Aperture too wide open. Due to this most of the facial features are not in focus. WB in edit 1 seems to be closest to the original. Other two are too warm IMO. Great subject and composition. - doniv06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am self-nominating this map as a featured picture of the day. This is a high-quality map, in relatively high resolution, that shows the major towns listed in the Aztec article, along with the outline of the five ancient lakes that formerly existed within the Valley.
Additional information includes the brackish/fresh water composition of the lakes, the chinampa beds (critical for an Aztec article), and the causeways constructed by the indigenous inhabitants. And all this is presented in a non-cluttered, easy-to-interpret, easy-on-the-eyes map that can actually be understood within the article itself (i.e. without having to click on the map &/or haul out the magnifying glass).
P.S. The colors are taken from the WikiProject Maps list of suggested colors..
Weak support. It's almost too simple to illustrate the concept (I don't mind clicking on a picture to see it full-sized), and I'd like to see more of where it's located i.e. surrounding areas/borders. Otherwise it's a nice size and not too complicated. --Tewy01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak opposeDschwen (below) brings up a good point I didn't notice before about the PNG/SVG problem. I would much prefer the image be in SVG. --Tewy02:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Uploading a pic like this as png is a waste of time. Sorry for the blunt words, but I'm starting to get rather annoyed by the ignorance toward SVG. update so that my vote doen't seem to be based on only the fileformat: looking at the map in full size it looks very blocky. I suspect it was drawn at even lower res and only upscaled before adding the text. --Dschwen01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the criteria says nothing about the SVG JPG PNG format, but it does say something about not flaming the newbies. Jeez, guys, gimme a break. Madman03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my comment was offending. I'm pretty sure the main reason SVG is preferred is because you can make larger prints without pixelating the image. That's also a reason for the size requirements. And if partially basing my vote on the file type of the image isn't a valid reason, I'll gladly change my vote back to the original weak support. --Tewy
Thanks, Tewy. I am just not a format guru. I think I've only ever uploaded one photo to Wikipedia, and that was JPG, which (AFAIK) is the typical Internet format. Most of my uploads have been copies of 400 year old codices and the like, which are almost always JPG as well. This map was saved as a PNG 'cause a coworker said that it scaled better than JPG. I guess I'll have to look up SVG. Thanks, Madman03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
relatively high resolution is always lower than the infinite resolution you'll get with SVG, a vectoe based format. Madman, which program did you use to create the map? You might want to check out Inkscape. Another stron point for SVG are easy translations. There are Wikipedias in who knows how many languages. An SVG file can be loaded into a text editor and all strings can be replaced. This has all been said many times before, so sorry, but it gets really frustrating when people are on a weekly basis presenting drawings as PNG or worse JPG files. Anyways let's just put it in the FPS rules as well. Although I believe there already is an official policy page smoewhere... --Dschwen05:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If SVG format is to be preferred in such cases, then the instructional procedures definitely need to give explicit indication of this, or at least point to some place where such a consensus was arrived at. There's nary a mention here or at WP:WIAFP or its talk page; there is a mention at WP:IUP but that is not linked to from here. Re the map/image itself, I think it's very well executed, but have a couple of suggestions. Firstly the map's focus is more on the lake itself rather than the entire valley, so the map's title could perhaps reflect this. Secondly there are some other localities in the region which could also be indicated. A third minor point, the legend boxes (for marshland and chinampas) should have the same background (A "North" pointer wouldn't go astray either, even if it is implied).--cjllw | TALK08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do not definitely need to give explicit indication of this! This is not something particular about FPC nor is it anything to debate about! It is a simple technical fact that SVG is the superior format for vector and line drawings. Full stop. And it is stated in the image upload instructions. --Dschwen17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Uploading Instructions cited state what the "preferred" format is. However, I just looked thru the 3 programs I used to create this map and none of them support SVG. I really don't understand why this is such a big deal and why it engenders such emotion.
In any case, CJLL has been kind enough to transform the present map into SVG here. and I'm sure that I can find someone somewhere to transform the final PNG file once I implement some of the changes suggested.
And speaking of that, I would like to respond to CJLL's suggestions:
Yes, the visual focus is more on the lakes and I originally named the file Lake Texcoco, but I was thinking that most casual readers would understand "Valley of Mexico" better than "Lake Texcoco". Titles such as "Ancient Lake System of the Valley of Mexico" or "Aztec Environs" seemed too much. I am definitely open to suggestions.
(This addresses Tewy's suggestion as well) I considered adding other important locales of the period, but I did want to limit the locales to those listed in the Aztec article (since this map was made just for the Aztec article and, too often in Wikipedia IMO, the maps are rather disconnected from the articles themselves). I see that Chapultepec is mentioned in the article, so I could/should add that to the next release.
You are correct here, the backgrounds of those two Legend boxes are different. Good catch. And I can add a North arrow too.
Perhaps "Lake Texcoco - Valley of Mexico (c.1519)", though this might be a bit much to fit into the map's title panel. It's just that for a map entitled "Valley of Mexico" It'd be good to have some indication of the terrain (as well as showing a larger area as the valley itself extends further than shown), whereas all non-settlement features indicated here are for the lake system.
As for the towns, without crowding it too much you could add also Coyoacan, Tlatelolco, Ayotzingo, and Atzacoalco; I think also that Teotihuacan should somehow be indicated differently, as by this period it had long been primarily a ceremonial rather than fully residential centre.
As for the format preferences, making mention here of what these may be is not to debate the point, but to clarify. Perhaps one of the main reasons that "people are on a weekly basis presenting drawings as PNG" is the lack of such a guideline here, whatever the upload instructions say. If appropriateness of file format is a criterion by which nominations are considered and judged, then it would seem reasonable to say so outright, just like for any other criteria.--cjllw | TALK00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets make this more constructive. Which program have you been using to create the map? Which 3 programs did you try to generate SVG. Your I'm sure that I can find someone somewhere to transform the final PNG shows some confusion. The PNG->SVG conversion is a non trivial step, involving an insane amount of manual work. Work that can be avoided if you work with a vector based drawing program like Inkscape from the start. Please understand that the difference between a PNG file and an SVG file is very fundamental. PNG means lots of pixels, SVG means lines,circles,text etc. --Dschwen03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just interested in creating nice, useful, pretty maps and not into the finer points of formats or into heavy graphics software. My software is MS Paint, MS Picture-it, and the Lexmark photo editor. I'm almost embarrased to admit how low-tech this is. And I'm tickled if you'd thought I used something more high-powered. I now understand the advantages of SVG and I'll look into Inkscape when I draw my next map. So, enough about formatting. I'll get an SVG if that's what's necessary. Over and out, Madman04:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions, and welcome to wikistress! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:23
Support either this or the SVG version if it is uploaded. It currently meets the resolution requirements; easy translation, though nice, is really only necessary for Commons FP. This is the English project. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:24
Would you be able to elaborate please which aspects of the image you find confusing? It would be difficult to address your concern without further information. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment maybe so, but is the map so amazingly encyclopedic or beautiful that it's worth to be a FP. I mean there are thousands of maps in wikipedia; why is this one so special?
Question -- Who actually counts the votes here? I see that User:Joniscool98 posted the "not promoted" message below. Does he make the final "thumbs up/thumbs down" determination?? Curiously yours, Madman02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Horse in Motion; a set of Edward Muybridge's photos in motion
Not for replacement.
The "Animated Horse" image, the cartoon animation representing this photo animation. I nominated for delisting the Animated Horse image, but it was retained. Not only does the Muybridge animation show a real horse and its actual features, these animations actually settled the dispute as to whether all of the horse's hooves leave the ground when galloping. The images were taken in 1904, so I would like to expect no comments on the photo's quality. A series of cameras were set parallel the track with trip wires laid across the track, triggered by the horse's hooves. The image is prominently featured on Eadweard Muybridge's article.
Muybridge animation 2 - Commons featured picture. Larger version here.Curent FP.
Support. Was this the image that proved movement could be made by a series of pictures? I thought I remembered hearing something about that... In any case, this is a good example of what Muybridge did, so unless there's an even better one, I'll support this image. As for replacing the Animated Horse image, can you really do that? I thought everything had to be done independantly. Even if it's allowed, I don't support replacing one for the other. I think they should be seen as seperate images, and be delisted accordingly. --Tewy20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Concerning replacing images instead of delisting and then nominating, it has been done before. The monopoly board image was nominated for replacement and no complaint arose, so I suppose it is acceptable and time-saving. (Original nominator has been informed). -- AJ2420:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense when one image is simply a one-for-one replacement of the previous image - a new photograph or diagram in exactly the same format illustrating exactly the same thing. That's not the case here - you're proposing a sequence of photographs to replace a hand-drawn animation; an entirely different presentation of the subject. The current Featured Picture illustrates the articles Cartoon, Animated cartoon, Rotoscope and Traditional animation; the proposed image would not be suitable to illustrate any of these. I can't help feeling that you have missed the point of the original animation, which is not there to illustrate a horse or galloping, but rather to illustrate the concepts of rotoscoping and cartoon animation. TSP00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the Edward Muybridgeanimation, but I do NOT support the replacement of the cartoon animation. They are not representing the same thing and are not even in the same articles. You seem commited to having it de-listed and it is bordering on obsession. ;) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose concept The horse failed to be de-listed so now you are trying to replace it? If you hate it that much re-list it for de-listing. Don't try and work around how the system works. I move to have this changed to a pure nomination anyone agree? -Ravedave21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Concerns. This opposition to replacing images was not shown when the monopoly board image was nominated to be replaced by another. I have tried the delisting process and the animated horse was retained. I do not understand how you would oppose bettering FP. If one image of the same concept is greater than the other, then common sense would dictate to replace it with the better one; is that not applicable? I agree replacing is very rarely done, but it is not erratic or illegal (in FPCriteria). I havent even seen an unwritten rule about replacing images. But, if I were to nominate the two images (for FP status one and delisting the other), do you think that independent concept would work? Because you will always have the voters who automatically support the image just as there are so many supporters of the anime girl. I strongly believe an actual, real-life set of images of highly historic content outweigh an unrealistic cartoon. -- AJ2400:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I wanted to view these two images independantly was because they're so different from each other. The nomination image is a series of photographs taken decades ago by a famous photographer. The current FP image is an animation made much more recently by a lesser-known creator. The two Monopoly board images are basically just different pictures of the same thing, so that's more of a replacement to achieve a better picture, not subject and picture. (I just noticed what TSP said above under my vote; basically what they said is what I mean). --Tewy00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, they are definitely not illustrating the same thing, so there is no need for just one of them to 'represent' a topic. Even if they were of the same topic, it should not replace an existing FP, unless the old FP is deemed unworthy, in which case, it should go through the process as a delisting candidate. Put simply, the approval of one FP should not affect the status of any other FP, no matter whether they're the of the same topic or not. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but Abstain de-listing of cartoon. My support for one must not be taken as supporting or opposing the removal of another. --Billpg21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support new image - notable historical photos skillfully animated by Wikipedians to demonstrate their historical significance; Oppose removal of existing, entirely different, Featured Picture. TSP00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sneaky and insulting circumvention of policy. Furthermore the animation is of low quality with strong Moiree patterns. Historically significant, but for this to be featured the quality of the animation must be improved (to a degree where it isn't a lot worse than the original b/w photos). --Dschwen00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sneaky? One of the first words in bold letters is to Replace. Be civil. I informed the original nominator and did everything with policy in mind. Your comments are some of the most absurd things I have read on FPC. Concerning the quality, the set of photos were taken in 1906, in FPCriteria it is exempt. -- AJ2400:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily exempt - merely given less importance. If the quality is due to poor a scan and not poor quality original photographs, then there is no reason why it cannot be improved. As for the sneakiness, you did suggest that the two animations represent the same idea, which is a little misleading to say the least. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It might also be worth considering the other Muybridge horse animation - though smaller, it is substantially better animated, and is a Wikimedia Commons featured picture. TSP00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Horse in Motion is of higher quality, and a famous set of images, hence its title "The Horse in Motion" (dubbed by Stanford University). -- AJ2400:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was hoping a better solution would be reached, but since a complete consensus has been reached concerning replacement, I will nominate the two independently 24 hours from now (giving ample time for a possible counter-solution). However, when I first nominated for delisting the animated horse, the animated horse and Muybridge's photos were being compared to eachother continually. The following is a statement made by User Moondigger on July 21, 2006: "The animation was rotoscoped from Edward Muybridge's galloping horse photos. Those photos were significant in the history of photography and the study of movement; there was disagreement in those days about whether all four of a horse's hooves were ever off the ground at the same time while galloping. His photos relied on what was then cutting-edge photographic technology and solved the mystery. I think this animation would catch less flack if only the horse weren't smiling. I know it works fine as a cartoon to have the horse smiling, but I believe the animation would be taken more seriously if it had a more realistic head/face." -- AJ2400:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a new FAP and Oppose replacement. As Diliff has said cleary: "... they are definitely not illustrating the same thing... even if they were of the same topic, it should not replace an existing FP, unless the old FP is deemed unworthy, in which case, it should go through the process as a delisting candidate."--K.C. Tang03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support new FPC and Strongly oppose replacement Replacement would be both contrary to the spirit of FPC as the animation has been kept through the delisting process at least once, also they illustrate two entirely different things. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the cartoon, I have only one comment re. this circus; incredible! You cannot compare apples and oranges: The old photos illustrate the Muybridge article, the cartoon illustrates several articles about animated cartoons, and how they are produced, and the specific process of using reference materials (such as Muybridge's photos) for creating the animation. AJ24, what is your reason for hating the cartoon so much that you try every conceivable way to get it delisted? Please make a better cartoon yourself, and we can start discussing things seriously. And I strongly suggest you read the rotoscope article - it seems you've never done that, despite earlier suggestions. --Janke | Talk07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: AJ, this discussion makes me wonder if you have even read the Muybridge article carefully - did you notice the "Influences" section, which says: "Animators and artists still use Muybridge's work as a reference". Think about that. --Janke | Talk07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would highly appreciate it, Janke, if you would refrain from poorly guessing what I have and have not read. It is not difficult to entirely read a relatively short article, but you make it sound like it is. I completely understand that your animated horse represents and is used in a different genre of articles, but unless I am mistaken, you traced Muybridge's photos (I may be giving you too much credit) to create them into a cartoon animation. My point is, that the two photos (withouting considering the articles they are in) are two very similar images, one rotoscoped from the other. The cartoon version contains unrealistic features and does not allow you to see where its hooves touch or leave the ground. As for your belief that I "hate" your animation, why would I? If I originally saw your animation on one of the article's it is displayed in, I honestly wouldnt think twice about it either way. But when I noticed it was a Featured Picture, it seemed absent of all of the qualities the remainder of the FPs reveled in. Still to this day I think it unsuitable for FP status, but I do not even dislike the image, I dislike its status. All in all, I am just glad that the Muybridge image is widely accepted, it will further a distinguished quality or significance that the vast majority of FPs contain. -- AJ2413:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support the Muybridge pic being promoted, Strongly Oppose the cartoon being delisted, for all the reasons above (especially those given by Diliff, TSP and Tewy). Strongly Suggest that AJ24 be checked into some sort of clinic to deal with his obsession with delisting that bloody cartoon. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with the cartoon - they are not the same subject, so one cannot replace the other. The cartoon demonstrates animation and cartoon, as well as clearly (because it's a line drawing) showing the mechanics of a horse galloping. The Muybridge picture demonstrates early photography, stop motion, and a historical attempt at viewing how a horse runs. They are not in the same league, therefore one is not eligible to replace the other. This conversation over the horse cartoon is becoming such a sham it's not worth the amount of server space it takes up, nor the number of positioned electrons it takes to store it. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy remove delisting. After all, this isn't a nomination for delisting. There is no such thing as a nomination for replacement. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:08
Both promotion and delisting are both within the scope of this page. Feel free to oppose the replacement, but the mere existence of this page shows there is such thing as a nominiation for replacement. Whether or not one will ever succeed is another matter. ed g2s • talk13:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both pics due to large moire patterns and skipping in the first, and small size and noise in the 2nd. The originals are on film, so we should be able to get a larger, much clearer version. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:12
Comment Future votes will solely be for supporting or opposing the Muybridge animation of photos. Thank you. -- AJ2420:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make such statements. If there is a consensus to remove the cartoon, then there's a consesnus, doesn't matter where it is gathered. This page is merely a useful way of organising the process of gathering a consensus. ed g2s • talk12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination IF the nominatorr is correct about what this image is, historically. IF this image is not what it is supposed to be I Oppose as there is not much historicle value to overcome the faults. say198822:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support new pic&Strongly oppose replacement when will people understand that most of us like that animation? BTW: what criteria are you using for saying it ilustrates the same thing?Nnfolz00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not Muybridge's 1878 "The Horse in Motion", the first, historic sequence he shot for Stanford; it's "Daisy galloping", from his 1887 collection Animal Locomotion. It's interesting, but it's just one of hundreds of human and animal studies, some of which are better photos than this. I also oppose the animated-gif form - the original form is more appropriate for featuring. (Note: a version of the 1878 "Horse in Motion" is here, which I just updated with a higher-res copy, but I wouldn't recommend it for FPC unless someone were to clean it up a bit.) --Davepape03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many versions of The Horse in Motion, the above is the 1904 series of photos. This is a famous set of images. -- AJ2414:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Minor nitpick: the photos are from some time between 1878 and 1887, not 1904. "(d. 1904)" simply means that Muybridge died in 1904.)
Main point reiterated: I think some people are supporting on the belief that this is "the" sequence of photos that Muybridge shot in 1878 to (according to myth) settle a bet by Leland Stanford. Those first photos were more silhouette-like; it required later improvements in film technology to get better photos such as those in the above candidates [18]. Muybridge shot thousands of photographs at that point; flipping through my books of them, I'd say that there are some cleaner-looking ones than the candidates (though none are exactly perfect).
And to expand on my animated-gif complaint - one could argue that the animation represents Muybridge's Zoopraxiscope work, but these aren't exactly the pictures he used in that, and I'm feeling purist. --Davepape16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the photo that settled the bet (myth or not) was not from a continuous series. It was indeed one of the very first shots done in 1873, with a very short exposure time (in the order of a thousandth of a second), but they were random shots from a single camera, not a sequence with a dozen or more cameras. --Janke | Talk18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support replacement. It is up to the closing admin to decide to whether there is a consensus to promote/remove the image. Just because the removal votes are in the "wrong" section does not make the opinions of the voters any less valid. ed g2s • talk12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. This image has been nominated for delisting multiple times before. People shouldn't be allowed to just keep nominating something for removal over and over again without any regard for the time between each vote. That is common sense, something which you ignored when nominating this image to be delisted twice in 10 days (2nd was 3 days after the 1st closed). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-14 15:26
There should not be a "replacement" process, because each image should be added/removed on its own merits, and placing two images together for comparison provides too great a temptation for people to vote on one image based on their like/dislike of another image. Someone who really doesn't like the animated horse image may simply vote support for the other image in order to get rid of the animated horse (since such an opportunity to get rid of it is not likely to come up again soon), and not vote for the other image on its own merits.
This nomination is a great example of this, as the proposed nomination has numerous avoidable problems, such as noise, blur, and moire patterns--something that can be avoided since these photos are on film. And yet, here we have you, who has nominated the animated horse for delisting twice in a 10-day period, voting support on an extremely poor rendering of a set of old photographs. If we let this "replacement" nonsense continue, there is the possibility that the collection of FPs will become degraded over time.
Every image should be considered on its own merits — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-14 15:32
Oppose image and "replacement". The animation is very jerky at the end of the stride, the one that's featured on the commons is much better. I don't like this replacement stuff, but that's not the reason I'm opposing. The cartoon illustrates a cartoon, it doesn't have to be totaly realistic. --Pharaoh Hound(talk)20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Brian0918 -- each image should be judged on its own merits. A so-called 'nomination for replacement' violates that basic principle. That said, I would support making one of Muybridge's galloping horse animations a FP, despite minor quality concerns. (Not necessarily one of these, though I don't think they're all that bad considering the source). I am going to abstain from voting on this particular nomination, as it's clearly a giant mess that cannot be reasonably resolved. -- Moondigger20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Suspend this nomination of the galloping Muybridge photos. I own the book "Animals in Motion", and I will be doing a scan of the very same series for a Finnish TV documentary, about to be produced this fall. I'm pretty certain I can get a better result than the moireed example that is nominated here. The other one, the Commons FP, suffers from bad compression artifacts (especially noticeable in the larger version). The cartoon has a consensus to be kept as FP (and cannot be replaced by any photos, anyway), so if you can wait a few months, we may have a better version of "Daisy with rider". Greetings, --Janke | Talk08:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted I didn't bother tallying votes. "Nomination for replacement" violates the principle that each image should be judged on its own merits, and also runs counter to the delisting procedure which requires a consensus (or the kind of supermajority we usually end up with) to delist. As for promoting one of the Muybridge animations... taking all the comments into account, it appears it would be best to nominate one of them separately at a time when one with better quality comes available. If somebody would rather nominate one of the current animations now, they are (obviously) free to do so, letting it stand or fall on its own merits. If anybody takes issue with the way this nomination was closed, let's discuss it on the FPC talk page. -- Moondigger01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to transfer it, and I've added the FPC template for you.
Oppose. The image itself is too grainy for FP, and there are a few distractions that have nothing to do with inversion. I guess if the picture was of higher quality and some things (like the contrail, or the houses) weren't in the picture, I would support it. --Tewy21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I like the compisition as it gives perspective on the phenomenom. I don't see much grain at all, very minor. The image is encyclopedic and well exposed. HighInBC16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A North American bison.Edit 1 - contrast, sharpening, by Fir0002
Other than the graininess and the hooves being hidden, I think this is an excellent picture of an American bison, showing both a frontal view of the head and a side view of the body;
appears in Bison, American Bison, and Bovid (all about the same thing), and the USDA created the image, with an upload by QuartierLatin1968/QuartierLatin1968.
Please note. This is not the only version. There is also an exact copy located here. The alternate version is located in several different articles in different langauges, so a speedy delete would be difficult at this time (it would need to be replaced in each article). I chose to nominate the version that was already a FP in Wikimedia Commons.
Support despite the fact that the grass makes it somewhat busy I like the composition and I like the shot layout, it is definitely a well done photo and has the wow factor, it also shows the bison well. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Edit 1 I like it, and it is mostly in focus from front to back. I like the new edit, nothing seems overexposed that was not before. HighInBC15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - bizzarrely, I was looking at bison like 3 days and thinking it was a pity there wasn't a decent image there. Either I missed this, or it's been added since. Stevage22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edit. Fir's Everyone's colorspace must be way different from mine, because I just see artificial saturation. Outriggr21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely shot, obviously adds a huge amount to the article at this point. It'd be good to see some other photos of the waterfall for comparison though, to see how much we're missing out on? I don't see any blown out highlights except possibly a tiny patch right in the upper right? Stevage10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Diliff; we seem to be missing a lot of the falls, and I want to know what's there. I wonder do these falls need their own article? The current article is so insubstantial, can't it just be included in the Desolation Wilderness article? --jjron12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ok so i do have another shoot of these falls, but its very difficult to get to a better place to shoot these falls because there are cliffs surrounding the falls...the reason i made its own stub is for a couple reasons...so it can be included in the category Waterfalls of California(help my link) and so it doesn't make up a disproportionate amount of the Desolation Wilderness article as it is just one waterfall...I also am adding many other stubs in the Desolation Wilderness...falls, mountains, Trailheads, and Lakes...Phreakdigital20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. They're both excellent pictures, but as Diliff said, more of the actual falls need to be seen (unless there is no possible way to get a better shot). --Tewy03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. Yes, it would be nice to see more of the falls but in many cases it can be difficult to get such a shot without risking falling of the edge of a steep precipice and personally, I don't think any featured picture is worth that kind of risk :-) I agree with Henry A-W, picture quality could probably be improved by some editing. --Nebular11004:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just so everyone knows these are a mosiac...a stitching of 18 images...two rows of 9 images...these falls are very difficult to photograph...I dont think the judging of the final image should be effected by the process needed to create it, but its also hard to see people judging the images without knowing the process - Phreakdigital06:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that it is a mosaic shouldn't really affect the judgement of it. You should be able to get an angle of view similar to this with an ultra wide angle zoom lens, and the resolution isn't really significantly better than a single image. In addition, I can see some stitching faults in the second photo - there is a ghost of the trees at the top right, and more ghosting on the rock on the bottom left. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I like the composition on both, with a slight preference for the second. However the technical problems mentioned by others are distracting. If it's possible to re-shoot, you might try using an ultra-wide lens rather than stitching together a mosaic. -- Moondigger20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the swan goose is not white it is black with brown
The head detail of a white-variety Swan Goose shows the unique beak knob.
This Swan Goose photograph illustrates avian anatomical structures in detail. Photo credit appears on the image page. Currently used in Beak, and will be used in the eponymous bird article.
Technically, the lighting would be better that way, but aesthetically, I think it's better this way. The crests of light seem to give the picture a certain reality. Outriggr09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely, keep them coming outrigger! I might upload a few myself. Have you tried convincing the photographer to join wikipedia? --Fir000200:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked him, but have explained the WP project. I hate to keep bugging him for higher-res versions, but apparently he receives many requests. Outriggr09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, largely because it is hard to believe this bird belongs to the Swan Goose species (Anser cygnoides) as named and described in the article. Perhaps it is just that the article is lacking a lot of detail on variations. As an illustration purely of 'beak' I find it a little misleading as the 'knob' structure is highly unusual. Now, if there was an article about that knob, or it was well described in the Swan Goose article, it would be great (i.e., what's it for? Is it for vocalisation, sexual display, just a weird mutation, etc? Why do some have it, and some such as in the existing photo, not have it?)... --jjron16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This confused me too; this species is highly domesticated and while I have found references to domesticated white varieties, the photog said this goose was in the wild. At any rate, it's included in "Beak" because the knob is part of the rhamphotheca, which redirected to Beak, and is mentioned in the article. Here is one quick photographic confirmation of the species issue. Outriggr16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also found other images suggesting that this is the bird you say before opposing, but it still doesn't gel with the article. For a while I thought maybe the existing photo in the article was a misidentified Anser anser, but possibly not. Oh, and I don't oppose it being in beak, I just don't think it is a typical representation of beak; and yes, the knob is mentioned in the beak article, but nowhere is the purpose (if any) of it described. It looks like this is going to get promoted, but to me it's weird to have a FP that is totally at odds with the species description in its article. --jjron12:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'd prefer to see just a bit more of the beak (the tip) in focus. Otherwise it's a good representation of "the knob". --Tewy03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Artist's concept of the Interplanetary Transport Network. This purpose of this stylized depiction of the ITN is to show its often convoluted path through the solar system. The green ribbon represents one path from among the many that are mathematically possible along the surface of the darker green bounding tube. Locations where the ribbon changes direction abruptly represent trajectory changes at Lagrange points, while constricted areas represent locations where objects linger in temporary orbit around a point before continuing on.
This is one of the very best examples I have found that fulfills the dual requirements of adding significantly to an article while also catching the eye. Linked to Interplanetary Transport Network.
Oppose. Eye catching, yes. But otherwise this image is unencyclopaedic and confusing at best. An actual diagram of orbits would be far more valuable. This is like many of those Artsists impressions, pretty, but not related to the physics of the subject. Wiggely tubes, planets completely out of scale, no concept of orbits whatsoever in the image. Not featureworthy. --Dschwen01:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To be really honest the image is really cool, but I don't think the average person can undesrtand what it is trying to illustrate. I tried reading the article, but all it talks about is about a bunch of points, and coordinates. All I see is a drawing of the solar system in a really artistic fashion and not something that adds to my understanding of anything.Nnfolz14:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm totally confused by this and the article doesn't help. I can't tell where the center of the system is supposed to be and the planets don't seem to be arranged in the standard order. Visually it isn't bad (it is as good as most of the NASA "artist renditions" are in terms of its artistic qualities) but conceptually it is very confused and very confusing. I suspect it was drawn by someone who did not understand it either, and was trying to just maximize the "cool" effect. --Fastfission01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a bit informative, planets look horrible and inaccurate (I'm ready to oppose any illustration that shows Saturn as a perfect sphere). Cheap render look hurts.--JyriLtalk14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not sure how Jyril can determine that Saturn is being depicted as a perfect sphere at that resolution -- it's less than 10% oblate in reality, which makes for only a few pixel difference in this image, easily masked by the rings and ribbon/tubes. I also disagree that it isn't "a bit" informative -- in fact, it helps illustrate a difficult concept somewhat. The problem is the "somewhat." It's more artistic than technical, and (as others have mentioned) the accuracy of the depiction suffers -- the orbits don't have to be absolutely to scale (imagine the image size if they were), but some reference should be made to clarify that point. -- Moondigger21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand that the image and its associated article were not particularly clear. To address this, I have significantly revised the picture caption along with the Interplanetary Transport Network article, and will resubmit the revised version. Please have a look at the revised article/caption to see if the concept is clear. Also, comments such as "not a bit informative" are out of line and indicate that no effort was made to understand the concept involved. Jeeb18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wonderful subject, but the picture is blurred and it doesn't meet size requirements (at least 1000x1000). --Tewy02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very much illustrates the concept of water adhesion, although the picture of droplets on grass leaves serves the purpose much better IMO. Jeeb02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice picture, but it is blurry, unencyclopedic and could be sharper. Also, Zena, you say this could be on Interplanetary Superhighway: How so? This does not depict an interplanetary superhighway. This depicts drops of water on a spider web. Sorry. VivaLaVieBoheme!
Oppose. If you check out the full size you see everything doubled. It is like the picture is superimposed with a copy of itself but shifted a few pixels. Very irritating. Plus the lighting of the lion makes him look washed out. --Dschwen18:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a high-resolution picture showing the typical house in a Russian Village. This picture is well-shot and neutral, and is well used in articles. It will also tell people about the Russian culture if it becomes a featured picture.
Comment - It is very common to park a car next to your house, and it's presence helps strengthen the picture's representation of the typical Russian rural home. I do not think that the prescene of the car should disqualify this picture from becoming featured. --GoOdCoNtEnT02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A bit unsharp at full resolution, though this could be remedied by downsampling slightly and some judicious sharpening. It looks like it's tilted to the left as well, though it's difficult to determine whether that's due to the camera actually being tilted, the position the photo was taken from, or the house being a bit off-square. I like that it isn't oversaturated, but overall it comes across as a typical snapshot rather than FP material. -- Moondigger05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too fond of the composition - dead in front, including the fence and car. Would be more interesting from the side, rear...something! Also I'm always a little wary of these "typical" shots - who says it's typical? Where is it? Russia being the largest country on earth, "Russian village" isn't telling us a lot. Maybe just a better caption would help, like "A house in the Russian Village of x, built in the 1920s style of y, as evidenced by the z. The Mitsubishi whatever is typical of many Russians' new affluence" or whatever. So it's not just "some house somewhere" but actually has encyclopaedic value, so we could put it in articles about Russian architecture alongside other photos of houses from other eras or whatever. Stevage11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Santa Rosa is the largest city in California's Wine Country. While the most expansive vineyards in both Sonoma and Napa Counties lie on unincorporated county land or within outlying cities, away from U.S. Route 101, this image of a smaller vineyard in Santa Rosa illustrates the City's continuing ties to the wine industry.
Self-taken in July, when the plants and berries are in early bloom (before the width of the vines nearly obliterates the planting pattern) while the hillsides demonstrate the effects of the summer sun.
I missed something; size reqs were 1000px min, right? This is 1024 wide. WP:WIAFP says "Generally, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height", not and. RadioKirk (u|t|c)03:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you thank you thank you. I might've continued with my misreading of the key word "or" for a long time. Now I need to go back and correct a few of my previous votes before it's too late!... --Tewy03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just a little on the ordinary side. It's sharp, it's clear...but at the end of the day I'm looking at a bunch of grapevines. A higher shot of the whole vineyard (or even several vineyards) might be more impressive? Don't take offence, it's almost there :) Stevage11:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None taken. :) I did, though, intentionally take a low shot and then crop it to give the viewer the feel of standing in a vineyard. RadioKirk (u|t|c)13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. For me there is *such* a fine line between "viewer feeling like he's standing in the photo" and "happy snap". I usually consider any photo where I can readily identify with the photographer ("oh, he's standing on the side of the road", "he's at the lookout", "he must have climbed on top of the railing") to be a "happy snap" and it's quite distracting. Putting the viewer in the shot can be good though...no idea how you do that effectively without it becoming cheap. Stevage22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple notes. This picture is looking east from Old Redwood Hwy at the Siebert Vineyard. The address is 4120 Old Redwood Hwy. The location is outside (but close to) the city limits. The grapes are pinot noir. The appellation is Russian River Valley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmslogos (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In an attempt to address some of the comments below, I started from scratch with the original RAW camera file and re-processed the image without referring to my previous edit(s). The result is Edit 2, which does look better on uncalibrated displays, and is closer to the original RAW file (less processed). -- Moondigger18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I also like the composition and how everything is sharp. I guess my only question is whether it meets size requirements? --Tewy03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Low resolution? It's 821x1231 which is above the minimum, of course we can always beg Moondigger to upload the higher res as usual :) -Ravedave04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into a debate about likes and dislikes. But your criticisms are questions of fact, not opinion. As Ravedave mentioned, the photo exceeds the stated resolution requirements. At full resolution, it is not 'blurry,' though the Wiki scaling algorithms do cause the thumbnail here and on the initial image page to look somewhat soft. Click here for a direct link to the full-resolution photo: [19] The exposure is correct for the difficult (mixed full sun/shadow) lighting. If it looks too dark in the shadow areas, make sure your display is at least calibrated for brightness/gamma based on this test image: . You should be able to see the three brightest circles, though the third should be only just visible. Oppose if you don't like it, but at least make sure you're viewing the full-res photo on a semi-calibrated display. Thanks -- Moondigger04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Size is within the accepted limits, the photo is sharp on everything except the water, which is meant to be bluured. I think it's a great photo. PPGMD03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Resolution is a little low. A higher resolution image would be preferable. I'm not sure I really like the position the photo was taken from, I've seen better photos of the falls taken from different angles. However, I would still be willing to support if a higher res image is uploaded. --Nebular11004:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to checkout google images to see what else there is on these falls. Results here [20], pretty interesting, especially the dude on a toilet. Hows that for random? Not sure if that helps or hurts this nomination. -Ravedave04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows? I don't think googling for images would help most nominations, as then people get to comparing the nominated images with anything and everything available on the web, many of which are not free-licensed or available for use on Wikipedia. FPs are supposed to be Wikipedia's best work. I like this image (it's mine, afterall) but opinions vary. -- Moondigger04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've seen better photos of Havasu Falls here on Wikipedia? My primary motivation for uploading this one was because the others I found here fell far short of my memory of the place. As for resolution... I don't know what to say. There are 600 and 800 pixel images in the current featured picture listings that don't seem to bother anybody... despite the fact that they're well short of the stated requirements. Yet when a 1200 pixel image is nominated, exceeding the stated 1000 pixel requirement, people oppose it for reasons of resolution? -- Moondigger04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indeed. No not better ones here on Wikipedia, but in other places. That's why I said I would support if a higher resolution image is uploaded. I know it meets the requirements but when I download the full resolution file and view it, the image still seems somewhat grainy and blurry to me (and my monitor is calibrated correctly). There's no doubt that its a great picture, but for me it's not a featured one unless the resolution is improved. Personally, I prefer the photos taken from below looking back up at the falls rather than the pics taken from the top of the falls. But that's just my opinion. There is one image of the falls taken from below that I saw a few years ago that really sticks in my mind. I think it was published in Arizona Highways. I'm trying to find a link to it somewhere on the web but no luck so far. --Nebular11004:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if I had an image that I had a reasonable belief could be sold to Arizona Highways, I'd sell it (which would make it ineligible for Wikipedia's required licensing). Of course as of the last time I checked, Arizona Highways was still refusing digital files... if it ain't on Velvia, they ain't buying it. Composition's a funny thing. I have images of Havasu Falls taken from lots of different angles, including from water level, and I liked this one best. The resolution thing is a pet peeve of mine, so don't take my comments harshly. I just think if 1200 pixel FPCs are going to be shot down as too low-res, then the stated requirement should be for 1400 pixels or more. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that if the requirements were changed to 1400 pixels, then people would vote against 1400 pixel images because they only just met the requirements. :) -- Moondigger04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can still sell your photo, and still license it Wikipedia, there is nothing in copywrite law that prohibits releasing your photo under different licenses, there is also nothing that prohibits Arizona Highways from using your GFDL photo that is here if it's big enough for their uses, but if they want a full resolution version, they should come to the photographer. Under Wikipedia's backward copyright rules the only way to retain commercial paid usage of your photos is to give a lower resolution version to Wikipedia, and keep the full resolution version for your commercial clients. PPGMD13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fulfills resolution requirement (still, larger is always better... ;-) You really need to look at this in full size, not just the downsampled half-large version on the image page. Very crisp, very sharp. If only someone would photoshop out those people... (just kidding!) --Janke | Talk05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors/lighting look kinda funky on my monitor. Looks like it's had some pretty extreme shadow/highlight applied to it. I too have seen some really great photos of havasu falls: [21][22][23]. Admittedly they are done by professionals and certainly not free, but even a quick search on flickr comes up with some free content which I think are more aesthetic: [24][25][26] - they are of course not technically as good as your shot, but then again they were taken with a Kodak LS443. I uploaded an edit, but I'm not particularly happy with it. --Fir000207:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the free shots you linked to are Havasu Falls. They're Mooney Falls, I believe. This demonstrates one of the problems with comparing FPCs to googled images -- the risk that the googled images might not even be the same thing. The photoshop shadow/highlight routines were not applied to mine, though I did toy with the shadow exposure using layer masks and selective burning/dodging... otherwise the shadow areas are totally lost. As for color... my edit is pretty close to reality, not oversaturated or with unnaturally boosted contrast. It looks like my memory of the place, not an artificially-enhanced version of it. The non-free Havasu images you linked to have various other problems: blown sky and water; obvious misuse of graduated ND filters; the water too blue/not green enough, or a combination of these. (The water really is turquoise there.) I'll say this: it's going to be pretty annoying and tedious if people have to start defending their FPC candidates against comparisons to photos googled from all over the web. I think this sets a bad precedent. FWIW, for the reasons I mentioned above, I think mine is better than the ones you linked to anyway. But certainly people can find photos somewhere that are better -- maybe one taken in different lighting would have a true black tone somewhere without blowing out the water or totally losing the shadow areas. I just don't think doing so is fair or useful here. The vast majority of currently-featured images have counterparts somewhere on the web that are better. -- Moondigger12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I share your pain there. It has been pretty common for images of mine to be 'improved' by others here but (in my opinion) they have only taken away from the realism and authenticity of the image. The trouble is, not everyone shares the author's goal of accurate reproduction of the scene - they want images that scream "vivid!" at the viewer. That said, I feel like the shadow area has been lifted a little too much and appears a bit strange and lacking contrast to my eye. That said, I have to admit that I'm not sure whether that's merely my preconceived expectation of the limits of film, as I can imagine that the human eye would see shadow and highlights in a similar way to as it is represented here. In any case, I would certainly prefer to see the falls when the lighting was less harsh but obviously that is what separates a pro and an inspired amateur like you and I - we'll chase the shot but won't follow it to the ends of the earth. :) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff, this is about the tenth or eleventh attempt. When I left the right side wall darker, it looked strange to my eye, and made the water in shadow too dark. I masked the 'shadow water' and only adjusted the wall, but then the water and wall didn't match and looked obviously wrong. I have noticed that my current version looks great (to my eye) on my primary, calibrated monitor -- but does look semi-low contrast on some randomly-selected (and mostly uncalibrated) displays I have access to. That's why I put up the calibration target next to the images -- this one (in particular) seems more sensitive to display calibration than most of my other images. (Of course this target only gives a rough estimate of proper brightness, leaving other things like gamma, contrast, and color balance unaddressed. But it's better than nothing.) FWIW, I've done pro work before on assignment -- but when I took this picture I didn't have time to "chase the shot" to better lighting conditions; I was chasing my children around, trying to make sure they didn't fall into the canyon or get stung by a scorpion ;^) -- Moondigger04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Edit2. Higher res would be nice, but the picture is pretty sharp. The edit is a bit over the top (it blows out parts of the waterfall) and it makes the colors look like an old technicolor-movie. --Dschwen08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Edit 2. Beautiful picture, high quality, nice colors, good composition. I prefer the non-edited version.Mikeo20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, or one that is somewhere between the original and Edit 1. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-15 00:04
Support original Edit 2 - Lovely photo, contrast looks fine on my (properly calibrated) Mitsubishi DiamondPro 930SB, highly illustrative. Edit 2 is even better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike license only permit reuse for non-commercial purposes? I've released all my images (not that they approach the standard of most of yours, Moondigger) under CC-BY-SA 2.5 for that reason. I should have thought that you could reasonably upload full-resolution images under that license for use in such projects as Wikipedia without worrying about not being able to sell them, as you could sell the rights for commercial use instead?--Yummifruitbat12:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, CC-BY-SA 2.5 specifically allows commercial use. See this link, specifically the third bullet: [27]. As others have mentioned, you are not prohibited from selling copies of the work, but there would be little reason for somebody to buy a copy when one is licensed for free here. -- Moondigger13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, that didn't make a lot of sense. I meant that you could use the non-commercial license: [28]. I'm not too worried about people making commercial use of my work at the moment, and doubt they would anyway, so I've been using just the by-sa license. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's position on non-commercial-only licenses is though... --Yummifruitbat20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-commercial licenses such as the one you pointed out are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia or Commons. Ditto for no-derivs licenses: unacceptable. -- Moondigger20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. Wiki-required licensing is a point of confusion for many people, judging by the comments I've seen around here. This discussion might help make things clearer for some folks. -- Moondigger20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak support - I like it, but a larger copy would turn my support to strong— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighInBC (talk • contribs)
Neutral Technically nice shot, but am I the only one who thinks that there is a weird figure/ground effect in the background cliffs? The lighter, less saturated colors of the cliffs in the distance against the deeper colors of the foreground make it seem like the background is closer to the viewer. The absence of a sky to provide depth cues contributes to this effect. Wickerprints20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're perceiving it that way. Typically one would expect more haze in the distance, since you're seeing distant objects through more air than close objects. Consequently, one normally perceives less saturation/contrast in distant objects when compared with something closer. That's what's shown here. In any case, the background looks like the background to me... I'm not seeing the effect you describe. Does it appear that way in both edits, or just the original? -- Moondigger21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went back and processed from the original RAW file again, without referring to any of my previous edits. Not sure how others will react, but this one has a bit more contrast and other subtle differences. Sorry to confuse the issue like this, but those of you who are on the fence might like this one better... -- Moondigger01:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, and it does look better on my old laptop screen, and on uncalibrated displays. I'm going to make Edit 2 the default image on the articles I placed the original on. -- Moondigger01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a weird trip load the original and Edit2 in two browser tabs and alternet between them rapidly. I don't know what Voodoo-magic you used to cook up the edit, but the two versions look like they have been taken at different days now. --Dschwen07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No voodoo magic... just the fact that I started from scratch and didn't re-use the layer masks I created for Edit 0 when I re-processed Edit 2 from RAW. I prefer to do manual burning/dodging over Photoshop's automated shadow/highlight routines. FWIW, I 'monkeyed' with Edit 2 a lot less than I did with Edit 0; Edit 2 is closer to the original RAW file by far. Also, I now notice that I somehow screwed up one of the layer masks on Edit 0... a skip of the mousing hand, so to speak. Right where the main falls plunges into the pool of water, in the froth near the shadow line, it looks like there's a dark smudge. That's not in the RAW file out of the camera, and it's not in Edit 2. -- Moondigger13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily take you word for it, and change my support to Edit2. Maybe a few words about the editing process should be put into the nomination paragraph (in general). --Dschwen15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Lovely composition and image but the light conditions are less than ideal. The shadows are too dark. doniv05:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support consensus version. This cathces the eye, though those pesky swimmers under the falls are a bit annoying. --jjron12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, any version Beautiful. Really contributes to the sense of beauty of the place, which you would not otherwise have. Jeeb02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Havasu_Falls_1a_md.jpg (+17.5/-2.5) I wouldn't close a nom for one of my own pictures if it was a closer call, but this one should be safe. Edit 2 is the clear favorite. -- Moondigger02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top half of frame is overexposed, you need a one stop Grad ND, or one more stop of Grad ND if you are already using such a filter. PPGMD17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above, along with the picture being slightly out of focus and there being too much wind on the lake for a good reflection. --Tewy18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is getting more opposition than I would have expected. The composition is alright; I like how you incorporated the foreground flowers. Aiming the camera a bit more to the left, so the mountain isn't dead center might have helped, and would have partially eliminated the bushy tree in the right foreground. Color, contrast and saturation are all pleasing. But as others have mentioned, the blown highlights hurt the image. If the image was shot in RAW format, and you still have the original RAW file, it might be salvaged. -- Moondigger23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I disagree. The picture does a good job of showing both the lake and mountain. The picture is beautiful, not blurry, and sharp. Will look good on front page. I think that you are all underrating it as a bandwagon. --GoOdCoNtEnT07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Not a bad shot, and a lovely scene, but the composition is a bit ordinary, and the mountain just isn't clear enough for the subject of an FP, IMO. There's also some chromatic aberration which Photoshop might be able to take care of. --Yummifruitbat12:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Picture looks like it has been taken with a low end digital camera. 6MP, but inadequate optics. Colorfringeing and lack of sharpness (seriously, there is no bandwagon, just blur). Rainier has a purple tint in the new version. I cannot scold you for the blown out snow, that stuff is just too darn bright (I'm having te same problem with this image, which makes me reluctant to nominate it). --Dschwen01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (new edition) per GoOdCoNtEnT. The vivid contrasting colors are particularly what attracted me to this image. I even made this my new desktop wallpaper. --(mcshadypl)04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article on the Apatani tribals of Arunachal Pradesh, India was lacking a picture. And in this case, a picture is worth millions of words. They tattoo their faces and wear nose ornaments made of bamboo. Originally, this practise started because the women wanted to look unattractive to males from other tribes. Apatani women were considered to be the most beautiful among all the Arunachal tribes.
I took this photograph at a wedding celebration in Hija village, Ziro
Support. Good quality, cropping is OK. Some post-processing might even improve this picture. I'm going to give it a try tomorrow. Mikeo21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think the cropping is just a bit too tight. Also, what was the motivation for uploading 1024px? Just to be above the pseudo-requirement? Don't you have a higher resolution? Or do you just prefer not to shere a high quality version under a free license? If it should be space concerns with the wikimedia servers, don't worry. It is highly recommended to upload the highest possible resolution (somerestrictionsaplyvoidwhereprohibitedseepolicypagefordetails). --Dschwen20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dschwen, I can't speak for Doniv79, but I would be more than happy to share higher-resolution images for use on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation projects. However Wiki doesn't allow Wiki-only licensing, so I have to decide what resolution to post for each of my images, with the understanding that they could be used commercially by anybody for any purpose. Some images are higher res, some are lower. -- Moondigger20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Unfortunately, this is the full frame. No cropping done on image. In that crowd, I was fortunate to get a composition like this :) doniv08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. (Darn, edit conflict with Dschwen.) Cropped a bit too tightly. Blown highlights in hair tie and on background woman's forehead, though these aren't too objectionable. Just short of FP for me. -- Moondigger20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Agree that there are blown highlights, but only on the hair scarf. The background woman's forehead is fine. doniv08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her forehead has a hot spot -- whether it's technically blown (255,255,255) is irrelevant; it's a hot spot (lacking image information) even if it isn't 255,255,255. Ditto on the tight cropping comments -- whether it was actually cropped or not is irrelevant; if it wasn't, then it's framed too tightly. I'm sure the crowded conditions did make it difficult to get ideal lighting and framing. My comments are not attacks on your ability as a photographer - they are the reasons I'm not supporting this particular photograph for FP status. -- Moondigger14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re the "hot spot", the best thing would be to just paint it in brown. Not always possible, but in this case, since the area is out of focus anyway, you'd get away with it. No such solution to framing though...:) Stevage14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the end, the photo is about the nose ornaments, cropping makes sense. And it's a good, clear photo of something quite interesting. Lastly, look at Apa Tani - can you possibly argue that this image does not add a massive amount to that article? Stevage09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spices at central market in Agadir (Morocco) - May 2005
This is an interesting and eye-catching image and is a good illustration of spices used in Morocco;
it appears in the articles Spice trade and Cuisine of Morocco, and it was taken by Bertrand Devouard and uploaded by User:Anthere.
Oppose Tilted, nothing speciall. it all looks like a bunch of piles of colored sand. You can't really tell they are spices.Nnfolz03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's a good picture, but it's difficult to tell what the spices are and why they're there (is it a market, pre-holiday, etc.?) (for the image's encyclopedic value). --Tewy05:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a typical snapshot. There is nothing significant nor eye-catching about this photo. Also, it is very poorly photographed. --GoOdCoNtEnT07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It has a few technical faults, and could be composed better. Nice idea for a photo but the layout of the spices is not conducive to a good FP. HighInBC12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. My only problem with it is that the edges are clipped off, but it still illustrates those articles well. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-14 23:59
Strong support - clipped off edges aren't going to be a major problem. meets all Featured picture criteria and very eye catching. --GoOdCoNtEnT07:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good image, meets criteria, weak support due to clipped edges, and it would be better if the ride was the only thing that moved(refering to blurred people at bottom).
Oppose. The composition is bothering me. a) cut of the main subject b) too much crop at the lower edge of the frame. Also it is a bit on the small side. --Dschwen16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral. Good color and a useful demonstration of long shutter speeds, but I can't help thinking a similar image that doesn't cut off the main subject would be fairly easy to obtain. -- Moondigger21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish i had this animation back when I was learning this. it would have helped me understand the whole concept (and relations between them) so much better. very valuable contribution, nice addittion to wikipedia.Nnfolz03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It does need some antialiasing, but it is so useful for those trying to grasp the concept that I think that overrides the ultimately-unimportant aesthetic factor. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-15 03:35
Neutral. It's a useful teaching tool, but its pedagogical value would be greater if the circle had only a single, thin spoke -- which would make the fact that it's turning exactly once more obvious. (I realize the bold red line achieves the same purpose, but the viewer has to realize that the red line is what's important, and pay attention to it rather than the spokes.) Also, I don't like that the arrowhead is shaped like a heart (and red, too) - a stylistic choice that adds nothing to the pedagogical value, but might make one wonder "Why a heart?" -- Moondigger03:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons, the main being that this gives an impression that pi somehow represents the red-shaded area. Other reasons: Aliasing, strange-looking arrow point, red circumference too close in color to red-brown wheel, animation is a little too fast. --Janke | Talk04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - the area of that rectangle is much larger than the area of the wheel - or there's something far more wrong with my eyes than just myopia... It's πr2 vs. π, and since r is 0.5, the rectangle has four times the area of the wheel! --Janke | Talk08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, π is four times the area of that wheel... I'm not sure where your problem is? Note that this image is concerned primarily with the circumference of the wheel, not its area. I guess your confusion arises from the illustration of π as an area in the first place; for consistency, it might be better to represent it as a one-dimensional length. Redquark13:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dschwen never said the area of the rectangle was less than that of the wheel. Reread the comments. The length of the rectangle is pi, and the area of it is also pi, because the height is 1. That's all Dschwen was saying. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-17 15:10
And the rectangle has sides with length π and length 1. That makes the area 1*π (which is π last time I checked ;-) )--Dschwen16:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well still not quite right ;-). The diagram above shows a circle/wheel with a diameter of 1 unit (it could be centimeters, feet, light years, etc.). Each mark of 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent 1, 2, 3 and 4 units, respectively. We'll call this unknown unit "u". Now, if you "roll" out the circumference of this wheel, you get π units. You just said that 1*π = π, but you're forgetting your units. It's really 1 unit * π units, which equals π units squared (1 u * π u = π u2). As an example, you could replace units (u) with centimeters (cm). That would give you 1 cm * π cm = π cm2. ...So if anyone wants my opinion, I think the way the diagram displays the shaded region as π could be misleading to someone who didn't understand what π exactly was. I should just be left as a red line to clarify that π was a length, not an area. --Tewy19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's π cm2, not π2 cm. The diagram is accurate in its depiction of area. I do agree that it would be simpler to ignore the area question completely for the purposes of this demonstration. -- Moondigger20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
still not quite right? Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. π is unitless and neither a length nor an area. Nowhere is a unit u mentionend in the diagram. So whether you are looking at the line or the area it is π in any case. Full stop. --Dschwen23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, ok, you're right, I made the mistake of calling the rolled-out length π, when it was really the circumference of length π. I meant to say that if you were looking at the diagram and seeing the rolled-out length (the circumference), you would have to deal with units...but yes, π is unitless, and I agree this is getting out of hand, so I'll stop. I think I can safely conclude that this diagram is confusing though, as it only shows that a circle of diameter 1 has a circumference of π, and not that π is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter. --Tewy23:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Per all above (Both positive and negative comments). It explains the concept well, but not well enough, and could use some simplification in colors, spokes, etc. --Tewy05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. After reading and participating in these vast discussions on what π is and how the diagram represents it, it is extremely clear that this diagram is highly confusing to voters, let alone new learners of the subject. The idea is a good one, but was executed in the wrong way, i.e., the rectangle, only showing that a circle with a diameter of 1 has a circumference of π (but how would new learners apply that to a circle of diameter 2?), and the minor details of the spokes, colors, etc. that I mentioned above. I will support this diagram if it is recreated to address all the comments that have been added to this page. --Tewy18:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support personally, i think it's very interesting and encyclopedic, and that these qualities overrides the color and the heart-shaped arrow issue. --Vircabutar23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea but flawed execution per above. Perhaps the original artist will try to improve it, taking these comments into account -- if not, it's still a good addition to the article, but not quite up to FP standards.--Eloquence*10:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The heart and color scheme say 'Pi is for Girls!', which is rather amusing. But it isn't clear that the red line is more important then the spokes on the wheel, and the line turning into a big rectangle could be misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algr (talk • contribs)
Strong support First off, the area *is* Pi, we should strike all votes claiming otherwise because they are factually inaccurate. Secondly, the complaints about the point being heart shaped are unreasonable: Plumb-bob's often have heart shaped cross sections and are often illustrated as such in patent drawings, for example. Thirdly, because this is an animated GIF the resolution can't be greater because our scaling for animated gifs is almost totally broken... And finally, because of the limited colors in GIF the possibilities of anti-aliasing without introducing additional artifacts are pretty limited. --Gmaxwell04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just because the area is numerically equivalent to the value of Pi, does not mean the area is Pi; as some were getting at above, Pi is a constant with no units and no dimensions. To represent it as an area is clearly misleading. I'm not even convinced the author intended this, but it has caused enough confusion here to lead me to oppose. --jjron12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: jjron, the area you describe is Pi (units2). That's like saying 2 isn't a number because it doesn't have units or dimensions. 1+1=2. 1x2=2. Or, we can specify units. 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units. A rectangle with a long side of 2 units and a short side of 1 unit has an area of 2 units2. A rectangle with a long side equivalent in length to the circumference of a circle and a short side equivalent in length to the same circle's diameter has an area of Pi units2.
Pi is more than just the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter -- though that is the most famous definition and the one first taught. But just as "2" is more than just 1+1 (it's also the square root of 4; 18 divided by 9; etc), Pi can also be described other ways. For example, it is the ratio of the area of a circle to the area outside the same circle but within a square with sides of one circle diameter length. (This would be easier to imagine with a picture -- draw a square on a piece of paper, and then draw a circle within it that touches all four sides. The ratio of the area within the circle to the area outside the circle but within the square is Pi.)
Area in circle: пr^2. Area in square: 4r^2. Area outside circle but in square: 4r^2 - пr^2. How do you get п from any ratio?? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-17 19:03
Hazy and apparently incorrect recollection of a programming project I did in college 17 years ago. Whoops. It's the ratio of a circle's area to the area of a square with sides the same length as the circle's radius. My first example was bad, but the point stands... Pi can be defined by methods other than the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. -- Moondigger19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the animation we've been discussing. If the point is to demonstrate the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, specifying the area of the rectangle laid out in the animation is superfluous and potentially confusing. That it lacks the units2 designation is potentially even more confusing, though it's no more 'incorrect' than if somebody made an animation showing a rectangle twice as long on one side as the other, and calling the area "2." (The units2 is understood.) In any case, I agree this animation shouldn't even bother specifying the area. -- Moondigger13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I didn't think it did specify the area.. though I suppose we'd have to ask the author. But the area is as much Pi as it could be 3 if the box ended a bit earlier. --Gmaxwell19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if the box 'ended earlier,' it wouldn't have a side that's equivalent to the circumference of the circle, with the circle's diameter as its height. -- Moondigger19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That comment of mine was to address the complaint that unitlessness was a problem, I wasn't suggesting a change. I wouldn't change anything about the image. --Gmaxwell19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand now -- I agree that unitlessness is not a problem from a technical perspective, since the "units2" is generally understood. But I do think demonstrating the area in the 'growing pink rectangle' is ill-advised from a pedagogical perspective. -- Moondigger20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Firstly, Moondigger, that stuff you were saying about 2 was the strangest thing I've ever read from you - if it made any sense it could only be that you totally misinterpreted my comment.
Now, an analogy for those who think π and π units2 are the same thing. I ask you to do a job and say I'll pay you $100 for it. After you've done the job I give you a scrap of paper with the number 100 written on it. Now are you going to be happy with my payment? Unlikely. But when you argue that π and π units2 are the same thing, you are making the same mistake. π is not the same as π units2 (just as the $100 is different from the number 100). You see, the units do make a difference. The number is the same, but the thing is not.
When you also say that "the units2 is generally understood", that is also not valid. Let's be realistic; is this graphic aimed at people that understand the concept of Pi intimately, or those learning the concept? It might be fine for you and me, who can conceptualise it, but what about the 13yo kid this is presumably aimed at as a learning aid? If you don't think it will be a problem for 99.9% of them then I'd say you've obviously never tried to teach this sort of thing. And if you're happy to teach the concept of area without reference to units, then please don't ever try teaching it as that would be an unfortunate experience for any hypothetical students.
If this is so confusing for people who presumably already understand π, then it would surely be even moreso for students who would henceforth associate π with an area. In fact what I'm getting from a number of the comments is that there are several voters that don't understand this fully, and probably don't understand one or more of that (i) π is a constant and not an area, (ii) the area of the rectangle shown is not same as the area of the circle shown, and therefore (iii) that the area of a circle is not π (or π units2), i.e., to simplify, using this many students could interpret that π is the area of a circle (and most likely any circle). And if you knocked that out of them, then they'd still think π was some sort of area, so then you'd have to unteach that, and so on - doesn't seem very effective.
I'm not totally convinced the author even intended to equate π with the area, and I'm sure they didn't intend this confusion. And all because of that darn rectangle. --jjron08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think it's clear based on the way the pink box "grows" that the author did intend to show that the area of a rectangle with length equivalent to the circumference of a circle and height equivalent to the diameter of the circle is Pi, and that the units2 is understood but unstated. Nevertheless, I agree that it is potentially confusing and shouldn't be a part of this animation, and have agreed on that point from the start.
As for the rest of it, I'm not sure why you didn't follow what I was saying. The basic gist of it is that like 2, Pi is a number. 2 can be defined many ways - 1+1, 18/9, etc. Ditto for Pi. One definition is "the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter." That's the classic definition. Another is "the ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a square with sides the same length as the circle's radius." There are other definitions as well.
I don't think your analogy about being paid $100 for a job was directed at me, but I will say this. Dollars, like units2, are often unstated but understood. To wit:
"How much are you paying for this job?" asked Harold.
"A hundred," replied Jim.
Now if Harold does the job and Jim attempts to hand him a piece of paper with the number "100" written on it for payment, Jim risks getting a punch in the nose. The units, dollars, were understood from the start even though they were not stated. I believe that's the same thing going on in this animation.
When children are taught the formulae for finding area, at least at the school I attended and the one my children are now attending, the units are seldom mentioned, because they are understood even if they're not stated. For example, they are taught that the area of a rectangle is length x width. The area of a circle is Pi times r2. Nobody says the area of a rectangle is length units times height units, or that the area of a circle is Pi units times radius units squared. Yet you can't get units2 in the answer unless the units were understood from the start to be attached to the length, width, radius, or Pi. They are present but unstated. This is all a side issue anyway, since it relates to the pink rectangle and we both agree that it shouldn't be in the animation in the first place. Given that we agree it should be eliminated, I see little point in discussing units2 further.-- Moondigger12:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the rectangle. The graphic attempts to communicate too much, and the rectangle is the culprit. If the rectangle is removed, leaving the line of length pi, count me in Support because it'll be a superlative animation. The same graphic can be repackaged to make a second animation demonstrating area (using the rectangle instead of the line), although since it's aimed at beginners, it would be much easier to make the radius 1 for the area demonstration. Fg200:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. That is to say, this could become two featured pictures. 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It clearly demonstrates in pictures the idea that circumference is just a bit greater than 3 diameters, a quantity we call Pi. Very nice. Jeeb03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another, somewhat similar animation on the Pi article, shown here:
But the article is screwed up. The text description next to this animation is the correct description for what happens in the wagon-wheel demonstration nominated above. Somebody must have moved the images around without updating the text. In any case, neither animation is a worthy FP, IMO. The wagon-wheel suffers from trying to depict too much; this one doesn't show enough (like a horizontal scale). -- Moondigger18:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To reiterate, this animation might become two featured pictures if they separately illustrated circumference and area. Kudos to User:John Reid for excellent illustration. Fg202:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted But it's clear from the comments that a similar animation addressing the concerns raised above would likely pass FP muster. -- Moondigger01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isometric projection problem caseSVG edit 1Blown-up screenshot of SVG versionSVG edit 2
Image created by User:Algr. I really like it because besides looking nice, it also strongly contributes to the Isometric projection article, clearly pointing out a potential problem with the use of isometric projection pseudo-perspective, as well as the basis of some of M.C.Escher's artistic works.
Comment: I have no idea whether the author's software would allow him to easily save to SVG, but if it becomes an issue, I could ask him... AnonMoos19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I am going to be ultra picky, but the edges should be cleaned too, there are some very slight misalignments. I believe it should not happen if done properly. --Bernard02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Icey: a good start, but a few things should be better:
Your projection is not isometric. Measure the different lengths and you will see a difference. This holds for the original too, in a different way.
The shading on the narrow parts is not perfect, some are more in shadow than they should be.
The base of the red and blue pieces should not be a random curve but a half ellipse, and the lengths of both axis should be in the same ratio as the diagonals of the face (same is true for the original). Oh, they should be centered too.
The shading on the conical parts of the pieces should be a conical gradient, and should go in both directions (I must admit I have seen no way to do that in Inkscape. Well, at least it should pass through the top and be symmetric).
And also I think it would be better with a similar background gradient as in the original. In conclusion, oppose the svg for now, weak oppose the original (even this one should be fixed for the ellipse arcs and the isometry). --Bernard 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC). Support svg edit 2 --Bernard22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to support my own picture? The hex measurements are off by less then one pixel at the size above - theoretically no image on a video screen could ever be perfectly isometric, so it is a question of under what context does the image fail? It turns out to be surprisingly difficult to make perfect hexagons on a program that doesn't directly support such geometry. Using a 3D image program definitely won't work unless it specifically supports isometric rendering. Any thoughts on how to calculate the right curve for the base? Flash gives me only X and Y pixel measurements, and no way to measure angles. Someone asked a while ago for SVG, but the software I tried downloading didn't work. Icey, If I send you the flash file, will that help? Algr
Assuming that the pieces are cones (with horizontal cross-sections in the shape of a circle), the theoretical shape of the appearance of the bottom of the piece should be half of an ellipse which has its major axis and minor axis in a ratio of the square root of three to one.
Actually, it should be a bit longer than half of an ellipse: because of the conical shape, we can see a little behind. --Bernard12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My measurements on the original thumbnail are 28.7 upper right and 26.9 upper left, more than one pixel. It is about 172-167-164 on the large size. Not that serious, but you can't deny the problem Algr. --Bernard12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying the problem, I'm questioning it's relevance. Few photos would ever survive such scrutiny, nor would anyone expect them too. Algr
Alrighty, I've spent the last few hours completely remaking the image. I believe all the problems mentioned are now fixed. The only problem I have is that my knowledge of Inkscape is somewhat limited, so I don't know how to do the suggested shading on the pieces. I've just gone for some sphere's instead. As before, suggestions and feedback are welcome. Icey20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Contributes greatly to the linked article, and image quality great. There's no way you could understand the description of the limits discussed without an image like this. Prefer SVG edit 2. Jeeb02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever you are, you bring up a good point. Can we please keep the boxes consistent, or is it meant to be like that? --Tewy18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, there's a perfectly logical explanation for that. *pauses* *looks round* Which, err, Algr will explain to you. Essentially, I'm not sure, but if someone knows what it should be, I'll modify it to be correct. Icey
I think it's almost as consistent as it can be -- the thin layer is used when there is not a cube-thickness at hand, because having an abstract zero-height 2D plane instead of a thin 3D layer would look less real. So there's no need to insert a thin layer at the diagonal junction between the two cubes. The only possible real "inconsistency" is that the lower cube is placed on top of a thin layer, but the upper cube has an adjoining thin layer. However, doing it this way makes sure that the upper thin layer is exactly two cube-heights above the lower thin layer, so there's a good reason for it... AnonMoos19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flower spike of Banksia quercifoliacropped,tilted and sharpened
This is the flower spike of a Banksia quercifolia and is the Information box image for this article. I took this in Kings Park, Western Australia on the 14 August 2006. The plant is part of a garden bed collection of Banksia species native to Western Australia.
Weak Oppose I like the picture. I think the color use is very good, and it's appealing to look at. However, I think you could crop it a little, because the tree and background, while a little should be there, is a bit distracting. It's also not centered perfectly. If the picture is edited a little, I'll change my vote to support. Joniscool9816:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. The second is better, but the graininess really becomes apparent after the cropping. It was also tilted too much. --Tewy18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be the case. Therefore, I will vote: Delete, NN vanity puff piece, original research, unverifiable, does not satisfy A7, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-17 18:55
Comment The article it points to is a very short stub and should be expanded significantly. The picture of the inflorescence is fine, but a whole plant picture would be more informative. Jeeb01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Befuddled and bewildered, by earlier comments. The last review the flower spike is the most unique feature and most recognisable feature of the species and genus as such its what is used in the taxo box --Gnangarra02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was a joke. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 04:23
This image depicts the city of Nagasaki, Japan, on September 24, 1945, six weeks after the atomic bomb was dropped. Two Three statues, an Amida Buddha and a two of Jizo, are all that remains of a destroyed temple. Photo by Cpl. Lynn P. Walker, Jr., USMC. Appears in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oppose. I'm sure it sounds pretty cynical to complain about cluttered composition. But despite some historical significance (I emphasize some since it isn't really a widely known iconic picture) the quality concerns dominate for my vote. --Dschwen23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is too poor for FP, I know it has important significance, but it is not an example of our best work. HighInBC22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Contributes significantly--unless you somehow have first hand experience of what an atomic-bombed metropolis looks like--to a very important article. Technical merit completely irrelevant here--what do you expect from a devastated area with 1940s technology? Jeeb02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dorothea Lange, 1936Edit 1: Began with LOC TIFF; eliminated left tilt; cropped; reduced noise/grain; adjusted contrast; downsampled; converted to JPEG.
Weak support: Seems strange to be picking apart a picture that can't possibly be re-shot, but perhaps it could be improved. It looks like the image has a left-leaning tilt. The full-resolution image is far larger than the level of detail present in the negative requires; a lot of wasted pixels and a lot of wasted bandwidth to no benefit. Contrast is a bit low, and the sky is blown. (I only mention the blown sky because it almost certainly isn't blown in the original negative; unlike with digital sensors or slide film, it's nearly impossible to blow highlights with black & white negative film.) I'd love to have the original negative to scan on my own, but since that's an impossibility I might see what can be done with the original TIFF file (linked on the image page). The sky might be blown in the TIFF, but perhaps the other concerns could be addressed. -- Moondigger17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why are you thinking the original has as left tilt? Just because there is no perfectly vertical line in the pic? The car is parked with two wheels off the pavement. I seems pretty obvious to me that the car is tilted, not the picture. --Dschwen21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the signpost (or what looks like a signpost) in the background (right side of pic) was tilted about 2 degrees to the left. When I rotated clockwise, the signpost was vertical but the car was still tilted, as would be expected with two wheels off the pavement. (Driver's side tires are higher in the frame than the passenger side tires, even after I rotated the image.) It's possible the signpost was off-vertical -- but even if it was, there's no way to know which direction it was off-vertical. In the end it comes down to judgement, and my edit looks more natural to my eye than the original. But it wouldn't bother me if somebody wanted to put together an alternate edit without the rotation. -- Moondigger02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a close call? Despite the size, I think this is another wonderful tiger photograph. I found it on the Siberian tiger article after nominating Image:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg, and thought this too would make an excellent addition to featured pictures; appears in Siberian tiger, and Malene created the image.
Oppose I like the other FPC of a siberian tiger better than this one. This has a poor background, and area of the tigers coat looks strange (is it wet?) and it's really pushing the size limit. Perhaps if it were in higher res I would support. --Fir000212:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - nothing is hugely in favour of this image. It shows the whole body but in an atypical position. Its eyes are closed. It's the bare minimum for resolution. It's a zoo shot rather than a nature shot. The lighting is pretty flat. Does it add a lot to Siberian tiger? Not really. It's not a very compelling case. Stevage14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the general feel of other opposes. Also, it may be relatively minor, but I find that bit of log obscuring his leg offputting. --jjron12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't illustrate a tiger in the wild, doesn't seem to show anything significant about tigers in captivity. --Davepape01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is that the article seems to be basically about human stretching (for sports). The text doesn't mention cats; I have the impression (from our vet) that stretching is an important activity for cats, so the article should discuss that, for the image to be appropriate. --Davepape18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peterhof cascade is one of the greatest of St.Petersburg's landmarks, and is very important part of Russian history. The picture is well taken. It is not blurry, sharp, and high resolution.
Oppose, same reason. It's a nice image apart from that, but it's probably safe to say that this nomination should be aborted now - no image with pure white sky like that would ever be promoted. Stevage14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A blue sky would really set the building out. I know it's not always possible. Also taken at a time of day when the sun is not really intense, but a blue sky is still visible is good. --Kalmia20:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image shows a famous example of minimalism, an art style where the work is stripped down to its most fundamental features and core self expression. The picture features a famous example of the style by Dan Flavin, a 20th century American artist.
This should be a featured picture because it is sharp, clear, eye-catching, good resolution, and appealing to viewers with interest in art.
Comment ARe we cleared on copyrights on this image? Lots of artists have claimed that photographs of their works are considered derivative works of the original artistic work, requiring permission from the copyright holder or else falling into fair use. We can't have fair use for a FP, so we need permission from the artist or whoever holds the copyright in the work. Also, the picture itself isn't that hot: kind of blurry at full res. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The artist is dead and this file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Therefore, it is ok to use it as a Featured Picture. And the picture is not blurry at 1000px which is a requirement for featured pictures. --GoOdCoNtEnT05:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The artist being dead doesn't means much. Different countries have different regulations, but a good rule of thumb seems to be that copyright expires 70 years after the death of the artist. The license of the photo does not supersede the copyright of the installation, I suspect it is thus wrongly licensed. --Dschwen07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A better rule of thumb is that copyright expires X years after the death of the artist, where X is the number of years since Walt Disney died. Stevage14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, would be even funnier if it weren't so true. But I guess in this case you mean copyright expires after X+1 years ;-) --Dschwen15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Not interesting, wierd for the sake of wierd. I know it illustrates a real form of art, but this is not an example of wikipedia's best work. HighInBC23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before you all go "Aaargh! Not another sunset!" I really feel this one is quite exceptional, and certainly at least as good if not better than the currently featured sunsets. And yes, it is not currently on the sunset article, but if the consensus thinks this is a good image I'll put it on.
Comment why not add it to the sunset article, and see if consensus *there* says it's good? It's kind of hard to work out whether it "adds significantly" to that article until we see it there. Stevage14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So what is the deal with the sharp wavy transition line to the left of the tree (that got menioned on tne commons FPC page)? --Dschwen15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: that sunset article is starting to overflow with pics again, so please throw one out if you insert this one.--Dschwen15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have doubts this is the original sky that existed when this photo was originally taken. If you look at the difference between the original image and the edited image, you can see a seam existed in the middle of the original that is no longer there in the edit. Definitely two separate images composited together to create one. Is an image that has been manipulated to this extent even ok to be submitted as a "Featured picture"? Roguegeek21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The colors of the sky can be seen bleeding through the tree branches, this is very hard to fake and leads me to believe that the ground and sky are from one picture. HighInBC23:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was, I'm not sure what the wavy line was - either a stitching fault or it looks like a polygonal lasso with no feather. I don't actually recall doing that, but I might have selectively lightened the RHS of the image and forgot to put some feather on the lasso. But I can definetly vouch that this was the original sky. --Fir000222:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it by a matter of seconds there Fir ;). Well, what I was going to say was this: The image is a stitched panorama. What you're seeing in the original is the stitch line, which in that case was not blended very well. That does not mean it isn't the original sky. It is more likely to just be due to vignetting of the individual frames, or different colour balance between frames or something along those lines. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly the seam is just an adjustment layer with a bad mask that needed to be cleaned up. Undecided on what it is. In either case, I'm a little tired of seeing sunset images. Second the idea of sending it over to the sunset article to see what they say. Roguegeek21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is they at the sunset article isn't a very active crowd. Most edits are just shifting around images, reverting vandalism and adding links/interwikilinks. The most contributions to this article sadly come from photguys. For a mundane topic like this it isn't very surprising. I gues what I'm trying to say is that there is a huge asymmetry between how much attention this article gets FPC-wise vs. its relevance in WP as an article. It might actually be the worst case of asymmetry (next to the clouds article). So why bother waiting for their response? --Dschwen23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Before I forget it: Aaargh! Not another sunset. Not mindblowingly spectacular enough to be yet another sunset FP. --Dschwen23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--per Dschwen; Also...one thing I like to see in sunsets is--a SUN! After all, that's what it's all about. Anyway, just something I like in sunset pictures (personal opinion, and if you don't accept that argument, just look at Dschwen's)Joniscool9801:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. If this wasn't an image of such a photographed subject, I would support it, considering it is a technically good shot (with cropping out the house), but since these pictures are literally everywhere, I'm not sure what makes this one special (and I really don't know what kind of plain sunset picture would be special enough for FP). --Tewy04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a halo, a common artifact of certain sharpening routines or certain kinds of contrast enhancement. It's not evidence of gross manipulation (i.e., content changes). -- Moondigger18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- It's a pretty scene, one of the better sunsets I've seen on Wikipedia. However it looks a bit oversaturated and high-contrast on my monitor. Maybe dialing them down a bit would eliminate the halo on the tree too? -- Moondigger18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see that all *three* sunset photos at Sunset are by Fir0002, of which two are labelled as Swifts Creek. A little variety could help a lot here - often the most dramatic sunsets include water, a recognisable skyline, silhouetted objects etc. There are *hundreds* available at Commons - I can't, in good faith, support this as being the most remarkable of the lot. Being so similar to the two others in the article it doesn't even "add" a great deal. Stevage09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is a striking and somewhat unusual illustration. It was created by Wikimedian Greg Maxwell specifically for the purpose of illustrating Earwax where it is currently in use.
What would your suggestion be? I consulted with several other editors before shooting this series and took a large number of photographs. The swab photos were the clear winner, since the swab itself gives the picture context and avoids visual confusion. For an example see the UV earwax on swab image on the article, without the swab clearly visable (And without comparison to the normal light image) the image appears somewhat confusing.--Gmaxwell04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there can be a featured PHOTOGRAPH of earwax other than maybe (ewwww) a comparison of different people's waxes with some explanation for whatever differences you see. Much more likely I could see a featured picture that's more like a diagram of wax generation, wax structure, something like that. WP:WIAFP which you yourself referenced requires the pic be pleasing to the eye and be WP's best work. While this is fantastic work technically and definetly should remain in the article, a high res photo of a cotton swab is not a featured picture. Staxringoldtalkcontribs01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Technically excellent, but as per Staxringold the earwax is not prominent. Also it does not look that impressive to me. HighInBC23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be a featured picture of earwax to you? Would it have to be a lone lump of earwax on a plain white surface? I'm not sure I understand your objections. —Keenan Pepper23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to this picture is mostly based on lack of impressivness(it is just a waxy q-tip I see those on my bathroom floor), I personally don't see how a picture of earwax can be an FP, unless mabye a nice picture inside of an ear(ya, that would be cool). HighInBC23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI don't think this picture represents one of the finest pictures on the internet--an image can be technically great but I don't think that the subject matter is FP quality (I'll reconsider if someone can show me that an FP is only based on technical merit, rather than subject matter.Joniscool9801:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule (for lack of a better word that I can think of) on the What is a featured picture page that says subject matter should decied whether or not a picture should become featured. The third rule may be considered as judging on subject matter, but I think it just means that it should be of high technical quality and unique in some way. A high quality photograph of earwax is definetly unique in my books. :) Imaninjapirate04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support"... The picture should make a reader want to know more." I guess people would want to know more about earwax when they see this pic on the Main Page. And the pic is technically great. And I think we need this sort of pic. We love grand landscape pics, but we also want to see something really different... at least from time to time.--K.C. Tang03:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't that person know that you should never use Q-tips to clean out ears! I had to learn that the hard way (barely being able to hear out of my right ear for several days after using a q-tip). But seriously, technically everything is great in this picture. Imaninjapirate04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Staxringold. This is excellent quality, but I keep thinking, what is it telling me about earwax? Re what would I support - perhaps earwax in situ, though I'm not sure exactly how one would go about getting a great photo of it. --jjron12:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm sorry, Greg... I've given this a day to see if my initial reaction to the image would fade... but no matter how many times I've looked at it I still can't get over the feeling that this isn't something that should be featured or a front-page image. I just can't reconcile it to criteria 3 or (especially) 7 in the featured picture criteria. To be honest, at first I thought this was a joke nom, in part due to the caption describing the earwax as "wet-type," which I find unintentionally humorous. Also, the earwax depicted here is far wetter than any I have ever seen in real life, looking more like oxidized honey than earwax. -- Moondigger19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have dry-type earwax? I'd describe this as 'oxidized honey' in comparison to my earwax, but I have dry-type. The image is representative of wet-type earwax. I find your interpretation of (7) odd when comparing your position on this image (which has been described to me as 'intriguing' and 'utterly disgusting but cool') to your views on your own images. --Gmaxwell19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, mine is wet-type, according to the description in the earwax article. (i.e., It's not "grey and flaky.") It's just not actually as wet as the earwax in the picture appears to be. Regarding the disparity between my opinion on this image and on my own images w/r/t criterion #7. It says images should be "pleasing to the eye" and "make the reader want to know more," amongst other things. I find most of my images (and most of yours, for the record) pleasing to the eye. I don't find this particular image pleasing to the eye -- unlike the person who found it disgusting but cool, I just find it mildly disgusting. It doesn't make me want to know more; I feel like I already know too much after looking at it. Again, I'm sorry -- I know it's a subjective thing, and I did give it some time to see if my initial reaction would fade. But it hasn't. FWIW, I've changed my comment to a weak oppose. But it would be a lie for me to say I'm neutral on it. -- Moondigger20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shows what I get for not reading it and going by memory, I thought criteria 7 was purely "The picture should make a reader want to know more"... which isn't a criteria that I believe clearly applies to many of our pictures, including many of mine and yours. Your commentary on the wetness of this wet type would appear to me to demonstrate conclusively that the image caused you to go learn more. ;) --Gmaxwell22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make a blanket statement to that effect. There might be a disgusting (to be fair, I said "mildly disgusting") picture I would support for featured status, but this one isn't it. Greg, it wasn't the picture that sent me to the article to read about wet-type vs. dry-type; it was the followup discussion here. Though I don't deny that others might react differently to the image, it definitely doesn't make me want to learn more. -- Moondigger23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Such an image does not help illustrate a concept or improve the quality of WIkipedia by contributing to its content. A picture of a common substance, of which everyone is familiar, runs contrary to the purpose of featured pictures, regardless of any technical qualities. Jeeb21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe they shouldn't be FPs. Read the ongoing discussion on FP criteria on the talk page if you want to go down that road. If you like the picture, then just vote for it and state your reasons. Jeeb03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High resolution, sharpnes and good lighting. Might not be an appetizer but shows earwax well. Please do not crop to make earwax more prominent, the cotton swab provides context. --Dschwen01:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cynical Opinion The "awe-inspiring" landscape pics and the "important" historical pics are almost always hailed, when it comes to pics that concern the little things in our everyday life, which are after all experiences we all share, we despise, we condemn, we call them jokes...--K.C. Tang03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per Moondigger. I would not be proud having this in our FP collection: a photo of what looks like someone who stuck a Q tip in their ear, swirled it around, and took a photo of it. Yes, I would prefer a landscape any day. I don't think this adds a lot to Wikipedia, and I don't think it shows what makes us unique - go to rotten.com if you want to be disgusted. Stevage09:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It adds somewhat to the article, but not nearly as much as a comparison between wet- and dry-type would. I'm not sure that's enough to oppose it, but it's just enough to give me pause about supporting it. The "ick" factor isn't an issue, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm trying my best to base my vote not on the "ick factor", but on the criteria of what a featured picture is. The two criteria in debate are 3 and 7. I believe that 3 is fulfilled because I cannot see a better way to photograph earwax, besides in the ear itself (though that is difficult, because earwax isn't on the outside). As for criteria 7, I believe that this image has inspired so much discussion that it must be interesting, and at least for me, it makes me want to read more (but as Moondigger said, it's a subjective thing. I think the only way to decide is by tallying the votes to see how many users think that this image meets criteria 7). --Tewy19:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm going to oppose, not because of the reasons stated above, but because it's just plain boring. It's not very interesting, and while great pictures can be made with everyday objects as subjects, this one is just dull. --Dark Kubrick10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose It has high resolution but the image do is not nice. Imagine enter to wikipedia for first time and see that image in the Main Page. No way. --Neo13915:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mainly because I am really irked that some people think FP's have to be of fluffy kittens or pretty landscapes ;-) Seriously though, nice technical quality, and if it wasn't interesting, there wouldn't be so many people discussing it. mstroeck22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per all oppose, especially Jeeb and Steveage. Boring, gross, and not at all unique---anyone with a camera could take a picture of their earwax if they had the desire to do so. --Nebular11023:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is pointless and stupid. that's about as interesting as watching paint dry. get rid of it off this list, right now!!! 150.101.54.3400:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this image. When I saw it before on the list for Wikimania awards, I immediately went and read our article on earwax. It's somewhat gross, because of the subject and typical Western POV, but it's a great shot, the swab gives context, looks like earwax to me, and it's also something which it's difficult to get a great, free, encyclopedic picture of, because it's not a lucrative subject to take pictures of. I think we should support pictures which draw in readers, and are also encyclopedic images filling a specific need in the encyclopedia. Mak(talk)04:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality macro and interesting subject. I completely agree that we need more high quality images like this, even if they are 'simplistic' and boring to some. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While in terms of quality and picture composition I would have no problem nominating this picture. But the subject is of great concern. I cannot deny the quality of this picture, and I think the issue is less about this picture in particular, but more about whether pictures with controversial subject matter or slightly offensive content that fulfill nearly all other requirements of feature pictures, should be included in FP. I suppose I recognize the quality of this picture, but do not think it would be appropriate to consider this a featured picture, an example of the very best on Wikipedia. What does the picture lend to the article? There is not much artistry being used to show something that is so ordinary, mundane, and common to us as human beings. Perhaps a diagram showing where earwax is in the human body and how it is created. Perhaps a microscopic view of earwax would give interesting introspection into what earwax is, providing a new view worthy of an encyclopedic article. Lastly, as the article mentions and the caption mentions, this is only an example of the "wet" type of earwax found commonly in people of European descent. What about an example of "dry" earwax? It is not very universal considering that there are many people in the world with dry earwax, and many people in the world do not use cotton swabs to clean their ears. It might just be my opinion, but better be safe and not have a good quality image listed as FP, than to have something viewed as possibly offensive represent Wikipedia. I would definitely nominate it for a pictures of high quality, but not FP. Sudachi17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A photo of earwax on a Q-tip is like a photo of urine in a toilet. It connects the substance (which is what should be illustrated) to the act of personal hygiene in a manner that reduces the aesthetic properties of the image, while adding nothing to its explanatory value. Different types of earwax presented on a neutral background would work better.--Eloquence*02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Stunning photo quality and has encyclopedic value. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not gallery of the beautiful things in life, so I have not problem promoting this quality image. I do, however, see the point Eloquence is making. If the earwax could be isolated, photographed while still in the ear, or photographed next to other types of earwax as comparison (even on q-tips), that would be even better. --NoahElhardt18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented towards the top, I shot many images.. The in-ear images where just a useless muddle.. far too busy and the earwax was hard to see. That is actually why I also took images of the earwax under intense UV, it was initially my intention to use the UV to make the earwax in the ear more visible. Ultimately I decided that the pictures were not useful. I also took images of pieces of earwax in free fall, but they just end up as meaningless blobs (the quality was fine, but the image just wasn't good in any other regard). A nurse recommended I try a swab, and that and I found that the swab gave the image a frame of reference and worked really well. Dry type earwax (which is what I have) is difficult to photograph, because it doesn't really look like anything. In small amounts it is almost completely translucent. It was always my intention to eventually pair the swab image with an image of an ear pick with dry type on it at the same scale, I just haven't found a proper ear pick yet, and I'm pretty disincented to bother with the harsh negativity I've seen here... As far as Eloquence's comment, of all the people on FPC I am the least surprised to see a harsh comment from him towards me. Considering that the swab was recommended to me by a nurse (apparently sterile swabs are used to remove earwax for culturing) I can't really see any reason for the comparison to urine in a toilet, beyond an attempt to be maximally degrading. As far as placing the image on the main page, I view it as something similar to our featured articles like Crushing by elephant, something of an oddball charm of Wikipedia which is undeniably encyclopedic... Where else will you go to find a highly detailed photograph of earwax? --Gmaxwell19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to offend, and I appreciate your effort, as well as the courage to face public debate about the picture (which is, as others have said, technically very well done). I simply think that the current presentation is suboptimal, because it does not sufficiently separate the subject matter from the act of personal hygiene, which is what many people will think of when they see the picture. "Gross" is not a criterion to not have the picture, but actionable objections to have a more visually pleasing presentation are relevant. Perhaps cropping the "stick" of the swab would make the picture more aesthetically neutral, perhaps a composite would be better. Adding a scale might also help.--Eloquence*00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is arguing that this image should be deleted, which is what's implied when you reference the censorship statement. Many of us just don't think it's FP material. -- Moondigger23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main point I wanted to make with the last statement was that the votes shouldn't be based solely on the "ickiness" of the picture. --Tewy02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It does not demonstrate ear wax well, if at all. Some items just do not set them selves up for good pictures. say198814:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tetrahedron can be placed in 12 distinct positions by rotation alone. These are illustrated above in the cycle graph format, along with the 180° edge (blue arrows) and 120° vertex (reddish arrows) rotations that permute the tetrahedron through the positions. The 12 rotations form the rotation (symmetry) group of the figure.SVG version.
This image was created by User:Debivort, and is in the article Symmetry group. It clearly and beautifully illustrates the concept, and is highlighted appropriately to complement the mathematical concepts in the article.
Strong Support Exactly what an FP should represent. This image is extremely helpful in understanding an abstract concept, and is eye catching as well. The article itself needs some clarification however. Image must be enlarged to max to see the rotation angles properly. Jeeb02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good illustration overall, but of course, that PNG/SVG issue that everyone argues about is probably going to be debated again... (I personally did not take into account the filetype for my vote, otherwise it would be a weak support.) --Tewy18:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One way to interpret the image is as follows: Look at the rod, and see how it passes through the tetrahedron. Some of them go through an edge, while others go through a vertex. The arrows show what happens when the tetrahedron is rotated along the axis. --HappyCamper19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until an SVG source is made available. I like this diagram, but when another talented artist wants to improve on it (e.g. to make the rotation axes bigger), he or she will have to start from scratch because the source is not available. Cowpriest201:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so happens I have had a SVG version sitting on my hard drive the whole time. Personally, I am suspicious of SVG because I have had trouble getting fonts to render correctly, but this one looks OK. Debivort03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! However, it looks like there's no fonts, as I think you mentioned, so as far as FP goes, my support is for the PNG until the degree rotations are included (some are 180°, some are 120°). --Tewy03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the rotation angles don't render in the thumb, or on the image page[29], but if you load the image itself [30] they show, so the data is there. Maybe one of the SVG artists out there knows how to get them to show all the time? Also the SVG is significantly slower to load on my system - Firefox / Mac OSX. If there are tricks to improve it, please let me know. Debivort04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About two thirds of the svg file is taken by an <i:pgf id="adobe_illustrator_pgf"> element. Apparently, this element has no effect on the image itself. There should be an option in Adobe Illustrator, called "Preserve Illustrator Editing Capabilities", that controls this element. Perhaps it could or even should be removed, considering that Adobe Illustrator is proprietary software. --Bernard12:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a version with Illustrator compatibility disabled [31]. It seems to behave the exact same way though. It also includes embedded fonts which I expected to address the lettering issue, but hasn't. Debivort15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lighting is very nice, but as mentioned above several pieces of the panorama are out of focus (>5px blur radius). If a reshoot is possible, try to lock the focus and I'd like to see less roofs cut. --Dschwen00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image itself is beautiful, especially the colors. However the article it points to has no content whatsoever. If there was, I'd support this. Jeeb02:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first sentence on this page. An FP in an article with almost no content defeats the purpose of it being a FP - what does it add to the non-existent content of the article, and why attract users to that article? --jjron08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bluring of the image is caused by the conversion software use in Wiki. Do you have any clue what is that software? If you look directly at the full size picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Stadshaven.jpg with a good browser, you'll notice that the blur is not in the original picture, but is generated by the conversion software.Lsorin
Lsporin, I'm puzzled. On my CRT screen the pic you link to (which is just the pic you'd get by clicking on the thumb then clicking on what then appears) is very blurred! So, for me, the blur is in the original picture. I know my browser well (IE version 6) and it never blurs pics. Is anyone else seeing a sharp pic on the highest res of this submission? Of course, Lsorin's idea of sharpness may not be mine. - Adrian Pingstone08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're both right. MediaWiki uses some software that causes unsharp thumbnails. However in this case the original image is quite soft as well. It could safely be downsampled and sharpened. Stevage09:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But with an unsharpness radius of at least 5px it'll have top be downsampled to <20% making it fairly tiny. Reshoot with manual focus! --Dschwen17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The subject and colors are great, but as above... it's too blurry. Perhaps a resize will reduce this and make it sharper? --DinkY2K23:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Janke, I didn't mess with this one much. I boosted contrast a bit, sharpened it, and that's about it. Nothing funky. The color balance looks a touch too magenta on my work monitor, but looks accurate on my home (calibrated) display. The apparent color of the rocks varies depending on the lighting -- full sun vs. partial clouds vs. overcast. This was taken in full sun in July 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondigger (talk • contribs)
Support. I was going to nominate this...ah well, good picture anyway. Though, I've noticed a growing support for larger pictures on FPC lately, and I'm tempted to just weak support it for that. I'll see what everyone else says. --Tewy03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would like to see more details of this beautiful place when viewing at max resolution. This might be possible with a higher resolution picture. Was this a 1-MP camera you took this picture with? Otherwise, feel free to upload the biggest version available. Mikeo06:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mikeo, your oppose solely on size is not valid, it fulfills the required criteria of 1000+ pixels. Haven't you read the discussion on the FPC talk page? There is a reason for moondigger not to upload a larger version (I guess he shoots at 6, 8 or even more Mpx). --Janke | Talk06:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Janke, at this resolution this just is not a featured picture for me. It lacks some details that I would like to see. This makes it an oppose based on lack of detail, not on size - making it valid. At this resolution, it is nothing special. Mikeo08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, it's a very nice image, but could greatly benefit from a higher resolution. It'd look horrible in print or even fullscreened on many monitors. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the print or monitor size, actually. It would make a fine 4x6 print. And centered on a really large monitor it would look fine (as opposed to "stretch.") To answer HighInBC's question, a larger version exists, but is not available for use here. I talk about the reasons for that on the talk page in the "Commercial concerns" subtopic. -- Moondigger23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Something just doesn't seem right about this picture. The colors of the rock and water look extremely boosted, not matching the overcast sky at all. I'd expect a deep blue sky for colors like this. I've been to the grand staircase region but this picture just looks very weird. --Dschwen21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if you like, but I can't believe you're implying I would mess with it that much, especially after I already explained the conditions it was taken in to Janke above. The colors have not been artificially boosted as you're implying. The vast majority of what you see in this photo was in full sun. The sky was overcast to the west (in the direction this photo was taken), but the sun was high in the south as evidenced by the shadows cast on the south canyon walls (left side of photo). Here are some sample photos demonstrating the mixed cloudy/sunny conditions at that time. (BTW, none of these example photos have been modified in any way other than resolution reduction -- the color and contrast are exactly how they came out of the camera.) 1: The view facing west (towards Horseshoe Bend) at the beginning of the trail leading to the overlook: [32]. Notice how the sky in the west has lots of clouds, but the entire visible area in the foreground is in full sunlight. 2. Here's another view facing west a few minutes later as we continued up the trail towards the overlook. [33] Notice how the entire western sky is filled with clouds, yet the entire foreground is still bathed in full sunlight (evidenced by the shadow cast in the sand by my daughter). 3. This is the view facing east (away from Horseshoe Bend) as we walked the trail back to the parking area after I took the nominated photo. [34] Notice the full shadow cast by my son on the sand. -- Moondigger02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--The back to mangosteens are blurry, and the coloring (i.e. the colors in the background contrasted with the ones in the front) isn't FP worth in my opinion.Joniscool9801:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's very close, but I'd like to see at least one full fruit in focus. Also, the photograph isn't balanced in my opinion (not enough subject matter on the left). --Tewy04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrates a uniquely shaped fruit that the average person would otherwise have no idea of. Quality could be better though. Jeeb01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool subject and good res, but just not a great encyclopedic photo. One fruit that's kind of in focus is cut off and still not fully in focus. You don't see a full fruit, the botton of a fruit, or full DOF on any fruit. 69.183.81.4602:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for weak composition, but mostly because you can't see the whole fruit. See the other image at Mangosteen - the top of the fruit is actually quite interesting. If only the shot showed a whole fruit! The two out of focus fruits are fine with me. Stevage09:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Artists representation of the solar system with grid plane (not to scale)Image:Solar sys.jpg with Pluto removed to show only "Classic" planetsThis is an improved image, removing Pluto.
This is my first nomination for any featured object on Wikipedia, so I hope I do this correctly. I have made it detailed to explain my view as best as possible.
This image is of high quality, though it is a JPEG, it seems to not have lost any quality due to jpg compression. It has excellent contrast with bright planets and objects against the black of space.It is of high resolution and over 1000px – 1440 × 904. Free use:”This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that ‘NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted’”. I have not been able to find the specific hyperlink for this image, though I have messaged the original uploader here and here. Adds a diagram of the solar system for the article. A key image to the article itself. Accurately portrays the (currently) nine planets and is correctly labeled as “not to scale” as such an image would be preposterously large and unpleasing due to the vastness of space. Though the image is subject to debate due to 2006 redefinition of planet, it shows the longheld, and enduring belief of nine planets which has been largely accepted for over 75 years.
Caption: The solar system is a stellar system comprising of the Sun and the retinue of celestial objectsgravitationally bound to it: currently there are 9 official planets and their 165 known moons,<ref>{{cite web| title= The Jupiter Satellite Page|author=Scott S. Sheppard| work=University of Hawaii|url=http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites/|accessdate=2006-07-23}}</ref> as well as asteroids, meteoroids, planetoids, comets, and interplanetary dust. (note: this description was largely copied from Solar system and probably should be worked on before officially featured.)
Once again, this is my first nom and I appreciate any criticism and/or comments of my nom. Please contact me or reply here about it if you would like to say something.
Comment about the nom itself. There really isn't any need to copy the FP criteria here; it clutters the page with information that's already available one click away. Furthermore, that information is part of a living document -- one that could change in a minute or an hour or a day, rendering what's included here outdated and inaccurate. -- Moondigger04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stylistically there are a few things I might quibble over, but my main objection is that this presents stale, outdated information in that it doesn't include 2003 UB313 (the so-called tenth planet, bigger than Pluto), Sedna, or any representation of a Kuiper Belt Object or the Kuiper belt itself. -- Moondigger04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, can't it serve as a good representation of a Kuiper Belt Object/Dwarf Planet? Surely we don't want to unclude all of them in this graphic. Kaldari19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This is a very good image in terms of quality and understanding. However, there's a fine line between showing too little and showing too much. This particular image does an excellent job of displaying the classical (and better-known) model of the solar system, but as Moondigger said, an up-to-date model might be more appropriate for Wikipedia (this version won't be the better-known model forever). I'm not sure where to stand, because once you start adding stuff to the diagram, it gets more and more crowded, but then again, it would be nice to have an accurate model. I suppose if this image had an alternate version that coincided with the definition of the classical planets, i.e., excluded Pluto, then it would would have encyclopedic value and a formal definition of what it depicts, rather than "this is the solar system, as of early 2006". I suppose Pluto could be edited out to meet the definition of a "classical planet". In any case, whatever this diagram depicts, it depicts it well, and I suppose that everyone else will decide whether it's encyclopedic or not. --Tewy07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Good job on the nomination, I haven't seen such a detailed caption in a long time. It's good to see someone who hasn't been here so long that they've gotten lazy ;-). --Tewy07:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which would you prefer, that we not include an example of satelites at all or that we inlcude all 240 known natural satelites in the Solar System. I think having one example of a satelite in the graphic is appropriate, just as it has one example of a comet and one example of a dwarf planet. Kaldari20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The grid is supposed to represent the ecliptic, I guess -- but if it does, then not only is the graphic incomplete, lacking the newly-discovered bodies I mentioned previously -- it's also incorrect, in that it has Pluto on the ecliptic. Pluto's orbit is highly-inclined w/r/t the ecliptic -- it does not resemble that depicted here. -- Moondigger14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My biggest problem is that it's not to any scale. There is probably a way you can create a scale to fit the solar system (a logarithmic scale, perhaps?). Also, I oppose per Moondigger and Stevage. It's technically correct, and it would be nice for perhaps grade school kids who are trying to memorize their planets (though it doesn't name the planets), but it fails when it comes to moons of Jupiter, Saturn (both of whom have moons larger than some planets), etc., and when it comes to the shape and angle of the orbits of the planets.Joniscool9816:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though I do respect all of the oppose comments, this image displays the nine planets that have been considered the solar system for a very long time. (My guess is over 75 years due to Pluto's discovery in 1930.) I do not know that this will affect any of the votes, but this is why I like this picture and not one that would include Ceres, 2003 UB313, and Sedna. It is almost like a capture of our beliefs over the last several decades. --WillMak05038917:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special and not to scale. Could be technically obsolete soon if the IAU officially approves their crappy definition of a planet. --Nebular11000:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not to scale, that would make for a rather useless graphic. Picture a yellow circle about a centimeter in diameter (for the Sun) and then a black expanse extending about 100 feet past the edge of your monitor. The gas giants would each be about 1 pixel. Earth would not be visible. Regardless of the IAU decision, the inclusion of Pluto serves as a good example of Dwarf Planets and Kupier Belt Objects. Kaldari20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's artistic as well as being informative. Plus, it doesn't include any of the so-called 'planets' such as 2003 UB313, Ceres, etc, etc... which is a Good Thing in its own right. Nippoo00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I never thought I'd see somebody advocate the exclusion of valid, topical information on Wikipedia. That's never a "Good Thing."-- Moondigger00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. If the said bodies do become "official" planets, then it is our job, regardless of our personal opinions, to include that valid information in Wikipedia. --Nebular11015:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is amaizing, but given the situation about defining the term 'Planet' i'm not too inclined to promote an image that will most likely be outdated in about a month or two.Nnfolz06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How will it be outdated? Regardless of the IAU decision, the inclusion of Pluto serves as a good example of Dwarf Planets and Kupier Belt Objects. Kaldari20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture (nice find), but terrible timing. Might be better to re-nominate after the dust has settled a bit. This image could then be nominated as Classic solar system view :) It clearly documents what we thought of as planets for like 60 years. -Ravedave18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a graphic of "planets". It's supposed to give an overview of the contents of the Solar System. As such it includes an example of a satelite (Luna), a comet, asteroids, and whatever term you want to call Pluto (minor planet, dwarf planet, Kupier Belt object). Kaldari20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i don't wanna start a debate here, but I think pluto should be included as a 'classic planet'. The controversy about its status only became heated a couple of years ago (please correct me if i'm worng about that statement).Nnfolz11:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An edit that only shows the "classical" view of the solar system (those objects known prior to the invention of the telescope) would not include Neptune, Uranus, or the asteroid belt. If we wanted to show the version of the solar system as it was understood between 1930 and 2000 (though I see little reason to depict that particular 'view' other than nostalgia) then it should include all the moons around any of the planets known at the time. What we have here (in either edit) does not conform to any reasonably logical model of the solar system, unless you redefine the solar system to be "what's shown in this graphic." -- Moondigger12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to delete Pluto? This is not a graphic of "the planets". It's a graphic of the solar system. Last time I checked, Pluto had not been ejected from the solar system :) Kaldari20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said we had to delete Pluto? My complaint is that the graphic does not accurately represent any reasonable definition of the solar system. -- Moondigger00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks pretty cool, but the lack of moons on most of the planets kills it. I would support a version with all the moons in place (and perhaps names) --Fir000212:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you want all 240 known natural satellites within our Solar system added to this graphic?? With names?? Why not add all 135,000 asteroids while we're at it. Kaldari19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a relatively dramatic turnaround from the direction they appeared to be going a few days ago, the International Astronomical Union has adopted a new definition of "planet" that excludes Pluto. Pluto and the recently-discovered objects previously mentioned are now classified as "dwarf planets." I'd suggest suspending this nomination, and waiting for NASA to release something similar, either including the dwarf planets and moons, or excluding the dwarf planets and Earth's moon. -- Moondigger15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Yes, there are other moons besides Luna; Yes, Pluto is no longer a planet; Yes, the graphic is not to scale. However, this graphic is designed to give an overview of the contents of our Solar System, not an accurate representation (which, graphically, would be nearly useless, as it would either be overly sparse or too cluttered, depending on what methodology you used). Having only Luna in the graphic serves as a good representation of satelites, just as the sole comet in the graphic represents comets. Same for Pluto. Having Pluto in the graphic serves as a representation for the dozens of dwarf planets in the Solar system. Would we really want to show every dwarf planet in this graphic? No. Would we want to omit dwarf planets altogether? No. This graphic (the first one of the two presented) is perfectly suited for it's purpose (regardless of the IAU decision). Kaldari19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I were willing to dismiss those concerns you mention (I'm not, but hypothetically speaking...), it still depicts Pluto's orbit as lying on the ecliptic, which is factually incorrect. -- Moondigger20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't believe it is possible to judge the inclination of the orbit based on the sliver that is visible in the image. Secondly, there's nothing in the graphic to say that that object necessarily has to correspond to Pluto. Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, I would consider that object to be a generic representation of a Kupier Belt object or Dwarf Planet. Thus I don't think it would matter much what inclination of orbit is indicated. Kaldari23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly sitting on the same flat plane indicated by the grid pattern as all the other planets. No judgement is required to see that. As for it 'corresponding' to Pluto, it's obvious that's what it is; otherwise the same argument could be made for other objects. (There's nothing in the graphic to say that object second from the end necessarily has to correspond to Neptune, either -- yet that's clearly what it is.) A generic representation of a Kuiper belt object or dwarf planet would not lie on the ecliptic either. One of the common characteristics of such objects is that they tend not to follow nearly circular orbits on the ecliptic. I would support an image similar to this one for FP status but not unless the stylistic problems and factual inaccuracies are addressed. -- Moondigger00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afriad there would never be such an image of the solar system that is both stylistically pleasing and factually accurate. A factually accurate graphic of the solar system is not going to be visually appealing. Personally, I think this graphic makes pretty good trade-offs between accuracy and graphic style, but of course that's just my opinion. Kaldari02:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Partly because of Pluto's new status, and partly because I think featuring a not-to-scale diagram like this is a bad idea. The better these types of images are aesthetically, the more potentially misleading they are, and the less likely they are to be understood as conceptual diagrams rather than realistic images. If we were to feature a diagram like this, I would want an artist's rendition with some historical significance (though copyright status probably makes finding a good one an unlikely prospect).--ragesoss16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like any of them, including the one with Pluto removed. If Pluto's out because it's no longer a planet, then what are any of the other non-planet objects doing there? (What is that illustration doing in an article about redefinition of a planet lacking Pluto but including a comet and asteroids?) Not that I think an image lacking those objects would be better. I think the only reasonable solution would be to create an image of the Solar System that includes all known planets and dwarf planets, with the dwarf planets not on the ecliptic, and some representive sample of moons, undiscovered Kuiper belt objects, and comets.-- Moondigger22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, doesn't really convey information well because it's too far from reality. There's no scale nor labels, and the cropping and artistic, rather than scientific, basis for the image limit how much usefulness it can have. It looks like it would be used as an illustration in a children's book about the solar system rather than a serious teaching tool. I'd rather have a diagram of the solar system that I can rely on to tell me something about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highlights WAY overblown in the upper right hand corner. Overexposure everywhere, actually. VivaLaVieBoheme!
Oppose. Good subject and angle, but I would prefer to see a slightly higher quality picture, as well as no rope fence in the way (if possible). --Tewy22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self nomination. Image shows the arid landscape of a rainshadow region with a backdrop of rainclouds and showers over the mountain range of the western ghats in South India.
Do you have a less compressed version of the image (larger file size, less artifacts)? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 19:46
Oppose for now Two problems. The first one is as Brian stated, and the second is that the rules say that the picture must appear in an article. This image only appears on FPC pages. If you could fix those, you will have my support. VivaLaVieBoheme!
Oppose for now. Exactly as above, but the best I will vote for is a weak support, as highlights are blown in the upper right. --Tewy22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ive fixed the highlights and uploaded a larger version (1280x960). Also added to articles. The image shows the effect of a rainshadow on the local climate. The landscape is arid even though less than 20km away there are rainclouds and monsoon showers --PlaneMad|YakYak13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An amazing picture of the sun and the earth. The thing that I like the most is that you can get a feeling of size and scale in the solar system when you look at how tiny the earth looks besides it. It really gives you a sense of Humility. Really informative in my opinion.
It appears in the Sun article and was created by brian0918 with NASA images.
Abstain. I threw this image together really quickly, but it conveys exactly what I wanted it to. There is also a version without text, if anyone thinks that is preferable. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 03:22
Oppose Not very visualy pleasing to me. It is a "rough" comparison as said on the image's description page. Is there an extended caption for it? --WillMak05038903:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I wrote "rough comparison". It's as accurate as you can get given the finite size of a pixel. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 04:58
I agree that this is very informative, and assuming it is correctly scaled, which it looks to be, but FDeatured pictures should not just be informative, but also visually pleasing. Per Davepape below, I think this image could use a little cleanup visually before it is a FP. --WillMak05038915:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (Version with label). I like the pic, but I'm uneasy that the relative distance between the sun and earth shown is wrong without making any sort of clarification that artistic license has been applied. I would remove the "Weak" from my vote if some sort of caption could be added making it clear that the earth is in fact ~107 sun-diameters (1 AU) from the sun. --Billpg10:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support stronger support if some clarification is added per Billpg. Very informative, we need more images like this to convey these concepts to the average reader. --Nebular11015:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm concerned that the license may not be correct. The sun image is from SOHO [35]. Because of ESA's involvement, SOHO images don't generally fall in the "NASA PD" class, as noted in the commons' PD-USGov-NASA license. [36] states that they're only free for non-commercial use. Also, the images don't fit together very well visually (for an FP). --Davepape18:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your 2nd point: Are we trying to make it look like the Earth is actually right next to the Sun, or are we trying to convey a size comparison? I'm sure it would be pretty easy to make the Earth fit in better with the image, but I didn't think that was the point of the image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 19:39
Even for a non-realistic diagram, the elements should be visually consistent, and to me the Earth and Sun look too dissimilar and pasted together. I think it would work better as a diagram if the Sun were cleaned up to remove the "glow" and background stars (keeping the flare, as a size comparison of that is good); then maybe the jarring pastedness of the Earth wouldn't be a problem. Of course, it'd still need a freely license Sun image. --Davepape05:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is a licensing issue with this particular image of the Sun, I have one I took in 1999 I could upload. It's decent quality but doesn't show solar flares. It does show some sunspots, which might make for an interesting comparison with Earth; I'd bet one or two of the spots are bigger than the Earth. -- Moondigger20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support version with caption, as long as the image is indeed factually correct and the copyright is valid; this image is highly informative. --Tewy22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. Somethign just looks wrong with the picture. It looks to me that the earth is within the outer reaches of the sun. I know it doesn't represent their distance appart, but something still seems off to me about the Earth's location.
A Hummingbird Hawk-moth. The furious wing action is frozen in this photo by using electronic flash. This picture was shot in Hanko, Finland, latitude 60°N, on August 19, 2006, thus far north of the typical residential distribution.
OK, another picture [37] of this amazing buzzing creature was recently awarded feature status, but here's one that addresses one of the concerns voiced by some; the wings are sharp here, frozen by flash. The size of this image is smallish (reason: cropping and some downsampling), but it still fulfills the requirement. Note that I don't propose "replacing" the previous FP, I just wish to present this for your consideration. Appears in Hummingbird Hawk-moth and electronic flash.
EXIF disappeared during cropping & downsampling. Late daytime, but flash overpowers daylight (of course - otherwise you'd have blurry wings). Flash duration is probably in the 1/5000 to 1/10000 range, due to the short distance. I do have another shot with "fill-flash", not "full-flash", the wings are transparent in that one!! --Janke | Talk22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great addition to the article, it's good to have one picture showing the motion blur and another (this one) freezing the motion to show the wing and body colouration and patternation clearly. I have identified the flower (Perennial Phlox) on the image description page.--Melburnian02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are some parts of the flower that i don't find particularly appealing (i don't know the exact botanical term, if you will). I also don't like the dark background.--Vircabutar05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It does a good job of showing the moth and its "frozen" wings, but there are too other many things I don't like. The background is dark, the flash creates harsh shadows, and it's a little grainy (especially in the dark areas) (now if the flash shadow is supposed to be there, I'll change my vote to a Weak support). Despite the informative caption, it's not clear by just looking at the picture that the wings were moving very fast. I think the other two water pictures on the Electronic flash article display the subjects in a more obvious freeze-frame. In all, I just don't think this is FP material. --Tewy01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dislike the harsh flash light. Congrats on freezing the wings, but it hasn't really produced that amazing a photo - existing one is much better. Also this image seems to suffer from noise and lack of clarity. --Fir000212:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; it's a very striking image, but the image isn't centred and the background (presumably the sea) is too dark. Would probably support an edited version. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk)16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good sharpness, good degree of exposure(the sea should be dark). I would like to see more information in the caption. Also for a sattalite picture it is not too large. HighInBC13:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
rcoga! 04:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Great focus/bokeh. Other images on that website are similarly brilliant (taken with fantastic equipment too!). Some one should really transfer more to wiki... --Fir0002 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Dislike the angle. --Fir0002 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Nice design, but I'm not too sold on the color scheme - don't really like the gray, and it seems disproportionate to the yellow compared to something like this: Image:WaspBuildingNest wb.jpg. Also the labelling isn't really that clear. I'm refering in particular to "Ocelli" (is that the skull or the top of the head or what), and "vertex"/"gena" (they seem to be pointing to the same thing. --Fir0002 09:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support. Excellent, amazing and clear. Illustrates all the common screen sizes well, including aspct ratios (very important), to scale. I'll be saving this image on my PC - always needed one of these. It's come a long way since its first incarnation and I believe it's thoroughly great. And informative and well thought out picture. Includes some of the less popular resolutions as well, from the very small videos (320x240), up to 1080i and beyond. Shadows are not a problem - they enhance it my making it look as if the resolutions are shown as different sized pieces of card (or flat screens) overlaid on each other. This is the first diagram I have voted on, and I'm giving it my all. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Horrible Vegas-style background. --Oldak Quill 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
.jpg)
Support, excellent image! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
. You should be able to see the three brightest circles, though the third should be only just visible. Oppose if you don't like it, but at least make sure you're viewing the full-res photo on a semi-calibrated display. Thanks -- Moondigger 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_1970.jpg){kind=link}
