Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2009

Featured picture tools
Featured pictures (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day (Guidelines) Picture of the day archive (and schedule)
v t e

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

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

Reason

Quality panorama and illustrative for relevant articles. View from the highest point is here for interest's sake.

Articles this image appears in

Old Beach, Tasmania, Meehan Range

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would seem to be of obvious educational value and is attractive to boot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good technicals and EV. I'm not entirely sold on the lighting, but it's not too much of an issue here. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Lighting isn't great. But more importantly, there's too much water in the shot. I can't really see enough of the town for it to have substantial EV in that article. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clear picture of an unusual jelly fungus, meets size requirements, high EV; I think the composition is attractive.

Articles this image appears in

Ascocoryne, Ascocoryne sarcoides

Creator

Daryl Thompson at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This one has a strong EV, and a resolution as good as that. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I wouldn't call anything that looks like that "attractive". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not very sharp given the pixel dimensions. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful weak oppose per NS, but it looks interesting and has good EV. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality scan of historical image; meets size criteria, high EV

Articles this image appears in

Mary Toft, Cock Lane ghost

Creator

BryanBot, picture adjustments by Parrot of Doom

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Can't go wrong with Hogarth! Pleasing artwork, encyclopedic in reminding us that there were sane people in every age.-Ben pcc (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most interesting. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a picture that could do with a bit of restoration work. GerardM (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Might ask for a colour scan, but it seems to have all the detail. We can upgrade later, if it becomes an option. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 14:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose: Durova's right, though I'll happily work with Sasata in order to provide a restored version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Shoemaker. Should we suspend this nom? Plenty of ev here; would be great to see it promoted. Durova²⁸⁸ 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've poked Sasata about it. She can choose whether to suspend or just renominate shortly. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Hate to spoil the party, but this scan has bleedthrough text at bottom, needs clockwise rotation, and suffers from serious brightness variances (particularly visible at the borders). Durova²⁸⁸ 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Arguably one of the most recognized images taken of the 19 April 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, this image was taken two days after the bombing and shows the extent of the bomb damage to both the federal building and the surrounding area. Its large and has considerable historic value, and I submit it here for consideration for promotion to FP status.

Articles this image appears in

Oklahoma City bombing, Rhabdomyolysis

Creator

Staff Sergeant Preston Chasteen

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - overexposed, blown highlights (not just the sky, but the burnt out cars as well), perspective issues and stuff cut off on top. It has historical value, but pushes it too far on quality for something that's only 15 years old. MER-C 03:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this nomination fails, it seems like it would do very well at valued pictures. Hello32020 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that comment extraordinarily offensive; if had wanted to take the image to VP I would have done so in the first place. I do not need someone to inform me that I may have better luck somewhere else with my image; if my image "would do very well at valued pictures" then can do just as well -if not better- here, and if I fail then I know that I failed in the pursuit of the highest possible goal, not settling for some backward process that few people (any people?) care about, and for this reason, I would greatly appreciate it if you never mention the VP process as an avenue of approach for a picture I place here again. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 04:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhhhhh.... Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The Valued Picture route is a very valid suggestion if it does not succeed here. I also suggest you look into it. --Torsodog^Talk 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MER-C. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per above statements. Labrat256 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.175.183 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per MER-C's comments. Zulualpha (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is large, high quality and quite original. Its not often that you are able to find a photo to show the foot whilst working. On the snail page, it contributes quite considerably, as it helps the reader understand the foot of the snail.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Snail

Creator

SeanMack

• Support as nominator -- Labrat256 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - insufficient DOF, artifacted. MER-C 04:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Wow that's weird. wadester16 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose per depth of field issues. Otherwise fascinating! Durova²⁸⁴ 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The picture does illustrate the foot of the snail at work remarkably well while climbing an oddly shaped item, which seems to be the reason this picture is being nominated. Also interesting perspecitve of the snail as this is the only picture attached to the snail article that shows a working foot and the pneumostome. --Zulualpha (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV and interesting IMO

Articles this image appears in

Cheetah

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What would you think of a less centered crop that kept the cub's back and placed the face at right? Seems like a good instance to use the rule of thirds. Durova²⁸⁴ 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the square image doesn't look as good as one that crops the right side while keeping the back. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will remove the square edit and put up another one as you suggested by tomorrow. --Muhammad(talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Took the liberty of a black point adjustment. Shows the mantle mentioned in the article well, so a head shot has definite EV. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Muhammad, I think perhaps your monitor might need an adjustment, since the last couple of images have seemed slightly overexposed/lacking contrast. This one isn't as noticable as the boy on the bicycle though IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah probably since I am on a different computer and monitor now. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diliff's edit looks wonderful on my system. That plus the crop and this will really be a winner. Good capture. :) Durova²⁸⁵ 21:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 03:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 :) Durova²⁸⁵ 05:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 2. Original is very good, but since the foliage in the background is not in focus and doesn’t give any kind of geographical indicators, I support the picture that makes the cub the main focus. Normally, I would support the picture that not only shows the animal, but also any of its natural habitat in the greatest detail. Zulualpha (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cheetah_cub_close-up_edit2.jpg -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Walter Crane was one of the nineteenth century's most influential figures in the development of English children's literature book illustration. Crane was part of the Arts and Crafts movement and influenced by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Restored from a high resolution scan of the first edition of Crane's 1887 children's edition of Aesop's fables. Unrestored version at File:Can't please everyone.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Walter Crane, Aesop's fables

Creator

Walter Crane

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁴ 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The blues and the reds/oranges/browns come out well. I can't see any problems and this is clearly encyclopedic. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Can't please everyone2.jpg -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality. Flowers at different stages of opening.

Articles this image appears in

Luculia gratissima, Luculia, Rubiaceae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 10:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Good use of depth of field. Durova²⁸⁴ 16:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nothing outstanding in my opinion. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful representation of the subject. At this rate every piece of flora and rock on the Earth is going to have a featured pic on Wiki. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Apparently, I am a sucker for flowers. My notes emphasized the shadow on the right. While some might not like it, I actually think that it creates a nice contrast and brings out the full flower. It has good positioning and the rest of the picture doesn't stand out, which allows for the subject to really take hold. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Another of the formative English children's book illustrators was Kate Greenaway. This illustration for The Pied Piper of Hamelin was published in an edition to accompany text by Robert Browning. Encyclopedic at several articles. Restored version of File:Pied Piper.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Pied Piper of Hamelin, Hamelin, Kate Greenaway, Robert Browning

Creator

Kate Greenaway

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁴ 19:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The colors really stand out, which is important. It is crisp and clean. Obvious value. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good illustration --Muhammad(talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Supplying the duck nomination that seems to be requisite of FPC regulars. Encyclopedic at Utagawa school, which previously had no illustration. Restored version of File:Mandarin duck woodcut.jpg. See also compressed version at File:Mandarin duck3 courtesy copy.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Utagawa school

Creator

Hiroshige

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁴ 00:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing quality and detail, I don't see any flaws at full resolution. My ONLY request would be if you could find some more articles to use it in. Beautiful, though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. I am a particular fan of woodcuts and this one is of very high quality. One of the peak moments of my life was being able to closely examine physical prints (of noh actors) to see the various components and techniques. So yes, this made me happy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Translation of text? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have requested a translation from the Japanese Wikipedia. Durova²⁸⁵ 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • おし鳥の わかれも見たり 朝嵐

"Out in a morning wind,

Have seen a pair of mandarin ducks parting.

Even the best loving couple makes a quarrel."

--

Refinement of the translation will be welcomed.--トトト (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great restoration, and you made me discover Hiroshige's work...Now i have to buy prints of some of theses woodcuts >_<. PS : Don't forget to add the translation in the summary Ksempac (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a fantastic image which easily meets the criteria Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Illustration of Nathaniel Hawthorne's variant of the King Midas myth. Hawthorne introduced the version of the story in which midas turns his daughter into a statue with his golden touch. Restored version of File:Midas gold.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Midas, Nathaniel Hawthorne, A Wonder-Book for Girls and Boys

Creator

Walter Crane

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I know lines in illustrations of this era aren't expected to be straight, and I can see that in this image. However, it feels as though the illustration is a parallelogram (drawing lines seems to confirm this). Is this part and parcel of Victorian illustration? MER-C 08:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It often is. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd - you'd think they would notice it too. Oh, well. Support. MER-C 11:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it just wasn't considered an issue to check. It's worst in woodblock engravings, of course, since the pieces are glued together after carving, but also common in this sort of thing, and etc. It's probably something to do with the paper the artists used being cut to size by hand, or the like. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GerardM (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

EV+Quality

Articles this image appears in

Munttoren, Muntplein and Hendrick de Keyser

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Info There are five locations to take a picture of this tower from. Since the square itself is a major crossing point of public transport (tram numbers 4, 9, 14, 16, 24 and 25), overhead cables block the view of the tower from three of those locations (Vijzelstraat, Reguliersbreestraat and Muntplein). The two other location which remain, are the Koningsplein and the bridge across the Amstel I used. If I would have taken this picture from the Koningsplein, the lower half of the tower would have been obscured (see the historic picture in the Munttoren article). So, only the location I used was suitable. One thing I also would like to point out, is that there was no wind at the time (a storm had just passed by). This is something very special here, since there may be only a couple of windless days a year. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Good reflections in water, seems cropped a little high though. Durova²⁸⁴ 16:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's cropped a little bit high, but I did it on purpose. Aesthetically I think the picture looks better this way. Further more the tower isn't that high and so it appears less high in the picture through this crop. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. It's a shame about the flagpole sticking up at the left of the tower, but since that's the only suitable location there doesn't seem to have been much you could have done about that. Time3000 (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a flag pole, but just an ordinary pole, to which they attach the overhead cables used by trams for power. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Trams are all but non-existent in the UK so I automatically though 'flagpole' for something that shape ; ). Time3000 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems a bit too dark though. I'm sure this was by choice too, but you could have brought out a little bit more detail if it were lighter. There is no rule for this sort of night photography though, as the idea of matching what our eyes see breaks down in the dark, and it becomes a matter of personal choice on the basis of aesthetics. When EV is an important factor though, I think brighter = better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a version with an increased amount of brightness. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A subtle difference. I might have increased it a little more still, but clearly good enough. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

• Support + Comment – It might just be me, but the tower seems like it is a bit more on the left side of the image, and there is slightly more space on the right side. Do you think it would be good to crop it to center the tower? NW (Talk) 16:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the composition would be better, if it stays the way it is. You're right that the tower is slightly located left of centre. In my opinion this improves the composition as supposed to it being located in the centre. However, if more people feel it should be located in the centre of the image, I would be more then happy to upload a different crop. I'll fly off tomorrow to Portugal for two weeks, so if a consensus of support is reached for the different crop, I'll upload it over the current version once I return. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is some wierd blurring on the right hand side near the building above the wires suspending the lights. The edge of a building on the right hurts the composition in my view. I feel that it has been taken a bit too late (deep shadows), and that it is underexposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

While this is one of my more light-hearted nominations, I do think it's an image with very good techicals and has undeniable EV for the article. ;-)

Articles this image appears in

Tourism in London

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've always liked this image. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and you're right about the EV as well. Nicely done with the people out of focus. This would do well as a stock photo. --Muhammad(talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per above, but a bit too aggressive on the compression (see the left side of the London maps sign and various people). MER-C 08:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the problem is compression. I save all my images at level 10 (out of 12) in PS CS4, which is usually more than enough. If anything, I think I see minor Bayer filter artifacts on sharp edges (eg top of the Union Jack flag). I don't see the same effect on the left side of the London maps sign though (I think that's just the laminated edge), or in the OOF people - that's just sensor noise as far as I can see. I could have applied some NR but I didn't find it too objectionable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought it would be too dark for the lamination - nearby it's almost invisible and on the other side it's purple. Noise and JPEG artifacts become indistinguishable in the right quantity but the compression ratio (11.3) was what led me to suspect artifacts. MER-C 12:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that the darker section corresponds to the bend in the sign and there's an equivalent on the right side too. True, sometimes JPEG artifacts are hidden in noise, but usually it's the noise that's objectionable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I find EV of this shot highly dubious. This kind of stall isn't London or even UK-specific, I think you can get pretty much the same shot in every major European city, with the only difference being the name of the city on the shirts and the flags' color. Moreover, the article in itself isn't very compelling (that looks like a finely veiled list of places for me), and the picture add strictly nothing to understand the article Ksempac (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in some ways, that's the point. It doesn't have to be unique to London to have good EV IMO, it only has to be representative of tourism in London, and selling all sorts of random junk that tourists might buy *IS* quite respresentative of that ;-). And you're right that the article tends towards a list of places, but if you look at other similar articles, they all do it. I'm not defending the articles, because clearly they could and should be improved to provide more information about the tourism itself, rather than what tourists visit, but I think this image does a lot more for the article than simply showing another attraction - it refers to the economics of tourism, and sits in the appropriate location for that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I appreciate the abstract "tourism in London" quality of the image, but the composition doesn't quite do it for me. There are touristy wares, and there are lots of peoples' backs, but you can't see a stall keeper, or anyone actively buying. The background is blah, the lighting is blah, there's nothing to really catch the eye. The article it's used in is crap, though the image definitely helps. I like what you're trying to do here, but imho, the image just doesn't quite do it. I'm just picturing a better version of this with a couple of tourists haggling with a stall keeper, more interesting junk for sale, better lighting, and perhaps something interesting in the background. Stevage 08:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but it sounds like in some ways, you're looking for something that from my experience doesn't exist. This exactly the sort of junk that that is for sale to tourists, and for the most part the stalls sit there attracting very little attention. They're probably more likely to sell a bottle of water to someone than a tacky souvenir but somehow they stay in business. Low rental costs, probably. I've certainly heard about plans to rid these sort of stands from Oxford Street, and there's been an outcry from those whose families have been renting the plots from Westminster Council for the last 100 years or so. Anyway, I digress. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I can't say I'm sold on the lighting, but the EV is sufficient enough for me. When Ksempac says above "This kind of stall isn't London or even UK-specific, I think you can get pretty much the same shot in every major European city, with the only difference being the name of the city on the shirts and the flags' color", to me that's what precisely makes it tourist-y. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose looks like a normal holiday snapshot to me --Andreas 06 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Diffuse composition. The stall is in shadow while the tourists' heads are sunlit, which could work if it were a shot of a family purchasing a flag or a shirt. These people are ignoring the stall and their bodies obscure a substantial part of it. The original I♥NY shirts were easier to read. Maybe there's an FP to be had from a London tourist stall if it's possible to get one under different conditions, and possibly with a different background. The masonry facade in this is unremarkable and the backlit leaves at far left pull my eye out of the frame. Durova²⁸⁸ 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Shows spike and the short scattered hairs on the leaves well.

Articles this image appears in

Persicaria capitata, Persicaria, Polygonaceae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What's with the white spot in the background? Also, please chop off the partial leaf on the bottom. MER-C 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • shrug, blame focus stacker. Chomped but I probably prefer original. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support then, prefer edit (1). MER-C 10:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support chomp. Tasty... Durova²⁸⁴ 16:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This picture has a good detail, sufficient EV, and very good use of lighting.
  Comment - I don´t see much difference between the two images, and what white spot? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the file history. MER-C 04:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was to the left of the spike. Not in any current file revision. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note before closing this I would like to get some more input from the community. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Persicaria_capitata_AF_crop.jpg --wadester16 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality image of a Tasmanian native species. Shows the colour range present in the flowers.

Articles this image appears in

Anopterus glandulosus, Anopterus

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - last one that I reviewed earlier (and it for today). I like this, but I think others may not. The positioning is good, and the eye is drawn in and up along the flower. The upper right and upper left was a bit distracting and didn't really seem the best. However, I think it has good encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this picture. It seems that the right side is a little darker than the left. I personally feel this gives the flower a “real” feeling (as if you are looking at it with the naked eye vs. in a photograph) and helps with the artistic quality. Great resolution and color as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulualpha (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful image and high EV.--Caspian blue 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anopterus glandulosus.jpg --wadester16 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I came across this on commons FPC. It's got undeniably brilliant EV, clearly showing the shape of the crystals, colour of the metal, etc., and is high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Titanium

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Time3000 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁴ 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per nom. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Aesthetically represents a simple substance Dursty (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support These mineral images really are interesting. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

info this isn't a mineral, this is a chemical element sample ;-) Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - When I spent time trying to relax, I performed a bunch of analysis of pictures and took notes. My note for this was "very cool". It holds up well, plus the image is very striking. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting and high quality image. An explanation of how it came to be in this shape would be useful though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  what do you mean: the sample or the photo? Please read the original image info too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the sample. I found that it had been added to Crystal bar process (not mentioned in the nomination) which sort of explains the process, but it would have been nice to explain the significance of the shape of the bar in the nomination too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I have corrected the image describtion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support impressive.©Geni 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Titan-crystal_bar.JPG --wadester16 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

EV+Quality

Articles this image appears in

Philadelphia and Center City

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Your vantage point was the Girard Avenue bridge near the Philadelphia Zoo, right? Kind of an odd vantage point to take a city panorama, actually, since many of my hometown's landmarks are almost totally obscured by other buildings (such as Philadelphia City Hall, One Liberty Place and Two Liberty Place. The South Street bridge may have been better, but it's currently torn down. The top of the Philadelphia Museum of Art steps, or even the New Jersey State Aquarium are also well-known places from which to photograph Philadelphia. I also note that you just added this image as the lead infobox image for Philadelphia today, replacing this one-- a panorama's dimensions fit awkwardly in an infobox, and may I suggest waiting a while to verify the image's stability in the article before acting on the nom here. I hope you enjoy your visit to Philadelphia (if you're still here). Spikebrennan (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken from the Spring Garden Street Bridge behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art. I had chosen this location, because I thought it was the second best location after the South Street Bridge (which was indeed torn down). I didn't find the top of the steps of the museum a good place to take the shot from, because of a couple of reasons. First of all, it was the day after the fourth of July. The stage which was part of the festivities still stood in the way, so a large part of the skyline was obscured including Philadelphia's City Hall. Another issue for me were the lantern posts and other objects in the foreground, which couldn't be excluded from the photograph. It's true that those three landmarks you named, are excluded mostly from the panorama. The Philadelphia City Hall however would be excluded from a panorama taken from a variety of vantage point, such as the South Street Bridge due to the fact that there are a lot of tall buildings between it and the Schuylkill River. Parts of the City Hall and Two Liberty Place are still present though in this panorama. Two other landmarks are now included due to the fact, that I took the shot from the Spring Garden Street Bridge. Those are the 30th Street Station and the Cira Centre. I do agree that it fits oddly into the lead infobox, but it still looks fine in my opinion. Check out the article about Sydney for instance, which has a similar panorama as lead image. I was only there for two days, so I'm no longer in Philly. I did however enjoyed my visit :). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suitability of the photo in the Philadelphia lead infobox is already being discussed here. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to suspend this one, while I'll work on a better version of edit 1. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've created and uploaded the new panorama and inserted in the articles. Before nominating it again, I'm going to let it settle in there for a couple of days to a week. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Original Between the two of them, my preference is for the original nom: the lighting on the trees is better, and buildings such as the Comcast Center (the tallest one in the shot, on the left) look more attractive in the original nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point. I get the feeling that there is a lot of room for brightening the shadow detail of Edit 1 up though. Do you take requests Massimo? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it is for the well being of Wikipedia, yes, I take request ;) . I'll start working on it now. Check out the rest of my comment on the talk page of Philadelphia. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Flat lighting unfortunately, but it's a view that has good EV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Still lots in it even if some landmarks are missing. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dear Wikipedians, there is still no definite version on this panorama. When it's ready, I will move the nomination again to the top. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion to suspend nom. Per the Philadelphia article talk page, there's an ongoing horse race between Massimo and User:Emy111 to supply the lead infobox image for the Philadelphia article. I suggest nomming the eventual winner of that argument, whichever it is. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you check above, the nom has already been suspended by the nominator for all the reasons you cited, but others wikipedians voted without reading his comment. ;) Ksempac (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was suspended more than 5 days ago. Consider it so. wadester16 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination may be unsuspended. I've corrected all flaws in the previous version and the discussion on the article's talk page is over. I'll be unavailable from the 27th of July till the 9th of August (heading over to Portugal (Lisbon+Algarve), so that's also a reason, why I'm reinstating the voting process now. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuspended per request from nominator. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support final edited version. Durova²⁸⁵ 18:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can people 'revoting' strike their previous votes please. --jjron (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, with thanks to Massimo for his saint-like patience (especially with the rather silly cat-fight on Talk:Philadelphia). Spikebrennan (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest crop. Panoramas are always too wide. Suggest trimming this one slightly smaller than "edit 1", so just left of the leftmost buildings, and just cutting out the red crane behind the train station, on the right hand side. What are the weird white streaks in the sky to the right of the red crane though? Stevage 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:GardenStreetBridgeSchuylkillRiverSkylinePhiladelphiaPennsylvania.jpg --wadester16 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of the best vectorisations out there, and a wonderful example of decorated initials

Articles this image appears in

Initial

Creator

Vectorised by User:JovanCormac

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing vectorization, highly encyclopedic. Durova²⁸⁵ 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image, and interesting. Never knew that's what those large opening letters were called. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why are certain letters omitted? According to Latin alphabet, the Archaic Latin alphabet has 21 letters, but not this 21. The classical latin alphabet has 23 and of course the modern alphabet has 26. The only reason that I can come up with is that 26 is semiprime so you can only go into a 2*13 or 13*2 table to have no gaps which is ugly... Noodle snacks (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume that, in the book this was collected from, some letters, by chance, just never appeared. If you want a coherent set of samples of 16th-century initials, you probably have to take what you get. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. The borders of each letter need some cleanup. I really hope this wasn't an inappropriate trace, but since this is an SVG, it can easily be fixed. I'm going to try to upload a newer version with some cleanup of unneeded elements... ZooFari 16:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt I went through it and improved borders. It also had a slight decrease in file size. It was actually pretty good; the vectorizer did a great job. ZooFari 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you opened a can of worms... which might not be a bad thing. Are the marks in upper right corner of G wear or intentional? How come the inner and outer box of G aren't equally far apart all around? Should the right edge inside the box of P be straightened? In many of the boxes the white lines between boxes are different on top or sides verses the bottom. I don't really know the answer. I agree the original boxes were not very good. But I think your perfectly even sized boxes tend to clash with the images and make some imperfections more apparent. I tend to think maybe something in between would be best? Or maybe some alignment work. I'm not fully sure. (But, really great job on this vectorization otherwise). gren グレン 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it definitely has alignment issues, but I was not able to fix all of it. First, they aren't broken into parts and the file size is awfully big—too big and caused my system to work slow. I was going to oppose for that, but I didn't want to be picky. It took me more than five hours just to add new borders, something that could have been done under 30 minutes. I say suspend this until the file size is reduced and fixed. ZooFari 05:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a thorough restoration of the image and replaced the original upload with it. I cleaned up all the borders as suggested by ZooFari (without compromising the interior, though) and fixed all the tears, cuts and holes in the image - thankfully, I found a second scan of the same page at [1], which allowed me to distinguish between intentional details and damages. As a final step, I split the image into single letters and realigned everything along a neat grid for a clean, even appearance. You can find all those changes in the "Original" image nominated here. I strongly encourage everyone to compare it with the previous version (Old vs. New). I hope you like it as much as I do. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Restored original. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since it is in initial rather than trying to directly illustrate the letters or something. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I've struck out my votes. I just can't make up my mind. I appreciate Jovan's good restoration, but it wasn't what I was expecting. The file is still filled with too many unnecessary "nodes" and Jovan's borders aren't object elements, but paths instead—also made up of multiple nodes that aren't needed. My alt is not perfect either: the alignment is off and the interior borders do not align with the exterior borders. Despite the enormous size, I suppose I prefer the original. ZooFari 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why the borders in my restoration are paths, and have many more nodes than one might expect, is that they are deliberately not perfectly rectangular towards the interior. At first I simply used rectangular frames like you did but I found that their look just doesn't match the "hand-carved" one of the letters, and one could tell that they were added digitally. So I merged the existing borders with the rectangular frames and did a bit of voodoo and a lot of tiny adjustments until I was satisfied that the outcome looked natural. As for the file size, it is a little over 1 MB which is hardly big for a Commons picture; most high-quality photos have 3-5 times that file size. The only "size" issue that remains IMO is the fact that the SVG is so complex that users with low-end systems probably cannot edit it. But making the frames rectangular would not change that one bit, as most of this complexity comes from the actual letter illustrations. -- JovanCormac (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rectangles look perfect to me and IMO the object would have been just as good as paths. That's not really my concern anyways, and I'll support the original despite all the issues. ZooFari 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, I really appreciate your feedback and your inspiration for restoring the borders. -- JovanCormac (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ornamental Alphabet - 16th Century.svg --wadester16 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's not a perfect image in terms of technicals (unfortunately, trains and cars running across the bridge cause a substantial amount of vibration which made the image slightly unsharp on a long exposure) and it is much lower resolution than some of my panoramas (still more than enough for FP though), but the view is good, and the nightscape allows the Opera House to stand out more than during the day. It also illustrates many articles prominently as per the articles list.

Articles this image appears in

Sydney Opera House, Sydney, New South Wales, Tourism in Sydney and Australian Landmarks

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely. Durova²⁸⁵ 14:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A very good resolution, detail and lighting. Also good EV. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That still water is so beautiful. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV, view --Muhammad(talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark, vibrations, water moving... Just messing Support all the way... Excellent pic and rare to have not even a small amount of water traffic to disrupt the shot... Lovely... Gazhiley (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 06:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support enough resolution, very nice composition – Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I think it could be cropped much more tightly. Kaldari (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could, but I think this framing allows you to see how the Opera House sits in relation to the environment better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything it's probably a bit clipped at image right - IMO ideally it would show all of Bennelong Point, but the right corner of it appears to be cut off just a bit (going by the lights). --jjron (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful. Nice and sharp. Good detail. (Orfo (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Support FWIW (see above). --jjron (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg --wadester16 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Pleasant angle and composition

Articles this image appears in

Kew Gardens

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very sweet. Oh and great resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great resolution and framing. I love the angle and color in this picture. In my opinion, a great addition to the article. Zulualpha (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kew gardens is awesome and the Palm house itself is a classic as well. I am happy to see such a splendid picture :) GerardM (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Lovely picture, Great resolution, I think it should be a featured picture. Harlem675 08:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture which meets the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would have preferred a rectilinear projection, but I guess that you didn't want to go swimming. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but not just that. The further back you get, the more distracting elements there are in the foreground like a fence, walkway, people, etc. You also wouldn't see the gardens as they are like this as they'd be compressed. So yeah, the view is compromised, but a necesssary one IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kew Gardens Palm House, London - July 2009.jpg --wadester16 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It was a surprise to discover that the old lead image at Mary (mother of Jesus) was less than 100K; this is one of the most frequent themes of historic Christian art. Located a high resolution woodcut from a seventeenth century artist whose biography lacked an illustration. Also useful at the chiaroscuro article. Restored version of File:Mary Coriolano.jpg. If anyone would like a compressed courtesy copy please post a request; would be glad to make one.

Articles this image appears in

Mary (mother of Jesus), Bartolommeo Coriolano, Chiaroscuro

Creator

Bartolommeo Coriolano

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 16:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I also expanded the Bartolommeo Coriolano page when I saw that this image was being created. It is now above the original stub level and listed for DYK. The image has encyclopedic value, especially when it was one of the ones gifted to the pope that gave him a knighthood for his skill (according to some of the sources). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We do not have many woodcuts as featured picture, this is an exquisite example of the genre. GerardM (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And damn you for finding one with a more accessible story behind it - my chiascuro failed because the author was considered too obscure =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This woodcut may be old but it looks like a Christmas card. Not impressed with the artistic quality, and the poor print quality is only emphasised by the high-resolution scan. ProfDEH (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this is the best available, then this is it. A high resolution scan helps by making it possible to do the best restoration possible given the material. GerardM (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How is that at all a notable depiction of Mary? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the linked biography indicates, it was part of a group of woodcuts that got the artist knighted by the Pope for his skill at woodcut print art. Durova²⁸⁸ 14:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mary Coriolano2.jpg --wadester16 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think it is a high quality image

Articles this image appears in

Richard Allen Anderson

Creator

uploaded by ERcheck

• Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not really a good enough reason for the nomination IMO. Seems to have low notability other than that he won the Medal of Honor - one of 250 in the Vietnam War alone. The image itself is of very poor quality for the era so I don't see the possible historic value of it as saving this one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mention the recieving the Medal of Honor is in itself notable and that only an extremely small percentage of the personnel from any war receive it and even then it is usually received posthumously. Aside from perhaps being a bad image it is historically notible. --Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough though. If this was the only image available of someone who stood out as being the greatest hero of the Vietnam War in some way, then it would be fair to be a little more lenient towards image quality, but my point is that this guy is among 250 other MOH awardees. It's a significant award, of course, but it doesn't forgive the image quality. That was the point I was originally making. In any case, what made you select this image for FPC? Lots of the MOH awardees seem to have similar quality images. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted several before that I thought where good, that turned out to be bad because they didn't have the perfect light or background noise or whatever so I thought I would try with this one that had obviously been touched up. To be honest with you I don't really think that this FP vetting process is well suited to images of people, and certainly not an image that was taken more than about ten years aho when high quality digital images became easily available to the masses. That is why we have dozens of images of buildings and wildlife and less then 20 of military people. Sure we have a couple, but in order to get those we had to clean them up using gimp or photoshop so really they are less an image as they are an art project. Oppose the image on quality if you wish but opposing it on the grounds of notibility is ridiculous. If he is notable to have an article in WP then he's notable enough to have a FP. BTW I have already attempted to submit all of the MOH recipient images that were decent and only 1 made it through and even then only after it had been cleansed of noise. --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that portraits do have a difficult time getting through, and particularly historical ones, but that's because they're often poorly taken, or poorly scanned. And I didn't oppose based on notability, I merely commented that if it were exceptionally rare or documented something particularly important, then I would consider lowering the bar on the technical requirements. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on technicals per Diliff. However, I disagree with Diliff about "non-notability" being a sensible reason to oppose the nomination- the subject has an article. Article subjects are either notable or non-notable; illustrations are judged based on whether they effectively illustrate the subject--notability of the subject is beside the point when evaluating the image. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you got my point then, despite me stating it probably 3 times above ;-). I didn't say non-notability was a sensible reason to oppose, I said the lack of strong notability means that it isn't exempt from our usual technical requirements. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Doesn't meet the featured picture criteria. In particular, it fails #1 as it isn't of a high technical standard and #3 as a posed portrait like this isn't very compelling. It's clearly a very useful picture for the article, but it isn't of FP standard. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think this is a good high resolution image, no apparent noise, good lighting and a high EV.

Articles this image appears in

James Stockdale, List of United States Naval Academy alumni, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War

Creator

Uploaded by Koalorka

• Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - noise/artifacts (again) and insufficient resolution. I would like to see some details in the medals. MER-C 07:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MER-C and for composition (both shoulders cut off). Spikebrennan (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regregful Oppose EV is strong due to his political background (ignoring the Phil Hartman spoofs on SNL), but quality is not so good. wadester16 07:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Cybercobra (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Rotunda of Low Memorial Library at Columbia University, as it appeared circa 1900-1910 before the building was converted to administrative use. Low Library is the most recognizable building at the university; it occupies the highest ground at the center of campus and has a distinctive design (see exterior). All of the reading desks and the central bookcase have been removed. The rotunda currently serves as a ceremonial space.[2] Restored version of File:Low Library.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Low Memorial Library, Columbia University, McKim, Mead, and White

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive exposure control for the pre-HDR era. One thing though, it seems restored in the lighter parts, but near the bottom, it still seems to have a lot of dust spots all over the place. They look trivial enough to remove... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good eye. The original had a good overall histogram, but a lot of low contrast locally. Had first addressed that with multiple curves layers, then went back and did a shadow/highlight adjustment instead. The shadow/highlight adjustment brought out scratches and dirt that had previously been too low contrast to notice. Gave that another careful pass per your advice, uploaded over the same filename. Should be resolved now. Durova²⁸⁵ 15:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can still see a few in the strongest shadows, but I won't trouble you with another edit. ;-) Much improved. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—good EV and significance because the place has changed, good quality. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, really good quality, focus, etc. really bad off center framing. I'd support if I had a reason to believe there weren't more images like this but it seems quite possible that a similar image is better centered. gren グレン 20:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See rule of thirds. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love it, the sense of place , the blurred figures, you can almost smell the old books... historical value would have carried lack of image quality but it also happens to be a very proficiently-taken photograph. First rate. --mikaul^talk 10:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Very hard to photograph this space well even with modern cameras. Most images of it suffer from wide angle distortion. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Low Library2.jpg --wadester16 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Meets all the criteria, as far as I am aware.

Articles this image appears in

Mount Sannosawa

Creator

• Support as nominator --  Chzz  ►  07:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. White balance seems a bit off, as the shadows are purple rather than grey or slightly blue as you would expect on a sunny blue sky day. Also, the corners seem a bit soft. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - blown sky, oversharpened, marginal resolution and the stuff Diliff mentions. MER-C 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above Davidt2718 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the colors do not look right. --Caspian blue 03:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MER-C. Zulualpha (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pulsatilla alpina fruit-edit1.jpg

File:Pulsatilla alpina fruit edit1.JPG

Reason

Other similar photos I have seen have been top-down views, and I believe the side view gives a far better impression of the plant. It also gives a clearer image, allowing the details of the hairy achenes to be seen. I think the quality of the image is up to scratch for being a featured picture.

Articles this image appears in

Ranunculaceae, Pasque flower, Pulsatilla alpina

Creator

SiameseTurtle

• Support as nominator --SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 per comments at PPR. Article use could be improved, for example probably no need for two almost identical images (at thumbnail) piled on top of each other here. Maybe could be used in achene if that's correct. --jjron (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A bit dull at thumbnail but pretty good when viewed at larger sizes. Reminded me of visiting an alpine garden at similar altitudes in Austria years ago. Background is a bit busy. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, strong oppose edit: Haven't we agreed downsampling is pretty much always a bad idea? And this is a particularly aggressive downsample, taking it to barely within the required size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 16:28, 31 July 2009
  • Original could do with the levels of the alt imo (I didn't nominate a preference). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to make the image a bit more vibrant - see alt 2 (sharpened) and alt 3 (not sharpened). I wasn't sure which was best though, which is why I've put both up. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What blithering nonsense. No "we" haven't agreed that downsampling is a bad idea, and the edit is well within the size limits, approximately the same size as images provided by many of our most prolific contributors. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit per Shoemaker's Holiday. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, definitely oppose edit 1: Edit has been downsampled too much and possibly oversharpened, as well. Original is perhaps a little dull but it still meets the criteria for me. Maedin\^talk 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've black point adjusted the original. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know all the technical lingo. Could you tell me what this means? SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please tell us what the difference between the new edits are. The left circled slider in [3] is the black point adjustment in photoshop. I adjusted the image so the dark areas correspond to a brightness vector of (0,0,0) rather than (20,20,20) or something. The result is greater contrast. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contrast was edited in both, but only edit 2 was sharpened (though they were done at different times and I may have done the contrast in each slightly differently) SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Good EV, nice composition, good license. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pulsatilla_alpina_fruit.JPG --wadester16 19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An illustration for a 1901 edition of Mother Goose by a notable illustrator. Nominating all three illustrations by the same artist for this poem separately (per reviewers who prefer to review items separately). Restored version of File:King of Hearts Mother Goose.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Queen of Hearts, Mother Goose

Creator

William Wallace Denslow

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is it possible not to crop the bottom so tightly? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped both the King and Queen according to the playing card notations at the corners of the images. That did mean cropping the king tightly at the bottom. The alternative was to sacrifice proportionality between those two images or a result that looks less like playing cards. Durova²⁸⁵ 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like a fraction more at the bottom, I have to admit: There's some lines awfully near the cutoff. Weak support current, Conditional full support if fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, will try to have that up in the morning. Durova²⁸⁸ 04:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No quorum. --wadester16 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An illustration for a 1901 edition of Mother Goose by a notable illustrator. Nominating all three illustrations by the same artist for this poem separately (per reviewers who prefer to review items separately). Restored version of File:Knave of Hearts Mother Goose.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Queen of Hearts

Creator

William Wallace Denslow

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 23:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The illustration looks to me very interesting for the unusual style for Mother Goose.--Caspian blue 03:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 11:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV --Muhammad(talk) 05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Knave of Hearts Mother Goose2.jpg --wadester16 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An illustration for a 1901 edition of Mother Goose by a notable illustrator. Nominating all three illustrations by the same artist for this poem separately (per reviewers who prefer to review items separately). Restored version of File:Queen of Hearts Mother Goose.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Queen of Hearts, William Wallace Denslow

Creator

William Wallace Denslow

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Queen of Hearts Mother Goose2.jpg --wadester16 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

because it is good quality, large, and is a unique compared to other pictures

Articles this image appears in

Ridgefield, Connecticut

Creator

Pepperpiggle

• Support as nominator --*Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Can barely see town hall, not very high quality, and lens glare. I don't think it is unique either. (Sorry if I sound critical, but that is my opinion.) Dogposter 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The picture is clearly tilted. The giant flag is almost completely covering the building. The traffic light post and the street sign are also very distracting. The sky is completely over-exposed. Technically speaking, the quality is quite poor (just look at the red and blue color bleeding around the street lights). -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close for obvious reasons. MER-C 10:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but not speedy. To the nominator: try a different angle and framing under better lighting conditions, and if there's an encyclopedic purpose to the large flag please explain in the caption. You might like to try Wikipedia:Picture peer review for more feedback on your next attempt. Best wishes. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bluntly speaking, the image looks like a real estate ad in a poor quality. The green sign looks like "for sale"...-Caspian blue 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - Per above. Gage (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose This is as much a photo of a sign for Main Street as it is for the unmarked and unclear town hall. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per all of the above. Zulualpha (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Nice clear photo of a fairly well known mountain near Machu Picchu. I find it impossible to be objective on my own work, so I'm not going to try. Of course it's a pity about the clouds - the weather got much worse shortly after this. Minor cloning at the very bottom to remove some unwanted heads, and a bit of Picasa levelling/cropping.

Articles this image appears in

Salcantay

Creator

Stevage

• Support as nominator --Stevage 04:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - noise, purple fringing. MER-C 06:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on technicals per MER-C. Time3000 (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - A photograph with a good license — what a rare sight. Unfortunately, the noise and chromatic aberration are pretty noticeable. I wonder if doing noise reduction and downsampling would help. Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good capture of a subway train leaving the station.

Articles this image appears in

Vernon Boulevard–Jackson Avenue (IRT Flushing Line), New York

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator --Shappy ^talk 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good motion shot under difficult lighting conditions. Durova²⁸⁵ 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not enough EV, IMO --Muhammad(talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm with Muhammad on this one. Dubious EV, also lots of purple fringing. I think that photographing the station without people is probably a better EV selection, but EV would be even better if the train weren't moving (so that it's possible to see what model of rail cars serves this station). Spikebrennan (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The car class is R62-R62A, identifiable because the station is part of the A Division as opposed to the B Division and the car has a distinguishable exterior. The differences between the two types are different manufacturers and interior coverings (I think); the exteriors look identical to the untrained eye, such as I. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per lack of EV. IMO it would have much better EV if the train wasn't moving, hence it is a station where trains are supposed to be stationed. ZooFari 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per everything above. Lacking EV, odd photographic choices, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I approve of the train movement - adds to the appeal of the image, and focuses on the *station* rather than the *train*. A subway station is a hard object to get "EV" from - they all look pretty much the same - is there anything in this shot (other than the signs) that distinguishes this station from any other? It's also obviously hard to get more than a single platform or a single part of the concourse in a shot. I could almost be talked into supporting this, but the shot seems pretty easily reproduceable. Avoiding purple fringing in this kind of shot seems pretty tough though - you either need a better camera or to postprocess it. Stevage 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  They all look the same? You'd be surprised...Shappy ^talk 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Probably as good as you can really get from a New York subway station, but it's a pretty cramped view and they all look fairly drab and anonymous, so EV is a bit limited. I added a photo of a London tube station for comparison. I think it has a more dynamic composition and has more EV but obviously it's comparing apples and oranges. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mind the gap wadester16 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I do. On a daily basis. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support This picture has EV for sure: the typical architectural construction of the tube in NYC is visible here. The composition is nice. – Wladyslaw (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Used in the article on the station - just because the station doesn't have a dramatic staircase view doesnt' mean it shouldn't be promoted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The station itself is made apparent and I thoroughly enjoy the moving train. I really don't care what subway this represents; I just think this is pretty good in general. NYC has a certain charm to it with its steel columns (which are rare elsewhere → goes with the era and location: most structural columns like these are reinforced concrete; note the Tube and the Moscow Metro). wadester16 07:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment While it's near imposible to avoid when dealing with pics of underground stations image has noise issues.©Geni 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per Wadester. Worth pointing out the big purple smudge on the train door is probably some graphics or other, while the fringing around the lights is kind of forgivable in this situation. I'm weak supporting for the good illustration of a fairly typical NY subway but it does lack a really compelling element somewhere. --mikaul^talk 09:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Purple thing on the train window is the decal showing those on the platform what route it runs. Shappy ^talk 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Very nice composition, though I am not impressed with the quality, and the purple fringing is quite prevalent around the lights. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quality concerns (esp. purple fringing) and questionable EV add up to an oppose. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In doing a rearrangement of images at New York, I felt this was good for the transportation section, so that's another article this image can be found in. wadester16 07:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I am likely biased because I am a frequent user of the New York City Subway (as well as that being the focus of my Wiki editing lately). To respond to some concerns, the "purple fringing" denotes the designation of the IRT Flushing Line in the NYCS, which, in turn, determines the color of the 7 (see New York City Subway nomenclature for a detailed explanation). If the train is moving, the fringing is unlikely to be avoided because that "bullet" is lighted from within the train car. (If the train was the focus, then the station would have the fringing.) As for the EV, it's pretty much a typical station, although a picture that included top border mosaics, station identification mosaics or signage is probably better, i.e. New York City Subway tiles, because that is a better representation of NYCS architecture and design. (Suggestion: try the same angle from an island platform that shows the outside wall, columns, and moving train, such as Court Street or Clark Street. The angle may have to be wider as in this shot of DeKalb Avenue.) So I have to agree with not enough EV. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a FYI - I agree with much of what you say, but the purple fringing that people are talking about is not the purple subway sign - it's a lens/sensor artifact where there is a purple 'bleed' around areas of strong light/contrast. You can see it in the fluorescent lighting above the train. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been waiting to be sure before voting and it's a definite no for me. Whenever i look at the picture, even the far away parts of the station, my eyes are drawn back to the blurred part on the left and that kills it for me. Moreover, i find that EV would have been better with at least a distinguishable train. The London picture is spot on regarding that. With trains and passengers, i get what this is all about. Ksempac (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticing this now. Thanks for the supports! And thanks for taking time to opposes as well ;-). This image is old. I shot it with a Powershot G3 3.5 years ago. Technically not FP material. Surprised to see this over here. Anyhow. I love subways, and taking photos in NY is always fun. I have tons of similar pictures, some from last year with my 5D. --Dschwen 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Complete plumage coverage between the two images in the article. High quality. Might need a square crop.

Articles this image appears in

Black Currawong, Currawong

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good quality and EV. Nice DOF --Muhammad(talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not quite the best contrast (background is darkest near the bird's head), but good focus and DOF. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb encyclopedia shot. Would have ideally had a lighter b/g but no biggie. --mikaul^talk 09:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 10:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'll go against the trend, but the head is slightly blurred, which is where focus traditionally should be best. Wasn't sure if it was a focus/DOF issue, as body is well focused, but looking at metadata f5.6 should have been enough, especially given the angle. However this was taken at 1/25s so it's probably a motion blur from the bird moving its head. These birds are common enough that we can probably expect better, especially given the less than ideal surroundings. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the head, beak is that bad. Obviously pushing it on light level though. Is File:Strepera fuliginosa 1.jpg any better for you? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably more the sort of clarity I was thinking about on the head. Perhaps it is just DOF, because that one goes rapidly OOF with the feet quite soft, despite them not appearing to be that far out of the plane of the head (though that one is f5 which would also have an impact). FWIW I think the second one comes out better in terms of composition as well in terms of the overall surroundings - much cleaner - but I wouldn't really support it either with the feet and missing tail. As I say above I think these birds are common enough that we can expect something pretty good (difficulty in capturing the blackness well notwithstanding). --jjron (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jjron. I too think this bird is common enough that we can insist upon near-perfection. Something like the taxobox image would be better in terms of composition. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Strepera fuliginosa 2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Shows many typical characteristics of Mycena. Very difficult to identify further (even the article says so!).

Articles this image appears in

Mycena

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Focus seems to be on the moss, not the mushrooms. And composition is different. --Muhammad(talk) 14:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the focal plane for the moss happens to be the same as the cap, rather than a focussing error. --mikaul^talk 09:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can't help seeing this as better suited to microstock... composition isn't ideal for FP purposes. --mikaul^talk 09:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it. DOF is shallow, but appears to be fine on the two right most caps at front, leaving the rear one (at left) slightly OOF. That's OK. Unfortunate about no full species ID. --jjron (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful image with an interesting composition, but can you provide alternatives with more tighter crop on the subject?--Caspian blue 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I actually really like the composition - nice to look at, and EV. But I do find the sharply focused moss a bit distracting. Stevage 05:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim. Gage (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose/Comments I'd really like to see someone attempt a crop of this. It's FP quality, it's just the composition that strikes me as awkward. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, lovely. Odd composition, but I think it works. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image is really clear (although on closer inspection I would prefer cropping off the unfocussed top and a bit of the sharp moss) Smaug123 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mycena sp.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality Armillaria sp growing out of a log. Difficult to further identify from photograph. Fungi are pretty under represented for featured images, given that there are an estimated 1.5 million species.

Articles this image appears in

Honey fungus

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A little oversharpened for my taste but still a damned good enc illustration. --mikaul^talk 09:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would have been great if you were around a couple of feet and just had moss in the background, but as is I'm not a big fan of the bg - what is that white thing, a fence railing? --jjron (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got no idea what it is. Nearest fence railing is several kilometres away. I'd guess it was a branch. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice picture. --Carioca (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Background is more than a little bit distracting. Otherwise, very good shot. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great photo, and great focus on items in foreground. Gage (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely framed and focused. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fantastic shot, shame we can't get better identification. I love looking at your pictures as they show fungi better than I've seen them before (it's comparable with actually being there, seeing them in the flesh), but I hate looking because I know my shots just can't compare :) J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Armillaria sp Marriott.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV, lighting. Probably my last Tanzania related nomination for a long time.

Articles this image appears in

Bank of Tanzania

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice to see an economics related candidate, for once. MER-C 06:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This seems way too warm to me, no? wadester16 06:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am on the fence regarding that also. Early morning/late afternoon sunlight is normally very warm, but the sky seems to be the wrong hue. Could be understandable if that is air pollution? Durova²⁸⁸ 21:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don;t know whether air pollution could have caused that, but it was pretty smoggy that day, I remember because I had gone to Mafuta House to look for the crescent to mark the new lunar month and didn't see it even with powerful binoculars or the 150mm. Also, the Bank is located in the city so pollution is definitely present. --Muhammad(talk) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bushfire smoke, volcanic ash, dust storms and I guess other particulates can do that. MER-C 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Tanzania is anything like New York City, I can testify that an evening summer sky can look even unhealthier than that. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm wondering if a HDR was needed at all? Doesn't seem like there was much dynamic range. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No HDR used. --Muhammad(talk) 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Are you studying in India now? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in Bangalore doing my BCA --Muhammad(talk) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we can look forward to some good stuff from there? --jjron (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's exciting. wadester16 17:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once I've gotten used to the traffic, yes --Muhammad(talk) 08:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I realise this was a late afternoon capture but the colour cast seems very heavy. I've noticed this same hue on your images in the past and meant to mention at the time that the EXIF showed a manual white balance. Maybe that was just a one-off, but I know I've forgotten to reset mine before... --mikaul^talk 09:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please upload an edit to correct the hue? This was taken at 5:54 pm, around 40 mins before sunset. --Muhammad(talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Support edit 1 btw :-) --mikaul^talk 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I don't remember how it was so either is good for me. --Muhammad(talk) 08:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On second thought, edit looks slightly cooler. Prefer original. --Muhammad(talk) 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Muhammad's explanation. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only original. The adjusted image looks unnatural and we know how pictures taken at dawn have naturally a yellow and red cast.--Caspian blue 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know the light tends to yellow-red; a photograph taken should not have a cast unless all you see is sunlit areas. The test in these particular conditions would be to look at shadow areas, which should remain neutral. --mikaul^talk 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exception might be when the sky is particularly smoggy, in which case even the indirect light is tinted... I agree with you in theory though - generally you should correct the WB for the shadows, as they're most neutral. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bank of Tanzania golden hour.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

In my opinion, this is probably the best image of Jimbo Wales that we have. It had a Picture peer review in February 2009, where several editors thought it could be a possible candidate for FP.

Articles this image appears in

Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia Foundation

Creator

Wikimedia Foundation

• Support as nominator --NW (Talk) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, it has significance, but the crop seems a bit tight to me - more of a headshot than a portrait. Is it just me or does he have a bit of a Kevin Costner look in this one? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin Costner, you say? Hmmm. Don't see it myself ;)
  • And a headshot does make more sense than a portrait. The crop that you mentioned is about 300px on both sides of his face - maybe slightly tight, but still fine for a headshot, I think. NW (Talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still don't see the similarity? :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support the I'd prefer a less tight crop, especially at the bottom, and the DOF seems a bit shallow. Not enough for an oppose though. Time3000 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, accurate portrayal of the subject, among Wikipedia's best images of living people. Guest9999 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Loved him in Bull Durham. Durova²⁸⁵ 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - insufficient DOF. Why was this shot at 200mm? Very easily replaceable (plus vain Wikipedia is vain). MER-C 09:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 200mm is a pretty standard portrait length these days, especially considering this was taken with a full frame body, the high focal length serves to flatten the features which is considered aesthetically pleasing. - Flying Freddy (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's true. Typical portrait lenses are 85-135mm. Obviously a portrait can be taken with any lens I suppose, but 200mm is far less hand-holdable and impractical to shoot with unless you really need reach, and you just don't for portraits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Yup, sharp, plus Jimbo gets a bonus. ceranthor 12:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Well, no comment on the nomination, due to COI. :-) I just wanted to flag that I'm not sure the attribution is correct. I believe this is one of the shots taken by Manuel Archain of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But I need to research that to be sure. I think my assistant emailed it to someone around the time of the fundraiser and the attribution got lost. So, before this one makes it (or not), I'd like to be sure we get that exactly right. I will check over the next 24 hours.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Attribution confirmed and fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support of Kevin Costner, for when his attribution is updated. wadester16 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Shallow DOF, as well as some vignetting. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose if the consensus was that wikipetan was to self-referential, then so is this. de Bivort 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to point out that Wales has his own article, while Wikipetan was representing a concept. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Background has rather poor color choice. There is poor control of catch-lights in eyes. I would prefer a slightly more side-on view of the face since, given the size of this guys forehead, a centered frontal exaggerates this. I would prefer slightly more directional lighting that is more horizontally displaced than vertically. I would prefer that the subjects eyes were not so wide-open (poor posing and choice of shot). etc. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high-detailed photograph of subject. While I would prefer a profile that is not 100% face-front, this is still really good. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—You can't get away from the way the chin is almost cut off by the frame: cramped appearance. And the background colour isn't wonderful. Tony (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The chin is further away from the bottom edge than the hair is from the top edge. wadester16 07:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Highly detailed image, extremely crisp. Very clean, professional portrait. Gage (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per above –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — per above. Diego_pmc ^Talk 10:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1 It's poorly-focussed and badly-lit alright but you can't dispute the EV ;-) If we must promote it, please lets have one like the edit, with an sRGB colour profile so he doesn't get a fake tan when you click on it, and a little brighter and neutral enough so that he looks reasonably healthy. I've also cropped it more appropriately for the headshot it is: I think most of the objections to the framing have been due to an excess of space at the top/left, rather than a too-tight crop at the bottom. --mikaul^talk 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, has anyone noticed how much he looks like Jimmy Wales? --mikaul^talk 10:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose— It is a fine photograph in may respects, but inadequate lighting contributes to poor definition of the lower facial features - there is severe blurring of the chin/beard with its shadow. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believe this image has good resolution, detail, DoF and EV. Enough characteristics to become a FP. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer edit 1. I think portraits have a very difficult time getting through, and this one is clearly above average. I'm not a big fan of the tight crop, but it's good enough for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I'm tempted to support per Diliff, but I think if we're going to feature a picture of Jimmy Wales, we should insist upon the highest possible quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nice photo and, Jimbo, we love you, man.--Jimmy xu wrk (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Smashing picture of Jimbo, It would be good to see it as a FP. Harlem675 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per FCB1. Also not a fan of the cropping. South Nashua (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Technically OK, a detailed view that is not usually available.

Articles this image appears in

Piston valve

Creator

Eusebius

• Support as nominator --Eusebius (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional weak support - Interesting enough I guess, a little spacey but good probably. Really needs a better caption though especially mentioning the fact that this is from a trumpet. -Ben pcc (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not include it on purpose, because the piston valves found on tubas, saxhorns, flugelhorns and so on look the same, and present the exact same features in principle. In other words, I designed the caption so that the picture is presented as describing the concept of a piston valve, more than a specific trumpet piston valve (I hope I am clear). I'm ready to change it to "Anatomy of a trumpet piston valve" if you think it is better. --Eusebius (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support. Caption needs improving, and a description of the various parts would be nice on the description page. MER-C 09:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've modified the caption to mention the trumpet. I'm unable to name or describe precisely the various parts. --Eusebius (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an accurate depiction. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Suggest the new description now used. wadester16 16:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice, except that it might be slightly misleading (although accurate from the player's point of view): the open trumpet reads C/C/G/C/E/G/B♭/C, but plays B♭/B♭/F/B♭/D/F/A♭/B♭ (because it's a B♭ trumpet). I'm not sure there's a way to state it nicely. --Eusebius (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, not sure how to get that in that way either. Though the links bring you to places where you can figure that out, I guess. wadester16 17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've included a link to Transposing instrument, I think it is enough. --Eusebius (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nicely done; perfect place and article to link. wadester16 07:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very accurate work. --Carioca (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we need more of these for FP GerardM (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on the whole instrument ;-) But it takes a lot of time... --Eusebius (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Funnily enough I had just been thinking about doing a valve image myself. 'Weak' because the cutout on that green washer type thing fourth from the top looks to have been done a bit poorly. If I'm wrong, or if it gets fixed, change to full support. BTW agree with earlier comments on naming/description of parts - surely the names for these parts shouldn't be that hard to find? --jjron (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Trompette - premier piston - montage perspective.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and very good EV. I thought the Bank of Tanzania would be my last TZ related nom but found a few more images. Compared to the only other image of the subject, this one is pretty good.

Articles this image appears in

Chaga, Hut (dwelling)

Creator

User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does anyone else see the reddish hue around every leaf, and the sky is looking purple on my computer. I wanted to ask about it before voting. Other pictures are showing correct, as well as the tests above. Thank you very much!! Zulualpha (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a blown sky was removed? I've done that before, and if you don't find a good replacement for the sky, it comes out looking something like this, especially if the fill-in isn't carefully done. Given the lighting, I'd say it was probable. Thegreenj 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sky was blown to some extent and I tried to recover the blown areas. If anybody wants to give it a retry, I can provide the blown version as well --Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you shoot in raw? If you did, why not provide the original and a -1 EV version. That would be a good start. If you're determined to replace the sky with nothing but the blown version, you may want to try using a much lighter, somewhat desaturated blue gradient as your sky. That said, I'm not sure I would consider totally replacing the sky (as appears to have been done here) appropriate encyclopedia ethics. Thegreenj 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would much rather a blown sky (sometimes this is unavoidable, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose for it) than an a faked sky which is simply overexposure that has been darkened, and is therefore missing all colour info (essentially grey). I don't really agree with using a blue gradient either, as it would likely not look realistic, not to mention the ethical issues. If the raw file exists, it might be possible to recover but even then, not always. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uploaded original I didn't shoot raw. --Muhammad(talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank goodness others see it... I thought I needed to adjust my moniter. I'm an amateur photographer and also currently working as a photography assistant. We shoot with film and therefore I am not as familiar with photo-shopping techniques. Would “fixing” the blown sky on the computer also account for the red hue around the leaves, or is that another problem? Zulualpha (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I only see the red hue on leaves where they touch the sky, so I assume that's a part of it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or possibly chromatic aberration. The high contrast boundary between a leaf and a blown sky would definitely bring that out. Thegreenj 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm glad to see the comments above so I know I'm not crazy, that sky looks VERY awkward. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've never seen grey blown highlights here before, but there you go. Might be recoverable in RAW, but that only makes the chromatic aberration look worse. MER-C 04:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thegreen, Diliff anything you can do about the original, any comments? --Muhammad(talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the look of the original, no, but it would really depend if you shot it in RAW and could recover the highlights there. It looks beyond recovery to be honest. But having said that, I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the blown sky being unimportant. A few lines of clouds would not affect the EV of this image and otherwise the quality is pretty good, right? --Muhammad(talk) 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not just the blown sky though, the whole top of the hut seems overly flushed with light - again probably a side-effect of the shooting conditions. You could try to selectively edit that, but I'd tend to say it just doesn't come up to FP standards, difficulty of shooting conditions notwithstanding (though they typically are ignored). Would support it at VPC though (please don't give me a lecture about mentioning VP as some users are wont to do ;-) ). --jjron (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why a small part of the image which provides no additional information should affect the larger part of the image. And apart from the exposure, it is otherwise very good and we have been known to make exceptions in rare cases. --Muhammad(talk) 02:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The overexposed/flushed out 'roof' of the hut is probably 1/3 of the high EV part of the image - that's hardly a 'small part'. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original unedited version only Too bad for the blown sky, but anybody who've been in a forest will understand. On the other hand the grey sky of the edited version looked completely fake. Except for the sky, the picture is great, with a lot of EV (Bonus point for the great caption in the summary. Wish all FPC would have this kind of caption !). I would have liked to see more Tanzania's pictures (and I mean real people/place, not insects or flowers :p). Ksempac (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "original", wow, that just looks.. ..uncanny! How is that even remotely an improvement? Weak support alternative (real original), the blown sky cheapens the look of the image, but this is great stuff none the less. I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro. --Dschwen 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chaga_hut_noadj.jpg Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With 3 supports and 1 weak support, this does not have enough support to meet the requirement. Issue raised here: here. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very impressive image, shot by an impressive photographer. An instantly recognizable photograph, seen throughout the entire world, as a representation of the current President of the United States. Though I am personally not a supporter of President Obama, this image is extremely inspiring, and a perfect capture of the subject. The lighting and contrast of the photo is superb, with the red, white and blue flag in the background providing a sense of integrity, as well as patriotism. Very professional image that is worthy of being a featured image on the English Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama, President of the United States, etc.

Creator

Pete Souza

• Support as nominator --Gage (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, I'd like to point out, since you kindly provided the link, that the closing administrator on the previous nomination had suggested relisting the image, when it was not promoted back in January. Not that it matters, but I just wanted to make sure that it is noted for this process as well. Gage (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Am I allowed to cite my diatribe during the previous nom? Compositionally, it's a very poor pastiche of the Reagan one. Yes, it's been shot with a digital camera and yes, it's the President of the United States. These two things are all this image has to commend itself as a featured picture. Not enough, IMO. --mikaul^talk 11:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as before --Muhammad(talk) 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose The background is rather bland, other than the color of the US Flag, the tie is slightly askew with heavy shadowing beneath, and the subject's facial expression looks, umm, constipated. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high technical quality, good representation of the subject, among the very best images of living people on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV, good quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very recognisable and looks good with the flag in the background. LizzieHarrison 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If the presidential portrait photos (certainly this one and other modern ones) aren't of EV, providing an HQ portrait of one of the most powerful people in the world... Then no biographical image is a FP. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I feel there are many other photographs of the president that are much better - they show his personality and are a better balance. I understand the reason the president is off center (to allow the flag to be seen and as a whole, they are center), but I still find the fact he is so off center (you can see down his arm!), along with the shadowing mentioned above, to be distracting. Further, if you look at other presidential photos, they are much more centered than this one. I'm not disputing the EV of the photo... it is a photo of the current President of the United States. I oppose because of the above reasons AND it simply isn't as quality as the other presidential photos as a whole, IMO.Zulualpha (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Zulualpha -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, off center, unnatural expression, poor background. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See rule of thirds. Durova²⁹⁷ 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unnatural expression?? I have no tie to this image, but really? Less natural than File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg? Than File:Peter Levy BBC.jpg? Than File:Saddam Hussein at trial, July 2004-edit1.JPEG? It's a guy sitting there. I think the background is fine, but whatever on that front, but I do not see how his expression is an issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer all your questions: yes. It's a poor image, no action, no story, just a mundane expressionless photo. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's... What a portrait is... That's what basically every FP portrait is... Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, that's a passport photo, or maybe something from the 19th century but without the decent lighting and depiction of powerful persona. --mikaul^talk 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then will there be several dozen FP for removal noms coming from you guys? Because again, the standard for FP portraits is pretty clear from the ones currently in the library, and this photo meets them. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - sorry, but the positioning is really distracting and takes away from the image. Plus, the flags look really blurry and my eyes kinda burn from looking at the image because of the blur, especially when they try to adjust to read the words which are too close to center not to be drawn towards. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obvious EV. And i do like the composition...for once a people picture with a bit of originality. Nice rule of thirds. Can't understand why people are so put up by this composition. Ksempac (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution image in great lighting conditions of an iconic rock formation. This is a vertical panorama of three images taken at about 7am, on an uncharacteristically bright, cloudless day. Regarding flaws, the composition isn't perfect, and perhaps the polariser blackens the sky a bit too much.

Articles this image appears in

Torres del Paine National Park, Cordillera del Paine

Creator

Stevage

• Support as nominator --Stevage 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, the polarisation of the sky is a bit OTT - that must have been some seriously clear blue sky. Fantastic looking scenery, but I'm not a fan of the composition. Doesn't look like the best vantage point and it feels a bit cramped and confused. And while it has plenty of resolution, the detail is fairly poor at 100%. Not suggesting you downsample it necessarily though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For context, see the alternative. Stevage 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like a better vantage point would be further up the slope to the left... You'd lose the reflection in the water, I suppose, but it would be a more complete and higher EV view IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all - loss of detail due to JPEG artifacts. Also per Diliff. MER-C 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to nit-pick at this vote in particular, but I've seen jpeg artifacts misidentified increasingly frequently around FPC. They don't appear as noise or as general lack of sharpness; they look like 8x8 pixel squares. Jpeg artifacts aren't a major problem with this photo at 100%, and they're certainly not causing the detail loss here; diffraction (f/22!?) or optics is more likely, IMO. (FWIW, this is what detail loss from jpeg artifacts looks like.) Thegreenj 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. With no disrespect to MER-C intended, I do think he does occasionally misdiagnose JPEG artifacts. There are some strange artifacts in the dark blue sky, but I suspect that it is sensor noise that the camera has attempted to perform in-camera reduction on (badly). It usually ends up as patchy, blobby artifacts on P&S cameras (which I assume was used in this case, as it doesn't seem to have the pixel level sharpness of a DSLR, even at f/22!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, EXIF says it is a DSLR and a high-end one as well (Pentax K10D), the ISO was only 280 and the shutter speed was 1/125. At those settings, noise really shouldn't be a problem... MER-C 09:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I hadn't had a good look at the EXIF, but with those settings and the camear there's not really any logical explanation for the poor image quality. It seems even more obvious in the sky of the alternative image, and I think there might actually be a bit of blocky JPEG artifacts in that one too by the looks of it. Stevage, what do you think? Is that image quality typical from your camera? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noise is always worse in the blue channel and varies according to the chip; can be really bad with Sony DSLRs, maybe Pentax use the same chip? Other quality issues (softness, lack of contrast, fringing) are just cheap lens related, that said no DX lens is going to be impressive stopped right down. Weird "choice" of ISO/exposure for a straight auto setting, it has to be said. --mikaul^talk 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I believe Pentax does/did use a Sony chip, as did Nikon until fairly recently. I've never seen a lens that unsharp though. Even the cheapest, crappiest lenses can produce better images. It actually looks a little upsampled to me. I'm not saying it has been - that's just what it looks like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The reflections at the bottom of both pictures is mind-bending! Because the formations are so strange and interesting, you can't really tell where the rock ends and the water begins. Smaug123 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Restored version of File:Dalziel Brothers - Sir Walter Scott - Rob Roy in the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral unrestored.jpg. This shows the gothic, atmospheric meeting that sets off the exciting second half of the book, and I think does an excellent job at capturing the mood. The engravers are highly notable, and the book is, of course, very well known. This was nominated before (and actually had a consensus of support which was overruled, then it got caught up in various drama related to a series of awkward closures...); however, I think it's now accepted that a good illustration of a book is useful to have, which a lot of the opposes seemed against at the time.

Articles this image appears in

Rob Roy (novel), Dalziel Brothers, and Glasgow Cathedral.

Creator

the Dalziel Brothers

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁸ 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice restoration, but I'm not sure the image of a character's back has a good EV.--Caspian blue 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osbaldistone is in three-quarters view - you CAN see his face, Rob Roy isn't seen at this point in the story. To do what you suggest, it would have to be of a completely different scene. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I supported last time and again. I can't imagine a better illustration for the novel; it shows all the intrigue and promise of action that fills the novel. The caption on the page gives you all the information you need to know: "Listen—but do not look back." Makings for a good novel, that line, ;-) Maedin\^talk 07:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think I voted last time, but Shoemaker's and Maedin's arguments convince me --Muhammad(talk) 23:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it's a wonderful example of its kind; EV for the novel is less significant but obviously not a drawback. Nice restoration. --mikaul^talk 09:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an image in my field and definitely high quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dalziel Brothers - Sir Walter Scott - Rob Roy in the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral.jpg --Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Humorous cartoon about the Interborough Rapid Transit (a private transit company that eventually was bought out by the New York City Subway) critical of the system's service, in 1905. Restored version of File:Interborough Rattled Transit.png; smaller (1.86mb) version available: File:Interborough Rattled Transit Downsampled Restored.png. Could be just as relevant today in some urban subways. :-)

Articles this image appears in

New York City Subway, History of the IRT subway before 1918, History of the New York City Subway

Creator

Rogers, W. A. (William Allen) (published in the New York Herald)

• Support as nominator --wadester16 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wadester, I've told you that you shouldn't downsample engravings and such. However, you seem to have taken it into your head that your first step, when restoring, is to downsample to a tiny size, and yet you do not document this act very well, giving the misleading impression that this is as large as the image could be gotten. While you're doing that, such restorations cannot be considered Wikipedia's best work, even if no other flaws could be found. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other option do I have when the original is 23 mb and won't thumbnail? This is still 1660 px in its smallest dimension, which easily meets the FP criteria for size. I'm also trying to be considerate of others with slow connections. wadester16 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could restore and upload at full size as well as a downsampled version of the restoration for thumbnailing (as has been done before); after all the work restoring, it's a trivial amount of effort to provide a higher quality image. Also if you're concerned about others with slow internet, 6MB is still a pretty big file; an additional jpeg version might be helpful. Just link the other versions in the image page, and everyone's happy. Thegreenj 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at my restorations, you'll see that nearly all of them have a PNG version (which generally doesn't thumbnail) and a JPEG (which does), as well as the same (or sometimes just the PNG) for the original. Just note at the top that the image is a lossless version of XXX.jpg, which doesn't currently display due to the PNG thumbnailer problem, but should be kept to allow further editing.

Also, the PNG thumbnailer limit is 12 megapixels, not three, so even for the stated reason for the downsample - which I'd still oppose over - you went way too far. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Highest-res version uploaded over the original shown above. Smaller version linked in text above. Alt, in grayscale, is also offered for those that may prefer it. wadester16 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All the LoC's film images tend to be rather soft, including this one, so I've sharpened it a bit. Time3000 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The brightness of the paper seems pretty inconsistent. The bottom left is much brighter than the other corners, particularly the left side. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, and brick red seems an odd tone for the colours - This scan is pretty bad, and very uneven in tone - dark in parts, light in others, and this sort of art didn't have washes. It'd be better to lose the paper (which is badly posterised) and just keep the ink, if we're to salvage this. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just a scanner issue, Shoemaker. This is a second generation copy. Remember my complaints about the slightly off-focus Kodak duplicates LoC was making several decades ago? It's often hard to work off those things. Durova²⁹⁴ 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's hoping you saved a version prior to changing the histogram, Wadester. There are pretty severe brightness variations in different parts of this image. It's a phenomenon I blogged about several months back. Have a look at how much better Jake Wartenberg made the Montana State Capitol before he nominated. After that's ready, try adjusting color balance instead of desaturating. This fade is rich in magenta and deficient in cyan. A few minor issues could also use a touch-up. It looks like someone made a diagonal scratch to interrupt the lines of the I-beam pillar. Durova²⁹⁴ 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - appears downsampled (or blurred) and then desaturated. The downsampling/blurring tends to lose detail in the paper, making it look washed; also not a wise option for an engraving (or anything involving thin strokes), since they can get discarded in either process. Wholesale blurring and sharpening is not good, unless you know you can get away with it (ie., no-one is going to complain). It would be better if the paper were restored before the desaturation/levels adjustment to avoid the overblown whites. At any rate, if you do use levels (or whatever) in the future, it's a good way to check against over-bright and over-dark [not relevant here] areas, so you know where to work next. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, this isn't downsampled, at least not by me. wadester16 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment uploaded new version over original, using Alt 2 as basis. Colors adjusted per Durova, and brightness adjusted per Diliff. Unfortunately I'm on my way out for vacation and may not be around much until next week. Irrational timing on my part, admittedly. wadester16 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's getting closer. Global changes seldom do the trick with this type of image. It's still got brightness variances, which produce some loss of paper texture. Also the color balance has local irregularities. Have uploaded an edit with notes to make it a little easier to see. The ideal solution is to go back and work on the uneven fade first, in order to retain the texture. Then try a series of feathered layer adjustments to get a consistent color balance. Good call to leave the pencil marks visible from before the artist inked the sketch. The hard part is to leave that intact while getting out the smudges and dirt. Looks effortless when it's done right, but but actually quite difficult. A tough choice for a first restoration FPC. Durova²⁹⁷ 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and very good EV. I thought the Bank of Tanzania would be my last TZ related nom but found a few more images. Compared to the only other image of the subject, this one is pretty good.

Articles this image appears in

Chaga, Hut (dwelling)

Creator

User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does anyone else see the reddish hue around every leaf, and the sky is looking purple on my computer. I wanted to ask about it before voting. Other pictures are showing correct, as well as the tests above. Thank you very much!! Zulualpha (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a blown sky was removed? I've done that before, and if you don't find a good replacement for the sky, it comes out looking something like this, especially if the fill-in isn't carefully done. Given the lighting, I'd say it was probable. Thegreenj 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sky was blown to some extent and I tried to recover the blown areas. If anybody wants to give it a retry, I can provide the blown version as well --Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you shoot in raw? If you did, why not provide the original and a -1 EV version. That would be a good start. If you're determined to replace the sky with nothing but the blown version, you may want to try using a much lighter, somewhat desaturated blue gradient as your sky. That said, I'm not sure I would consider totally replacing the sky (as appears to have been done here) appropriate encyclopedia ethics. Thegreenj 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would much rather a blown sky (sometimes this is unavoidable, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose for it) than an a faked sky which is simply overexposure that has been darkened, and is therefore missing all colour info (essentially grey). I don't really agree with using a blue gradient either, as it would likely not look realistic, not to mention the ethical issues. If the raw file exists, it might be possible to recover but even then, not always. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uploaded original I didn't shoot raw. --Muhammad(talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank goodness others see it... I thought I needed to adjust my moniter. I'm an amateur photographer and also currently working as a photography assistant. We shoot with film and therefore I am not as familiar with photo-shopping techniques. Would “fixing” the blown sky on the computer also account for the red hue around the leaves, or is that another problem? Zulualpha (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I only see the red hue on leaves where they touch the sky, so I assume that's a part of it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or possibly chromatic aberration. The high contrast boundary between a leaf and a blown sky would definitely bring that out. Thegreenj 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm glad to see the comments above so I know I'm not crazy, that sky looks VERY awkward. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've never seen grey blown highlights here before, but there you go. Might be recoverable in RAW, but that only makes the chromatic aberration look worse. MER-C 04:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thegreen, Diliff anything you can do about the original, any comments? --Muhammad(talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the look of the original, no, but it would really depend if you shot it in RAW and could recover the highlights there. It looks beyond recovery to be honest. But having said that, I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the blown sky being unimportant. A few lines of clouds would not affect the EV of this image and otherwise the quality is pretty good, right? --Muhammad(talk) 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not just the blown sky though, the whole top of the hut seems overly flushed with light - again probably a side-effect of the shooting conditions. You could try to selectively edit that, but I'd tend to say it just doesn't come up to FP standards, difficulty of shooting conditions notwithstanding (though they typically are ignored). Would support it at VPC though (please don't give me a lecture about mentioning VP as some users are wont to do ;-) ). --jjron (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why a small part of the image which provides no additional information should affect the larger part of the image. And apart from the exposure, it is otherwise very good and we have been known to make exceptions in rare cases. --Muhammad(talk) 02:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The overexposed/flushed out 'roof' of the hut is probably 1/3 of the high EV part of the image - that's hardly a 'small part'. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original unedited version only Too bad for the blown sky, but anybody who've been in a forest will understand. On the other hand the grey sky of the edited version looked completely fake. Except for the sky, the picture is great, with a lot of EV (Bonus point for the great caption in the summary. Wish all FPC would have this kind of caption !). I would have liked to see more Tanzania's pictures (and I mean real people/place, not insects or flowers :p). Ksempac (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "original", wow, that just looks.. ..uncanny! How is that even remotely an improvement? Weak support alternative (real original), the blown sky cheapens the look of the image, but this is great stuff none the less. I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro. --Dschwen 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chaga_hut_noadj.jpg Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With 3 supports and 1 weak support, this does not have enough support to meet the requirement. Issue raised here: here. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quality image for a distinctive family. Should be able to go to genus and species level article wise.

Articles this image appears in

Coral fungus

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Really not sure how to deal with this: is it really bright orange? It looks to have blown the red channel unfortunately, so it's difficult to get your eyes around. Interesting, tell more. --mikaul^talk 09:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in which it appears claims it often appears brightly colored in various shades of red, orange, and yellow. It would appear to be a genuine color distribution if the article is correct. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I've seen this. If anything, it's even brighter. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Dead leaves and sticks make it messy; they're a bit off-putting in thumb, very much so at bigger sizes. Why not move them out of the way? Would have supported otherwise. Please no one try to argue using the silly 'that makes it more natural' argument - unless it's growing on them they don't need to be there, and as is they appear to obscure what it is growing on. --jjron (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Awesome, I didn´t knew such plants exist. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't... ;-) --jjron (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damërung, it is not a plant. - DSachan (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice shot. I do not consider the twigs or leaves in any way negative, for two reasons: firstly, the bright colour of the fungus itself, and, secondly, because that's where these grow. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per J Milburn. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron --Muhammad(talk) 06:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Yes they grow on forest debris like twigs and leaves... but, removal of that middle leaf would have let us see better the attachment of the fungus to its substrate... so only weak support. Sasata (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clavulinopsis_corallinorosacea.jpg Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think this picture is a wonderful picture with great quality and should be a featured picture.

Articles this image appears in

Georgia (U.S. state), Columbus, Georgia, Chattahoochee River

Creator

Shark96z

• Support as nominator --Shark96z (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. The image is only 500 pixels wide. The criteria say that they must be at least 1000px wide. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Well below minimum size criteria. Durova²⁹⁸ 00:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close/Oppose as per above. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A bit of Old New York: the New York Public Library main building while it was still being built, flanked by horse carriages and a trolley. The New York Public Library has the second most extensive collection in the United States. The famous lion statues by the entrance have not yet been installed. Restored version of File:New York Public Library 1908.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Carrère and Hastings, New York Public Library, New York Public Library Main Branch

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁹⁴ 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good EV, beautiful restoration. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a complicated restoration well done... :) Thank you ! GerardM (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great composition, framing and will be a nice image to have in Streetcars in New York whenever it is created. gren グレン 06:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice picture Harlem675 10:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:New York Public Library 1908c.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 04:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The Wicked Witch of the West, brought to you by the Wiki Witch of the West. Restored version of File:Wicked Witch.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Wicked Witch of the West, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Land of Oz

Creator

William Wallace Denslow

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁹⁷ 03:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment seems cut off at the bottom. Can't you clonestamp in a little paper in order to allow the crop to not cut off a line? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual illustration went to the edge of the paper. This is scanned from the first edition. Durova²⁹⁷ 14:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite: There's the tiniest of gaps in the original, yours cuts a line. I presume this is because of a slight rotation, but it'd be better to synthesise a little paper and keep the end of the line in. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 15:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm...will get on it (pours coffee). Durova²⁹⁷ 16:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Er... isn't coffee made with water? ....Oh, dear, that doesn't look healthy. *eyes around shiftily, steals Durova's shoes* Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support do not add what is not there ... as it is it is good. GerardM (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - saw both versions and yeah, the image goes to the bottom and is cut off on the edge of the -page-, so the illustration is supposed to be cut off. Everything checks out. However, why is Dorothy's shoe next to the witch? lol. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the original text the witch tricked Dorothy out of one of her shoes. Durova²⁹⁷ 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still makes me wonder why it is in the witch. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The injustice of it! What sort of person steals a dead woman's shoes? Durova²⁹⁷ 16:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support That's an excellent image. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support per nom. Sasata (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Who would have thought that a small amount of liquid would fall on me! Noodle snacks (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wicked Witch2.jpg --wadester16 06:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

José Guadalupe Posada was a Mexican artist who used themes from indigenous culture to religious and satirical effect. Posada's best known work incorporates skulls (calaveras), such as this "Great electric skull" example in which a skeleton hypnotizes other skulls. Posada's work is associated with the modern Mexican holiday Day of the Dead (El Día de los Muertos), which incorporates precolonial traditions. Restored version of File:Gran_calavera_eléctrica.jpg.

The background texture is presumably due to the printing being done on cloth, combined with the age.

Articles this image appears in

José Guadalupe Posada, Calavera, Day of the Dead, Folk art

Creator

José Guadalupe Posada

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁹⁷ 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a fine example of a notable artist participating in an important aspect of Mexican culture. Oh, by the way, for the record - as I recall, "electric" was being used at that time in a figurative usage to represent what Mesmer called animal magnetism - in other words, hypnosis. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 18:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Shoemaker's GerardM (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Cool. Sasata (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've added it to folk art as it's exactly what popped into my head when I saw it. Really cool. --mikaul^talk 00:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gran_calavera_eléctrica2.jpg --Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Kind of an iconic image of France, with real-life imitating Hugo's literature.

Articles this image appears in

Franco-Prussian War, Siege of Paris, Fred Barnard.

Creator

Fred Barnard. My original two-part Scan was stitched together and straightened by Wikipedia:Graphics Lab members VegitaU and Rugby471; I have done a full reworking of the restoration.

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁷ 01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Sasata (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Image is clean and crisp. Strong encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would be great at The Illustrated London News if there were space... love the way it the spirit of the moment is presented, more than anything. --mikaul^talk 00:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose we could swap it in to replace File:Nasser-ed-Din Shah's last visit to Britain - 3.jpg, if desired. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 04:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments/Questions. Obviously this will be promoted cos no one checks EV, but last time a version of this was nominated I asked some questions that were never answered. I haven't reread the relevant articles closely, but the image page doesn't answer them, so can anyone provide answers to these questions yet? To quote myself: This is a lovely detailed scan of this image, but I just don't get it. I'm presuming that 'the students' are the group we can see marching behind what appears to me to be the main characters - the couple of soldiers (?), the old man, the young woman. Perhaps this has some deeper message about the students going off to do the soldiers work because they were mucking around doing other things like flirting with young women, but I really can't be sure of that. It's also an issue that other than the image captions, I can see nowhere in the articles where it's mentioned that the scene depicted occurred (i.e., the students going to the defence), or why it occurred - maybe I haven't read the articles closely enough. Incidentally, aren't the students going to man the fortifications, not the barricades?... --jjron (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Illustrated London News had artists on the spot to capture the scenes going on there. Yes, they were Barricades: This was during the period around the Siege of Paris. This is from a newspaper: It's not from an art journal. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 07:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. You have to remember this was all before the advent of photojournalism and at the time engravings were made from sketches commissioned as the best way of reporting events pictorially. You generally don't ask such questions of a photograph of an event; you simply accept it as a record of what occurred and either draw your own conclusions or have them drawn for you. Presumably the artist either specified the presence of students or this was inferred by the newspaper editor, given the situation on the ground at the time. Whatever: this is how world events were portrayed at the time and has much the same credibility and indeed EV as a photograph of similar quality, if not perhaps equal spontaneity. --mikaul^talk 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I examined the articles based on jjron's comments and came to the determination that this lacks sufficient EV. It's in a gallery on Fred Barnard. Siege of Paris doesn't mention this event at all. EV in Franco-Prussian War seems to depend on this picture being representative of the Siege of Paris, and it doesn't appear to be so. So, the Siege article looks like the only place this could have sufficient EV, but as it stands, the events the picture purports to depict are not even mentioned in the article. That all adds up to an oppose based on insufficient EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to most modern views of history, the general population - not just the big players - are important too. As an encyclopedia, it may be difficult to include all aspects of this in a short encyclopedia article, but that does not mean we should actively work to exclude this when a good illustration of daily life at the time is available. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 08:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters now, but the point I was trying to get across was that rather than enhance the article this picture makes it confusing since nowhere in the text is this specific event mentioned. Certainly it's important to note what the residents of Paris were doing during the siege, but it's rather odd to illustrate an article with a picture depicting something that's not even mentioned in the text. It makes me wonder how important it was that the students manned the fortifications. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this event itself be mentioned in the text? The city would have been in complete chaos at the time. Notable events were never recorded as images, unless they were staged afterwards as photographs. In fairness, this image would arguably be better at Paris Commune, given the spirit of revolutionary zeal it seems to be illustrating, but I'd definitely regard this and others like it as iconic and hugely relevant images of one of the most significant historical events in 19th century Europe. --mikaul^talk 11:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, this predates the commune. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying after the nom has been closed). The point I was trying to make, and also I think Makeemlighter was that FPs should be high EV things that add significantly to the content of the article - that's probably the most important criteria (even though it's not treated that way). If this event was historically so minor to be not even mentioned in the article it thus may not have high EV, so what it's illustrating may not be FP material if only for that reason, not because the image itself is bad. And the reason I said ...aren't the students going to man the fortifications..., which SMH said was wrong, is because the caption on the image itself says this very thing - so who's right, SMH or the person that added the original caption? Personally, for the record I kind of like this picture, but I'd say EV is a significant problem here, as it was two years ago. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But surely if it illustrated the event in an important news publication at the time of the siege it has massive relevance. Why must this illustration be mentioned in the text any more than a photo of the crowds during any historic event? I can only suppose you see it as less veracious because it's an illustration, and it probably is, but this was before photojournalism and the immeditate precursor to it. As such it stands on it own merits as do other wartime FPs. mikaul^talk 11:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look through say a 10 year old newspaper and ask yourself how many images there are relevant to an encyclopaedia now. Newspapers, magazines, etc are different from encyclopaedias and have different aims - just because an image has been deemed newsworthy doesn't make it encyclopaedia worthy, much less featureworthy. It has to stand on its own. And if we were being asked to judge a photo of a crowd (that wasn't mentioned in the article) during a historic event I'd probably give the same response. FWIW we should be able to expect an illustration or painting to do more than a photo as the artist can manipulate it to show what they want far more than with a photo. So no one has attempted to answer my question about "the main characters - the couple of soldiers (?), the old man, the young woman" - the artist has made them the main subject but we don't know why, and quite possibly the people at the "Illustrated London News" didn't know why either, so just guessed at a caption and title (this type of thing has happened certainly up till recent times where newspapers rush a good picture to print with little to no information on what it's actually depicting). We need to move beyond old = historic = high EV = featured. That equation does not necessarily hold up, and each item should be evaluated independently. --jjron (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you propose we delist the three examples I linked to? They all portray people and wartime events not mentioned in the article. Like the engraving here, the locations depicted (if stated) aren't in dispute and we rely on the veracity of the illustrator for the identity (if any) of those portrayed, along with the event apparently depicted. They're all outstanding images in their own right; this isn't an "old = featured" issue. As you say, these things are the same today as ever, in fact I'd say the selectivity of your average photojournalist allows for a very special kind of manipulation which, due to people's total acceptance of photographic images as what actually happened, is a far more potent mojo than the product of a sketch artist's imagination. No, I think we have to accept these images, generally regarded as fair representations of past events, as the best way of adding visual detail to accounts of war, and the very best of them to be well worth featuring here and elsewhere. I'm not sure how to respond to your question about 10-year old newspapers. You mean the likes the Kosovo War, WTC attack, invasion of Iraq etc (historical accounts of them and WP articles on them) would be worse off with the inclusion of key photographs from those events? What value those images in 150 years time? Sorry, I just don't get it. --mikaul^talk 06:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think your three examples do depict things mentioned in the articles: countermeasures to poison gas, Czech resistance to Nazi occupation, and the Bougainville campaign. The middle one is pretty weak, but at least connects somewhat to the article. The picture in this nom, however, depicts an event that not only isn't mentioned in the articles, but the importance of which is actually put into question by the article. Apparently, the Prussian commander "never had any intention of attacking the city" and it looks like an actual attack on Paris never occurred. So how significant is what's depicted in this picture? As far as the newspaper thing...what looks important at the time may not be important in retrospect. Perhaps the newsmen expected an attack on Paris. This attack never occurred, so the people who would have participated in its defense aren't terribly important. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't explain why these images themselves – the moments in time they depict – must be mentioned in the article to be relevant. They add information and scenarios not mentioned in the article because they are depictions of typical human activity during extraordinary circumstances: war. That's what makes them striking and informative. I don't need to read about these images in the text to appreciate their relevance. In the case of the Paris image we have a depiction of the spirit of defiance in the air as the siege commenced. The city would have been in chaos, streets full of people literally up in arms, rushing to repel the advancing German forces. The ILN artists, trapped in Paris, were shipping out sketches by hot air balloon. What the intentions of the Prussian commander have to do with it I don't know... it was a siege! An attack would only have been necessary if the tactic of attrition failed, which of course it didn't. By definition, being under siege, the city defences served both as a stonghold against invasion and an imprisonment of the entire population. Citizens would have been mobilised as a show of defiance and strength while incursions into the German lines were launched. Exactly how news of the investment of the city was received by the Parisian public isn't described in the article and, reading the article, we would have no inkling of their reaction, were it not for the inclusion of that image. Isn't that enough? Honestly, for me, I gleaned as much from this one image as I did reading the adjacent text. --mikaul^talk 23:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Franco-Prussian War - Students Going to Man the Barricades - Illustrated London News Oct 1 1870.jpg --Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Given the recent nomination of the subway station in NYC, and the fact that most of the opposition votes were mainly on the basis of limited identifiability and poor image quality (purple fringing), I thought I would give this image a nomination as I think it has a more interesting composition and addresses some of the faults of the other.

Articles this image appears in

Clapham Common tube station, City and South London Railway, Island platform and Rapid transit

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - I support this becoming a featured picture. Harlem675 10:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfascinating. Motion blur on person on left side is very distracting. No encyclopedic value. -- mcshadypl ^TC 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank you sincerely for your expert opinion! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on why you feel this has no EV? I think this has a great deal of it, especially in Rapid transit, since it shows the trains, the platform, and the passengers. And as an example of an Island platform, this has good EV in that article as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose due to the stairwell people. Shot might have been better (imho) waiting a few seconds for them to vacate. Sasata (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Better EV than the other image and quality is also better. Is it ok to have the photographer's name in the image caption in the article? --Muhammad(talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, unless say the photo is being used to illustrate the photographer's work. Where's that? --jjron (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was in Rapid transit, added by a user who felt he was correctly using the license by attributing. Has been removed by another user now. --Muhammad(talk) 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What is the blue light above the left black-and-orange electronic sign? (About coordinates 900,180, according to GIMP.) Can it be removed? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know exactly what it is. Could be a light from the driver's cabin projecting onto the wall, or something like that perhaps. I don't think it should be removed though. It's hardly that distracting and I don't like the idea of removing things from a scene, anyway. It's a falsification of reality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you: if it might have been part of the original scene, then best leave it in. I just thought that it might have arisen from some sort of technical fault, in which case removing it might not be unethical. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Of a very high standard given the conditions. Good EV and the balanced composition (including the blurred people) is pleasing. It's a bit noisy in parts but not distractingly so; noise isn't necessarily undesirable. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: EV is high, in my opinion, particularly for Clapham Common and Island platform articles. One of the only modern images for the City & South London Railway article. EV seems a little weaker for rapid transit, but it's still better by degrees than any of the other images in the article and is a more complete view. I actually think the motion blur adds to the "scene"; this is what you get in stations, people standing around and rushing around, especially as the trains come in. (P.S. I love the British, "Mind the gap". They would say it like that!) Maedin\^talk 18:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per my comments on EV above. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a Yankee such as me this has a lot of EV, we obviously don't build our subways in the same manner, so this is an illuminating look at how someone else does it. It also adds to the articles in which its placed, rapid transit in particular. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clapham Common Tube Station Platforms - Oct 2007.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent quality electron micrograph of the yellow mite, an agricultural nuisance. I discovered the picture recently and was surprised it wasn't featured already, so I made an article for the species.

Articles this image appears in

Lorryia formosa, Tydeidae, Acariformes, Mite

Creator

Photo by Eric Erbe; digital colorization by Chris Pooley at the USDA.

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁷ 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent micrograph. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk)01:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Should probably mention the false colour. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Excellent image quality. Made me read article after I looked at it. Dogposter 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Yellow mite (Tydeidae), Lorryia formosa.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Detailed image for an important Australian landmark.

Articles this image appears in

Canberra, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great picture which meets the criteria. Before someone raises it, it would be difficult to get all of Parliament House in a single close-ish frame given it's size and the layout of roads, security barricades, etc, around the building. File:Parliament House, Canberra.jpg shows the kind of visual obstructions which would block a photo which includes the edges of the grassed slopes and why this is a good angle. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I have a pretty high res version from 'front on' that shows the entire building, slopes and all. Have just never got around to uploading it. --jjron (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Good EV and a quality composition, but I don't like the colouring in the sky on the right side. It looks pretty strange, a little too cyan in parts and it has two waves of discolouration through it. Also, the edges of the frame are a bit soft. The problems aren't too serious, but there is something to be said for exposure blending and stitching and I think this image would have been a lot better if you'd used it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Used both (its a stitch and bracketed)... On the edge softness, I suspect that is because I used a rectilinear projection (it is about 100 degrees wide so edge frames were stretched a lot). Could just crop tighter. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh right, it just wasn't spelled out on the image page so I assumed (also based on the visual detail) that it was a single image. It might be worth using a different projection as rectilinear just breaks down if you go too wide, and I don't think that it would warp the perspective too much given that most of the straight lines are near the horizon. Given that you did use exposure blending, I think something went wrong in the sky as per the streaks. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support This is a gorgeous image, but I think the photo at the angle Nick-D links is more encyclopedic, even given the problems, since this, by necessity, fails to show some of the major architectural elements that makes the building and its setting unique. That said, there's room for both. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 12:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My aim for File:Parliament House, Canberra.jpg was to improve on the original image and a shot of the whole front but never for it to be a FP standard on Wikipedia or Commons (It's currently not one and likely not to be one), If anyone wants to make improvements I'll be happy to send/upload (I'll have to find them but shouldn't be too hard) the original images (I think it took 5 or 6 images to stitch this IIRC) under a CC-BY-SA-3.0. I feel this FPC is the best photograph to be a FP (I'll post my vote during the week sometime). Bidgee (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as per Shoemaker's Holiday. The picure Nick D mentioned shows a significant portion of the building that gets cut off in this photo, plus the nighttime setting makes it somewhat otherworldly looking. A great photo, and I'm not sure how you'd do better (save maybe an aerial photo?), with significant EV. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on colouration problems in the sky. If these can be fixed, I might support. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. You say detailed, but not many pixels are spent on the actual subject. --Dschwen 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I see the issue Diliff is referring to, but I don't have time to restitch in the immediate future. --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - withdrawn by nominator. --jjron (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It has quite a few pixels, is our only picture of this particular canal and has deer to give it scale and illustrate water depth. Plus someone came to my talkpage and said they liked it within hours of it going up, so I thought I'd see what the FPC crowd thought of it

Articles this image appears in

Hampton Hill & Longford River

Creator

Jonathan Cardy

• Support as nominator --Jonathan Cardy (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor composition and low EV. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also like to add, that the placement of this picture on the two linked pages adds no value to those articles and should probably be removed. It's not a great representation of the river or the species. Seems like the picture placement (done today as well on both pages) was just done to meet the requirement it be used in an article for a FP nomination. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Admittedly its EV in Hampton Hill is limited, but I think it's quite reasonable in Longford River. It's actually quite an interesting shot IMO, maybe not FP quality, but not deserving of some of the scorn it's getting. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, its currently our only shot taken in Hampton Hill and does show a stretch of the boundary. But I probably need to source and then write something about the link between Hampton Hill and deer to illustrate the EV of that. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Quality is subpar and the deer, the main focal point, are not very discernible. -- mcshadypl ^TC 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - And suggest speedy closure. Snapshot-y, this picture is not sharp, unfortunately, and, though the only available image, I'm pretty sure it's easily replaceable. So this is an oppose. ceranthor 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ceran, yes it would be easy to to take another photo of the same locale, and I've plenty of photos of deer in the Hampton Hill end of Bushy Park. But I've only once previously seen a deer in the water, and though they arent the subject they do give a neat illustration of how shallow the Longford is; which is relevant to it being a canal to transport water as opposed to the many more recent canals of a similar width during the canal building era which were built for barge transport. As for the sharpness, I suspect that means that the FPC standards are beyond the limitations of my current photography skill and equipment. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Subject is unfortunately too small. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 09:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Large resolution, handsome composition, obvious EV in article.

Articles this image appears in

Arkansas State Capitol

Creator

Daniel Schwen

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question. Not meaning to sound too dopey, but I would assume it's not really curved like that? And any reason it was taken from this angle rather than front-on where the assumed curve may have been avoided? --jjron (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't assume to know the artistic preferences of the original photographer, but I did find this blurb, which may or may not explain the apparent curvature: "It's not the kind of thing you'll notice unless somebody points it out to you, but the foundation of the State Capitol is tilted. The original plan was to have the building face squarely down 5th Street so that a visitor approaching on Capitol Avenue would be impressed by the architectural majesty of the building. But as sometimes happens with public projects things go awry from the very beginning and the foundation was laid about nine degrees off square."

OK, interesting titbit, but a tilt and a curve aren't the same thing. --jjron (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pano, so it's a really funky projection. Unencyclopedic, even. Oppose. MER-C 10:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pano, so it's a really funky projection. Unencyclopedic, even. With the amount of panoramic images that have been promoted on this page I cannot think of an appropriate response to this statement that could not be interpreted as a personal attack. I'll just give up. --Dschwen 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like so? Trust me I walked around plenty in front of this building to find the best possible angle. front-on isn't it. --Dschwen 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Looking at the map it shouldn't need a cylindrical projection. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised to see this here. It is not using a cylindrical projection, it uses a spherical (equirectangular) projection. The alternative is rectilinear, but that distorts the proportions on the sides. I wonder what map you base your assessment on? There is no way to gain more distance from the subject. I made a conscious choice with the projection to get the most natural looking representation. You can either believe me that I succeeded, or.. ..I guess not. --Dschwen 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google maps. What are you surprised to see? Complaints about an unnecessarily misleading image? There does seem to be a vantage point across the road somewhere: [4], [5], [6]. If you didn't have access then a shot is clearly possible at street level: [7], [8]. I'd suggest a restitch. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surprised to see it nominated here. Well, thank you for your suggestion, but given that this image is already featured on three other projects I think I stick with this version. Which incidently is what I think the best option in any case. --Dschwen 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support – not that it makes much difference as it looks to have run out of time, but this only lacks a caveat on the image page to explain the distortion created by the projection; something like the {{autostitch}} template. We should always add that to panos, IMO. I really like this shot and with that caveat it has huge EV. --mikaul^talk 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is already mentioned in the description. And: sheeesh Autostitch?! Are you trying to insult me ;-)? I added the {{Hugin}} template to clarify further. --Dschwen 17:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not, I was trying to insult you by suggesting you mark your image as distorted ;-)~ My (badly-made) point is that, for all panos, merely pointing out that a pic stitched isn't enough to explain to a viewer why the fairly rectilinear building he saw on holiday appears curved in the encyclopedia. It's obvious to a few but not to many, that certain projections produce distorted thumbnail views, ie the image must be viewed in a particular way to properly appreciate it. It's not just buildings; describing this recently promoted image as "360º pano" isn't enough to explain to most viewers that the tarn is on the walkers' right as they ascend to the peak. Pointing out the need to horizontally scroll it (at least) or use a pano viewer (ideally) isn't just a courtesy, it reveals immense envcyclopedic value. It's unfair to single out your image in this way of course. Cross-posting to talk. --mikaul^talk 20:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice pano, distortion is inevitable (heck even our eyes do it). The trees do block out quite a bit of the building though, any chance of removing them, take another set of photos, and then reattach them :p? --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 09:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent example of species showing typical growth habit, and high enough resolution to show cap and stem surface details. The busted off cap also offers a glimpse into the gill structure and attachment, and flesh color.

Articles this image appears in

Hypholoma, Hypholoma fasciculare

Creator

Jörg Hempel, German wiki user LC-de

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, good enough. --jjron (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – could have been framed a little better but doesn't detract from obvious quality and value. --mikaul^talk 23:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (no quorum) --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 09:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

John Quincy Adams was the youngest of the statesmen who participated in the American Revolution; he accompanied diplomatic missions as a teenager. After his term as president he served nearly two decades in the House of Representatives until he collapsed from a stroke while voting in 1848. He was too weak to be moved from the building so he lingered for two days before dying. This pencil drawing was made during those final hours. A difficult restoration from a badly faded and stained original, and if it isn't saying too much--the thought kept coming to mind that the living memory of the revolution was fading with those closing eyes. Restored version of File:John Quincy Adams drawing.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

John Quincy Adams

Creator

Arthur Joseph Stansbury

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁹⁸ 16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—firstly, it's historically a very important image, especially in the history of the American Revolution. Secondly, this is one of those rare restorations that elevate digital restoration to an artform. Very well done, no obvious flaws. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This could be anyone. There's nothing about this that says "John Quincy Adams." It doesn't really add anything to the article. What does this tell us about Adams? That he looked lousy before he died? Lots of people do. Sure, it's a great restoration. But there's just not enough EV here to justify featuring it. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's basically a death mask of a US President. That's pretty significant. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the only president who served in Congress after his presidency. He even collapsed while voting and died in the Capitol. A memorable way to go, particularly for the very last of the revolutionaries. Durova²⁹⁹ 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, but this picture doesn't really convey any of that. Maybe it's interesting to see what he looked like after a cerebral hemorrhage, but I don't think this really adds anything to the article. It's the same debate we've had a few times before (Jackie Kennedy wedding picture stands out in my mind). I just can't see how this satisfies criterion 5. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I must say I am indeed impressed how you managed to isolate and bring out the pencil strokes in this restauration. Well done! Support --Dschwen 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The original is much more interesting than the restoration. ProfDEH (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:John Quincy Adams drawing2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 08:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV. Also IMO lots of wow

Articles this image appears in

Beetle, Asiloidea, Dasypogoninae, List of feeding behaviours, Insectivore

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Slightly weak EV given the articles it's in, but very nice capture. That's a flexible fly. Is it hanging from the branch by one leg? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. I saw it flying and then it grabbed onto the branch, ate its meal, and climbed onto the branch. --Muhammad(talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above - pretty much what I was going to say. It looks to have very good balance actually. The most interesting bug shot for some time. Appears to be a bit of muck in that bottom left corner just below the main action that could maybe be cleaned up. --jjron (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent ev of the insect feeding. Wish we had more of these. Good capture. Durova²⁹⁸ 16:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though a little more blown across the body than is ideal. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High enough quality to be FP on it's own, the feeding only adds additional EV. Perhaps it's worth adding to a more general article from List of feeding behaviours? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to List of feeding behaviours and Insectivore. --Muhammad(talk) 15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pegesimallus sp robberfly.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High EV. Some people eat these.

Articles this image appears in

Mussel, Mytilus edulis

Creator

Rainer Zenz

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lacking EV, can you add it to the species article? ZooFari 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I linked it on Mytilus edulis, seemed more appropriate for the species than the previous image of a shell on the beach. Not sure the quality is there though for a FP though. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Can the uneven shading be fixed? At the top, the background is grey, but at the bottom, it becomes white. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 18:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. How is this lacking EV?! --Dschwen 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not anymore but I'm a little concerned about quality. Will think about it... ZooFari 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean not anymore? Either a picture is valuable or it isn't. --Dschwen 12:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the time, it wasn't in the species article. Now it is; now it has more EV. wadester16 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Current usage shouldn't dictate EV, EV should be calculated on the image solely, not how it's used. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • EV term or not, it should have been in the species article in the first place. ZooFari 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "EV" featured picture criteria is "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." - how an image is used in article(s) is essential. 80.47.149.6 (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's noisy and blurred at full resolution. The detail and texture on the top left shell could (in particular) be a lot better. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely illustration, great EV, nicely lit, carefully laid out, sharp and properly colour balanced. I don't see any significant noise at all, and shading is exactly what you'd expect for a white b/g under this lighting. --mikaul^talk 23:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: Ugh, now I remember why I don't eat mussels, :-/ Good EV, but image quality is lacking a little. Maedin\^talk 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support detailed enough to see what you need to see --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Miesmuscheln-2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 10:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High res, EV, meets criteria, looks cool.

Articles this image appears in

Bromine

Creator

Alchemist-hp at the German Wikipedia

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per the discussion at commons FPC, I think it should be made clear in the caption and description that it is bromine vapour that causes the orange/brown colour in the vial, rather than coloured glass. Time3000 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Sasata (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone will safely assume the container is clear. The important distinction is to indicate that the color difference is due to different states (light = gas, dark = liquid). Cacophony (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Probably the best image of Bromine in the project. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator. Great EV -- mcshadypl ^TC 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Why is there a scale on this? Is it really important for us to know how many millimeters tall this cube is? Kaldari (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the infos at commons too: bromine on commons thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your explanation there just says: "I set the scale discreetly on the right side for your imagination...I think for all the scientific objects it is better to have a scale for a size comparison." I wouldn't consider an acrylic cube to be a "scientific object". Why would we need to compare the sizes of acrylic cubes? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps it is an example of scalitis (addiction to drawing scales on photographs) :) Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a point having a scale here: it lets you judge the size of the meniscus, and hence get an idea of how viscous bromine is. That is surely worth having. Time3000 (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no way you can tell anything about the meniscus from this photograph. You can't tell the orientation or shape of the open space in the cube, and the liquid isn't sitting level anyway. Depending on how the sides of the open space are curved and how the space is positioned, the bromine could have a wide range of viscosity. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since there doesn't seem to be a good reason why we need a scale in this photo, I've uploaded a new version without the scale. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now we have both: with and without a scale. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kaldari: if you like then upload please a second version if this file, similar to rev. image copy without a scale and original image with a scale --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁸ 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bromine vial in acrylic cube.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 10:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Large resolution, focus-stacked for clarity, definite "wow", scale included for extra EV.

Articles this image appears in

Silver, Dendrite (crystal)

Creator

Alchemist-hp at the German Wikipedia

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment any additional short infos at commons: silver crystal --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppoert per nom. Durova²⁹⁹ 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks stunning at full res Dursty (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Silver crystal.jpg--Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 10:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clearly shows characteristic cap and stem surface details, meets all FPC requirements that I can see.

Articles this image appears in

Chlorophyllum rhacodes, Chlorophyllum

Creator

Jörg Hempel, German wiki user LC-de

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets criteria Noodle snacks (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ideally the twig on the mushroom wouldn't be there and the extreme tip would be in focus, but nonetheless it's a nice image. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Not so mad keen on this one, seems a fraction overexposed, which somehow robs it of some essential mushroominess... also a bit stuck for scale. Still a very clear illustration with bonus insect life, so I'm weakly supportive. --mikaul^talk 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chlorophyllum rhacodes LC0093.jpg--Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 10:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good Illustration for a Quartz Variety. Might need a crop, not sure.

Articles this image appears in

Quartz

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support too. Good DOF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very pretty image, nicely displays the variation. Added to Smoky quartz, not sure why it wasn't before. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁸ 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I shan't vote, because that makes it so hard to get images closed, but does this remind anyone else of a snail? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 17:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's what I thought when I saw it, :-) It also reminded me of a turtle, a bit, but that would have to be a pretty funky turtle, :-o Maedin\^talk 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is an area that looks too strongly white and somewhat over-exposed, just to the upper right of the right-most part of the quartz. Can this be toned down, please? In thumbnail, it looks like a patch of overexposure. Apologies if I'm being hideously picky, but . . . studio conditions, right? Maedin\^talk 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Quartz var. Smokey from Morella, Victoria.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An interesting copper mineral. Azurite is used as pigment.

Articles this image appears in

Azurite

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per many other awesome mineral/chemical/etc FPs. A bit duller though, IMO. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁸ 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another great shot with lot of EV. On a personal note, I love the color and the unusual form of this mineral :) Ksempac (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very nice. Maedin\^talk 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Azurite, Burra Mine, South Australia.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

During the nineteenth century Belfast became the largest and most industrialized city in Ireland. Street scene from the 1890s shows development at the century's end. Restored version of File:Royal Avenue Belfast.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

History of Belfast, Ulster#Industrialisation.2C_Home_Rule_and_partition, County_Antrim#History

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁹⁸ 02:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, excellent EV. Sasata (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I feel like I've seen this before. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 12:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely photochrom with clear EV, would be good to be prominently placed in the photoschrom article as you can really see the process in action, so to speak. On a side note I can't help wondering how the original colours actually appeared, both at the time of printing and at present day. --mikaul^talk 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support for EV in History of Belfast. A better caption or image description would help the EV in the Ulster article. How does this show industrialization, for example. The article mentions dockyards and shipbuilding, which clearly aren't present here. The EV is there, it just needs more exposition, I suppose. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but my question from the Dunleary nom above stands here as well. Are the letters in the bottom left necessary to maintain EV/copyright/etc? They seem distracting, to me at least. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Royal_Avenue_Belfast2.jpg --Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A lovely early engraving for Pride and Prejudice, a novel that probably needs little introduction. Jane Austen is particularly poorly illustrated on Wikipedia, so I was delighted to find this.

For the record, this is one of two engravings in this edition. Collectively, they are the first illustrations of the characters of Pride and Prejudice.[9] I messed up the scan of the other one - it's teeny-tiny - so I'll have to go back to the library in a couple days.

The original scan is here.

Articles this image appears in

Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet

Creator

William Greatbatch and George Pickering

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 187 FCs served} 01:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁸ 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You guys (Shoemaker, Durova, etc) are doing great work in getting these VHQ historical images/prints onto Wikipedia where they can be enjoyed by many and provide hefty EV to a variety of subjects. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely engraving, quality scan, top EV. --mikaul^talk 23:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pickering_-_Greatbatch_-_Jane_Austen_-_Pride_and_Prejudice_-_She_then_told_him_what_Mr._Darcy_had_voluntarily_done_for_Lydia.jpg --Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The previous nomination here failed because people deemed it just a "cartoon". This "cartoon" was one of the most famous types of cartoons and was the pinnacle of political satire. Not only does it deal with a very serious event in British history, but that event has been immortalized in such items as the H. M. S. Pinafore. 18th and 19th century British lit is my subject area, as you can see on my user page. I stand by the notability and importance of images like this, and that is why I am renoming this image.

Articles this image appears in

H. M. S. Pinafore, William Henry Smith (politician), Punch (magazine)

Creator

John Tenniel, original uploader and nominator Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caption was a little long in the original, so I trimmed out a line (', with a character given a lengthy song satirising Smith's life that ended: "Stick close to your desks, and never go to sea / And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!" and which gave him the nickname "Pinafore Smith"') along with a few minor changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁷ 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. GerardM (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are the crease lines (or whatever the technical name for them is) supposed be be there? See vertically on the taller guy's arm and horizontally through his knees. Sasata (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are the gaps between the woodblocks. They're part of the woodblock engraving process, though nowadays I tend to remove them and go with artistic intent over image as it is. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Our New First Lord at Sea.png --wadester16 03:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A 1915 photograph of a Zuni maize drying platform and women crafting pottery. Restored version of File:Zuni exhibit 1915.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Zuni#Zuni_life, Puebloan_peoples#Culture

Creator

Panama-California Exposition

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁹⁸ 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Would a contemporary (higher quality and colour) version not be possible or have practises changed? 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In general, when the aim is to document traditional practices then period material is preferable to modern recreations. This is high quality photography for its era. Durova²⁹⁸ 16:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if the traditional practise is still the current practise then surely a photograph of it wouldn't be a recreation? Guest9999 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not going to be the traditional practice exactly. It'll resemble it, but people generally will take advantage of things that save a lot of work, even if they choose to live in a roughly traditional fashion (And, I will remind everyone, there is no evidence yet provided they do use anything like this traditional structure in the modern day). Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 187 FCs served} 01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support authentic material of a naive American culture ... highly valuable GerardM (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat unfortunate typos there :P Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as I said above. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 187 FCs served} 02:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for historical value, though there are some slightly blurred areas. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't agree this is top quality photography for 1915. Ansel Adams was producing top quality photography just five years later, for example. He would have shuddered at this one, which looks to have been overexposed as a negative, blowing out all the upper midtones; it was exposed well for the shadows, which still show good detail and contrast. Had this been an authentic scene and not part of an exposition, it might have gained some mitigation for EV, but I'm not convinced it's irreplaceable nor meets the standards we expect. --mikaul^talk 23:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quality isn't great, but it's probably passable. I'm not so sure about the EV, though. The article placement deals with art, specifically pottery. That's only a very small part of this picture, and the pottery work isn't depicted that clearly. If this were used in an article talking about the actual maize drying, I'd probably be inclined to support. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with the above, at the moment the value it adds to the articles it is in is limited as the drying platform isn't discussed at all and the pottery work isn't particularly well depicted. The image is definitely interesting and valuable to the encyclopaedia but I don't think it's among the best we have. Guest9999 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per mikaul. Cacophony (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No consensus --wadester16 03:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Dunleary (then Kingstown; and also known by its Gaelic spelling, Dún Laoghaire) was hit by a bomb in WWII, which, of course, rather changes the view.

A version of this - it's had more work applied since then - ran a month ago, but - well, let's just say it was under highly confusing circumstances, and, while not opposed, it didn't reach a quorum.

Also, the colours are typical of those gotten from then-contemporary methods of tinting photographs: Not exactly natural, but making a good effort in that direction. For natural colours, you needed to use artistic methods, such as paintings and lithographs, which couldn't be done with a photograph without merely using the photograph as the springboard for art.

Articles this image appears in

Dún Laoghaire

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One question though, is the "12106. - KINGSTOWN, CO. DUBLIN" in the bottom left corner necessary (for credit or other reasons)? It's a tiny bit distracting, IMO, if it isn't necessary. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be misleading to edit it out, I think: it's from the original printing. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 15:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But isn't the subject matter/EV what is displayed, not the print itself? I understand why one would not edit the words out of this picture for example, as it is part of the EV of the image, but here it doesn't seem to be. I trust your judgment infinitely more than my own in these matters, just seems odd. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I don't like doing edits unless they either represent fixing aging and damage, or fixing a failed aspect of the clear artistic intent - e.g., if the woodblocks that make up a woodblock engraving were glued together badly, it may be reasonable to fill in the gaps, since the artistic intent was not to include those lines. In this case, though, the caption was included as part of the photocrom itself, so removing it seems a little dodgy. I'll think about it, and might do an alt. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't... it's not going to add anything in value or aesthetics and degrades historical value, which is 99% of its worth here. --mikaul^talk 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Not the best photochrom original (no quay has waters that still) and the cleanup seems a little off (spots remain, sky purple?) but squeaks along on historic value. Durova²⁹⁸ 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colours are as accurate as I can get them from the hints in the LOC original, as for your spots, I think you're referring to what I presumed was grain and texture. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Should it not have an {{FPC|title}}? --candle•wicke 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably, though I've never quite seen the point for images hosted on commons. Added, though. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it assists those who prefer to view this. --candle•wicke 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - high encyclopedic value, strong details. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Good enc., but I'm not satisfied with the water from the artwork itself. It doesn't seem realistic how it's flat and not moving (I'd mention the colour, but Shoemaker explained that above). Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar enough with 19th century photography, nor Dunleary, to say what causes that, I'm afraid. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 06:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably a combination of the very limited colour palette and lack of detail in the original photo. While adding more colours was an option, printers were limited, with respect to subtle colour gradations, to tonal gradations on the original. --mikaul^talk 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The harbour in Kingstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland, in about 1895 - Option 2.jpg --wadester16 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great encyclopedic and historical value, good quality picture.

Articles this image appears in

Human rights in the United Arab Emirates Human rights in Dubai

Creator

Piotr Zarobkiewicz

• Support as nominator --Piotr Zarobkiewicz (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It doesn't substantially contribute to the articles linked above, and reveals nothing about the subject of human rights in Dubai. It isn't even included in the article Human rights in Dubai. The picture does not reveal much about what being a construction work involves, or what they are constructing. They occupy a very small part of the picture, and some of their faces are either blurred or obscured. Everything else is at a weird angle, and the rope is distracting. Two distracting reflections of the photographer are visible on the left of the picture. The workers' obvious interest in the photographer ruins the documentary value of the picture. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per comment above. Remains to be said this is a quality image, I like it, cool self-portrait too ;) just not a good illustration of the activities and concepts its supposed to represent here. --mikaul^talk 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's a great view. It would be nice to see some shots looking out over the parapet. I suppose that it might even be possible to crop this image (and perhaps change the perspective too) in order to turn the view into something that had a lot of encyclopedic value. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Backdrop with Burj Dubai is fantastic, but the fact that the workers are just sitting around in a posed position takes a lot away from its potential EV. I would have preferred to see them actually doing some construction work in this picture. Also, that rope is VERY distracting. -- mcshadypl ^TC 03:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. MER-C 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above. Also at full res view everything appears stretched sideways (unless they all have very wide faces). Gazhiley (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I see all the issues, can't do much about it. I added however a version with corrected perspective and cropped (as per NotFromUtrecht ). Piotr Zarobkiewicz 09:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a shame about all the opposes, because it's a great image and I don't want to take anything away from it. I think the basic problem is that it is much better photojournalistic, editorial sort of image than it is encyclopaedic. It's unfortunately the sort of photo you're more likely to see in National Geographic than Encyclopaedia Britannica. As such, it has limited EV but I'm still glad to have viewed it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, I like this image (not the so called "corrected" perspective version, that is... ...yuck!). It tells a story, and the foreground complements the cvast city scape with the gigantic Burj Daubai in the bg. Also I disagree about the rope being distracting. --Dschwen 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - Withdrawn by nominator --jjron (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pauliyas Hongkong.jpg

Reason

Adds value. Is a featured picture on the Turkish Wikipedia too.

Articles this image appears in

Hong Kong, Panorama, Victoria Harbour, Architecture of Hong Kong, List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong, Portal:Capitalism

Creator

Pauliyas

• Support as nominator --candle•wicke 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 480px high doesn't seem to be high enough quality for a FP, I was rather dissapointed when I clicked it and saw it was so small. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Old news, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pauliyas Hongkong. And just to clarify oppose. --Dschwen 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just uploaded a new, similar image to the above. It's obviously not a daylight image, but it's higher resolution and far more detailed as a result. Not perfect by any means, but probably a good candidate to replace this image in a number of those articles. Oh, and Oppose original based on low resolution and stitching faults. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, neutral on alt due to third-world grade internet connection. What's with the EXIF? MER-C 08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was 3.2 seconds for each frame and the EXIF says so. Wikimedia just messed it up somehow. :-) It wasn't strictly an alt, just added it for comparison. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I actually like this better than the Diliff one when in thumbnail form but it just needs to have greater resolution to compete with our other panoramas. gren グレン 06:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I need to give some feedback on GLAM-WIKI, since it'd be of interest to many people here, but I don't have time atm.

Articles this image appears in

Australian Magpie

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, EV. What looks like slight motion blur in the legs but IMO not very distracting --Muhammad(talk) 12:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Nice image, but I'm not a huge fan of the directly facing the camera style. What does it's tail (out of focus and largely hidden here) look like? And there's the slight motion blur and fact that it's feet are covered by the grass (very small things). Mostly though, my issue is that the vast bulk of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds give examples at a quarter-turn or so such that you get a fuller picture of the subject (though occasionally some like File:Australian wood duck - male.jpg have made it). Given it's "Least Concern" conservation status it doesn't seem like a particularly rare specimen, so I think it can be held to slightly higher standards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that all birds should be posed in the same way - it gets boring. I think it depends of the species and circumstances and I like some face on photos (the whistling duck one is my wallpaper right now). Also I want to take issue with you was the suggestion that "Least Concern" conservation status - or any conservation status, has any relevance to ease of photography. Least concern does not always imply common and even if it did common does not imply easy to photograph. Now this species is both common and bold as brass, but that isn't implied by its status. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize about the conservation status, my point was simply this is a reasonably common and easy species to photograph (as you note) so it's not unreasonable to ask for more detail. And I'm not saying all birds should follow a set style, but that this style of photo leaves out a great many details about the bird of high EV (shape of the body, tail, etc). Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Plumage differences are at the front mostly for juveniles... Noodle snacks (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm crazy, but I really feel like this picture could be taken again at a 45 degree angle and there'd be TONS more EV. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is the alt. The important differences in plumage aren't missing from the original as I understand it. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt. It's a much better picture, IMO. Perhaps it doesn't display the juvenile plumage differences, ok, then it's just a FP for the general article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Agreed that the alt is a better image as a frontal of a bird is a bit awkwawrd, but I just get the feeling that given a bit of time, you'll get a better composition than either of these. It would be nice to see the pose of the alt with the background of the original, for example. These are good, but not quite special enough IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support original – just a bit of motion blur short of full support. I'd very much like to see an explanation of the correct angle to shoot a bird (or any autonomous 3D object) from... especially for common species, we have more opportunity to record and illustrate them from differing angles. Look at any twitcher's manual and there are always different angles, depending on specific identifiers. This juvenile plumage is something I'd never seen before and carries a lot of EV, IMO. --mikaul^talk 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, contra Staxringold. There is scope to get featured images of both adults and juveniles - and this angle is great for showing the plumage of a young bird. An adult photo can show the side on view (and theer is no shortage of them in the article). Also per my above comments. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support either. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cracticus tibicen tibicen juvenile ANBG.jpg --wadester16 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just so everyone knows, I ignored Staxringold's original weak oppose, as it was superseded by a support, even if that was for the alt. wadester16 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered by the decision you came to, but I don't think you should have ignored his weak oppose, because to me it sounded like he specifically voted support only for the alt, and didn't show any support for the original. As such, if you were to consider promoting the original, the support would be discounted and the weak oppose remains. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Alice B. Woodward is a major children's artist, The Story of the Mikado is W. S. Gilbert's last literary work, and it's based on Gilbert and Sullivan's most successful opera, The Mikado. Combined, this makes for a lot of encyclopedic value.

This image is taken from a scan of the first edition, and, yes, there is half-toning. However, this is, as I said, from the first edition. As she is in copyright in her home country, it is unlikely that any better copy will become available in at least the next twelve years.

This image has had some cleanup applied, and a slight Gaussian blur (2.4px radius), to improve thumbnailing and appearance (see example of what happens if this not done, right). As the unblurred version is also available, this does not limit options for use in any way. The colours have been carefully adjusted against the original.

A JPEG version, File:The Story of the Mikado - Frontispiece.jpg, is also available. If someone wants to apply a swift kick to bugzilla's rear, it's possible that the thumbnails of these might actually look the same eventually, but when I contacted them, the idiots said they culd do it, but declined to, mocked the idea of restoration, and generally showed a remarkable lack of clue. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Alice B. Woodward, W. S. Gilbert, The Mikado

Creator

Alice B. Woodward

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 16:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Half-toning. Not having a proper version is not an argument for featuring this one, sorry. --Dschwen 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what idiots showing remarkable lack of clue are you referring to? Those ramblings do not sound too polite. --Dschwen 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, we've promoted several FPs with half-toning without controversy already: File:Can't_please_everyone2.jpg and File:N. M. Price - Sir Walter Scott - Guy Mannering - At the Kaim of Derncleugh.jpg. Secondly, It's over on Bugzilla. Nasty message about how they refused to do anything with PNG because clearly restoration wasn't important. Thirdly, at the minimum size requirement for FPC 1000px in the long dimension, no half-toning is at all visible. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You pointing out two older mistakes is hardly going to change my assessment. Did you see me vote support on those nominations? --Dschwen 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite Ottawa Rima's dickish remark I'm willing to reconsider my vote. An insightful voice on commons helped me understand why the half toning should not be a K.O. in a case like this. That being said I cannot be swayed to a support, there surely must be a better quality image to represent this artist (weighing technical quality and it being the last work, I'd rather have a nicer image). --Dschwen 14:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm planning on working through the rest of the illustrations in this book; If I put that back into priority mode (I was feeling a bit discouraged by how this nomination went), then I'm sure we can swap out the image from Alice B. Woodward for one that shows her off better, while demoting this to a gallery with the others. Not all of the images from The Story of the Mikado have good EV in The Mikado - e.g. there's a couple detailing a backstory at best hinted at in the opera itself, and, of course, it is a rewriting. (these will have EV in a planned article on The Story of the Mikado, currently a redirect). This illustrates a key scene in the opera we lack (and which I am not aware of any) other illustrations for, so I think it still has sufficient EV to stand on its own, but we need not leave it as the Alice B. Woodward lead. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 14:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I should note a minor misunderstanding: This is Gilbert's last work, published posthumously. Woodward continued illustrating some time after this, though I don't think she did anything much of note after the 1930s (that said, she was in her 70s by then, so.. perhaps not a huge surprise). Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The previous oppose is a bit off.. This is great work. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fixed vote. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, maybe I should elaborate. It had {}'s around support. Now it's just "support" and not "template: support". Makeemlighter (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The oppose above seems really pointy and disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, so opposing an image with a given reason is pointy and disruptive? How dare you! Your support without any reason, just containing a PA is pointy. --Dschwen 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A personal attack is a comment in regards to an individual's person. I was referring to your statements. Your understanding of our policies is as flawed as your view of the image. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another thing - the image checks out fine. The colors and clean and crisp. The encyclopedic value is high. It meets all of the requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice to see that you are so sure of yourself. The pointy and disruptive remark still was out of line. --Dschwen 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could you try one just slightly darker? This seems slightly faded all over. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded a tweak over it, but this is a watercolour, so I believe it was intended to be a little pale. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 03:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose She was a great illustrator but this looks washed-out at any size and IMO has an odd composition, too tight at the top with lot of unnecessary space at the bottom. While halftoning isn't always an automatic basis to oppose on, in this case it's really obvious and contributes to an overall tonal flatness, weakening the colour repro and seriously degrading the image. EV may still be good for the opera but really doesn't show the artist in a good light at all. --mikaul^talk 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll replace it with a different one in her article, however, this is an important scene in the opera (lead-in to "Here's a how-de-doo!", for those following along at home). Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 20:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. NW (Talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Story of the Mikado - Frontispiece.png --wadester16 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Another interesting and notable quartz variety.

Articles this image appears in

Amethyst, Quartz

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not sure I like the background, but the amethyst itself is wonderful. ceranthor 13:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per all these mineral images. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁹ 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blanket supports Blanket neutral!. The lighting in this one does not please me. The entire front is a bit darkish. --Dschwen 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you light translucent materials too much from the front you usually can't see what is going on inside clearly. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose you are right. --Dschwen 22:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC) P.S.: little dusty that rock ;-) --Dschwen 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes this rock is a little dusty. I clear my samples bevor I take a photo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the shadowing is not that bad and has high encyclopedic value. The contrast with the color and background allow for clear details to be seen so everything is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Amethyst. Magaliesburg, South Africa.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Large crystals and the more common smaller ones.

Articles this image appears in

Malachite, Carbonate minerals

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sharp image of an non-decoratively colored mineral, EV is there. ceranthor 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per all these mineral images. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁹⁹ 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is nice. Technically excellent, and the subject is captivating (great colors). --Dschwen 19:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems fine and has high encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per above. Looks a shade oversharpened though. MER-C 08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can we crop it a bit to emphasize the look? Brand[t] 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Good EV and quality. But I tend to agree with MER-C: this might be just a bit oversharpened. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Malachite, Zaire.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

To fix systemic bias against orange minerals. Good quality thanks to a deep focus stack.

Articles this image appears in

Creedite

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. How dare they discriminate against orange minerals? ;) Durova²⁹⁹ 19:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a little too much shadowing on the left but high encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question The lighting isn't ideal here. Any alternates? Would a reshoot be difficult to arrange? Makeemlighter (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an alt. Can reshoot but it isn't mine so it'd be on the months time-scale. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Good EV and quality, just not ideal lighting. I like the alternate, but the original probably has better EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Wonderful alternative, but is it for voting; is it not a criterion for FPs that the whole subject matter is visible? 79.71.124.92 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a criterion. It is often asked for with animals and so on since there is usually more value if the entire creature is shown. It shouldn't matter here because the illustration is for a type of mineral, and they come in all shapes and sizes. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, thanks. I won't vote; I was curious. 79.71.124.92 (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I'll go ahead and support. It's a little darkish, but I think it should pass. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 08:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please nominate preference for the alt or the original. The alt is growing on me at the moment personally. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Creedite 3.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very skittish and small butterfly and the difficult of photographing it can be seen buy the few if any (other than this) good quality pictures in the article. This is of both good quality and EV

Articles this image appears in

Heliconiinae, Acraea (genus), Acraeini

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Attractive shot but prefocus (on the flower) has lost a lot of detail. The bug bar being very high, I'd have to say no. --mikaul^talk 21:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I was thinking that too. MER-C 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Actually it looks like motion blur to me. The butterfly is in focus (or pretty close to), but it has a slight diagonal blur that I'm assuming is due to camera movement. In any case, it doesn't quite stand out amongst the best macro photography. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's probably movement of the butterfly rather than camera movement, as the flower doesn't seem to have any motion blur. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Just a side comment though, I would have liked to see this butterfly with its wings spread, not together. The underside of the wing is not particularly remarkable, so it would have had much better EV with a shot of the color on the wings, IMO. The wing pattern is used to identify, and I feel someone with only a little experience would have a hard time using this shot.Zulualpha (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's a very aesthetic and interesting view of Derwent Water in the Lake Distict. There is plenty of detail, dramatic lighting and important aspects of the lake are visible, including the pier, glacier-carved mountains surrounding it, a little island on the lake and the ducks and geese that inhabit the lake.

Articles this image appears in

Derwent Water

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Excellent picture, very high quality and great detail - another pearler from Diliff! HOWEVER my weak support is only that i feel a slightly more elevated shot of the lake would give a higher EV as this picture doesn't show how big the lake is... Other than that, pretty much spot on... Gazhiley (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good aesthetics and lighting. --Muhammad(talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great use of grad ND (?), painting like sky, yet it still looks believably natural. Nice. Are you sure this is level though, it seems to be tilted slightly to the left. But it may be an illusion. --Dschwen 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The 10th Kingdom :) Brand[t] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the nom and above. Beautiful. — Jake Wartenberg 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another great work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The water to the right of the furthest jetty looks a bit blurred to me, and so does the red boat and the edges of the shoreline behind them. One of the posts of the fence that extends out into the water (coordinates 1856, 1456) also seems quite blurred. Since the post is vertically below the blurred area by the jetty, I wondered whether this might be a stitching error that can be fixed? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so much a stitching fault - more the fact that one of the component images in the panorama was slightly blurred (it was quite windy and the exposure was fairly long - 1/20th of a second) even though the camera was sitting on a tripod. I debated downsampling the image to stop it being so visible, but decided that higher resolution is better, even if it does result in the slight blur being noticeable. Unfortunately it's not something that can be fixed, but clearly the resolution would be more than sufficicient for FPC if downsampled. So while it isn't ideal, I think the image should be judged at an appropriate zoom level as well as at 100%. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's a tiny imperfection, so no point downsampling. Fantastic picture, by the way. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is beautiful! --Anhamirak 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Derwent Water, Keswick - June 2009.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 09:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It provides a compelling, modern way to illustrate a poem with few other possibilities for illustration. The main person working on Ode on Indolence encouraged its nomination.

Articles this image appears in

Ode on Indolence - Limited time offer!

Creator

Based on an image by Commons:User:Simplicius

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - maybe it does but im going to oppose on the basis of the text font writing etc. Hard to follow in full res. I also think this has very very little value --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Has absolutely no value, unless included in Lolcat. ceranthor 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - hilarity value trumps any other concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't say I'm very partial to the font of the text. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Twouldn't be a LOLKeats with any other. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 18:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose This image seems closer to a FfD than FP status... Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It goes against all my instincts, but I'm going to support this one. After looking through the criteria again, the only one I'm doubtful about is the EV (no 5); but I think it does help readers understand the article - it sums up the theme of the poem well. I'm not keen on the text going over the cat's paw, and the antialiasing isn't as effective as it might be, but given that the EV isn't for cat I can overlook the first, and the second isn't a huge issue. Plus it gets points for sheer brass neck... ;) Time3000 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. The joke is getting old... and it's too small. MER-C 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right then, having used my super closing powers I....

Have Not Promoted File:LOLKeats.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 11:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

My first picture from India. Good quality, EV and wow. Pretty interesting as well. Could replace the current taxobox image in monkey, but I will leave that to you guys.

Articles this image appears in

Macaque, Crab-eating Macaque, Covance, Macular degeneration, Primate

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 09:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not commenting on this image yet, but I'd suggest not to put it in the taxobox of monkey - that should be a full body shot (the existing image there isn't ideal either as it shows no tail). --jjron (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Good quality, but I think you may have picked an unfortunate specimen. It's got something seriously wrong with its right eye, and peculiar swellings on its jaw (they're too low to be the peanuts in its mouth). You don't have any photos of a healthy specimen do you? --jjron (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated the image at commons as well and one user who seems knowledgeable about primates said, "A wonderful image of the crab eating macaque. Visible full cheek pouches and that typical alert expression that macaques have. The eye problem is probably macular degeneration, a retinal defect that usually effects adults" --Muhammad(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm pretty sure the swelling is peanuts as almost all the monkeys had them and they seemed to appear only after the monkeys started eating. --Muhammad(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right about the "swelling". Interesting xample of primate foraging behaviour. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be correct about the 'cheek pouches'. It would certainly be impossible in a human and monkeys are fairly closely related, but there would be sufficient diversion for that to have evolved. Having said which I would be interested in seeing a good photo of a non-feeding one to see if the associated skin discolouration etc was visible (may have a look around on the net when I've got more time). Regardless, I'd still say the eye makes this less than ideal as a lead image in the monkey articles (and all this should be noted on the image page/captions). --jjron (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On further research the cheek pouches are legit, though couldn't find anywhere that actually gave any detail on size, etc, they just said they existed. So that's actually a plus for EV, though a bit counterbalanced by it not being mentioned in the article, and possibly by the fact it's eating peanuts (couldn't find anywhere that listed these as a natural part of its diet). BTW this has been reverted in Crab-eating Macaque. --jjron (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wonder why reverted. This image certainly has better EV compared to that cut off mugshot. If the eye problem, "usually affects the adults" then an image showing the condition would have EV --Muhammad(talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Edit summary was a simple 'i prefer the previous image'. Macular degeneration is also a problem for (mainly older) humans, and I would assume the same for other animals, it's not a disease just of these monkeys - it's just the body is more likely to degenerate as it ages. Unfortunately the other images I found from the right angle were not great quality, so couldn't really make much comparison to the cheeks not being stuffed with food (don't guess you got any...). --jjron (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have a picture of another monkey with stuffed cheeks. FWIW, the image now appears in Macular degeneration and Primate where you may find the EV to be stronger per your concerns. --Muhammad(talk) 08:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not anymore, someone seems to disagree --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps this would be a suitable illustration for macular degeneration? J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I have added it to that article as well. --Muhammad(talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well im gonna support, nothing wrong with the photo, it is very good and i think the monkeys defects may make the picture more useful if it is put in articles like the one suggested above --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral High quality photo. This species was common and easy to photograph in Malaysia when I was there, so I feel justified in being a little fussy. The other common name is the "Long-tailed Macaque" hence I think we are missing out without the tail in the shot. The face swelling etc is interesting though. Seems like Macular degeneration might not be the right term for what is going on with the eye. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have another with the tail but the close-up features associated with this such as the face swelling are not as evident. Can't there be room for both? After all we have many portraits of animals including one of a Giraffe which does not show the long legs ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 09:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd add one with the tail regardless, there isn't a picture with the whole monkey in the article at the moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I need to stitch it. Will upload as soon as its done. In the meantime, no change of opinion on this one? --Muhammad(talk) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This image has been removed from macular degeneration by an IP claiming that symptoms do not appear on the exterior of the eye. A quick skim of the article and symptoms does seem to confirm this. Though I am by no means an ophthalmologist. wadester16 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither am I, I added it to the article after learning about it from the commons nomination. --Muhammad(talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which can be the problem when non-experts try to guess at things to 'increase' EV. It's also why giving medical advice isn't allowed at the reference desk. --jjron (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but I don't see how that applies here. I didn't guess about anything, merely quoted from a user who seems well versed with primates. And this too was not done to increase the EV. --Muhammad(talk) 08:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was a general comment about guesswork, which we sometimes see a bit too much of. And as I read it the Commons user basically admitted they were guessing too. --jjron (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good quality! its Bonnet Macaque --Cj.samson (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I like the lighting but overall it comes across as half hearted in terms of composition. Should have been a full body shot of a healthy specimen to illustrate the species (either that or a closer up portrait shot). To illustrate whatever disease it has in the eyes it should also have been a much tighter crop (preferably just the head). They seem fairly tame and so a reshoot should be relatively easy --Fir0002 12:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per jjron and fir. wadester16 13:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per above. Time3000 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad lighting in the eyes, and I can't clearly see what it's holding in its hand, possibly due to noise reduction that seems to be evident on the more distant lower arm. The noise reduction itself isn't doing any favours either imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 12:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution image. A fascinating portrait when viewed in detail, universally representing its artistic subject.

Articles this image appears in

Glenn Branca

Creator

Uploaded by DanKassem. Courtesy of the Hallwell's archive.

• Support as nominator --Jacob Richardson (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A cool shot, to be sure, but not sure it meets FP qualifications. First, at full resolution it is very noisy/static-y and has dust spots. That could be fixed with some Photoshopping. But even beyond that, the EV is really the presentation of the subject Branca, yes? Wouldn't a higher EV version simply be a crop to just him to make the focus clearer? However the guy in the foreground disrupts such a crop, plus it would no longer meet FP resolution requirements. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - poor composition, way too grainy. That guy in the foreground shouldn't be there. MER-C 06:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - interesting but too many problems --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'm agree with Staxringold...--Sabri76'^message 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 12:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An Ideal Husband is certainly one of Oscar Wilde's major plays, with multiple film adaptations, but, hitherto, no illustration. However, this photogravure print is an excellent illustration of a key scene, and serves the purpose amply

Articles this image appears in

An Ideal Husband

Creator

Uncredited, my researches failed to find any leads.

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is that supposed to say brooch rather than bracelet? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It can be used as a bracelet" - Lord Goring. Anyway, for purposes of understanding the scene in question "bracelet with a cunning device that makes it unremovable unless you know the secret" is simpler. It's a little bit of a plot device. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh okay. I'm not familiar with the play, and the article only mentioned it as a brooch. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not very eye-catching but good EV IMO --Muhammad(talk) 08:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this play doesn't really lend itself to eye-catching - This play is set entirely indoors, in two upper-class dwellings in the heart of London. The interest comes, as with most of Wilde's plays (Salome, is, of course, a major exception) from the dialogue, plots, witty banter, and the ideas presented. I do think the image is well-executed, and that it depicts the play about as well as the play can be in a static image. Colour might add a little extra interest, but I'm not aware of any colour images with appropriate copyright status, and, given the play, wouldn't really expect them to exist.But I think you'll agree that the play is highly notable, and deserves an image, and that this image, at the very least, is much more eyecatching than the former "Wall-o-Text" =) Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 13:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Okay, the image itself is not really that great, but the restoration is. ceranthor 15:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm agree with above...--Sabri76'^message 12:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Oscar Wilde - An Ideal Husband - You brute! You coward!.jpg --Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Previosuly nominated , it was withdrawn due to some id concerns. Since then, I have written to a botanist and the plant was identified as a Canna hybrida. There was some discussion as to whether it should be the taxobox image of Canna (plant) and by consensus it was deemed so. And oh, Good quality and EV is also good as it shows the flowers in different stages

Articles this image appears in

Canna (plant)

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IDs are annoying but useful. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though the front stems distract i agree they are useful, and the photo itself is nice, sharp and colourful --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree with above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good quality...--Sabri76'^message 12:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Canna sp.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A fine image, capturing the humour of the story. I believe this is a photogravure image, though it could be a similar process I'm not familiar with. The text in question appears in chapter 4:

Still, in spite of everything, he was not left unmolested. Strings were continually being stretched across the corridor, over which he tripped in the dark, and on one occasion, while dressed for the part of 'Black Isaac, or the Huntsman of Hogley Woods,' he met with a severe fall, through treading on a butter-slide, which the twins had constructed from the entrance of the Tapestry Chamber to the top of the oak staircase. This last insult so enraged him, that he resolved to make one final effort to assert his dignity and social position, and determined to visit the insolent young Etonians the next night in his celebrated character of 'Reckless Rupert, or the Headless Earl.'

Articles this image appears in

The Canterville Ghost

Creator

Wallace Goldsmith

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comical, eye catching and interesting. --Muhammad(talk) 01:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The face is just priceless. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as others --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm agree with other users--Sabri76'^message 12:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wallace Goldsmith - Oscar Wilde - Canterville Ghost - He met with a severe fall.jpg --Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good composition showing a classical piece of British architecture which adds substantially to the article. Many issues have been addressed from since the previous nomination. Also has a good caption indicating its importance and history.

Articles this image appears in

Burnley, Gawthorpe Hall, Sir Charles Barry

Creator

Childzy

• Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Huge improvement in detail and lighting but the lower shooting angle has introduced some perspective distortion, easy to fix if you go back to the uncropped original. --mikaul^talk 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not that good on technical issues with images, the reason the two sides aren't vertical is mainly because of the age of the building from what I have seen. Any hints of how to fix with photoshop? if it needs fixing? --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did it. Filter -> distort -> lens correction -> vertical perspective is probably the fastest way. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • One other thing. Could you geocode it please? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Panoramas are popular for architecture and detail reasons. I'd say that this is good enough. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A few minor problems in the bottom right, but otherwise very good. --Muhammad(talk) 03:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I liked it last time, but this is nice and sharp. ceranthor 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It seems like very featured...--Sabri76'^message 12:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gawthorpe new.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 14:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Here we have one of the most famous Imperial coronation ceremonies every painted: that of Napoleon, crowning himself Emperor. This famous image appears with a large number of history texts that discuss Napoleons rise to the throne and was twice featured in my studies of the time period. I was rather suprised to find that such a well known image had never been nominated for FP status on Wikipedia, so I decided to do the nominating myself. The image is large and as noted above is historically famous, though I leave it to our contributors to determine its worth as an FPC. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Jacques-Louis David, Emperor, 1804, Crown of Napoleon, Sign of contradiction, Universal power, The Coronation of Napoleon

Creator

Jacques-Louis David

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 04:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously, I haven't studied the original in depth, but this seems to hae a very strong yellow cast. Is all of that explained by aged varnish? Secondly, the image is interlaced: Wikipedia's thumbnailing software can have trouble with that, so it'd be wise to switch to non-interlaced. Other than those issues, I'd be happy to support this or a deyellowed version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 08:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This snap shows the painting in its setting, apparently under daylight. Our version looks a tad warm by comparison, I agree. I suspect it's had a contrast boost and that's upped the saturation, which has exaggerated what's probably just a tiny colour shift. I'd be wary of desaturating/flattening it (ie undoing adjustments) as it would degrade detail and definition. Source link is bust, too. --mikaul^talk 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could always do a yellow-blue balance shift, though. I might try that Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 22:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For consideration - I've uploaded an edit. However, it should be noted that the image is missing a small part of the painting on the right and possibly bottom; the top and left seem more accurate. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 00:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt1 Though both are good, Alt 1 does tone down the yellow nicely (so the white robes are really white). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt: From what I can tell from other sources, the amount cut off is so minimal as to be almost non-existent. The white balance in Shoe's edit is an improvement. Maedin\^talk 12:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon edit.jpg --Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

NS's recent nom down the page reminded me to upload my own Parliament House pano. Now he has withdrawn his I may as well put mine up here. Reasons as per his nom, but additionally this shows the full extent of the front of the building, and though his is eye-catching, I personally feel the day time lighting here is more realistic and conveys greater EV.

Articles this image appears in

Parliament House, Canberra

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I weakly supported the other nomination, but this fixes all the issues I had with the previous image. More normal sky, full width of the building, great. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent panorama. Good detail, could possibly do with a slight brightening IMO, but otherwise very good. As Noodle Snacks has mentioned to me before, what would really be nice is to take this photo from a cherry picker ;-). A bit of elevation would help to show the shape of it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noodle snacks seems to have a thing for cherry pickers... ;) wadester16 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure that security would take too well to you pulling up here in a cherry picker - could make a good Chaser skit though. --jjron (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been toying with the idea of strapping my 5D to an RC helicopter, but I suspect that an F/A-18 would shoot it down in minutes if I used it to get an elevated shot there. :-) The problem (apart from the cost) is that it seems very difficult to actually find anywhere legal to actually fly the thing, especially for the sort of photos in built up areas that I tend to take. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well the Chasers did get away with flying an RC blimp over the Vatican, so you never know, as long as you don't mind the odd arrest here and there :-). Having said which, it would make it damn hard to get the photos right for those panos. --jjron (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just reminded me of Charles Firth bagging out "Capitol Hill". Noodle snacks (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, though I wonder if you mean "Capitol Hill", rather than "Capital Hill"? wadester16 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of wondering, you could visit the article and see for yourself! Although the word 'capitol' refers to a building that contains the legislature, in practice it's mainly used in the US with a few international exceptions. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Dave and thank you for that rambunctious response. I only asked because indeed in America we call it Capitol Hill, because it is, well, the hill of the building, not the hill of the city. But if it comes down to a difference in American and British English, so be it. wadester16 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice, although I agree with Diliff about the slight underexposure. --Dschwen 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others. Good to see something from you after such a long break --Muhammad(talk)
• Support - well done. Cacophony (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Did you see Kevin's ute there? MER-C 02:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't know at the time in order to check, though I think that shadowy figure entering at left may be Godwin Grech ;-). --jjron (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is a bit underexposed (~1/2 a stop). Also has a bit of a tilt if you use the edges of the entrance as a reference. This image does have more EV and I would support a fixed version, but I don't think it is as compelling from a compositional or lighting point of view. I do take issue with the "more realistic" comment. One time of day is not more realistic than another. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was referring to the sky in yours, which has a bit of an other worldly look possibly due the exposure blending, and which seemed to be the main reason you withdrew - perhaps it's natural, but it looks a bit unrealistic. --jjron (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some cyan banding going on on the RHS, which was the reason. Still natural. File:Parliament House Canberra NS.jpg is a non-blended shot slightly earlier. Obviously it only looks like those shots for a few minutes a day though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, no offence meant. A few others had commented on the sky too. --jjron (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - perfect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - absolutely magnificent. One of the best FPCs I've ever seen. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clearly passed anyway but what a good photo --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - pile on. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Original is a bit dark. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 Per Noodle snacks. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 To make the decision easier --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment: Not sure which version to promote. Can everyone clarify? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 09:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the Edit caption I don't mind either, but perhaps a slight pref to the original. For the record, I added the edit before Alchemist's vote, so all after that had the choice (sorry, I forgot to add a comment at the time). --jjron (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Really don't care here. ALT1 is a tad brighter, but the difference is so slight as to be nearly meaningless. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer the edit. wadester16 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer the edit 1 version. It seemed like the support for it was pretty clear based on a number of people saying they thought the original was underexposed, and a number of people specifically stating they supported edit 1 specifically, with only the nominator prefering the original. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Parliament House, Canberra, Pano jjron 25.9.2008-edit1.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 14:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Probably the only way to show the facade and main court of the castle.

Articles this image appears in

Palace of Fontainebleau

Creator

Eusebius

• Support as nominator --Eusebius (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very interesting building and the image doesn't seem to have any noticeable issues. I like it --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could pick an issue. It seems to me that the verticals are all over the place. Is there any probability of a restitch using vertical control points? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in a timely fashion, I'm afraid. This one is an autostitch output, and I have to get more acquainted with stitching software to provide a better one. Feel free to oppose if you think that current version is problematic. --Eusebius (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hugin will let you define vertical control points in a timely and straightforward manner. It is also free. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the one I'm working on, mostly. I'm not just proficient enough. I'm working on it, anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow! --Anhamirak 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of suspending this for the moment to allow for re-stitching. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please don't. Let it get declined, I'll renominate when/if there is a re-stitched version. --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted per wishes of creator. --jjron (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The only high resolution image of a jug band. The image clearly depicts a jug player.

Articles this image appears in

Jug band

Creator

the creator of the image Two+two=4

• Support as nominator --Two+two=4 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Umm... but where is the jug? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The jug player is the girl. She was the one, who played different jug (home-made) instruments including a chain in the alternative image.She has also used thimbles (look at her fingers in the original image)--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're probably taking the more liberal use of the word 'jug' to mean any homemade instrument, but the image isn't particularly good at illustrating the article when Jug (musical instrument) doesn't actually mention anything else except a literal jug. It just seems to confuse more than explain IMO. At the very least, the caption needs to spell out clearly that there is no literal jug and that jug in this case means the washboard. Even then, I would say the EV is a little weak for that fact. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is used in the article jug band which does mention a washboard in particular:
"A jug band is a band employing a jug player and a mix of traditional and home-made instruments. These home-made instruments are ordinary objects adapted to or modified for making of sound, like the washtub bass, washboard, spoons, stovepipe and comb & tissue paper (kazoo)."
So if somebody is taking more liberal use of the word 'jug' it is not me but rather Wikipedia article.The image is not used in Jug (musical instrument).Jug (musical instrument) was mentioned only in the reason and not in the caption. I took it off from the reason and added more to the caption. --Two+two=4 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But as you cite, a jug band has a 'jug player' and a mix of traditional and home-made instruments. It clearly says there should be a jug plus other instruments. But there is no jug in the image. That's where I take issue with it being fully representative of a jug band according to the article definition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. Please take a look here. As you see a jug is listed in between other homemade instruments. The image I took was put to "Post-Modern Jug Bands" section of the article. This section mentions Washboard jungle. Washboard jungle clearly states that Washboard jungle had only one tune that actually used a jug. That's why I believe it is fair to say that a band that is employing a mix of traditional and home-made instruments is a jug band.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw what you were intending to mean fairly early on but the point remains that the actual Wikipedia article doesn't spell it out clearly that a jug band doesn't have to have an actual jug. You might well be right, but if it doesn't actually match the article's contents then it will only confuse readers to see a picture of a band that doesn't contain the eponymous jug. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - aside from the confusion above over what is depicted, i dont actually think the image is good enough. The background distracts and I dont feel there is sufficient focus on the musicians anyway--Childzy ¤ Talk 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - uneven lighting, distracting background and no wow. MER-C 08:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my reasoning above. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 10:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image is large, and detail is good, and although the quality is slightly lacking at full size, I think it still meets the criteria sufficiently. It is one of the best modern images we have of the tomb of an important Iranian figure, Hafez. I think it's pretty, too . . . does that help? ;-) The main article, Tomb of Hafez, is a new article created at the beginning of June and it appeared on the main page as a DYK, along with this image.

Articles this image appears in

Tomb of Hafez, arabesque, Islamic interlace patterns

Creator

Pentocelo

• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 15:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Added alternative: Just found another image which is larger, shows more of the structure, highlights the enamelling of the tiles, and is probably better quality. Perhaps this is a good replacement for the original? Maedin\^talk 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt looks to be awkwardly composed and/or cropped to me, and possibly suffering from lens distortion, and I find it quite disorienting. --jjron (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to crop it, but as you say, the composition and angle is awkward, so that doesn't really work! I also didn't find it ideal, but for the mosaic itself it seemed a slight improvement. I'm still more taken with the original though. Maedin\^talk 07:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Not that I've looked fullsize yet (so won't vote), but at thumb and image page size the original seems to have better lighting and more 'pop'. --jjron (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all - subject cut off. Additionally, the alternate is poorly framed. MER-C 08:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original good Ev and interesting --Muhammad(talk) 11:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Alt Support Original - The alt. is bad framing framed badly and the framing makes it seem very confusing... although a positive note is you can see the calligraphy that usually accompanies the arabesque style in the alt. I like the original. I agree that it is cut off, but would a change in the caption help? Maybe instead of just saying "The underside of the dome" say something like "a close up of the underside of the dome" and mention something about showing the detail of the tiles or that it is the center of the dome only... Just a thought. I also think it is a nice addition to the arabesque section as this type of tile design is not shown. Zulualpha (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good suggestion. I've changed the caption. Maedin\^talk 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! It's nice to hear something I've said was taken into consideration... I'm pretty new on here and it makes me nervous to post opinions like this, but I figure the worst that can happen is someone has a different view! Zulualpha (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Original (oppose alt). wadester16 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all - You wouldnt know it was a roof... --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what the caption's for. Would you know what this or this was without a caption? wadester16 01:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been perplexed by your oppose, Childzy. Would the technical quality or the EV of the image somehow be heightened if it were instead a picture of a floor, or a wall? Maedin\^talk 07:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – reluctantly, as I'm a big fan of arabesque art. Getting a good shot of a subject like this is full of "traps" and this one has fallen foul of all of them. There's invariably a kind of organic symmetry that defies camera placement, poor lighting that shows the shape of the work but which additional lighting (like flash) wipes out and a superb use of space that's nigh-on impossible to capture in two dimensions. It can be done well but it hasn't been here. I might have weak supported had detail not been lacking to such an extent that it looks like a watercolour illustration, which judging by the poor crop might have been preferable. Basically, if you attempt to depict patterns and symmetry they should avoid perspective distortion and be framed with at least a vague attempt at squaring up at the edges. Some better examples here show the sort of thing I'm on about. --mikaul^talk 06:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, I suppose it is suffering from a lack of all of those things. The examples you linked to all benefit from being a rather simplistic, easily-captured, square-on sort of tiling. The shape and the position of the dome pretty much excludes doing it to that standard, unless one has mad skills, a panoramic head on a tripod, and the political or moneyed sway to get the tomb removed from the centre of the structure. Not sure how necessary the last one is, but hopefully you get my point. However, as Diliff has said before, not everything is capable of being a featured picture, no matter how much skill and equipment you throw at it. So that's ok, :-) Thank you for explaining your oppose so well! Maedin\^talk 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yer welcome! FWIW I think there could well be an FP there, either choosing a slightly less graphic approach [10] or (as you say) get serious and set the same shot up properly. Half the problem is attempting the latter without dedicating the time to it, and it's a really tough shot to get right. --mikaul^talk 08:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 10:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Difficult to photograph as the faces are polished and hence very reflective.

Articles this image appears in

Opal

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I really want to support, the thing is very very cool, but that reflected white on the top is very noticeable. Could you try burning that slightly? Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave it a go and didn't get what I feel to be an improvement. You can upload an edit if you like. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm concerned that burning it in, even slightly, would make it look like it has a much more matte surface than it really does; and even disregarding that, it wouldn't really increase the EV since that part of the gem is pretty much the same as any other. Time3000 (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Pretty colors :) --Anhamirak 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm agree with above...--Sabri76'^message 12:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very good. Maedin\^talk 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Opal from Yowah, Queensland, Australia 2.jpg

Reason

Very high EV, one of the best illustrations on Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Spider anatomy

Creator

Pbroks13 after John Henry Comstock

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Still needs some work: the white space between terms and the underline is not consistent (eg. compare digestive tubule with spineret). Where's the pedipalp? Why use "poison fang" instead of "Chelicera"? Why is silk glands in plural (it's only pointing to one). Sasata (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pedipalp and chelicera are external anatomy, not internal. The fang could also be argued to be external, although the inside of it is part of the venom system which is being illustrated. Silk glands is plural to emphasize that there are several different types of silk glands, but I guess this is inconsistant with the other labels. The line spacing seems like a minor issue, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Spinneret incorrectly spelled. No coxal gland? What are the radiating lines above the sucking stomach? Sasata (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed the spelling of spinneret. We could include the coxal gland, but that area of the diagram is pretty crowded as it is. Since the spider anatomy article doesn't even mention the coxal gland, I don't think it's essential to have in the diagram. The lines above the stomach are the stomach muscles (responsible for the sucking). Some consider them a part of the stomach. Do you think those should be removed? Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Odd that the coxal gland is not mentioned in the article, that seems to be a glaring omission. I'll add it in later. IMO the lines should be removed, as they aren't explained and its not obvious what they are.
          • Fixed "silk gland" to be consistant. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also fixed the spacing between the labels and the underlines. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why not just lose the underlines completely? Using underlines like that is pretty unusual, and their thickness seems to vary. I'm also not convinced about the use of 'poison fang' (would perhaps Cheliceral fang be a better compromise?), but distinction between internal and external seems to be getting a bit blurred. Anus is another case in point - I would really regard that as external too, and probably the same with the eye (I guess what part of the eye...). --jjron (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The underlines may appear to be different sizes, but they aren't. It's due to the SVG thumbnailing. Regarding what has labels and what doesn't: The main purpose of the diagram is to illustrate the various systems that comprise the internal anatomy of the spider. Some of those systems are connected to the exterior. For example, the anus is part of the digestive system, the eyes are part of the nervous system, the fang is part of the venom system, and the spinnerets are part of the silk production system. Kaldari (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Had opened it 'fullsize' before commenting and still the underlines varied, and regardless can't see why they're there. Yes, I know various systems are connected to the outside, but that's where the inconsistencies come in - for example why would you label the anus but not the mouth? Both have the same relationship between being internal and external... See the labelling on something like this for a comparison that probably has better labelling on a similar diagram (click the 'Digestive tract' link if it doesn't go straight there). --jjron (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Still keeping oppose for now, because of the missing internal structures coxal gland, and trachea. Also (not sure about this), since this is a female spider, is it not more accurate to have oviduct rather than gonopore? Shouldn't the aorta be labeled? The label lines are now better, but still not perfect, eg. compare "simple eye" with "book lung": in one the underline starts before the word, in the other it starts after the word. Note how the upward label line butts up against the end of the word "receptacle". The end of "stomach" is hanging over the edge of the label line. I agree these latter points are rather trivial, but it should also be a rather trivial thing to make perfect, which would make the end product look more professional. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all spiders have trachea so I'm not sure it needs to be included in the diagram. You are correct that oviduct would be more specific than gonopore. I'll see about changing it and correcting the label lines. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Striking my oppose, as several improvements have been made, but can not switch to support without the diagram having the aorta labeled, the position of the coxal glands indicated, and the slightly sloppy label lines. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Thanks for making those changes ZooFari. Full support if you can remove 22 underlines beneath the labels and instead have the end of the label line point to the same relative position on either the right or left side of the word. It would clean up the image somewhat, and also it would look better at thumbnail size, imo. (p.s. I personally think my sweat glands are _very_ important, but YMMV) Sasata (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Sasata (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done but there are objections to the gland below. I don't know who to listen to so maybe you and Kaldari can work something out. ZooFari 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Did that spider eat a bunch of grapes? (just thought I would inject some childish humor. Lattefever (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]

• It also ate some celery leaves ;-) ZooFari 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Can't interpolation be used in the book lung lines and above the sucking stomach, to be more consistant? ZooFari 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interpolation? Kaldari (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pbroks probably knows. The lines aren't aligned and can be easily fixed with a tool called interpolation. ZooFari 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good call. I have never actually used the interpolate tool, I was using the bend and stitching subpaths toolb ut interpolation works a lot easier! Look better? --Pbroks13^talk? 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup, and support. SVG looks good to me ;-) ZooFari 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The stomach muscle lines just look like a moiré pattern to me now (even at nominal resolution). I would suggest either reverting the stomach muscle lines or removing them altogether (as suggested above). Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or, Pbroks can set a lower number of interpolation steps for fewer lines like the book lungs. ZooFari 18:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Even the book lungs look moired at lower resolutions and I don't think the muscle lines should be less dense than the book lung plates. Having the book lung plates be perfectly parallel makes sense, but I don't see the need for it with the stomach muscles, indeed, I think it makes them look less muscle-like. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an inexperienced wikipedian who knows nothing of spider anatomy, I found it interesting. Propbably could be further improved, but it is a great start and I want to encourage the creator.Lattefever (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]
• Comment I've taken the liberty of resetting this one in the queue - some good progress seems to be happening on improvements to the SVG, it would seem a shame to cut that short, when it's rapidly improving during its time here. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support As long as all the issues that Sasata brought up are dealt with, I'll support this for its huge EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support per Makeemlighter. Sasata, would you mind commenting again on this to put to rest any doubts? Just to be certain. Thanks. wadester16 04:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Changes made I took Sasata's consideration and added the Coxal gland. It is located behind the front leg, so I had no choice but to make it transparent. I also made the book lungs more realistic as it was a concern above. As for Sasata's concern about the labels, it is probably worser due to the fact that I had to move some in order to fit the Coxal glands. Other than that, does it meet your desires to support? ZooFari 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coxal gland is just not that important. It's basically the equivalent of a sweat gland in humans. In all the spider anatomy diagrams in all of my books, including Biology of Spiders, The Spider Book, and Invertebrate Zoology (all of which are scholarly works with countless diagrams), the coxal gland is not illustrated once. I really don't think it's worth removing a leg (and associated parts) to show it. Also, I'm afraid the changes to the book lungs did not make them look more realistic. I'll try to scan a sectional photograph of the book lungs tomorrow. If you made them match the book lungs in the original raster diagram, it would be an improvement, specifically, there needs to be an opening to the outside of the body and more open space on the right-hand side above the opening. Also the plates don't extend that far up the lungs. Kaldari (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more accurate depiction of the book lungs (based on the photos I've seen) would be something closer to [11] or [12] or [13], although in real life there are more like 100 plates instead of 7 or 8. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made the book lungs based on your sources, so hopefully that's better. I removed the underlines as suggested by Sasata and aligned them to certain formats. I'm not sure whether to keep the gland or not, as Sasata seems okay with it. Please work this out so we can close this nomination soon. ZooFari 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A minor correction is needed. Right now, the intestine overlaps the lung, but it should be the other way around, as there are two lungs on either side of the intestine. See the original diagram for reference. I would fix it myself, but I don't know how to without messing up the laying of all the other parts. Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - I have to say that I object to substantially altering the diagram from the original. This is supposed to be a vector version of Comstock's diagram. Comstock, who is probably the most cited archnologist of all time, was aware of the coxal gland and the trachae, as both are discussed in the same book as this diagram, but he chose not to include them in the diagram, probably because neither organ is universal to all spiders. Rather than second-guessing Comstock's decisions, I think we should remain faithful to the original diagram. Kaldari (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image is not supposed to resemble only one source. It's like an article not relying on only one reference. ZooFari 04:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument seems spurious. By implication then, Comstock's diagram suggests that all spiders have poison glands, which is of course false (see spider family Uloboridae). Also, I doubt that science was advanced enough for John Henry Comstock (1849-1931) to even realize the true physiological significance of the coxal glands. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In most spiders, the coxal gland has very little, if any, phsyiological significance. It is apparently important in primitive spiders, but vestigial in others. "Glands which open in the coxal segment of the third pair of legs in tarantulas and in some true spiders have been observed; these are termed coxal glands." (Comstock) "In primitive spiders, two pairs of coxal glands open onto the posterior side of the first and third coxae. The Labidognatha [true spiders] have retained only the anterior pair, and even these show gradual stages of regression in the various families. The original type of coxal gland consists of four parts: a saccule, a collecting duct, a labyrinth, and an excretory duct. This type becomes substantially reduced in orb-web spiders, in which a collecting duct is lacking and the labyrinth apparently no longer has an excretory function." (Biology of Spiders, 1996) I would also like to point out that Biology of Spiders includes two diagrams similar to the one above. One shows the entire spider and one shows only the chephalothorax (front half). In neither diagram is the coxal gland shown. As I said before, I've never seen it illustrated in any book, ever, so even if we didn't limit ourselves to Comstock's diagram, I don't know of any other verifiable source that would be referenced in this case. Indeed, how do we even know what the coxal gland looks like? Kaldari (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I would be more open to adding trachae to the diagram, as at least they are legitimately important to a large percentage of spiders (although not all). Additionally they are illustrated in one of the Biology of Spiders diagrams (one showing just the abdomen), so we would have a verifiable source as well. Kaldari (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too controversial image. Let's make another (safe) selection as FP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 21:56, August 23, 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to object to the above !vote counting in the final decision. The criteria are not considered at all. wadester16 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 09:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good resolution, composition; good EV for all 3 articles its used in.

Articles this image appears in

Semi-submersible platform, Oil platform, Petrobras

Creator

Divulgação Petrobras on Agencia Brasil

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd prefer is this were cropped a bit; currently there's a lot of empty water/sky –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Info on creator is incorrect - source is Agencia Brasil. Looks like they have a creative commons licence, but I don't speak Portuguese, perhaps someone can verify before nom proceeds? The image page does claim it's OK. If so, then need to update the creator at the top. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the creator. It looks like the license (Creative Commons — Attribution 2.5 Brazil) is ok according to this, no? Sasata (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further fix on creator. I'll let someone else confirm licensing (it's not my area of interest), but if there's no complaints by closing I suppose we'll assume it's OK. --jjron (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it looks good to me. wadester16 13:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Although there is a lot of open sky and water, I think it adds to the feel of the size of the platform. It is just massive! Also, because of the height of the platform, I'm not sure if I would like to see it cropped at the top. If it is cropped on the sides, you will cut the islands in the background. Just my opinion. Very good photo, I also love how you can see the small whitecaps from the ocean lapping against the "legs". Compared to the other photos on the Oil Platform page, this one shows the entire platform, and is framed straight. Zulualpha (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great quality image, fantastic enc and subject. I've been on one of these on dry land (my dad works for a company that designs the things) and they are awe-inspiring. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just about perfect. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm agree with above...--Sabri76'^message 12:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture... I saw a documentary about these things being built once - marvel of human engineering... The pipes on that thing look like those mazes you see in magazines where u gotta follow the line to find the right route through... Gazhiley (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 17:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very high res image of an iconic architectural monument, pleasing composition, high EV.

Articles this image appears in

Eiffel Tower, Tower

Creator

Blieusong (Benh on Commons)

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I thought this had been nom'ed before, but it must have been at commons. Time3000 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - is it just me, or is the image tilted slightly to the right? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks ok to me, but then i haven't exactly got 20/20 vision! If it is, maybe it's by a degree or two... Maybe a subtle nod by the builder to the tower in piza?! Oh, and support Gazhiley (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2009
    • I got that impression too, but having checked closer I'm almost certain it's not. I think it may be an optical illusion caused by the trees on the right being lower (and shadowy) than those on the left. It is ever so slightly off centre though, which is no biggie. --jjron (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
      • Having decided to read up on the tower out of sheer curiosity i find it actually states in the article that the tower moves in the sun so maybe that's also a poss reason for it to look not quite straight... Admitadely only by 18cm but that might give enough movement to show as a very tiny bit off straight... or maybe not... Gazhiley (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks pretty good to me. Existing FP for the record, which has been shunted to the Gallery in the Eiffel tower article. Regardless, they're sufficiently different, and this one has better EV. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In case one cares, I'd like to say that I did not move that FP down to the gallery (I actually tried to move it back to leading picture once, but some people were concerned by the lack of sharpness). I wouldn't mind to have the existing FP moved back to top page, it is much more beautiful than this trivial shot, and the FP candidate a little bit farther down the page, as per the french version of the article. Blieusong (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that you were necessarily suggesting so anyway, but I wasn't accusing you of hiding away the existing FP; I noted before voting that you had replaced a similar low res photo with this one in the infobox. FWIW I think this is better in the infobox anyway than the existing FP - as I said in my vote, this has higher EV, and is attractive enough itself for that matter, however, regardless, EV does not necessarily equate with beauty, and we are an encyclopaedia. --jjron (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good detail and composition, although the grass and sky noise has some strange artifacting. The sky could easily be fixed with a bit of noise reduction, but the grass is harder to fix. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This might come from downsampling method used. I'll try to upload another one tomorrow night. I also had a few sources pictures OOF because of defective AF, sadly :'(, which explains (slight) sharpness inconsistencies on this picture, as some may have spotted. Blieusong (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You should really pre-focus and shoot it in manual focus. :-) I don't always do that if I'm being lazy, but it's the safest method. 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I do that. But my lens front-focuses. This time, for an unknown-to-me reason, my pictures had ended up with sharp lower parts, and blurred upper parts (if I remember right) as if the focal plane rotated. Maybe that was because of my filter ? Fortunately, blending has eliminated most of the blurry parts, but not all of them. Blieusong (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I don't want to spam wiki with multiples versions of a file, I've just sent you an email with a link to a new version of the photo. Could you please have a look at it and give me a feedback ? Thanks a lot. Blieusong (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Probably the best "vanilla" photo of the tower we have. — Jake Wartenberg 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great photo, optical illusion and all. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm agree with above...--Sabri76'^message 12:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose-Comment I find this picture well done composed, exposed, and done in general. The problem is just that it is completely uninteresting. Unless you can (magnifying it) see a person killing another among the tourists or something like that this is just another Eiffel tower picture. This topic is a really hard one. How to make an interesting Eiffel-tower picture that is interesting enough to be a FP? I myself wouldn't dare to touch this theme unless the muse of photography kisses me (an Zeus still has to give birth to such a muse) Sorry Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That really isn't a valid reason to oppose based on the criteria though. Sure, there is always going to be the 'x-factor' that influences our votes based on whether the image moves us or not, but you shouldn't vote on a whim based on your own interest in the image, and nor should something extreme but incidental to the subject like a tourist murder justify it being an FPC either! The question that the FPC process essentially asks is: Does it illustrate the subject well and add to the viewer's understanding of the article in which it resides? It shouldn't matter if you find the subject boring or not. Not every viewer will share your apparent prejudice towards it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for being extreme with the example of the tourist. The thing is that a good picture is not only a sharp color&light balanced picture. Far more important are the content and the presentation of the content. What the author is saying with the picture. Many renowned pictures have even technical defects. My point is that this image is in the album of any tourist owning a fairly good camera, a fairly good lens and a tripod. My point is. This image is not good because it is empty. Nothing is said, suggested, no elaboration on the topic is done by the author. I recon Eiffel's is not an easy topic to treat and this is not a fault of the author. Just as a point of comparison look at the second, 5th, 13rd and 14th in the Eiffel tower page. No spectacular event is happening but the authors took a time to make out of the picture a mental reflection of it. A lot (or at least some more) value is added to the topic through the active participation of the author. Something is said with the picture. Again I admit this is hard to do with this tower, because even these views are nowadays classic and known to many.  Franklin.vp  17:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think part of the problem is that you've come here with a good understanding of photography generally speaking, but without having spent much time (I assume anyway - perhaps you've been lurking) to observe what the project looks for and what it values in its images. All of what you say is fairly true in the context of critiquing a photo for an audience of photographers, or indeed anyone who appreciates good photography, but what makes a compelling photo to them is not necessarily what makes a photo compelling in the encyclopaedic sense. An encyclopaedic photo shouldn't try to suggest anything. Everything that it illustrates should be as straight-forward and obvious - for the same reason, flowery prose is discouraged in articles. Good aesthetics in an image is a bonus, of course, but sometimes creative photography is to the detriment of encylopaedic value. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. Got convinced then. I go silent now and add my Support as well.  Franklin.vp  03:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per diliff I think quality encyclopaedic illustrations should be priority number one. Images with "wow" do help make articles more compelling though. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if my example disguised my point it is not the lack of wow-effect what I'm claiming. Read my comment above, please.  Franklin.vp  17:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great, crystal clear image of the tower. --Torsodog^Talk 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 19:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Large picture, original composition, forgotten part of Americana sitting gathering rust in Phillie

Articles this image appears in

SS United States

Creator

Rickyar

• Oppose Blured, which given that it's been there since 1996 I'm sure we can get a clearer picture. Nice story about it in the article though... Oh, and who nominated it? i can only see creator, not nominator... Gazhiley (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a self-nomination. MER-C 03:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh. I see. I'm just used to seeing the line "Support as nominator" line under the nomination... Even for the self-nominated pics eg Jerónimos Monastery above... Gazhiley (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - tilted, messy composition. Best illustrated with a historical image. MER-C 03:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MER-C. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high quality, descriptive shot, taken the year LDU became the winners of the Copa Libertadores

Articles this image appears in

Estadio de Liga Deportiva Universitaria

Creator

Kerem Ozcan

• Support as nominator --Kerem Özcan (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose projection is just too distracting for me, even if it may be the best option. wadester16 18:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. I'd prefer a more symmetric composition. MER-C 02:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MER-C -- mcshadypl ^TC 04:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the warping isn't the only problem. See the file page at Commons and hover over the image to see annotations of the stitching errors. ZooFari 04:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to do this but only the pic name comes up when i hover my mouse over the pic... Gazhiley (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need Javascript enabled and probably doesn't work if you are using IE. ZooFari 06:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A High resolution image, that is descriptive of the volcanic lakes of Mojanda. Also one of the few photos taken in Ecuador in Wikipedia

Articles this image appears in

Mojanda

Creator

Kerem Ozcan

• Support as nominator --Kerem Özcan (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - chromatic aberration, blown clouds, messy foreground and possibly oversharpened. MER-C 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose JPG artifacts visible at a far distance. ZooFari 04:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sure if they are the same JPEG artifacts mentioned above as i have no idea what JPEG artifacts are - but there's a horrible greeny/blue outline to most of the mountains around the lake... Gazhiley (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that "greeny/blue" outline is Chromatic aberration. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks... Everyday's a schoolday! Gazhiley (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quality+EV

Articles this image appears in

S.L. Benfica and Estádio da Luz

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Info This panorama was taken without a tripod, so it does have some minor technical flaws. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are the irregularities in the shadow in the foreground supposed to be there or are they stitching errors? I'd be surprised if it was a problem with the stitching but I just want to be sure. Time3000 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those irregularities are the result of the shape of the roof. They are also present in the RAW pictures. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support then. Nicely done. Time3000 (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another good stadium shot. Nicely done. wadester16 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - I'd prefer a more diffuse light source, but otherwise it is high quality. Cacophony (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really good quality... A shame to have the groundskeepers sitting in the middle of the pitch having what appears to be a picnic (but I'm sure is some form of work they are doing really!), but not enough of a distraction to cause any problems... In answer to above query the shadow abnormality is caused by the white curved corner shades which stick slightly further out than the main stand (see the one in opposite right corner above the TV which curves into the roof in the same manner of the shadow nearest to us)... Gazhiley (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Uhum, here the distortions are suddenly not bothering anybody. Interesting ;-). --Dschwen 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, clearly not all distortions are created equal. I did think the objections to your image were a bit harsh, but I would still like to see the rectilinear image for comparison. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't see any minor technical flaws in this one, although I probably would have brightened the shadows a bit more than you've done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Do this. Close your eyes for a while and then open them and look at the picture. What is it what you see? You see a round piece of the field plus some sky. The picture is about the stadium but the stadium is not what you "see" from the picture. When you try to look at the stadium the sight gets pulled very strongly to the field. My suggestion: go at night or a different time of the day in which you have the light mainly on the chairs, burn some the field without making it ugly and them you get what you need. The thing is that the stadium it self is in some dim light that subtracts all the relevance that should have in the picture, I mean, if the picture is about it. Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do this: Check if your monitor is well calibrated. I can clearly see every aspect of the stadium. @Diliff: I've brightened the shadows some. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry, I didn't mean to say that you can't see the stadium. What I mean is that the center of attention is at the bright-sun-lighted part of the field instead at the subject of the picture (the stadium). I tried burning the lighted part of the field and you can manage to bring down the distraction effect although a fine work should be done in the selection of the zone to burn and some little blurring of its boundary is probably required. Try that. I did it roughly to quickly see the result with a small version of the image. Don't worry about dodging the shadows. I think they are fine that way. I personally like to do architectural photography in the middle or late afternoon or early in the morning, if the building is facing east. The bring sun light of noon is very nice but it is a pain in edition when you get bright sky and dark buildings. Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks fine to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not the best light but otherwise high quality picture. - Darwinek (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:LuzLissabon.jpg --jjron (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Best image in the article. Subject is tiny (this is > 2:1). Fir's image in the article has the wrong ID (I've told him about it). Can't tell the two possible species apart from the photograph.

Articles this image appears in

Eriophora

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually I'm relatively confident in the ID - it was done by Martyn Robinson a naturalist at the Australian Museum. Whey do you say it is so small? If your talking about this site then I think you'd need to bear in mind it says "body" length - the length of the legs is several times that of the body. Compare their estimate of a huntsman - I regularly see specimens of about 8cm leg span and occasionally even larger. --Fir0002 12:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and Weak Oppose Nice lighting but poor sharpness. Either find a larger specimen or get an MPE :) --Fir0002 12:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have an MP-E? The depth of field is just shallow, makes no difference between it and the tamron 180mm sharpness wise. The body length is up to 6-7mm, as various websites specify. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose it's not entirely in focus. Looks like your DOF is too shallow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to take a shot of a 6cm long damsel fly with most of it in focus. It isn't technically possible for a live, moving, subject closer to 1cm long. The same standards should not be applied. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support A well-lit, nicely composed shot that's just short of full support. I can't help thinking we're getting way too hung up on techincal issues here at FPC. Whatever happened to striking and eye-catching as valid support criteria? I'm only "weak" on this one due to the slightly overpowering key lighting from the left that's knocked it slightly out of balance, but I do find this approach much more compelling than basic technical correctness. --mikaul^talk 00:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose left corner lighting, sharpness and DOF. --Muhammad(talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quite tiny. Good lighting and clear pose. Has an id to species level, but genus/species articles don't currently exist. Re nomination because last time it was just a discussion about scale bars.

Articles this image appears in

Anthomyiidae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There isn't a white balance difference between this and the image below. I thought so too, but turns out to be different stages of flowering. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination. MER-C 08:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as before. Scale bar is missing --Muhammad(talk) 10:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was before to do with size? Noodle snacks (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh? Weird, I thought I created the species article a long time ago? ZooFari 04:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I remember looking at them too. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Where's the scale bar (per caption) and is there a reason this nom has to have one? If this is a requirement, how are we deciding an image needs one? --mikaul^talk 01:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I just copied the old nomination lock stock and barrel. It had been removed from this image. The scale bar was the principle reason it didn't pass last time. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ZooFari 04:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great detail and sharpness, good EV and composition. Good riddance to the scale bar :) Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anthomyiidae sp.jpg --jjron (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

We have few FPs of animals apart from birds and arthropods. This image is of good quality, EV. Has been stable in the articles for over a month now.

Articles this image appears in

Plains Zebra, Zebra

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice one, stronger composition for an animal 'portrait', and I find that brown colouring on the nose intriguing (and he looks pretty healthy!). Image page could do with some more info though (where taken, male/female, etc). Zebra article is also becoming a bit of an image gallery and could do with a purge. Perhaps a tad oversharpened as well. --jjron (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great photo. I can feel its nose from here! I must say Muhammad, you've been adding some consistently great shots recently and have come a long way.--bad_germ 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per jjron. wadester16 01:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I also find this picture a good candidate for FP.  Franklin.vp  01:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yup, that's a zebra. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per jjron. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zebra portrait.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 15:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Its of high quality, only few featured pictures on India,High resolution,EV

Articles this image appears in

Silent Valley National Park

Creator

Cj.samson

—Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC).

• Support as nominator --Cj.samson (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. FWIW, I helped samson with some minor details in the nomination. --Muhammad(talk) 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To be honest I'm not really feeling it - composition seems a bit cramped and I don't think I'm really learning much about the park. Visually and using the histogram it's quite a bit underexposed. Brighter versions have a bit more pop, but I'm still not overly convinced. However I won't oppose yet till you've had a chance to try an edit. Ideally if you had another version that at least showed to the end of the wires that may help with the cramped composition. --jjron (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless edit or better pic found Too dark, ends of bridge cut off, and could be any bridge over any gorge - no wow factor. IMHO would be better taken from below to give better idea of height of bridge from water, and view UP the falls which would have more of an appealing composition... Gazhiley (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Subject cut off. :) MER-C 03:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Ambient image of excellent artistic and technical quality. It. As a silhouette adds value to Sailing ship#Types of sailing ships by displaying the skeleton of ship's mast configuration.

Articles this image appears in

Sailing ship, ARC Gloria (article needs attention, but all sources are in Spanish)

Creator

Luz A. Villa at Flickr.

• Support as nominator --hydrox (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The problem with silhouettes in my opinion is that you lose all sense of depth and detail. A normal colour picture would show the size better and the configuration, rather then being overlapped one silhouette on top of the other. Looking at that picture will not give me any idea as where each mast is located, and will not give me 100% of which sail is hung from which mast either. Lovely picture though, just no EV. Gazhiley (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Subject is one big shadow => no enc. Needs to be taken in full daylight. MER-C 03:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The above is true, but this image would be ideal for the article on silhouette. If it was added there, and edited a bit to fix the graininess in the sky, we could reasonably consider it for FP. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Horribly overdone contrast and saturation. Unless of course the sea was actually a large bath of tomato ketchup. The noise is entirely down to overlarding the PP. I'd suggest a speedy close, frankly. --mikaul^talk 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose how awesome would it be if the sea was actually a large bath of tomato sauce? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality image of one the most famous monuments in the United States, high res, and a useful sense of scale. I know I personally don't like the vegetation in the corner, either, but it does not detract from the image substantially.

Articles this image appears in

Gateway Arch

Creator

Daniel Schwen

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 11:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It feels good to nominate an image again. :)
  • Thanks, by the way. --Dschwen 17:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm sorry? ceranthor 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, thanks for believing in my image. I mean it. --Dschwen 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. Anyway, I knew the technicals were a little low, I nominated it for its EV and useful sense of scale. ceranthor 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sense of scale was the main reason I uploaded and put in the article. We have lots of pictures of only the top portion of the arch. Getting an more frontal perspective is rather tricky by the way. You either have to go to the other side of the Mississippi (right in the picture), which is far, or use extreme wide angle. There is a small hill between arch and city (just out side the frame to the left), so that the bottom part is always occluded when you try increasing the distance. Going up on a roof might help. But getting access is problematic. (btw. did the thank you really sound ironic? I apologize.) --Dschwen 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think it was, as I've interacted with you before and you always cam across as helpful, but you can never be sure. ceranthor 19:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - not sure if this is the best illustrative angle, also quite grainy. The sun was too bright as well --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, how would I dial down the brightness of the sun? --Dschwen 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a photo when the sun dials itself down, i wasnt being flippant, it is too distracting--Childzy ¤ Talk 23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per above, but also I'm sure that vegetation in top right left can surely be edited out as it does kinda distract. Gazhiley (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd rather see this nomination removed than the image manipulated to take the foliage out. It is one of the better Arch images we have (I might be biased here), and complaining about grain in a 12MP image but happily promoting downsampled 2MP images is somewhat ridiculous, but I would not have nominated this myself. Well, most certainly not here at least. --Dschwen 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on the composition not being the best to show the shape of the arch, but I completely agree that the trees should not be edited out. That said, the solution would have been to take about 4 or 5 steps foward with minimal impact on the perspective. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. Well, it depends on what you want to solve :-). I thought it'd be a good idea to include the trees, as it is a tree lined walkway. But I can see that it didn't quite work out the way I planned it, and that some people might not like the composition. I'll try to keep this in mind (I guess the detatchedness of the foliage top-left is problematic. If it could be seen connected to a tree it might look better) and try alternatives. As a matter of fact I still have lots of material from that trip. Maybe something better is still on my harddisk. In particular I dis several exposure bracketed night time panos. A pain in the butt to assemble... --Dschwen 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

2:1 magnification. Good lighting and clear angle. The dill will give a scale for anyone familiar with the plant.

Articles this image appears in

Empidoidea

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Missing a frame in the focus stack? Rear leg goes in and out of focus... --Fir0002 12:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not stacked. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support would prefer a crop though --Muhammad(talk) 14:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I hate opposing. But, I've decided to based on what I think is poor lighting; the antennae of the critter are fading into darkness, such that no detail can be made out. The wings and the head in general also seem to be suffering from a touch of underexposure. Any chance of a fix, or an alternative? Maedin\^talk 12:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, and I'd beg to differ on the lighting front. I'd call it above average lighting as far as featured insect pictures go. It is all quite visible to me. I thought you were off hiking somewhere? I must ask if your monitor is calibrated? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was hiking, for eight straight days, before I injured my Achilles tendon, I've been forced to rest it at home, which put an end to my hiking aspirations for the time being! I might be able to resume for a week or two in September when I'm completely "healed". I walked from Minehead, Somerset to Lee, Devon; about 38km all told. Shame I had to stop, but I did turn ever so brown, ;-) No, my monitor is not calibrated. Could have something to do with it. Maedin\^talk 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm really liking this approach. Lighting's still a little... imprecise. I'm guessing you set this up indoors & whereas I've no idea how you go about training a fly to pose for pics, I can imagine you probably have to work very quickly. The backlight could have done with being further to the right and I'm guessing your brolly was really close, cos you're blasting the nearside florets before you get adequate light on the beastie. But it's great stuff, I like it and look forward to seeing more. --mikaul^talk 02:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basic story is that I set up the lighting gear where I am likely to find the creature, then hope for the best. Minor tweaking is usually all that can be managed for each insect. I think the results are worth it though. I'm down to one flash at the moment unfortunately, one fell apart (So I'm down to reflectors etc which is a bit fiddly). I'd like to buy another in the future. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Lighting looks good to me. Should be cropped tighter though. Also EV would benefit from a more specific ID. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would, but I've been in contact with various museums and members of the CSIRO and I suspect this is as good as the ID is going to get. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's understandable. How do you feel about the crop? Kaldari (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm not sure which direction the crop is supposed to be in. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Less than ideal lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus --jjron (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharbat Gula.png Original - Photograph of Sharbat Gula by Steve McCurry, known as "Afghan Girl".

Reason

High resolution. Although smaller than most featured images, can be made an exception due to historical and cultural significance as policy states.

Articles this image appears in

Afghan Girl (photo)

Creator

Steve McCurry

• Support as nominator --Jacob Richardson (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Copyrighted image. Kaldari (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My mistake. Copyright ruins Wikipedia once again. Jacob Richardson (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - fair use image --jjron (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This photograph is an excellent shot and meets all of our featured picture criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Southwest_Airlines

Creator

[14]

• Support as nominator --Gigs (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the wing is cut off. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jauerback. Time3000 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in hindsight, this is even more important since southwest uses distinctive winglets that most carriers do not. A valid objection. Gigs (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I call WP:SNOW. Sorry, the cut off ruins it and the very small size isn't helping either. A little wider, higher resolution and this would be a good shot. Would it then be special enough for FP? I'm not sure. --Dschwen 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. MER-C 04:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Since this is used for Southwest Airlines, not for a specific type of airplane, I don't think it's terribly important to have the entire wing. It would be nice to see the blended winglets, though, and that's enough for a weak oppose. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Flawed crop. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey and others. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quality+EV

Articles this image appears in

Castel del Monte and Apulia

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I keep thinking that the top of the building is bowed outwards, but as far as I can see everything is vertical - must be just an illusion. It does look rather odd though, and I can't help thinking that the perspective correction might be slightly overdone. It might be worth convevrting it to sRGB from Adobe RGB as well, since not all browsers display Adobe properly. Time3000 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried different versions of the picture, all with a different perspective correction, but this came out as the best. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I get the same impression (building bowing outwards.) Noodle snacks (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs sRGB conversion; I have no idea what colour the stone is supposed to be. --mikaul^talk 21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already converted the image from sRGB to Adobe RGB. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it doesn't make any sense to do that. Adobe RGB may be a wider gamut but converting from sRGB won't add more colour depth and might give you unwanted colour shifts. The default for web use (and therefore Wikipedia FPs) is sRGB; always best to work in Adobe RGB and convert to that for web use. It's a "lowest common denominator" thing that won't improve colour but will allow everyone to see the same colours, regardless of what browser or program settings they use. --mikaul^talk 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to do so, so I did. I'll reverse the edit. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must have been some misunderstanding somewhere, because all uploaded versions are Adobe RGB. Maybe whoever originally advised you to convert profiles meant to say Adobe RGB > sRGB... --mikaul^talk 06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean to sRGB and I think that's what my post said(?) - but sorry for any misunderstanding. Adobe's not really consistent between Paintshop, Gimp, firefox, etc. so sRGB would let everyone see the same colours. Time3000 (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were right, I misinterpreted your saying. Anyhow, now I've uploaded an sRGB version. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment sRGB version uploaded. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too much of the bottom part of the building is lost due to the viewing angle. The door of the castle is obscured by a bush. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost nothing lost of the lower part of the building, even though I chose this angle to take the picture from. If you look to the column left of the door of the castle you can see the ledge, which touches the ground... As for the bush, well, I can't cut it down. The right side of the building was being coffered in scaffolding, so another point was not an option. And a large part of the door is still visible. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support It's a good, high quality image. Difficult to show the octagonal shape and quite likely impossible to get the whole thing in the frame from the top of the hill. I share those slight misgivings about the perspective correction, it's never going to make something shot from a low angle look natural and I see this as a decent compromise, well taken. --mikaul^talk 21:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quality+EV

Articles this image appears in

Jerónimos Monastery

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No doubt this is a difficult building to photograph based on the shape and size. This might well be the best view of it, but it's just not quite dynamic enough for me. As I've said many times before in other nominations, not all subjects are realistically capable of giving you an FP quality photo, and this is probably one of them. It might stand out better at night if it was brighter lit than the surroundings though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That dynamism might improve with an sRGB version... hate to carp on about it but it does make a huge difference. This is a nice shot, if what I see in Photoshop is right; maybe what's "losing" it among its surroundings is the foreshortening which seems quite pronounced here. Having said that, focal length and vantage point look ideal for this particular building. --mikaul^talk 08:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done as requested. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realise it wasn't sRGB. Massimo, why are you not saving in sRGB? Adobe RGB is no use on the web, and of limited use anywhere except prints, and even then doubtful except with pro labs... The lack of dynamism is compositional though IMO. I think the lack of a visible horizon makes it feel a bit cramped. Clearly, it illustrates the monastery itself, but showing a bit more of the surroundings would be nice. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never really thought about it, till Mikaul brought it up. I'll try to reupload most of my pictures in sRGB. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never thought about it? All of the colours of your images will have been really messed up as a result. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In browsers that cannot view Adobe RGB properly, that is. Firefox 3.x can, which is why I didn't notice the problem, but most viewers use IE obviously... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I also didn't notice it, since I use either Firefox or Safari. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sRGB version uploaded. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. I've mulled it over and can't escape the fact that the subject just isn't distinct among its surroundings. Tremendous detail, high resolution and clear EV sometimes aren't enough. There's also an x factor, a combination of aesthetic and emotional responses that an image has to elicit for FP and this just doesn't do it. Sorry Massimo :-( --mikaul^talk 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I don't mind people opposing, as long as they have a good reason to do so ;). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. 'Doesn't stand out enough' isn't a very compelling objection for me. It illustrates the subject in a highly encyclopedic fashion and does it to a very high technical standard. A ground level shot won't offer the same EV. Short of cropping out the background, I'm not sure how this is an actionable objection. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, attractive composition enhanced by the dangerous position of the viewer with respect to the empty space. Also the lines of the leg of the tower lead the spectator to the center of attention. Natural colors.

Articles this image appears in

CN Tower

Creator

Franklin

• Support as nominator --Franklin01:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too many technical problems for me, also I dont like the composition but if the glass floor goes all the way around a death drop panorama would be interesting --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A panorama of that type would not really be possible - you'd end up with a doughnut shaped image, not to mention that it would be tricky to stitch because you're not rotating the camera around the focal point. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A panorama of that kind is indeed possible (rather complicated though) you can compute the position of the camera to move it as if it were rotating around the focal point being this in the center of the tower. But, come one, panoramas are not the only way of making an interesting picture. Also the glass floor of the CN tower is not that large. I'm more interested in knowing those "too many technical problems" that are claimed but not mentioned. Could you please be more detailed on that?  Franklin.vp  16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grainy, areas out of focus, ghost like tree to the far right of the image, over exposure of certain areas, blurred areas (most likely due to a dirty floor). If i concede that maybe a different image positionally cannot be taken it doesnt change that its generally not that good an image. Well done on questioning everyone though --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those trees are not the subject of the picture and I am thinking now that blurring some more trees (not all though) could make the image even more interesting. The image is not overexposed at all. I can see detail everywhere including what I am guessing you are looking at (the leg and the road). No blurring in the picture is due to the floor at all. Focusing in a far enough point plus the aide of the combination of hand shake and the lens image stabilizer make the little scratches of the glass disappear. It is after all a building of more than 400 meters high it is not clear to me if lens long enough to get such a depth of field are being produced. On the other hand I go quiet from now on. Another user pointed me the difference between a good picture and a FP picture. Sometimes the two categories overlap but not always, e.g. the Eiffel tower candidate. Now I understand the difference and agree that this is definitely not good for a FP.  Franklin.vp  04:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting view, but not a view that's particularly educational, and the image quality is lacking. No doubt shooting through such thick glass contributes to that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the image is to show the length of one the largest buildings in the world. This is done through a picture taken from is glass floor, the obligated point of attention of most of the visitors in this kind of buildings. Again, I'm very interested in knowing what are those ways in which the "image quality is lacking".  Franklin.vp  16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can i just add that if it is intended to show height then this isnt how it is done, you gain no real sense of scale from this image other than its tall, there are lots of tall things. --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A related comment: is there a side that's more interesting than half a plaza and a gravel drive way? --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• dangerous position of the viewer? What danger is there to standing on several inches of bulletproof glass? --Dschwen 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • :) no danger at all. I even jumped hard on the glass to scare a friend while standing there. Let me try again to express myself: The reference to danger in the picture is the same that is used in the architecture of the tower itself by having a glass floor. It is nothing else than the impression of being in danger what makes almost all visitors to stand on the glass ad look down. This controlled "danger" is the same that makes attractive movies, safaris, fear tunnels, mechanic games in amusement park and it is this same sense of controlled danger what it is exploited in the composition of the picture. Franklin.vp  16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. I think the image would look better if it were rotated by 180 degrees. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I giggled with this comment. You know why? The original image is like you said. (NOTE: I didn't declared this edition on the picture because it doesn't change any feature of the subject in any way. The picture could be taken with the camera rotated.) But have you tried rotating it? Do it. A lot of the purpose of the picture is lost in that way. Remember, the picture is about showing the length of the CN tower showing the fall from its glass floor and catching the attention of the viewer by giving him/her the same sense of danger (controlled danger) that the glass floor. This is enhanced by the position of the viewer with respect to the leg of the tower. That uneasiness that you feel while looking at the picture is precisely the intention of the author.  Franklin.vp  16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Awkward, low-EV angle + blown-out sections of white. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, mainly due to low enc composition. MER-C 06:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pictures from the glas floor are difficult because of scratches and dirt on the glas. This is anyway no excuse to vote for excellence. Sure no excellent picture but more educating is this view [15] where you can see more of the concrete structure. – Wladyslaw (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution. Subject is the point of attention of the picture with almost no extra distractions. Dynamic oblique (subtle) lines of sea weed and horizon to make picture attractive. Natural colors.

Articles this image appears in

beaver dam

Creator

Franklin

• Support as nominator --Franklin
• Comment. Appears to be tilted (I'm not sure whether it really is tilted or not, but it looks that way to me). Also, there's no sense of scale: how big is this dam? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It is tilted indeed. It is a way of making the horizon line opposed to the sea weed lines to make the picture more attractive. The dam is little. You can see that from the width of the seaweed or the width of the branches. A little thinking will give you a notion of scale. There is no need to make a CSI-police picture throwing a pencil in the dam to give sense of scale  Franklin.vp  16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor sharpness and resolution on the dam. Possible chromatic aberration (I'm not an expert) on the clouds and dam. I dislike the tilted effect: in my opinion the numerous parallel horizontal lines in the picture mean that the image is more appealing with the tilt corrected. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a striped piece of paper from a notebook and put a square of it in a little frame with the lines perfectly horizontal. Do the same but putting this time the lines in a oblique position, put next some lines kind of perpendicular to the lines of the paper keeping them oblique... you will see how your interest in the picture increases. There is indeed a little chromatic aberration on the dam.  Franklin.vp  16:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sharpless --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. MER-C 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Still a useful picture though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is a complete (not strictly complete, but shows everything that can be isolated from background clutter - this shows a slightly more complete view, but is otherwise not as impressive) and detailed image of the monument to Christopher Columbus in Barcelona, Spain.

Articles this image appears in

Columbus Monument, Barcelona

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have the feeling, that you could edit the levels of this image some more. There is some space left on both sides of the histogram. Very nice image btw :). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The quality is so good, that I can't oppose it. However, the base of the monument is missing, which lowers the EV of this image imo. And since this is still Wikipedia... ;) --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, this is Wikipedia. Including the full base of the monument would have meant the composition was very messy (as I alluded to in the nom), but fair enough. If people oppose for that reason, I will accept it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose It's a pity, it's such a gorgeous image, but cutting off the base (and not just a blank concrete base, there are further statues down there) really kills the EV as per above. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Awesome quality shot. It even looks good on my (usually) lousy monitor! Even without the base, I think this has excellent EV since you can make out so much detail. Sure, I'd love to see the base too, but I don't think it's necessary. I really don't think it's worth the background clutter you'd need to get a complete shot. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Amazing detail at full res. Hard to support without the full monument, however. Kaldari (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clear picture of an unusual jelly fungus, meets size requirements, high EV. The last nom of a similar picture failed because some thought it wasn't sharp enough; I don't believe this close-up version suffers from that defect.

Articles this image appears in

Ascocoryne sarcoides, Jelly fungus

Creator

Daryl Thompson at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The edges of the fungus aren't in focus. I think they should be, given that it is not possible to see the fungus from a side angle anywhere else in the picture. Also, the picture appears to be cropped from a version of this image: I'd rather see a picture of the whole thing in its context. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sharpness issues on the upper right part of the fungus, but good EV nonetheless. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I have dozens of jumping spider photos that are technically far better than this one, but none of them come close to being as valuable. This photo is not for illustrating a particular jumping spider, but to illustrate the section on jumping spider courtship dances in the article jumping spider. Obviously the sharpness is not comparable to most other featured macro shots. For shooting jumping spiders (which are quite tiny) I usually have to open up to f/8 or so to avoid diffraction softening. In this case, however, it was important to get the legs in the focus plane (as they are an important part of the display) so I stopped down to f/13. At full res the diffraction softening is obvious, but IMO the trade-off was worth it and I would shoot it at the same aperture if I did it again. The other flaw is that there are 21 blown pixels on the leg and 5 in the eyes where the specular highlights are. There are no totally blown areas, however, just pixels, and otherwise the levels and curves are pretty nice. Since this was shot hand-held on an overcast day, obviously a strong flash was required (not to mention the fact that it's dancing). The primary selling point for this images is obviously it's encyclopedic value. The description of jumping spider courtship behavior needed a good photo and this one fits the bill nicely. There are only a handful of similar photographs on the internet and none that are free license.

Articles this image appears in

Jumping spider#Reproduction

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator. You can also see the action from another angle. --Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose While I appreciate the exceptions you brought up, IMO this is better suited at VPC. Actually, with a little of effort in image editing, the image could have been improved with software if you would've used less aperture and more flash. ZooFari 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I forgot about VPC (as most people do). Perhaps you're right that it would be better suited there. Can you explain a bit more about the "less aperture more flash". I'm always interested in learning more about photography. Kaldari (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I meant "More aperture more flash", I think. What lighting conditions did you take the pic in? ZooFari 04:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was quite overcast. I was under the impression that opening the aperture always reduces depth of field. Is there a way around that? Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • New ring flash? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha, sharp eyes! Yep, finally upgraded to the Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash. It's a big improvement on the ring flash, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appreciate the difficulty, DOF is ok and so is sharpness. --Muhammad(talk) 11:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - great shot, but the front leg is either out of focus or in a motion blur. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spider is only 1 cm long. To get the entire spider in focus, I would have had to have stopped the aperture down to f/16 or so which would have ruined the sharpness due to diffraction. I tried to choose the best trade-off between loosing sharpness and getting the spider in the focus plane. That said, if the front leg being out of focus is distracting to you, I suppose that is a valid objection. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support You'd never have got that leg sharp with just another stop down. Clearly a good decision to go as far as f13 as any loss of minute detail is wholly mitigated by gains in overall pictorial value. It's a good angle and a fine illustration, only weak supporting in recognition of the high bug bar. --mikaul^talk 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC) -edit- and I'm not a fan of those twin flash units... too many specular highs, very distracting...[reply]
• Weak Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose flipped image, inappropriately manipulated. In my opinion definately relevent in this case as someone examining - and say using it in a school paper - would be likely to refer to the "left" or "right" legs. Guest9999 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Striking oppose (image unflipped). Guest9999 (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's an interesting oppose. Since jumping spiders are bilaterally symmetrical, I wouldn't think it would be an issue. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't notice that. You could always just flip it back and place a left in the image syntax. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unflipped. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Kaldari, do you have the exact original (no RAW though)? Or is it the first version you uploaded? ZooFari 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the RAW and an original higher-res JPEG. The version that was uploaded was downsampled, noise-reduced, and sharpened. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you by any chance be willing to upload it or email it to me? Just to take a look. I might be able to do some tweaks to the version open for voting, but I would like to see the work you've done so far first. ZooFari 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, just send me your email address. Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended for editing. Could also close if preferred, and you can nominate the new version later, but I don't want to discourage work being done on an image by a hasty "no quorum" close. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit now done so I'm Unsuspending. Zoofari could you strike your previous vote please since you've now voted twice? Also renamed edit from Alt to Edit per conventions (an alt is a completely different image). Note: I'm just putting this back to the 'decision time' section - if you want to run it right from the top again, go ahead but I don't think it needs it. --jjron (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt see the thumb for changes. I'm not a wizard so I couldn't bring the leg into focus :-( ZooFari 05:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the effort, but I have to say I prefer the original. The alt is over-sharpened - the areas where the hairs overlap the background are quite noisey for example. Also, all of the white areas are blown in the alt, so there is actually less detail rather than more. As you said, it would take a wizard to fix it (without being able to focus-stack), so maybe it's just not good enough to feature. Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Phidippus clarus courtship edit.jpg --Pmlineditor  Talk 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why was the edit promoted? Have you read the discussion? Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I have read it. I believe there is sufficient consensus to promote this one. The majority of the votes are support and I see no reason not to promote. If you oppose this, please nominate for delisting. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is only one editor in favor of the edit (Zoofari) and two against it (myself and Jauerback), whereas the original version has four editors in favor (Muhammad, mikaul, Noodle snacks, and myself) and two opposed (Jauerback and Zoofari). Additionally, the problems with the edit were detailed in the discussion - over-sharpening and blown highlights - without response. How can that be viewed as consensus? Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Can you please go for a delisting (or something else)? Pmlineditor  Talk 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why jump through extra hoops here? You made a clear mistake, just rectify it. No need to go through a delisting process here. --Dschwen 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. :( Pmlineditor  Talk 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Turn that frown upside down! There is no shame here. Mistakes happen, fortunately most of them are easy to fix. --Dschwen 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus. My apologies for this but this is the best I can make of this now. We were leaving it open to give the edit some time, but we have been pre-empted and I suppose must now make a decision. I would tend to encourage a renomination (or alternative decision here). --jjron (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that decision is correct. There really wasn't any kind of consensus. Kaldari (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That's a generous attitude and quite a vote of confidence given that it meant your image went from being promoted in some form to not being promoted. That type of 'good sportsmanship' can be lacking here at times. --jjron (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]