Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2008

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

Great World War II Photo.

Articles this image appears in

*Battle of the Philippine Sea

Creator

US Navy

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose too small. Durova^Charge! 10:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. – Ilse@ 11:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the two above. This is an excellent setup, but I always get a vague sense of disappointment when I see "No higher resolution available" on the image page. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historic significance

Articles this image appears in

Lyndon B. Johnson

Creator

Yoichi R. Okamoto

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Unquestioned encyclopedic value, but poor composition. MLK is in profile and LBJ looks like he's shrinking away. History and names aside, it looks like the caption would be When will this man stop talking so I can get some aspirin? Very much worth a place in an article, but not the best choice for Wikipedia's main page. And I'm sorry to say that, because it'd be great to feature an image of these two men. This one isn't it. Durova^Charge! 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. It would be great to see MLK and LBJ featured pic but this one isn't it. I wonder of LBJ's thoughts at the time this photograph was taken. Looking at his face in the full-size I bet it was something like Come on, Negro, give me a break. Fine, I'll give ya more rights but ya'll be votin' for me, ok?. - Darwinek (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I actually like the composition; their relative postures and expressions speak volumes about the racial situation as it was then, but the picture is much too grainy, bordering on B&W posterization. LBJ's face is worst hit. Matt Deres (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matt Deres. I, too, love the composition and expressions, but the quality isn't high enough. See this book [1] (which, unfortunately, isn't cited on the LBJ article) for a detailed exploration of their relationship. Also, Durova, our featured pictures exist for more than just Picture of the Day; i.e. we can promote images which will never go on the main page. If a higher quality image shows up, I'll change this vote to support. - Enuja (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This high resolution photograph shows the Prinsengracht, a 17th century canal in Amsterdam. It presents a characteristic view of the Amsterdam canals by night.

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam, Canals of Amsterdam

Creator

commons:User:Aforaseem

• Support as nominator Ilse@ 11:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I have no real reason to oppose, as it is a very nice image, but it doesn't pop out at me as being FP quality. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 15:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. de Bivort 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Beautiful scene, though not as sharp as it could be. CillaИ ♦ XC 16:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll bite. Warm and inviting. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Beautiful composition but not special enough for FP. Also, I don't like the (unnecessary) small size and the visible noise. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noise. ^8thstar 21:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose a day picture would probably capture more detail. H92110 (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I am the creator of this photo. I have other versions which are sharper and full size. I don't know how will this photo be treated if I replace this photo now with a better version. Please suggest, thx. aforaseem —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you can (separately) upload one (or more) alternative(s), so people can choose among them. Compare: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Mont Blanc. – Ilse@ 07:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak-ish Support I actually quite like this picture. It's an attractive shot which made me interested in reading about the subject. On the other hand, it does seem that a more spectacular photo could be taken, and I'd be interested to see what else aforaseem has for us. faithless (^speak) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 8thstar.D-rew (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A fetus at 4 months. Clear high resolution file.

Articles this image appears in

Leonardo da Vinci, Study (drawing)

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 10:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support de Bivort 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Top enc, but would like to see the exposure evened out a bit. It's a bit grainy and oversharpened, too. --Janke | Talk 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the best of my knowledge the original nomination was not sharpened or manipulated in any way. The grain and brightness variations appear to be natural; smudging is visible in the darker areas. Per your feedback I've cleaned up a few artifacts and done a minor adjustment layer. Durova^Charge! 10:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top encyclopedic value trumps minor technical shortcomings. faithless (^speak) 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great value to Wikipedia --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Difficult to have the authorization to photograph and great historical value --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Showcases his detailed and distinctive drawing style AND his backwards writing (obvious at full resolution). This picture is a definite asset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrExtreme (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a famous sketch, it deserves a spot on the front page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg MER-C 09:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution photograph of Pale Grass Blue male and female. (mating).

Articles this image appears in

Pseudozizeeria maha, mating

Creator

Laitche

• Support as nominator Laitche (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately, DOF is all too shallow, that kills it for me... --Janke | Talk 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question this image is invisible for me, as are occasional photos elsewhere on wikipedia. does anyone know why this happens? Mangostar (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info The new version has been uploaded. Laitche (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can appreciate Janke's DOF issues, but to me that forward focus gives the subject a remarkable clarity. Great enc value. SingCal 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The right stuff is in focus. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info I uploaded the new version again. Laitche (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Beautiful composition but a poor exposure solution leading to insufficent DOF. Also, there is obvious posterization of the background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. DOF is shallow, but I could possibly overlook that if all else was in place. Unfortunately composition also seems to be against it for mine - dark white/light brown butterflies on a tan coloured background is all fairly un-eyecatching, but the final killer is that dark patch taking out the entire top left corner (possibly a well out of focus small branch across the field of view near the lens). FWIW I've tried to improve the caption in the article. --jjron (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Composition, facial expression, good motion blur.

Articles this image appears in

Association football, Goalkeeper, Association football positions

Creator

Master Sgt. Lance Cheung

• Support as nominator -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - Its okay, a little dull, i would not say this is one of the best images Wikipedia has to offer. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, and because nothing is really in focus. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No chance that he's not hanging from wires. :D\=< (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. SingCal 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Increasing the saturation may help. Sifaka ^talk 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support from picture peer review, I liked the dynamic action and composition. A striking image. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. As with Jeff, I liked this at PPR, but commented there that it would probably need a bit of 'work' done on it before being nominated here. As it hasn't had any improvements made I can only weak support. --jjron (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose too much motion blur, not enough context (how big is this goal that he is guarding?). I'd support on Commons, but my opinion is that is suffers from a lac of enc. Cacophony (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting reason - aren't all soccer goals a standard size (except for ones intentionally made smaller, such as for children's games)? --jjron (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting, dynamic shot. Muhammad(talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too grainy for my liking, sorry --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hadseys--CPacker (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would it be possible to downsample this a little? I looks good grain-wise at about 2/3 rez, and the dynamic composition might--might--excuse some focusing issues.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image description and related article provide a good background on the historical significance. Comes from the same source as current FP Image:Felbrigge.jpg and likely to be the only other FPC nomination for an embroidered book (unless non-English sources of comparable quality and importance come to light). A fine image of surviving Tudor needlework with exceptional provenance.

Articles this image appears in

The Miroir or Glasse of the Synneful Soul

Creator

Elizabeth I of England

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good historic value. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Image:Felbrigge.jpg was kind of interesting and attractive, a good example of its kind. As another example of its kind this one's just, well, pretty bland. No 'wow' if you get what I mean. --jjron (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – image colors seem te be distorted, there are traces of red and green where they shouldn't be. – Ilse@ 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Elizabeth I = enc. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Ilse--CPacker (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Another great bird photo from Mike Baird. I've been sifting through his flickr archives, and I think this is one of the best and most useful.

Articles this image appears in

Kentish Plover (this is what the Snowy Plover is called outside the US, where this photo was taken)

Creator

Mike Baird

• Support as nominator Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great shot. Brilliant detail in the feathers, including the white feathers. --liquidGhoul (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Original Poor sharpness at 100% - huge res though so I could probably downsample and sharpen to an acceptable level --Fir0002 10:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 - better sharpness and colours (converted from Adobe RGB colour profile) --Fir0002 10:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support orig * Oppose Edit, because looks 2 artificial for my taste --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either per nom. H92110 (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit de Bivort 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - Oppose Edit- Not everything in the world needs to be downsampled. I agree with Richard, it now doesn't look as natural.pschemp | talk 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that the edit makes its colours appear more natural as it's been converted from Adobe RGB to sRGB. If you upload an image in ARGB to the web without converting, the web browser assigns it an sRGB profile. Since ARGB is a larger colourspace the colours look desaturated. By converting them from ARGB to sRGB the true colours are shown in your web browser. In other words the original is unnatural --Fir0002 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit is not only converted --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Very well done. Clegs (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Very nice picture. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the caption and image should state that which plumage stage the bird is in. I don't have my Sibley guide with me but I think it is a winter bird (but it may be a juvenile). The breeding bird looks quite different. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the closing delay here due to the possible fuss over promoting the edit? Or do we want more input over which edit people support? --jjron (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll go the compromise edit (2) here. Plus I've suffered a recent lack of energy/enthusiasm recently. If there are no objections by the weekend, Edit 2 sticks. MER-C 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Snowy Plover srgb.jpg MER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very good painting of a historical event.

Articles this image appears in

United States Capitol rotunda

Creator

William Henry Powell, 1847

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 22:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – prominent reflection of (flash?) light in the center of the image – Ilse@ 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; a historic picture of an even more historical event. This picture has quite a lot of encyclopedic value to it. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, technical problems: light in center, part of frame seen at sides, keystone distortion as evidenced by frame. Also blown out sky at right. --Janke | Talk 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor image quality as per above.D-rew (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The frame needs to be cropped out of the picture. I agree there seems to be some sort of reflection in the center, if someone can fix that, I'd be willing to change my vote. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A vintage photograph of a Bedouin woman in traditional attire. Unusual for one from this period to show her face. This image was popular with a recent GA drive so several editors searched for a high resolution file that would be suitable for cleanup and FPC. Restored from original LoC archives. A slightly different crop, unrestored, is at Image:Bedouin woman (1898 - 1914).jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Palestinian costumes

Bedouin

Creator

American Colony Photographers

• Support as conominator Durova^Charge! 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as conominator Funkynusayri (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite striking. SingCal 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, beautiful face expression.--Svetovid (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wouln't a more recent color picture of a Bedouin be more encyclopedic? Muhammad(talk) 03:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a discussion of historic textile arts, vintage photographs are highly encyclopedic. This woman most likely embroidered those decorative strips herself. Durova^Charge! 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, there are no recent alternative pictures of Palestinian Bedouins in such traditional dress, simply because they don't dress that way anymore. A recent picture would have to show a dressed mannequin, or a model wearing such an outfit, which is hardly as encyclopedic as the "real thing". Funkynusayri (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per all. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite nice. faithless (^speak) 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above.--CPacker (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Obvious ethno-historical featured picture. - Darwinek (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above SGGH ^speak! 12:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, once briefly reviewed this is a no-brainer, at least for me.D-rew (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The picture is beautiful and the resolution is great! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an excellent picture in every regard. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all. Medrano man (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bedouinwomanb.jpg MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Another example of early color photography (picking those PD archives clean). Quite a face. Most of the articles about construction professions don't have any image, so it's good to locate a quality example. Restored version of Image:AlfredPalmerRamos.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Rigger (modern usage)

Creator

Alfred Palmer

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 09:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – it's a pity that the object of the rigger's work is behind the beam. – Ilse@ 11:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is a shame that we can't see exactly what he's doing, but I feel that the picture gives a pretty good general idea of what it is he's doing, and it is an attractive image. faithless (^speak) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great photo and really gives a reader a sense of the kind of work that riggers do.--CPacker (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. EgraS (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:AlfredPalmerRamagosa.jpg MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Absolute top encyclopedicness, large resolution, historical value

Articles this image appears in

List of tallest buildings and structures in the world

Creator

George F. Cram

• Support as nominator :D\=< (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Excellent image.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom.Bewareofdog 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the caption says "Old World" but the diagram includes the Wash. Monument. Chick Bowen 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is that a rip in the top right corner? If so can it be reduced? It is quite obvious right now even on the thumbnail.D-rew (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like some type of water staining to me (i.e., this appears to have been scanned out of an old atlas, and it appears either this page or the atlas has been wet up there at some point). --jjron (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support dvdrw 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, great image but needs a better scan... also, a better caption. gren グレン 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose I really like this idea, but this is supposed to be colour-coded and we really can't see them here. As a side issue, I'm also curious about the "Old World" title versus the inclusion of the Washington Monument. Was this done simply due to the then-recent completion of the tower or is there something else involved? Matt Deres (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matt Deres and because many buildings are not distinguishable. H92110 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I like the subject matter, but I just don't see why we need to use an illustration from the 1800s to show it. This diagram itself is not historic as far as I can tell (it's just old), and a recent illustration could show exactly the same subject matter just as encyclopaedically, if not better given some of the other oppose reasons. If it was really nice quality its age probably wouldn't matter, but this is all rather dirty and grubby looking; indeed the original image quality itself doesn't appear to be great, for example some of the colours on buildings go outside their borders indicating poor printing. --jjron (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose the image itself is very interesting, but according to the tint guide at the bottom, the colouring is apparently messed up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Animation shows the complex, multi-step process of tablet pressing in a convenient view.

Articles this image appears in

Tablet

Creator

Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs)

• Support as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I spent a few minutes staring in wonder. Well done. Cacophony (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. What's the deal with the rollers? Do they actually roll? It looks like the tracks just sort of get closer together there and are supported by the rollers- why couldn't they just narrow the track and bolt it down real tight there instead of having "heavy compression rolls" in the way to support it? :D\=< (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The compression rolls do the heavy pressing (yes, they actually rotate) and the punches actually travel directly on the rolls during this compression step. A typical force might be 10 kNewtons on the first set and 30kN (equivalent to about 3000kg force) on the second set. The photo on tablet is a good comparison. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but it looks like you should fix the image.. it looks like the punches are hanging from the track and when the tracks get closer, the punches get closer.. the picture of the old press has no track at all- the punches are all mounted to the assembly (no track) and pushed downward by the rollers. :D\=< (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edges of the punches rest on cams. If you look carefully in the photo you can see them. It is really only the lip of the punch that touches the cam. The animation is based on a blueprint of a more modern press which is constructed in a slightly different way, the photo is of a much older machine. Either way, the basic process is the same. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I still don't get why they spin. They're smooth- how does spinning do anything? :D\=< (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the punches are inserted into a large rotating turret (not shown in the animation for clarity), similar to the photo. When the turret turns, the punches do too, just like a merry-go-round. The punches are analogous to a horse, they ride up and down as the ride spins and moves over the cam. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain until there is animation in the rollers. Is this 6 frames or so? Then a simple set of dots or other marks on the rollers moving in a cycle of 6 frames would indicate roller movement. --Janke | Talk 09:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but - the small rollers are slipping badly, and there's some slip on the large ones, too... --Janke | Talk 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded over old one. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now that my petty gripes have been addressed... ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-26 19:05Z
• Support Thanks for the careful hard work on this one. Durova^Charge! 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very informative animation. Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I always wondered how they made those little guys. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EgraS (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, definitely encyclopedic. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tablet press animation.gif MER-C 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high quality shot with excellent enc value - I really don't see how it could be improved (but obviously that's for you guys to find!). And I also thought it would be quite a fitting subject for what will be my last nomination for quite some time as I start my first semester of an Aero/Law double degree which promises to keep me very busy!

Articles this image appears in

Homework

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator Fir0002 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for your reasons given...I can't really oppose you. Great handwriting btw =D Dengero (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a little too neat for most homework, but can't oppose for that ;). Very well composed image. Good luck with your studies. --liquidGhoul (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree lol! And the placement of the penicl case and rubber is so perfect it looks rigged just for the picture ROFL. Dengero (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support difficult to illustrate well, but this does it. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-21 17:58Z
• Support Ugh, I hate doing proofs. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I went through the vector proof and, so far, everything seems to be correct... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Matt Deres is right, this is a trivial picture (though high quality) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and no vote. The composition is kind of unappealing to me (since the white notebook takes up so much of the frame and the text is nearly upside-down from the viewer's perspective), but I don't know what I would do to change or improve it. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I always feel like a jerk when I oppose something Fir has offered, rare though that is. There's not much to say about the technical aspect (we know he can take a picture!), yet I don't see anything of feature quality here. To me, there are two things that led to my oppose: first, I don't know how useful the picture is - period. This is just some dude doing math proofs; you could give the viewer almost exactly as much encyclopedic content using plain text. I just can't picture someone reading the homework article and still having some question left over that this picture might answer, so (to me) it fails criterion 5. Second, I just don't find this impressive at all; there's no "wow" factor here, nothing to draw a viewer in to learn more about a topic. I usually think it's inappropriate to compare two FPCs that are currently on the block, but I find it incongruous that pictures like those of the Himba ladies should be dismissed as being snapshots, while this utterly mundane (with all due respect) picture is almost universally lauded. Gah! I feel like I need absolution now! Matt Deres (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the subject matter so much as it is about carefully planning the composition and getting a professional looking photo. But I also oppose purely because it's not very enc. Try commons :D\=< (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Matt's comment above got me thinking about what a high-quality, encyclopedic image of homework should look like, and... this is better than anything I can think of. SingCal 01:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Recognising the photo's technical quality, this just doesn't have any wow factor for me. Pstuart84 Talk 13:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Fir, good luck with the degree - uni years really are the best! Pstuart84 Talk 13:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they're not. No money, obcenely huge mounting debt, no time for anything but work and studying, slop for food (OK not slop, but no successful adult would touch it), sharing a tiny room with other people and a communal housing arrangement that defies any reasonable expectation of a quiet place to sleep at night, nonstop stress from grades and work. I'd say more than 85% of the people in my dorm have serious sleeping disorders that probably deserve immediate medical/psychological intervention, but of course they don't because that's the least of a college student's worries- most students just drown themselves in coffee. I don't know how things work in Australia, but I can't imagine they're very different. I get that the later stages of life are boring or whatever but adults tend to have a ridiculously distorted view of what adolescence and early adulthood is actually like- the uncertainty far outweighs any excitement. :D\=< (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no wow factor in homework. MER-C 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Meets all criteria, and, from a slightly biased perspective, probably as likely a nom to gaining FP status that's related to my profession as we're going to get. Would strong support if they were doing homework for a real subject like Physics or IT ;-). --jjron (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry Fir, the light is pretty flat and does nothing to highlight the main subject. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mentioned lighting on more than a few of your recent opposes. I'm just curious, what would you do to improve the lighting? I think that anything more direct direct than this won't help much—shadows help bring out textures in some photos, but here it would just distract from the real subject, IMO. Thegreenj (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may oppose due to lighting fairly frequently, mainly because it is the most important technical aspect of photography. Composition is the other thing you will see me oppose for more than some people. In this photo, it seems like the light on the paper (the central subject of the photo) is indirect window light or other fairly flat reflected light. There seems to me some artificial light from the lower right (probably tungsten based on color). That would be all fine except that the artificial light is aimed to high. It falls mainly on the hand doing the homework and less on the paper. The hand, then, is the focal point of the light in this picture, it appears that the meter exposed for it leaving the rest of the picture somewhat contrast-less with luminosity near that of highlights. The light on the hand is pulling the balance of the image way to the top RHS and the OOF paper at the bottom LHS serves to exacerbate that problem. I feel like the artificial tungsten would have been better placed in the lower LHS of the image and aimed significantly lower. If you are curious about any of the other opposes in more detail. Drop a link and I'll be happy to elaborate. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what you're saying, but I'm really uncertain it would make much of a difference if what you said were done. Getting the balance right with light is fine and dandy with if you want to perfect the aesthetic nature of the picture, but doesn't it look perfectly natural as it is? Of course the paper has a luminosity near the highlights—it's white! How much contrast would you gain if you moved the lights, and, more importantly, how would that help the picture? Not that I'm questioning the validity of any of your opposes; I just think that you are reading a bit too much into a mundane picture that is really not trying to be more than that. I mean, really, when was the last time homework was exciting? : ) Thegreenj 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to weigh in on the lighting issue the only lighting was natural light from a nearby window - there was no artificial lighting on the hand or anywhere else. --Fir0002 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well taken and illustrative. As to User:Fcb981's lighting issues I think that this is an artistic assessment which is always likely to lead to differing opinions. From my point of view the point of an illustration of homework is the doing of the work (rather than the work itself). Light leading you to the hand first then onto the work illustrates better than the reverse, just as an image of horse-riding is better if you are lead to the rider first rather than the horse. I like the way the composition and lighting leads you across the work to the worker, then back to the work - Peripitus (Talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've been down that road before --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks to everyone for your well wishes they're appreciated! And sorry about the subject choice jjron! ;-) --Fir0002 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportAt first, I thought it was a picture for the article on vector maths, which that wouldn't be good for; but as it's for homework, it seems like an excellent treatment of the subject. Dr. Extreme (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Peter ;-) --Petar Marjanovic 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (I've already voted, so don't count me twice!) I can't believe the amount of support for this utterly uninteresting photo. I hate being the guy who seems to want to stir up trouble where none is needed, but there is no way that this qualifies as being a feature quality photo. My opinion is that the support for this picture comes from two sources - people who remember having to do similar exercises and people who want to support something Fir was more personally involved in than usual because they know he's a key contributor. People voting with their hearts. Read the support comments carefully before calling me on an ad hominem. Look, if this was a technically similar photo uploaded by a less recognizable user and his subject was a hand doing elementary arithmetic homework, would the supporters of the current nom also have supported my hypothetical one? I don't think so - it would be "uninteresting" and "have no wow factor" and "be unencyclopedic because homework requires a home setting and none is shown here". A whole lot more people have had to do 2+2 style problems than tackling an equilateral. Matt Deres (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's boring and drab. I'm sure it "illustrates the article" very well but its still boring. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Because of its great historical and encyclopedia value.

Articles this image appears in

Phonograph, Thomas Edison

Creator

Brady-Handy Photograph Collection

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The machine shows too little detail, and there is nothing especially unique about the picture, even though the subject is indeed very unique. EgraS (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An edited version of this is already FP, see here. --Janke | Talk 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Sorry I didnt know about the other photo, I added the featured photo to the two articles this photo is on. Can anyone close this nomination up? Thanks --CPacker (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited version already featured.

Reason

I am nominating this winter panorama of Plunketts Creek (in the village of Proctor in Plunketts Creek Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, United States) because I believe it meets the WP:FP criteria. Specifically, it has no technical issues that I am aware of (or that were mentioned at WP:PPR), is of more than sufficent resolution, illustrates the subject (Plunketts Creek) in a compelling way, and "is among the best examples of a given subject [creeks] that the encyclopedia has to offer". I know of only one Featured Picture that is of a creek (Image:USA Lassen NP Kings Creek CA edit3.jpg), but even that is not used in an article specifically on a creek.

I also believe this picture illustrates and adds value to the Plunketts Creek article in several specific ways. The Geology section of that article describes how the creek is in a dissected plateau and at right the creek can be seen cutting into Camp Mountain (it forms a water gap through the mountain just downstream of the site pictured). The creek also cuts through glacial deposits, as can be seen. The picture also illustrates the history and ecology of the creek and its watershed. In the late 19th century the village of Proctor was founded as a company town with 120 houses for a large tannery, which used the creek for its waste disposal. The watershed was also clear cut of all its trees then. Today the tannery and most of the houses are gone, the trees have grown back, and the creek and its ecosystem have recovered to the point that the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources rated Plunketts Creek a "High Quality-Cold Water Fishery".

There is a wider, lower resolution of this image at Image:Plunketts Creek Winter Panorama.JPG. It was originally five photos stitched together with Autostitch and cropped with Paint.net. I cropped out part of a bridge at left per a helpful suggestion at WP:PPR and can upload the original five images if desired. I want to thank Dincher for requesting the article on the creek initially and Ben MacDui for requesting a winter photo of the creek. (A summer version of this scene is at Image:Plunketts Creek in Proctor.JPG.)

Articles this image appears in

Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) (a Featured Article), Plunketts Creek Township, Pennsylvania

Creator

Ruhrfisch

• Support as nominator Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First, maybe it's my computer, but it seems slightly blurry in the middle. Second, that shaddow on the left is distracting, and third, the coloring could be brighter. above all, it doesn't have the 'wow' that an FP should have. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Thanks for your comments. I do not have much experience with image processing. Could it be sharpened to deal with the perceived blurriness? Could its colors be adjusted for brightness? The shadow on the right is from Camp Mountain and since the creek is on its north side and in the Northern Hemisphere, it is nearly impossible to get a sunlit picture without the shadow. I am not sure what the shadow on left you refer to is. I am unable to find a 'wow' factor mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, could you please point it out for me? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criterion 3 - "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative." —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to see a similar picture taken during a different season. Winter would seem, IMHO, to offer the very least attractive view of the creek, i.e. Spring would (I imagine) offer various flowers, perhaps a butterfly or something of that nature, Summer would at least give us healthy looking trees, and Autumn would probably give us leaves with wonderful colors. faithless (^speak) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Thanks, there is a summer picture at Image:Plunketts Creek in Proctor.JPG. The foliage is dense enough that the house is hidden, as is the curve of the creek and mountain to the left in the background. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overexposed, shadow is very distracting, and imagine shows nothing unique or historical. EgraS (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. And generally speaking its nondescript. --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks to everyone for your comments. Sorry to trouble you for your time. Please withdraw my nomination, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - unsharp, many blown highlights, overexposed. Sorry, better luck next time. Try WP:PPR first, to get a bit of community opinion on your pictures. Don't be disheartened. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Per WP:SNOW, please withdraw / close this nomination. I took it to WP:PPR and was foolish enough to bring it here without a seconder. Sorry to waste all of your time and thanks again for all of your comments. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you didn't necessarily waste our time. It's still a nice image, but FP is just very strict. I think it would be good on commons as a quality image. Keep trying, and you will soon get the idea of what an FP is. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your kind words. I fear my camera (which is the best I can currently afford) is just not up to the task (this is my third attempt at FPC). I also worry that even Ansel Adams would have a hard time getting a picture of a creek through FPC - even at their prettiest, there is just not much "wow" factor there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn.

Reason

clear, large PD image, illustrates both the event, the ship the missle, looks good, good quality, very few images that show all the pyrotechnics of missile launches.

Articles this image appears in

USS Lake Erie (CG-70), USA 193, Missile, Vertical launching system, Oliver Hazard Perry and James Lawrence

Creator

US Navy

• Support as nominator SGGH ^speak! 12:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, fascinating image DBaba (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The images lacks context for interpretation. – Ilse@ 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose subject material cut off, the missile flame and missile body are not entirely within the image, the image is off center, and the background angle is awkward. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support with request to rename. The phrase "Don't give up the ship" isn't pertinent to a normal missile launch, and to use that as the title for an image where flames are present confuses the uninformed because uncontrolled fires are a very big deal at sea. In an actual fire emergency, sailors may be ordered to save the ship by performing actions where where particular individuals have little or no chance of survival. If renamed to something more appropriate such as "Naval Missile Launch", count this as support; otherwise count this as an oppose. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll make that move now. Will leave this the same otherwise it will mess up formatting. SGGH ^speak! 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has been renamed, Image:Missile launch on ship.jpg. I have also added a cropped version. SGGH ^speak! 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool, thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify, I have no objection to the original crop. It's perfectly acceptable to have those words in the background on the bulkhead, especially next to a bell. Durova^Charge! 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Encyclopedic value for the Oliver Hazard Perry and James Lawrence articles. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Dislike the spacing in the image and the angle from which it was taken.--TBC!?! 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Doesn't do a good enough job of showing the missile launching. Without the caption, it appears that the ship itself is on fire and missile was there by coincidence. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 06:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose hard to work out the size/perspective (even when not cropped), and a wall of fire unfortunately isn't an optimal lighting setup. The quality of the subject (the missile) is very low and grainy.—Pengo 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of Giuseppe Arcimboldo's incredible paintings surely is worthy of FP status. If someone finds an even better example, I won't object.

Articles this image appears in

Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, Vertumnus, Hidden faces

Creator

Giuseppe Arcimboldo

• Support as nominator Janke | Talk 10:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – the painting itself is nice, but this version fails featured picture criterion #1 due to compression artifacts. – Ilse@ 10:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Uploaded Alt. 1 - this is larger, and a much higher quality scan. (Note how the artist has signed his work in a clever fashion - see full size image...) --Janke | Talk 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image quality of alternative 1 is much better, although the color halftoning of the print (that was scanned) is visible when viewed on full size. – Ilse@ 16:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original per above, oppose alt 1 because we don't really see the full picture. Dengero (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK this is the full picture. "Summer" exists in several versions, and this earlier one does not have the leaf border seen on the 1573 version... --Janke | Talk 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nono, I know this is the full picture, but because its only the side of him, and completes his body with (clothes?) material, it doesn't really have the fruity taste to this picture, which is what this is meant to be about. The top one is perfect, except for the quality criteria. Dengero (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt 1 I didn't notice any artifacts in either picture. But the alt is better quality and less paint peeled off. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality image showing anti-Japanese propaganda by US.

Articles this image appears in

Propaganda

Creator

WPA Art Project (U.S. government)

• Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry for being blunt, but this is just part of a POV/POINT spam nomination series by a user that should spend some more time reading WIAFP, checking out the history of previous FPC, and coninue nominating in maybe one month or so. --Dschwen 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I don't think your vote was based upon the quality of the image, but instead upon an opposition to the recent activities of the user.D-rew (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The quality is bad, but your are right, I extrapolated as I didn't want to waste anymore time with his nominations. Checking just confirmed that suspicion. --Dschwen 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nommed image was just added to the Propaganda article today, where it joins many other propaganda images. Time will tell whether the image "adds value" to that article; but I don't think that it's possible to fairly assess that yet. The image is also kind of blurry-- is this the best scan that we've got? Spikebrennan (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually I noticed the size problems with the previous anti-Japan propaganda two noms. down and located this larger alternate from the Library of Congress site. Gave it a quick 15 minute restoration (it didn't need much). Tried a few ways to sharpen it and this was the best balance. It was the only image of this type I found in an hour of searching. Suggestion to nominator: please withdraw other two candidacies. Could find a place at Anti-Japanese sentiment and similar articles. Durova^Charge! 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent example of period propaganda Shifthours (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor quality and fairly uninteresting as propaganda posters go. I also agree with Dschwen point, this guy is being a complete douche bag. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eek, Have people been filing their teeth to bite the newcomers extra hard? This is someone who's brand new to this and seems to mean well. His first two noms were a little off target so I helped him out. Not sure whether this one will fly, but it seemed like the right thing to be friendly and offer a helping hand. Chew on my ear if you disagree, please. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear hear. WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and all those other things that we should all know by now. SingCal 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the guy that made about 20 failed noms last week, including some highly questionable subject matter? (See here for starters.) I think there were a number of polite prods made last week for him to spend some time here learning the ropes before jumping in again, which may help explain the less polite reaction seen on these. --jjron (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A particular user being annoying doesn't give someone else the right to break the no personal attacks rule.D-rew (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I don't know why I put that here, you obviously weren't attacking him. You were just trying to help, sorry if I sounded accusatory.D-rew (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true - I was just trying to point out that Durova's comment about him being 'brand new' and this being his third nom weren't actually right, and that some people are possibly questioning whether or not he really does 'mean well'. --jjron (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I apologize if that was inaccurate. The basic idea of this type of propoganda poster is a good one. Perhaps the FPC criteria should be updated to give people a realistic idea of how much leeway voters actually give for historic material. I've seen other people read that page, trust what they saw, and make noms that were out of step. Made the same mistakes myself, at first. Durova^Charge! 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Low quality, adds no value to the article, and not a famous propaganda piece. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-28 14:28Z
• Weak oppose High enc, but quality is too far under the FP bar for my taste. SingCal 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The guy may be a douce bag, nevertheless I think its an interesting photo. It's eye-catching, and it adds value to the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refrain from personal attacks. They don't add anything of value.D-rew (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, I apologize to the nominator. I just think there should be a rule against nominating more than two photos on the same subject in the same day or even week. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historical image showing anti-Japanese propaganda in the US.

Articles this image appears in

Propaganda, Anti-Japanese propaganda

Creator

In public domain in the United States

• Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Way way way too small for FP.

Comment: According to Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's probably possible to get a larger resolution version of this image or one like it. Durova^Charge! 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry for being blunt, but this is just part of a POV/POINT spam nomination series by a user that should spend some more time reading WIAFP, checking out the history of previous FPC, and coninue nominating in maybe one month or so. --Dschwen 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh I completely disagree. Propaganda is certainly eligible for FP and is not at all a POV issue. :D\=< (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small, not historic or rare, or a famous propaganda piece. It may work for the Anti-Japanese propaganda article, but that is not even an article, just a stub. (note: I uploaded the pic originally, and I also added the mentioned exception to the Featured Picture Criteria page). — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-28 14:30Z
  • Hm. :D\=< (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Historical photo? Yes. Interesting? No. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Originally promoted in a unanimous but hurried vote with a little bit of WP:IAR as a holiday idea for Valentine's Day (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"Love or Duty"). After it ran on the main page some editors objected on procedural grounds, so it's been delisted for a regular vote. No disrespect was intended. Putting this forward in the usual manner (as the second edit, without the Library of Congress imprint).

Articles this image appears in

Gabriele Castagnola, Chromolithography

Creator

Gabriele Castagnola

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good image. :D\=< (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great image of a beautiful painting.--TBC!?! 00:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Gladly Support and happy we're being thorough.D-rew (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After thinking bout it I would like to see some mention in the caption of what we can learn from this painting about the artist's technique/timeperiod/etc. for encyclopedic purposes.D-rew (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The most I was able to find was about chromolithography. Hope that helps. Castagnola prints are still sold but there's not a lot of citable information about him on the Net. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks.D-rew (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support One of best candidate for featured picture I have ever seen. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good image. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believed it met the requiremetns last time and I still believe it does. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I, personally, was surprised that this was delisted, and I'd be glad to see it put up again. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very Sharp--. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Very nice! Medrano man (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Love or dutyb.jpg MER-C 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Something different to the usual western images that go through FPC. An earlier version of this image was nominated at FPC last year and just missed out on promotion. It went back up on PPR and I'm nominating this touched up version from there.

Most of the opposes at FPC last year were to do with the quality being average and it being 'easily reproducible'. Well, the edit has upped the quality, and as the PPR nom says, no better pictures have been forthcoming. Given that photography is, let's say, 'highly discouraged' in here, neither are they likely to be anytime soon, thus rather counteracting the 'easily reproducible' argument.

Highly encyclopaedic and attractively composed, this is one of the best photos available of the Kaaba on the internet, and has since been picked up by several news services.

Articles this image appears in

Kaaba
Hajj
Muhammad
Most sacred sites
Masjid al-Haram

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator jjron (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support better alternatives are not available. Muhammad(talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely encyclopedic. Would prefer a panorama shot, if a replacement can be found. Until then, this gets my vote. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Top enc goes ahead of quality, supporting since no better has been offered. --Janke | Talk 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - low technical quality and small size while it's not historically significant.--Svetovid (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if this same photo was 'historic' (from say 100 years ago) you'd possibly overlook your quality concerns? Muhammad can correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point here is that this is the same thing these people would have been doing 100 or 500 years ago - in other words this is definitely historically significant, and I don't see that the age of the photo itself changes that. You just don't get photos of this. --jjron (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the people are doing and wearing in this picture would have been the same, as jjron said. So it is historically significant. Muhammad(talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that Svetovid's point is that we sometimes make exceptions from technical quality requirements for images which display a significant historical event and therefore could not be retaken. That isn't the case here; this is a recent photo of a regular event, so could be retaken. TSP (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a regular event, but as jjron pointed out in the nomination, taking pictures is discouraged in these areas. With the tight security and the crowds, it is difficult to take any decent shot. Muhammad(talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. "So it is historically significant." Thanks for the opinion but I don't think so.--Svetovid (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There is nothing special enough in this picture to justify a promotion to FP. Technically, its is on the low side (size, sharpness, detail), and the fact that it is probably the best available picture depicting the subject is not a valid reason. Of course, its enc value is not affected by not being a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On wikipedia, unlike commons, encyclopedic value is a greater factor than quality. You have acknowledged its encylopedic value. And that itself is a reason to allow it to be featured. Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria allows for exceptions to be made for unique images. This image is also among wikipedia's best works, satisfying the 3rd criterion. Muhammad(talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Svetovid--CPacker (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is the best that wikipedia has to offer. -- carol (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Problems with compression artifacts, noise and focus, which becomes most clear when you look at the people in the front; also problems with the composition, the two minarets almost seem to be on top of the Kaaba structure; so image fails featured picture criteria #1. I'm sure there are better photos of this topic. – Ilse@ 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to ask but can you please give an example of a better image? Muhammad(talk) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind you asking. I'm not sure any of the pictures in commons:Category:Kaaba would pass a featured picture nomination on Wikipedia. I think a wider version of this cut off photo would make a fairly good chance. Also, I believe that this photo is of higher quality than the current nomination, although it has no good focus. – Ilse@ 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This photo is 650x601 px, which is way below the minimum size requirements. The image does not have much detail too. The 2nd photo was nominated here and recieved only one support, and that too from the nominator, making the one nominated here a suitable candidate. Muhammad(talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, if I understand correctly, when asked to show us a better quality image, the answer is to show worse quality images - and that's apparently a suitable reply? --jjron (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure there are better photos of this topic possible. – Ilse@ 08:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a bit of an absurd argument though - I doubt there's an FP that you couldn't argue that it's possible we could get a better photo for. Of course it's possible, but we're not seeing it, which maybe suggests it's at least unlikely. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the compositions of both images I suggested are more interesting than of the nominated image. If their technical quality was better, they would have a chance as an FP candidate. – Ilse@ 23:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just because it's highly encyclopedic doesn't mean a poor quality image should be featured. The composition is good, though an overview image would give readers a better idea of the massive scale of the crowd. The image is supposed to depict the Kaaba, but the focus seams to be at the background buildings. --Krm500 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: yearly event, still ongoing, quite reasonable to expect much higher standards. gren グレン 12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its 8 months since I last hear this and I still haven't seen any better images. Muhammad(talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use software to convert it into a cross stitch design.... -- carol (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • but that line of argument would go for thousands of other articles with mediocre images that could be taken. My recommendation is go on Islamic forums, ask friends, etc. find people who have better images and then get an OTRS for permission from them. gren グレン 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - despite enc, very poor quality. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting subject, but it needs to be a much higher quality photo.--TBC!?! 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Let's not do a disservice because we can't find a better photo.D-rew (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Featured status is out of question and per other opposes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close can not be used here. In case you didn't notice, the picture has received 5 supports. Muhammad(talk) 12:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Close can obviously be used here and the maximum voted are oppose votes. Poor quality image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it cannot. You've made plenty of quality edits, so I assume you're not being malicious or stupid, but you need to familiarize yourself with how this part of WP works before you nominate or vote for more images. A speedy close is appropriate when the image under consideration obviously and objectively fails to fulfill one or more of the criteria used to judge FPCs (with appropriate leniency for historical works). This image does NOT objectively fail any of the criteria and therefore should NOT be speedy closed. This nom is going to pass or fail based on how voters want to weigh the possibility of there being a higher quality photo made available. That is entirely subjective, so we need to go through the normal procedure. Matt Deres (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on technical quality. I do sympathise on the difficulty of taking the shot and the lack of better alternatives, and it's a good image for the articles, but still, I don't think it's Featured Picture quality, and the existence of other photos, even if they're worse, suggests that a new image, which could be better, COULD be taken. The problems with this one don't seem to relate to the difficulty of the shot, rather to the quality of the camera. I don't think that promotion should be based on happening to be the best shot currently available to us; hopefully a lack of great images on a topic will spur photographers on to the challenge of taking a great image for it, rather than resting on our laurels with what we have. TSP (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support On an EV basis, this is obviously FP material, and as long as the quality isn't distracting I'm willing to overlook some flaws. SingCal 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support It's a flawed picture, but I think the difficulty in obtaining the shot over-rides the problems. To adequately shoot this scene, you're probably looking at a tripod setup and that just doesn't sound feasible. Matt Deres (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For a place such as Mekkah, the image has very high standards. This pic has its primary subject, the Kaaba out of focus.EgraS (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Medrano man (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per SingCal --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose – Too small, low technical quality, has a feel of a holiday snapshot. A much better one can be taken. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is public domain footage from a film real operated by Bill Genaust as he shot the second flag rasing on Iwo Jima. The film size is small, but it shows the moment the marines and navy corpsman rasied the second flag atop suribachi, and in my opinion has high historical value, hence the nod at FPC. This image originated from the Commons, and was the selected as a media of the day for August 23. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Creator

Bill Genaust (USMC photographer)

• Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great video with historic value, is a little grainy, but that comes with age. ~ Dreamy ^§ 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Because the original film is in color Shifthours (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Support color version Shifthours (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user has very few contributions, and has been registered here for less then two weeks. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2] Shifthours (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inappropriate for the nominator to point out.. :D\=< (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I apologize, as it was not my attention to act out of line. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also inappropriate to redact statements :) Use strike tags (restoring) :D\=< (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry (again), and thanks for your help with this. I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Shifthours. – Ilse@ 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The image of the colourized version is actually a fake that is re-colourized. ~ Dreamy ^§ 02:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the first time I have ever heard that, every source states this footage by Bill Genaust (who died shortly after this was taken) was shot on 16mm color film Shifthours (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've uploaded the colour (and higher resolution) verion which Shifthours linked to above. It doesn't appear to be colourized, but if it was then it would obviously not be suitable for FP. Time3000 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That looks real to me. Don't know why it takes like 6 guys to lift a flag though. :D\=< (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it doesn't... --jjron (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original too small, the original video would be much better resolution. gren グレン 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Had a hard time deciding on this one. The video is a PD alternative to the Pulitzer-winning photograph, and that has issues all its own (there were actually two flag raisings with different people and different flags). Still, it marks an important point in the Pacific theater of World War II and the particular act of raising the flag on that little sulfur-smelling rock in the ocean had an important impact on U.S. public opinion. The three Marines from the second flag raising who survived that battle went on a successful fundraising tour. So yes, it's an important event. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support color version. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. Ordinary quality, poor framing. The famous still image would be a different story, for obvious reasons, and despite its other issues. --jjron (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.ogv MER-C 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very clear and encyclopedic image.

Articles this image appears in

Mont Blanc European Union

Creator

User:Nattfodd

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Impressive..... but how about crop the bottom a bit? the bottom left dark bit of snow is sorta ruining the beautiful scene. Dengero (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No sense of scale, very bad focus on mont blanc itself :D\=< (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very impressive photo --Cradel 11:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I prefer these alternatives. Pstuart84 Talk 14:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative 2 - An amazing panorama with excellent photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support either alternative. The original isn't nearly as good as the alternatives. Cacophony (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its a nice photo, but... I agree there is no sense of scale. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any they are all great mountain shots among wikipedia's best. Our standards seem to be getting out of hand. de Bivort 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2--CPacker (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT2 Captivating. Lots to look at and ponder(that 2nd column from the left needs some repair!). Top notch. --Mike Spenard (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – To me, the lack of any human presence and a sense of scale adds to the charm of this picture. Excellent quality and a captivating photo. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:PanoMontBlancHDR_edit_1.jpg MER-C 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Scoti===Hurricane Katrina===

Reason

Shows a famous storm, NO THERE IS ONLY 2 HURRICANE FEATURED PICTURES!!!

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Katrina, Disaster

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, since it's off-centered, and not a very good image of a hurricane, IMO. The eye isn't very clear, for example. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose Considering this is hurricane Katrina, I think this definitely should be in the FP archive. However, is this the best photo you could find? It needs to be cropped and possibly enhanced, which I would be glad to do for you. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agreed with ErgoSum88. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Storm is off center and cut off at the right. Would be better if Florida could be seen, IMO. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think this is a wonderful image, showing a snapshot of life in New Zealand in 1863, particularly the all-too-rare view of Maori life at that time. A note on restoration: I've attempted to compromise in the restoration between the two possibilities of dealing with the lines between the glued-together woodblocks: I made them less visible, and edited them out as much as possible from important parts of the image such as faces, but allowed some traces of them to remain.

Articles this image appears in

Hawke's Bay Province, Māori, Pā

Creator

M. Jackson

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historic, ridiculously high resolution, and as you say, an interesting snapshot of life. Dr. Extreme (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, you think this is high resolution, you should've seen my working copy. It was about 8000x6000px, I shrunk it down about 25% a side. to help blend in my restoration. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I noticed a couple of lines, but they don't detract from the overall image. Would it be completely blasphemous to suggest a reduction in overall resolution? The nature of the woodblock print means that it has to be viewed from some distance--as it is now, you can't really tell what it's supposed to be at full resolution. --jonny-mt 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those will be the gaps between the woodblocks I mentioned - removing or not removing them has proven controversial in the past, so I tried to compromise by leaving some traces of them, but removing them from all the important areas. As for a reduction in resolution - well, it's an A3 engraving, and probably needs to be about this size to reproduce well at its original size when printing it. However, you do have a good point, so I've set up some sub-pages to assist viewing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Defer to others the degree to which woodblocks gaps should be preserved, although I err more on the side of more preservation. I do have a question though; what's with the grey smudges visible in white spaces in the foreground (especially the man's hat on the right)? I would expect the original is just white and full-black from the ink. - Enuja (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's mostly the remains of text-bleedthrough from the other side of the paper, mixed with dirt, smudging from the page pressed against it, etc, etc, etc. - in the end, this was from a very old newspaper, with all the problems that causes. It was much worse before the cleanup, but I probably missed a few spots, as going for perfection is all too often a case of "that way madness lies". And, of course, the final shrinking down from 8250px wide to 6000 px may turn some small black marks into grey itself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. - Enuja (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good restoration, encyclopedic subject. Durova^Charge! 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support diego_pmc (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg MER-C 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

i have recently noticed that when my images are featured they become more viewers and this increases the chances for them to be translated and to move into other wikipedia proyects. i want to try to feature my main diagrams so that they can get improved and or better distributed... plus i think it is of a great enciclopedic value...

Articles this image appears in

Flagellum

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top notch diagram. Only thing missing is the disclaimer not to use it under mousetrap --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor point Does not say what type of flagellum it is, and this editor is far too sleep deprievd to be trying to deal with this =) Sheesh, I thought "Well, clearly there's the Type III secretory system in there, the one used by plant pathogens and Yersina pestis so it's Eukaryotic."... god, I'm stupid before my coffee. It's Bacterial, of course. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done it aded the label in the description page -LadyofHats (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then Support! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - I will support strongly if the text background is made transparent - at the moment, the two columns of text are on white boxes which seem randomly distributed and don't even touch the edges of the image. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not take the white squares away since they are there so that text can be readed ( when removing them there are still colors bellow that would make reading the text confusing). would it help you if i extend them so that they go out up to the borders?. i can not make them both have the same width becouse it would be useless empty space on the right.so what do you sugest?.-LadyofHats (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might suggest having a white background under the whole thing. I can't see any reason to have a transparent bg on this image. I might also suggest changing the stroke color on the L-Ring to be black or blue other than red, which looks weird. You may want to add a label that says Cytosol. I'm also confused about the label Cell Wall, my understanding is that the inner and outer membranes, together with the periplasmic space in-between, all together make up the cell wall. Is there a reference to check? Otherwise very nice image, Support. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main references are: [3],[4], [5], [6], between others, where the first 3 are my main sources. I changed the colors. -LadyofHats (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, make the entire background white, just so that the sections of BG don't stand out. Remove the current white boxes, then fill the entire BG with white again. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support,Oppose I'd like to see a mention that this is from a Gram-negative bacteria in the caption because Gram-positive flagella and eukaryotic flagella are quite different. I also believe this type of flagella also moves in a rotational fashion, not so much a whip like action.D-rew (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i do have a diagram of an eukariotyc cillia. but tell me what is the diference between a gramm positive flagella and one gramm negative? if it is so big maybe i should do 2 diagrams -LadyofHats (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's big enough that its not trivial. The main differences are in the attatchment points, because think about it, for a Gram-positive its gotta go through one plasma membrane, but in Gram-negative its gotta go through two which involves a whole other smattering of proteins. Here are some outside links to other diagrams to give you something to work with. Scroll down to section figure 2.47 about 2/3 the way down the page. There are also some good diagramshere. This page fig 1.4 should show you some of the differences in how they move(note it is a Eu flagella that acts like a whip (a la sperm), but a Pro flagella that spins like a propeller).Also note that eukaryotic cilia aren't the same thing as eukaryotic flagella. Here are the differences between cilia and flagella put simply.D-rew (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't even get me started on spirochete flagella. My point is that there are a lot of different types of flagella, and a lot of them don't look like this, so I think some specification is in order.D-rew (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ok i got what you mean :P geesh, i think the more diagrams i do the more complicated they get. I have changed the description page to astop it

to do :P -LadyofHats (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Yup, complicated is right. Keep on keepin' on though, well made diagrams are always useful and much appreciated. =->D-rew (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would still like to see a specification of the type and a correction of the motion of the flagella.D-rew (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support de Bivort 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeSupport The flagellum looks straghely squeezed against the outer membrane, and shouldn't it the junction be a ~45 degree angle compared to the rotor? And the caption should mention what type of bacteria it is (a proteobacterium?). And it doesn't have any references. Narayanese (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • squeezed against? i didnt got that part, can you explain?. my source makes the hook 90 degrees. but i changed it a bit since some other sources do show it less inclinated. I added some information on the description of movement. and none of my sources metioned a specific kind of bacteria. so i have no idea if it is or not a proteobacterum or not. Plus if you read a bit up in this discussion you can see the links to some of my sources. The reason why i dont place them on the description page is that they are external links and with the time they tend to become invalid. -LadyofHats (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only seen unipolar flagella myself and they point out from the cell and only start bending a lot further out, but at second thought I suppose the amphitrichous/peritrichous; ones do lie close to the membrane like in the picture. Now I see your sources, good. I looked up the hook angle, it's 65 degrees in Salmonella (Foruta 2007, PMID 17142059), so your current bend is ok.Narayanese (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is there issues regarding the caption lines at different sizes or is it my browser? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I changed the caption, likening it to a propeller. (source: [7]) and specifying organism. Narayanese (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg MER-C 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent image

Articles this image appears in

Acapulco

Creator

A. Boot ?

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It would be nice if it was a bit larger, but I'm not going to look such a beautiful gift horse in the mouth. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It adds to the article--CPacker (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Puerto de Acapulco Boot 1628.png MER-C 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abank Place.jpg}}

Reason

The map shows part of the western coasts of Europe and North Africa with reasonable accuracy, and the coast of Brazil is also easily recognizable. I think this is a feature picture.

Articles this image appears in

Piri Reis
Ottoman Navy
History of the Turkish Navy
Islamic geography

Creator

Piri Reis

• Support as nominator Dsmurat (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, way too small. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the true version (2.000 × 2.753) is from commons [8]--Dsmurat (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the local mainpage image, so that problem with the incorrect size should be solved. Royalbroil 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The commons version is a dreadful, artifacted scan. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not interesting, content/detail not brilliant (at FP level). Royalbroil 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Still too small for the text to be readable. Lack of detail overall. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-28 14:27Z
• Regretful oppose. Obvious encyclopedic value, but technical problems with the scan prevent me from supporting. Please renominate if you get a better version. Durova^Charge! 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A beautiful shot with a high technical standard, of a subject by an important architect. The essential features of the building are clearly captured, and elements indicative of Gaudi's style are all prominent (the biomorphic curves and trencadís-like texture, for example), giving it wonderful EV.

Articles this image appears in

Antoni Gaudi, Barcelona, Casa Mila

Creator

Diliff, licensed under GDFL

• Support as nominator SingCal 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, shooting the picture at night worked perfectly in this case. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support Wladyslaw (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gaudi certainly deserves an FP. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is great to know that Casa has my name ;)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An unusual building and a great photo thereof. Dr. Extreme (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Need I say more? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Casa Melika --Mike Spenard (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gaudi is great. Sathmar (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Casa Milà - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

quality and natural vision to Moon, no view to NASA

Articles this image appears in

Moon

Creator

Luc Viatour

• Support as nominator Luc Viatour (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Lighting is bad :3 :D\=< (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I actually like the lighting and think that is a good photo. The definition of the craters are really nice.--CPacker (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nothing against having more than one FP on a topic, but for those interested, our other moon FPs include an animation showing libration, a full moon shot by the same photographer, and a (somewhat related) eclipse sequence by Fir. Personally, I'll go with a weak oppose, but only because the full moon shot is so good. Matt Deres (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportThe craters are seen much better, when the Moon is not full--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but only for the bit of moon that's lit and even the full moon will show crater details at the edges (as our FP does). Also, as per Kaldari, the subject is cut off. While you and I know that the deep shade on the left really wouldn't have any details anyway, the position of the subject seems to follow the cartoon idea that the crescent moon is really a crescent (and not an apparent crescent due to the angle of illumination). Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right about cartoon, but IMO it might be impossible to show half Moon in such details together with the Eartshine.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose. I would prefer if the image weren't so tightly cropped on the left. Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I hate to oppose such a nice photo, but it doesn't really add anything to the article. There are shots of craters on the page already, and I agree the full moon shot is good enough. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this do better in Lunar phase? There's a crescent moon pic in there already, but no half moon shot. howcheng {chat} 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it might be a good addition to the article IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose Cropped on the left. It may be possible to clone in some blackness and fix this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that possible? We might need some serious panorama stiching-wizards in here. Diliff? :D\=< (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This painting shows the arrest of Prince Diponegoro by General de Kock in 1830, which marks the end of the Java War (1825–1830) in the Dutch East Indies. The scene symbolizes colonialism: the colonial power rules over the indigenous people in the colony. The painting was made by Nicolaas Pieneman, and is now in the collection of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.

Articles this image appears in

Java War, Diponegoro, Hendrik Merkus de Kock, Dutch East Indies

Creator

Nicolaas Pieneman

• Support as nominator Ilse@ 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it's an OK scan. Even if the painting has merits it should have a extra-ordinary scan. gren グレン 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scan is comparable to the scans of these featured pictures Image:Orlando Furioso 20.jpg, Image:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg, and Image:Charlotte Corday.jpg. – Ilse@ 07:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's only something I could compare if I knew original size of the images. gren グレン 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, is it really supposed to be this green-ish? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; the scan is probably taken directly from [9]. – Ilse@ 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Aesthetically and artistically beautiful, good example of lenses, and fallen rain drops. it also displays a high level of technical skill, and high resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Rain, Refraction, Lens

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Zidel333 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question – What is the encyclopedic value of this image? – Ilse@ 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia use can extend to an excellent example of reflection, as well use in the Golden Gate Bridge (perhaps as a gallery), lense (planoconvex?), raindrops, image flipping, etc. Zidel333 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Picture is currently only used in the rain article where it adds no encyclopedic value. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to refraction. howcheng {chat} 06:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Enc value is acceptable for the article's that it's in, and technically very sound. SingCal 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose A breathtakingly beautiful image, but I can't see the value of it here. Try commons? Wow: I somehow totally ignored the articles it was being used in, somehow thought it was for the Golden Gate Bridge article. Support. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wikipedia should and does surprise, as well as being purely factual. This is well photographed, surprising and memorable. It is a good illustration of the way surface tension creates a lens effect. A definite yes vote. ProfDEH (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment that is really cool. Guest9999 (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to support it then ;)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Oppose - doesn't illustrate rain. Illustrates droplet, or refraction, but not rain per se. de Bivort 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask, if you read the caption? I'm afraid I have not noticed anywhere in the caption that it claims to illustrate the rain.On the other hand rain droplets belong to rain (there are no rain with no droplets). That's why the image might be good for rain article as well as it is good for refraction article.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops - space out on it being included in refraction already. It claims to illustrate rain above in the "articles this image appears in" section. As an illustration of refraction it is non-ideal. I would prefer a more diagramatic photo with simpler geometry. de Bivort 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I please thank you for not getting upset with my comment and changing your vote?I've added the image to lens too. I'm not sure it will be allowed to stay there, but I hope it will. IMO the image might find the use for the explaining of the phenomena to school kids, for whom diagramatic photo with simpler geometry might be a little bit boring.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very good image with the great composition, high quality and high encyclopedic value.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and taken by an awesone photographer ;-) --Dschwen 00:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course! May I please count your comment as support? I mean after we figured out the difference between crepuscular rays and shadows ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It illustrates the point of refraction well, and its eye-catching. I'm all for it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A well-made diagrammatic picture for refraction would be great, but I think a well-made photo like this, which shows the effects of refraction in an interesting way, is also valuable. Mila, are you working on a book of optical phenomena photographed on the Golden Gate? Matt Deres (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi,Matt. Thank you for your question. I am not working at any book and I never will. I just like to take pictures and atmospheric optics is one of my favorite subjects. I've always wanted to see the Spectre of the Broken. At one point I considered to go to Broken, Germany just to see it, but then I realised that San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge in particular is the great place to see these rare phenomena. May I please also thank you for forgiving me my ignorance? (I believe you know what I'm talking about.)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Illustrates articles it is in well, but it would be better if it was at a higher resolution. --Dave (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:GGB reflection in raindrops.jpg MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is an excellent image, with high resolution, and good technical quality, and is also high in enecyclopediac value. It is also a featured picture on Wikimedia commons

Articles this image appears in

Earth, Apollo 8

Creator

Bill Anders

• Support as nominator Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not 100% sure, but wasn't the original in color? --Janke | Talk 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so, but I will check for you. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the original was in color, but our current FP of the subject is. This is it here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one is very nice. This one is different, though, and would be fine as an FP. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not really; it's in B&W for no reason and shows substantially the same kind of image as an existing FP that's in colour. I guess the position of the earth is more evocative in your nom, but not to a staggering degree. Oppose. Matt Deres (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Previously nominated by me once already and it was at that time that the color one was favored. howcheng {chat} 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for telling me. However, I fell this one is different, and could easily stand alone as its own FP. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A black and white picture like this makes me understand when we went to space/the moon. It is also the first picture of the moon landscape's contour that I have seen. Xilliah (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but why does a B&W picture make you understand why we went to the moon? Does the colour picture obscure that understanding or fail somehow? I've got to admit I don't understand your reasoning on this. Matt Deres (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He actually says it makes him understand when we went to the moon, not why. The only thing I can think is that when we went there there was no such thing as colour?? :-) --jjron (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The sheer number of works is represented by the many volumes displayed here. It's hard to display them all, and I've uploaded some alternative images, if folks would like to see them.

Articles this image appears in

La Comédie humaine

Creator

Scartol

• Support as nominator – Scartol • Tok 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noisy, subject cut off, poor lighting. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to withdraw this nomination, but I'm not sure how to do it. If anyone could offer some ideas on how I might improve any of these images and/or remove this nom, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't use flash next time. Set up lighting much farther away from the books, soft light (maybe put a piece of thin paper over the light to soften it, or just reflect the light of a white material), and put the camera on a lower ISO setting. Remember, a FinePix A205 is only an entry-level point and shoot digital camera, so you'll need to make up for the relatively low quality of the camera (compared to most shots we get here, which are taken with DSLRs) by being kind to it and giving it the ideal conditions in which to shoot. Regretfully Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A beautiful image showing several notable landmarks of downtown Honolulu, such as the First Hawaiian Center, Aloha Tower, Honolulu Harbor, and the museum ship Falls of Clyde.

Articles this image appears in

Honolulu, Hawaii and Aloha Tower

Creator

ErgoSum88

• Support as nominator ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Neutral I ask the original photographer to look at recent featured cityscape pictures. This photo would certainly have been promoted 3 years ago when standards were lower, so I will remain neutral on moral and precedence concerns. However, the sky is in poor focus and the background is not as sharp as it could have been. The lighting is also not very great. EgraS (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did look at the other photos before I nominated this one, and there are very few urban photos which are not panoramas. As I said, I considered this more of an encyclopedic photo rather than just another pretty picture. And I quote from criteria #5: Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. In fact if you compare this photo to another featured photo that was nominated 3 years ago as you mention, Image:I-80 Eastshore Fwy.jpg, then this photo would be of some comparison. Perhaps we should delist the I-80 photo but that is a discussion for another forum. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakish oppose. It's ok, but I've seen much more visually striking and spectacular skyline images.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I fixed the slant. Sorry, it was so slight I didn't notice. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not quite up to the clarity of some of our other cityscapes and the area in the foreground is cut off. Matt Deres (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice photo, but not really up to my resolution standards for cityscapes. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know I'm biased because I took this photo, but let me just take a minute here to remind voters that this is not a contest for the "prettiest pictures." I know this isn't a perfect photo, but it was taken from the perch of an open helicopter, so its kind of hard to keep steady. I framed the shot to capture three prominent landmarks in Honolulu, as the caption states. The forground is cut off because that wasn't part of the area of interest. Part of the FP criteria is adding "value" to the articles the photo is used in. If I thought this was just a pretty picture I would've nominated it over at the Commons. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ergo, sell me on the 'information value' of this content. I'm willing to grant information precedence over artistic value. However, what is the current level of expectations for city landscapes FP'd for information value (examples anyone)? --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples, sure. See Wikipedia:Featured pictures, or more specifically Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places. Probably most relevant to this image are the Urban and Panorama categories. --jjron (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I realize this photo is not of the highest quality, taken with a cheap camera from a windy helicopter. My argument is that the photo adds value to the article which it is featured in. There are plenty of mediocre photos which are promoted because: 1. "It is a photograph ... which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." 2. "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." 3. "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." So in response to these criteria I submit: 1. This is the best photo of downtown Honolulu Wikipedia has to offer (I realize I'm biased, but hear me out). 2. It shows three landmarks and their relationship to each other, each with its own article. 3. It clearly shows the tallest building in the city and demonstrates just how much taller it is than the other buildings (which isn't much). And thats about all I can say about it. After reading the FP criteria it was my understanding that this wasn't a photography contest, merely a place to promote quality photos which add value to their respective articles. Obviously, a better photo could be obtained since Honolulu isn't going anywhere, so if anyone thinks this photo doesn't deserve FP status then by all means oppose it. This is my first nomination so I really didn't know what to expect, and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I'm not giving up without a fight. ;) --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is well composed (in my opinion), illustrates the topic well, and is of adequate size and resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Photographer

Creator

Stromcarlson

• Support as nominator Kakofonous (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent resolution, great focus, and highly illustrative of the topic. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Well composed, but the gray tarp is really distracting. The FP for photographer ought to be really outstanding. -Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Over saturated background. Grey tarp detracts (whats the point of photographing an object you can only see 2/3rds of and is covered by another object that is nondescript?). --Mike Spenard (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It isn't a bad picture, but there's just nothing special about it; zero 'wow-factor.' faithless (^speak) 08:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike Spenard. Cacophony (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike Spenard Mfield (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not to sound like a broken record, but I'm jumping on the Mike bandwagon. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per faithless. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per faithless. It's a guy taking a picture. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposethe backround is not good. the lens is the only good thing to see in this photo --Ulughmuztagh (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows a well defined hurricane

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Ophelia (2005), List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980-present).

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What makes this special? It's just another hurricane, tons have been promoted already. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question here. While I am not supporting or opposing, Which FPC criteria is against multiple FPs of the same subject? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I hate to judge a photo not based on its own merits, but this kinda falls into the "all sunsets are beautiful" category. Yeah its a nice photo of a hurricane, but what sets it apart from all the other hurricanes? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is nothing historical, unique, or interesting about the photo. It doesnt illustrate what Wikipedians dont know about hurricanes. EgraS (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nothing special about it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:EgraS Seddon69 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a very good image of Ophelia, or of any tropical cyclones. It just doesn't have the 'wow' that an FP should have. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows really intense hurricane with pinhole eye.

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Wilma, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the hurricane semi-transparent? MER-C 02:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional opppose The photo was most likely taken during the early morning or evening hours, when the cloud contrast isn't as great, which is why the hurricane is transparent. Hence my conditional vote, if someone can fix this or find a better photo of Wilma I'd be willing to change my vote. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I think this might be a synthetic composite of Wilma and a satellite map - compare with this NOAA image... Hurricane clouds are hardly transparent, even in morning or evening? --Janke | Talk 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a poor quality photo. Many better quality photo's exist f ima and other hurricanes. Seddon69 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Much better tropical cyclone images could be found. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Reason

Have you ever wondered, where sea foam comes from. I have not until I noticed this beautiful, colored sea foam at California tide pools. I believe the image has high encyclopedia and educational values.

Articles this image appears in

Plankton;Reflection;Interference;Foam

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DisclosureThe image was added to Reflection and Interference articles today and I am not sure it will be allowed to stay there, but I hope it will because it shows a natural interference and interesting reflection. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I don't feel it shows the foam in context enough - I like the colors etc. but I'd prefer to see for example some rocks/sand/ too, something for scale. With this image you could equally be looking at bubbles in a kitchen sink. Mfield (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your oppose is absolutely fair. I added alternative image, which shows less foam, but rocks, algae and shells to prove that the image was not taken in a sink. I also added alt 1 to other version at the original description page because I still like the original better. Maybe it will do it for you. May I please also mention that one could see some algae at the upper right corner of the original image? May I please also mention that the bubbles of sea foam differed a lot in their sizes? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Interesting art shot, but not enough encyclopedic value. (Yes, there is an encyclopedic explanation, but neither of the images are particularly useful to further that explanation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuja (talk • contribs) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As you could see the caption of the image provides a very detailed explanation about the subject. The question is how to make Wikipedia readers to read the caption. IMO the more interesting the shot is the more Wikipedia readers would be interested in reading what is this interesting (artistry) shot is about. May I please ask you to take your time and to explain to me what kind of image of the same subject would have been useful to further the encyclopedic explanation of seafoam. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the question is not how to get readers to read the caption. The question is what encyclopedic information that image itself contains. Because you stated the image will probably be removed from reflection and interference, because the way that the green is interference is completely not addressed in the interference article, and this isn't an exceptional shot of reflection, as it's just a silhouette of you, I was evaluating the encyclopedic nature of this image for plankton. There isn't even a wikipedia article on sea foam (it's a redirect to a particular confection). If someone started an article on sea foam, and an image of sea foam that included the sea (or at least the beach) in the background, was taken from down on the ground, didn't include any (or any distracting) reflections of the photographer), and was of high technical quality, then that image on that hypothetical article might be a featured picture. - Enuja (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Thinking about it, the different image I describe would be encyclopedic for a soild section about sea foam in the plankton article. - Enuja (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never stated the image will probably be removed from reflection and interference. I've stated just the opposite. Like with all my nominations I feel this way: I saw the phenomena, I took an image of it, I know what it is and I did my best to share my knoledge with the others, but failed, which is just fine with me. Thanks.I withdraw my nomination. --22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are you serious?!?!?! I was just about to nominate this!!! Support! -76.252.61.105 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't seem encyclopedically applicable to any of the articles listed as hosting it. de Bivort 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the vote, de Bivort. (I really mean it, I like when my images are voted for or against does mot matter), but may I please ask you, if you noticed that the nomination was withdrawn :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about encyclopedic value of the image. In reflection article it is the only images, which gives an introduction to Specular reflection at a curved surface. In Interference it is the only image which shows how Interference may occure in Nature,in Plankton article it is the only image, which shows how dead plankton looks, in Foam article it is the only image, which explains in details where seafoam comes from. Yes, IMO this image has lots of encyclopedic and educational values. I withdrawn my nomination not because I agreed with the opposers (I do not), but simply because I am very, very tiered from all this FP process. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

• Withdrawn. Julia\^talk 19:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Self nom but I feal it is a good video that shows the movement aspect of a plasma ball better than an image could. It is nominated here because featured videos (unlike featured sounds) dosen't appear to have got off the ground.

Articles this image appears in

Plasma_lamp#History

Creator

Myself user:geni

• Support as nominator Geni 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ridiculously blurry- filesize is not a limitation here, this is wikipedia. Anyway we could have a razor-sharp barely compressed video this size and only be a bit larger than some other FPs. Also, the entire audio track should be cut out with an OGG splitter :D\=< (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Froth's concerns having been aired, I'd love to see a bit more hi-def version and would absolutely support it. SingCal 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

currently haveing camera issues bot once sorted yes I can give it a go.Geni 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support if the video is reshot - I successfully nominated the still version of this years ago, I'd be interested to seen the video one too. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case could this be withdrawn for the time being (not quite sure how that works here).Geni 18:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey I've reshot. I can't get the resultion any higher without loseing FPS.Geni 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

This seems to have fallen off the nomination pile. Relisting it. MER-C 05:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Do these things make noise, or is that just background noise in the original? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They make a quiet hum, but only if you put your ear right up against them. For the purposes of the video, cutting out the sound channel completely and having it totally silent is the best way to go (does it actually have no sound channel or is it just a silent one? Removing the channel would shrink the file a little). We should add on the description page though, "This video intentionally has no sound" so people don't think their soundcard's bust or something. And for the second one, maybe emphasise that the video is not sped up in any way - someone could assume it was from the fast motion. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - now it's reshot, the quality and size are fine, the soundtrack (in fact, lack of it) is appropriate and it's educational. Well done. As per Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Offering multiple bit-rates it might be a good idea to make a smaller version (just scale to 25% of the size with an appropriate bitrate) for thumbnailing. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Vanderdecken. Concerns are assuaged. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Vanderdecken and Shoemaker. Durova^Charge! 16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Plasmaball vid2.ogv MER-C 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A fine portrait of an American Civil War general who made even greater contributions as a cultivator of male facial hair. Seriously, sideburns are named after him.

Articles this image appears in

Ambrose Burnside, Sideburns

Creator

Matthew Brady

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 04:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very encyclopedic. Medrano man (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. ^Indeed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. I definitely thought it already WAS one. Dr. Extreme (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Great, Great, Photo it is very encyclopedic.--CPacker (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One of the more famous photos for the ages. MrPrada (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I dare say this is the most perfect photo on the entire nominations page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Matthew Brady rules! - Darwinek (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Medrano. Sathmar (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Angelono2008 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mariosamoa (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great value!. Mario1987 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Ambrose Everett Burnside.jpg MER-C 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Didn't even mean to get involved with the Sandwich page, but you get carried away, and I could find no example, not even a bad one, of a standard English white-bread sandwich. The finished sandwich doesn't really tell you anything, it just looks like bread, hence the half-assembled state pictured. The photo is only slightly posed i.e. keeping the ingredients close together. I made several sandwiches and took about 25 shots to get one I was pleased with.

Articles this image appears in

Sandwich

Creator

ProfDEH (talk)

• Support as nominator ProfDEH (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh lighting, thus not very appetizing, lacks the "wow" a FP needs. --Janke | Talk 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, and also because it just doesn't seem very representative of sandwiches as a whole; cheese and cucumber is a very unusual combination. Dr. Extreme (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't find the lighting harsh - it is off-center and diffuse - rather natural window lighting I imagine. And I think cucumber sandwiches are rather common in England, no? de Bivort 18:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support FP has many food images, which lack the "wow". As a matter of fact this one has more "wow" than most other FP food images do.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dr. Extreme. Also, the odd rotation (about 45˚clockwise would be better) cuts off many objects and detracts from the enc.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lighting is diffuse yet gives some nice gleam on the cucumbers. The non-isometric rotation is fine, it provides framing without harshness or forcefulness. All the relevant condiments are visible, since this is an study about sandwiches, not general kitchen decor. Nimur (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Agree with slightly harsh lightning....as for the encyclopedic value...shouldn't Lord Sandwich be more appropiate? Dengero (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mbz1. Lord sandwich wouldn't be encyclopedic for how to make a sandwich.D-rew (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It may not showcase one of the more popular sandwiches, however, it seems to be the best looking photo in the sandwich article. Therefore, I think it adds value. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose subject is cut off, unappealing composition, no 'wow' factor. Matt Deres (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent, sharp shot, perfect for Sandwich. :D\=< (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This made me hungry, what the bleep. Redo this shot with R G and B and i'll support it. KICK IT UP A NOTCH! --Mike Spenard (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good image, but I don't see the wow. Mangostar (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A well composed image of Navajo ceremonial attire from a century ago. Good textures, contrast, and depth of field. Encyclopedic historic and cultural value. Restored version of Image:Navajo-Curtis.jpg rotated and cropped, with artifacts removed and some depigmentation replaced.

Articles this image appears in

Navajo people

Creator

Edward S. Curtis

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose its too dark to decide other picture quality issues.D-rew (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless it gets brightened up a tad. And with that, it's awesome. Support. Dr. Extreme (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, levels adjusted a bit. Hit refresh if you don't see the change. Durova^Charge! 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice photo, adds value. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The brightening has made the posterization in the background much worse, and in my view was unnecessary.--ragesoss (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mike Spenard (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's a bit posed-looking, but photographs of that time had to be or they'd be blurred. I was uncertain about this for a while, but finally decided that the encyclopedic value of the costume had to win out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Zahadolzhá--Navaho.jpg MER-C 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Mdf created several beautiful pictures of birds. Many which deserve to be featured, this is one of them.

Articles this image appears in

Yellowish Flycatcher

Creator

Mdf

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful picture, high resolution, good focus. Dr. Extreme (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A tad to much fill flash, but great detail --Mike Spenard (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another great picture from Mdf, I'm surprised more of his shots aren't featured already. faithless (^speak) 08:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well done. - Darwinek (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good depth of field and composition. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Nice quality, but two grumbles. The rear-on composition means we don't see the chest at all, but apparently there are some distinguishing markings on the breast - I quote from the article "Its upperparts are olive-green and the underparts are yellow with an ochre tint to the breast". Secondly I personally feel it could do with a bit more height and perhaps a bit less width, as it's tight at the top and bottom, but with heaps of empty space at the sides. --jjron (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mdf strikes again!--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent image. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great shot. Sathmar (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Mario1987 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Empidonax-flavescens-001.jpg MER-C 05:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

a rare color view of the ship

Articles this image appears in

USS Saratoga (CV-3)

Creator

US Navy

• Support as nominator DeltaDawn76 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The colors tell us about the materials of the ships of back then. 86.81.228.168 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Moonlight567 (talk) it is good because there aren't many color pictures of the Saratoga.
• Oppose. Poor digitizing, way too small, and color does not add value. The see is blue the ship is gray, big deal. --Dschwen 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are better B&W photos already in the article. While this may be a rare color photo of the ship, its obviously a scan of a degradaded photo and doesn't really add any value to the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not historic enough to be this small.D-rew (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dschwen Mfield (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dschwen, except I think it's the sea that's blue. ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noisy and artifacty, and it's just not a good-quality image. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Despite the critiques of others the image size and noise is something I could live with due to the relative rarity of pictures such as this. Even if the ship itself is not particularly famous (compared to some I mean), due to the lack of colour photos from the period it should be allowed. BigHairRef | Talk 00:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's noting particularly wrong about the photo, but I don't think that it meets the criteria as it's unclear and not very interesting. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I find it very unimpressive. Mangostar (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The prominent RGB color balance in this action shot stimulating. And the object 'playboat' is in its proper context.

Articles this image appears in

Playboating

Creator

Michael Spenard --Mike Spenard (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Mike Spenard (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see sharpness, enc value, wow factor, composition, size, free license, and no reason to oppose.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good photo, adds value. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per all--CPacker (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice action shot of a rather novel branch of a sport. Welcome to FPC Mike, it's always good to get good original contributors. --jjron (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks oversaturated. Look at the skintones for examples. They don't look realistic to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Adjusted skin tones per input. --Mike Spenard (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see any problem until I put the two versions side by side, but the new one looks much better.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's a good image, but very little of the person's face is shown, which I find detracting. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Kayak_Playboat_ManchesterNH.jpg MER-C 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows a powerful storm in the Gulf of Mexico.

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Rita, List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What are the small red boxes scattered throughout the image? This is exactly what a hurricane picture ought to look like, AFAIC --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great portrait of a famous/infamous United States Army officer and cavalry commander of the American Civil War and the Indian Wars. It is a smaller photo but the FPC says exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images.

Articles this image appears in

George Armstrong Custer, Indian Wars, Battle of Gettysburg, Third Day cavalry battles, List of German Americans

Creator

George L. Andrews

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would immediately support this picture, as it is certainly encyclopedic and historic, and the resolution quality is good. However, its size is 755 X 930; I think others will use this as grounds to oppose it, as the required minimum is 1000 for width or length. However, with a superb historical image where detail can still be discerned, this picture might have a chance.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ya I knew that its size was smaller, but it was very close to being 1,000 that I had to nominate it becasue of its historical importance.--CPacker (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The LoC should have a higher res version available. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original is a little bigger but is not as pretty, this is a link to the original Custer--CPacker (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even though the size is a little less than usual. It's not like we need to count his pores or something. Historical portraits like this are probably the best asset for articles on historical figures. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support historic value and picture quality make the fact that this picture is 70 pixels away from requirement irrelevant for me.D-rew (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historical significance trumps minor technical shortcoming. faithless (^speak) 08:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support It's even smaller, but I think I actually prefer this shot from the article. Matt Deres (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I see no real reason to oppose, although it could be slightly larger. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose due to size. It's a marvelous photo, but I want a bigger scan. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:G a custer.jpg MER-C 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Short version: a panorama of Mars.

Long version:

In late November 2005 while descending "Husband Hill," NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Spirit took the most detailed panorama so far of the "Inner Basin," the rover's next target destination. Spirit acquired the 405 individual images that make up this 360-degree view of the surrounding terrain using five different filters on the panoramic camera. The rover took the images on Martian days, or sols, 672 to 677 (Nov. 23 to 28, 2005 -- the Thanksgiving holiday weekend).

This image is an approximately true-color rendering using camera's 750-, 530-, and 430-nanometer filters. Seams between individual frames have been eliminated from the sky portion of the mosaic to better simulate the vista a person standing on Mars would see.

"Home Plate," a bright, semi-circular feature scientists hope to investigate, is harder to discern in this image than in earlier views taken from higher up the hill. Spirit acquired this more oblique view, known as the "Seminole panorama," from about halfway down the south flank of Husband Hill, 50 meters (164 feet) or so below the summit. Near the center of the panorama, on the horizon, are "McCool Hill" and "Ramon Hill," named, like Husband Hill, in honor of the fallen astronauts of the space shuttle Columbia. Husband Hill is visible behind the rover, on the right and left sides of the panorama. An arc of rover tracks made while avoiding obstacles and getting into position to examine rock outcrops can be traced over a long distance by zooming in to explore the panorama in greater detail.

Spirit is now significantly farther downhill toward the center of this panorama, en route to Home Plate and other enigmatic soils and outcrop rocks in the quest to uncover the history of Gusev Crater and the "Columbia Hills."

This is an altered version of Image:MarsPanorama.jpg, stitching problems fixed and cropped.

Articles this image appears in

Mars rover, Spirit Rover

Creator

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Medrano man (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top enc, and yes, this panorama is large enough! ;-) (Seriously, should we have a separate px requirement for panoramas, i.e. a minimum height?) --Janke | Talk
• Support Stunning image, lots of encyclopaedic value, 10,000 pixels wide, don't see any problems here. Guest9999 (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the finest panoramas I've seen. And one of the biggest images I've seen on Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there. (What's the biggest picture used on Wiki, anyway?) Dr. Extreme (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's another planet! Xilliah (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per all.--CPacker (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This is simply one of the most extraordinary (think of all that went into this for you and wikipedia visitors to see it) photo's taken by man--even if it was taken by a fool robot! --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Strong Support - It is stated that "stitching problems fixed and cropped", this is incorrect as I can still see where images have been stitched together, especially around the center of the image and to the right of the center of the image. If this article has been nominated purely because it's stitching problems have been fixed, then I would strongly differ on this point. Even so it might be nice to iron out some more of the stitching problems before it is made a featured picture (as I think ultimately it should be made a featured picture). On another note, as this is a 360 degree panorama, has anyone checked that the edges meet up correctly? --Dave (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that this is a 360 degree panorama; it was taken during the descent from a hill. The modifications to the stitching were not the sole reason for nominating, and were not intended to eliminate every possible issue that would be visible to a skilled eye. Some of the seams on the original were quite obvious, though, and didn't quite match in either the lineup or the lighting. So I made basic modifications that eliminated sharp diagonal lines while being minimally intrusive. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for clearing this up, the only reason I thought it was a 360-degree view was in the description, it states: "Spirit acquired the 405 individual images that make up this 360-degree view", thanks for the reply I still suport this article to be a Featured Picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trombodave (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just checked. It is 360 degrees, and the opposite edges line up perfectly. Djk3 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for checking this--Dave (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful. Djk3 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:MarsPanoramaa.jpg MER-C 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great photo with really nice detial.

Articles this image appears in

Golden Eagle

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose It's nice, but the EV isn't immediately clear to me. The beak and eyes, which are all you can see in this photo, are barely discussed in the article (only the mouth is mentioned, and only to say "the mouth is only used for eating). What does the reader gain from this photo, other than "wow, that's a really nice picture"? SingCal 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While it is a very nice, clear photo. It doesn't really add any value to the article. There are plenty of other photos of the golden eagle, and there is an even better one of the eagle's head already on the page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Quality photo. However, the subject matter is 'eagle head' which is partially cropped. So information value wise its marginal. If another close up 'eagle head' shot comes around (of equal quality and improved content) this one can always be delisted I suppose. --Mike Spenard (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose per ErgoSum88. Narayanese (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality image of the species in a natural and attractive setting.

Articles this image appears in

Royal Spoonbill

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator jjron (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too harsh contrast, messy BG. Looks oversharpened, too - note dark contour around head ("hair") feathers. --Janke | Talk 15:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cool name! Natural background isn't appealing, light angle hides belly. Royalbroil 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It doesn't matter if the background is "messy" or "unappealing", it is the natural habitat of the bird. Personally, I would much rather this background than some ridiculous (and often artificial) amout of blur that we get with other photos. Great illustration of a beautiful subject. These guys are my favourite water bird, glad to have a good photo of them. --liquidGhoul (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per LiquidGhoul Muhammad(talk)
• Oppose I think the bird is really cool but I agree with Royalbroil the the background is not appealing and really distracts from the bird its self Support, After my first vote I couldnt stop thinking about this photo, I still think that the background is not as good as it could be, but the bird is great--CPacker (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DoF properly puts subject matter in context. Information (context) should take precedence over artistic aesthetics--this is wikiPEDIA not wikiARTGALLERY --Mike Spenard (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The line of circular orbs that follow the bottom of the rock is kind of distracting. Could they be processed out a bit? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure I follow this. There's no rocks in the picture (the bird's standing on a log, if you think that's a rock), and I don't see what orbs you're talking about in relation to it. I can only guess you're talking about the ripples in the water radiating out from where the bird had put it's beak in the water to feed, and I have no idea why you would want to edit that out, and how that's a reason to oppose. --jjron (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look just to the left of the fringe atop his head - a line of small white blobs arc out roughly along the base of the grey object (rock?) in the background. Once you notice them, they're very distracting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Royal-(or-Black-Billed)-Spoonbill-2,-Vic,-3.1.2008.jpg MER-C 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows a well defined storm with a large eye.

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Erin (2001)

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Storm is cropped, not an outstanding hurricane picture. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per Uncle Bungle. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The cyclone is not quite as symmetric as it could be (very minor), but the real issue is the close cropping, and the odd coloring. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think this is a fantastic shot capturing the climatic moment of the game-winning pitch. Note that the yellow ball is just passing in front of the batter's arms. I also like the Longhorn logo (the logo of the winning team) seemingly hovering just over the batter.

Articles this image appears in

strikeout, Texas Longhorns, softball

Creator

dave_hensley at Flickr

• Support as nominator Johntex\^talk 05:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The umpire and catcher are sharing a head. Hitter is imposed over logo making for bad contrast. Composure of shot makes my brain wonder what is out of shot 3 feet to the right(bat?). Ball is mixed up in that cluster too. As a general rule of action shots, when people in a shot have a line of sight to the 'act' the photo viewer should be able to see that 'act'---because of the before mentioned the composure is marginal. The color levels and quality is good however. --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike. EgraS (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agreed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. A good photo in terms of quality, the composition just isn't FP satisfying. This picture is also easily retaken for improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-rew (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the feedback everyone. Best, Johntex\^talk 19:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. It also is blurry near the batter's arms. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I've placed this under peer review for a week now, but no replies; I'm no expert, but it did not seem to conflict with the listed requirements for a featured picture. The painting's rich textures and hues complement its historical significance, as it displays furniture, clothing, table wares, musical instruments, and elite social life in China during the 10th century while also serving as a showcase for the technical achievement of Chinese painters during the period.

Articles this image appears in

Society of the Song Dynasty, Gu Hongzhong, 10th century, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, Society, Pipa

Creator

12th century artist after Gu Hongzhong (937–975)

• Support as nominator Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Fascinating social document, encyclopedic at many articles. Durova^Charge! 10:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose because of small size. Yes, the larger dimension is well over the 1000 px "required" minimum, but with the height less than 400 px, I just can't see the details clearly. --Janke | Talk 11:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, this isn't so much about the content as the scan quality. And this scan is just mediocre. So while I have no objection to the subject matter becoming featured... we will need a high quality scan of it. gren グレン 13:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose There is an obvious stitch/color band to the right of the center. If this can be fixed I'd be willing to change my vote. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew how to fix it. I was not the original person to scan the image, and unfortunately I have no means of scanning it from somewhere else. 'Tis a shame.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Oppose as per Janke. A larger scan would be welcome. Matt Deres (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I've taken the liberty of stitching together the two halves of the painting. I've also corrected the color band that exposed previous stitching.

Articles this image appears in

Society of the Song Dynasty, Gu Hongzhong, 10th century, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, Society, Pipa

Creator

12th century artist after Gu Hongzhong (937–975)

• Support as nominator I will point out the obvious and leave the rest up to the voters. Its a low resolution scan, and there are gaps in places where the scan was stitched together, including the middle where I combined the two versions. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<rant>Do NOT include more than one nomination on a page. I find multiple noms on the same page extremely annoying - it messes with the archiving schedule as I cannot archive the above nom until this one is complete. </rant> MER-C 03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw I apologize, I didn't know any better. This one isn't going to pass anyway. I withdraw my nomination. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original - The sheet music to Sullivan's ballet, Victoria and Merrie England.

[Forgive the wonky formatting - I don't think anyone's nominated a PDF before, and it's not like there's any better place to nominate it...]

Reason

The best-reproduced (if I do say so myself) and rarest of my musical score PDFs, this is a very hard-to-find piano reduction that is the only surviving source for most of the music to Sullivan's ballet. There may be some minor tilting, but it's the best copy that people are ever likely to see.

Articles this image appears in

Victoria and Merrie England

Creator

Arthur Sullivan

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It may just be me, but I can't open it. Acrobat gives me a corrupted file message. I've tried twice. Re whether this is the right place to nominate it, well gee, I'm not too sure about that, given that we can't even view it as an image. --jjron (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't view it either. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons has been acting a bit funny at times of late. Try again? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't quite pass the duck test for pictures, so I'd say it's ineligible (not a closure, just an opinion). On the other hand, this is by far the most useful PDF I've ever seen on Wikipedia, it appears most of them are deletable garbage. (That's one whacked bass clef). Yes, we should encourage the uploading of free music scores but it's the kind of thing that requires a new Wikimedia project. And a better TeX renderer.

The PDF works for me (in xpdf). MER-C 10:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to view the document should be reported on the Acrobat bugzilla! -- carol (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Metzler had downright weird bass clefs. =) I've also uploaded a few other scores Media:Arthur Sullivan - Festival Te Deum.pdf‎ Media:Arthur Sullivan - Incidental music to King Arthur.pdf Media:Yeomen of the Guard - A Laughing Boy.pdf - but I didn't think they came out as well. The first two were from photocopies supplied to me by a friend (with his permission to do what I wanted with them), and the third involved a small amount of judgement on my part, as the full scores I had available were imperfect, and I knew this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - Speedy Close Not FP material - this is a more than 100 page scan from a book - put this on Wikibooks, instead! Furthermore, this isn't even a picture in the article - just in the link section... --Janke | Talk 11:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikibooks is not for this type of books.. and since its already on the commons, and works fine on my computer (Acrobat 8, Firefox 2.0.0.12). Also.. this is damn encyclopedic.. And for the no img in the article, PDFs cant be embedded atm ;) Yzmo ^talk 11:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- and that's exactly the reason I oppose. How can we get such a FP onto the front page? No way... Suggestion: take one single page, save as jpg, and nominate that - that's the only way to go, IMO. --Janke | Talk 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - But it's the best copy that people are ever likely to see. *cough* Modern reprint *cough* Seriously in the age of LilyPond and Sibelius, any original music score is pretty redundant except as a reference or historical interest. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has never been reprinted, and copies of the original are exceedingly rare. If I recall correctly - I do a lot of things with scores, and may be getting them mixed up - it was this PDF that I donated to the Sir Arthur Sullivan society, because they didn't have one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To be honest a black and white photocopy of a 127 page score is best off suited to wikibooks, for a Picture to be nominated it needs to be:

"Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria." - Quote from [[10]]

Personally I don't find it "eye-catching", or feel that it is really a picture, or that it really illustrates the article it is in - as it is hidden at the very bottom of the article that it is in. My advice would be to nominate it in the Featured section of wikibooks, it would be more suited, and appreciated there. --Dave (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great action shot of rafting on the Arkansas River.

Articles this image appears in

White water rafting

Creator

Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: is that artifacting I see in the full version (most obvious on the face of the person in the back)? Maybe some advice from the technically savvy and the uploading of a new version would be helpful. - Enuja (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To many people have their back to the camera. And generally it just doesn't 'pop' --Mike Spenard (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its a nice shot, I just think the overwhelming amount of spray detracts from the image. I didn't notice any artifacts, what Enuja saw on the face might be pixellation. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agreed about the excessive spray. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Aesthetically appealing, reasonable proportions, vibrant, and possibly a useful image in other artistic articles.

Articles this image appears in

Smoke tree

Creator

Kris Miller from Issaquah

• Support as nominator LOTRrules (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Where's the beef (i.e. enc)? --Janke | Talk 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? LOTRrules (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Where's the Beef. Exhange "beef" with "encyclopedic value" ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this photo might be better suited for the Commons Featured Pictures. I don't see much encyclopedic value to this photo, but I'm still on the fence about supporting it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give more details? This is my first nomination. LOTRrules (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Commons FP are for artistic quality photos with little or no consideration given to encyclopedic value. But as Alvesgaspar says, there are some focus issues that might be considered less than stellar. Being an ametuer photog, my standards are lower than what most of the voters at the Commons have. I think its a nice photo, but it doesn't really show anything except a leaf... and for a nice enclyopedic photo of a leaf, one might want a picture without distractions, such as dew drops. Thats just my opinion. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, I don't think it will succeed in Commons FPC, as the technical quality in on the low side and the framing is too tight on the subject -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Because of a lack on encyclopedic value. Additionally, the top middle is not of high technical quality (color appears oversaturated, reflection in bubbles are blown highlights, and it's out of focus). - Enuja (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is too closely cropped, and the technical quality isn't great. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This style of architecture was not widely used in San Diego before the fair. This example is more elaborate than most of the archways, yet was on a temporary building which was intended to be demolished. The Museum of Art now resides on this land.

Articles this image appears in

Panama-California Exposition (1915)

Creator

Photographer Harold A. Taylor in book by Winslow, Goodhue, Stein, Taylor, Elder.

• Support as nominator SEWilco (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are many extremely sharp pictures from the early 1900's, and even though the subject is interesting, the quality is unacceptable even for an early photograph. EgraS (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I kinda like it, but as with above, the quality could be better. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen this for the first time in my 35 years of life... Was like "Want to see something strange?", to the ppl beside me... Thought only humans knew how to waste time, smh. Then again- how else can the creature warm up the fluid? *************Amazing God************* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejw9 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC) u[reply]

Reason

A detailed high quality depiction of insect behaviour, adding enc value to the articles

Articles this image appears in

Wasp, Polistes dominula

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent clarification of insect behavior, high resolution, and good quality. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll have to try that sometime. Well, maybe not... Durova^Charge! 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Where do you find such interesting insects!?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too little of the insect is in focus. To be blunt, it just isnt up to the standards of insect photos. EgraS (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support A little focus stacking would have helped maybe (one antenna out of focus and one marginally in bothers me slightly). --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - high enc. value. Cacophony (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Encyclopediac value, and good quality. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice was of getting warm food. And good focus on mandibles and bubble. Narayanese (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although DOF is a bit low (which is really hard to avoid) the focus is placed just right and composition and angle are perfect. --Dschwen 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wasp March 2008-1.jpg MER-C 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good quality, high resolution image, which greately illustrates an interesting effect

Articles this image appears in

Parallax

Creator

Mbz1 - Edited by Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good illustration of effect. Nice shot, but perhaps a bit to artistic for the technical subject. --Mike Spenard (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, and you might want to add this image to fog, too. Dr. Extreme (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your suggestion, Dr. Extreme. I'm afraid fog article is full of useful images and I see no place to add this one.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there was an empty space in the fog gallery at the bottom, so I went ahead and added it. Dr. Extreme Well, never mind. That was hasty and ill-thought out. Dr. Extreme (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good encyclopedic illustration with photographic merit. Durova^Charge! 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Encyclopaedic and artsy. I still need to go home and think through the full implications of the physics behind that explanation though. (And nice to see you back on FPC Mila). --jjron (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fantastic that you were able to capture this. howcheng {chat} 00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everyone else. I just love this picture. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent photograph of something that untill I looked at the photograph I knew nothing about, it has inspired me to read the Parallax article, which is one of the key things recommended for a picture to become a featured picture. One of the best encyclopedic pictures nominated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trombodave (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was never strong in physics but this one is just great. - Darwinek (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't quite understand it, but it is a very interesting shot. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, does that mean the picture doesn't help you understanding Parallax? --Dschwen 04:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:The sun, street light and Parallax edit.jpg MER-C 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Of historical importance, and the art is typical of Ukiyo-e, which we have very little really high-quality work of (with no offense meant to the excellent, and already featured Image:Suikoden.jpg). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Matthew C. Perry

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent image, and also well illustrates the Japanese perspective on this figure who was important both to America and Japan. Dr. Extreme (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top enc, historically interesting. --Janke | Talk 13:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Matt Deres (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Could the caption or description show the Japanese title in the original script (in addition to the transliteration)? Paul Koning (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The LoC site doesn't include it, and I'd find it difficult to get the Japanese text correct based on somewhat difficult handwriting. By all means, if someone can, do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png MER-C 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Shows a famous storm, NO THERE IS ONLY 2 HURRICANE FEATURED PICTURES!!!

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Katrina, Disaster

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, since it's off-centered, and not a very good image of a hurricane, IMO. The eye isn't very clear, for example. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose Considering this is hurricane Katrina, I think this definitely should be in the FP archive. However, is this the best photo you could find? It needs to be cropped and possibly enhanced, which I would be glad to do for you. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agreed with ErgoSum88. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Storm is off center and cut off at the right. Would be better if Florida could be seen, IMO. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think this is a wonderful image, showing a snapshot of life in New Zealand in 1863, particularly the all-too-rare view of Maori life at that time. A note on restoration: I've attempted to compromise in the restoration between the two possibilities of dealing with the lines between the glued-together woodblocks: I made them less visible, and edited them out as much as possible from important parts of the image such as faces, but allowed some traces of them to remain.

Articles this image appears in

Hawke's Bay Province, Māori, Pā

Creator

M. Jackson

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historic, ridiculously high resolution, and as you say, an interesting snapshot of life. Dr. Extreme (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, you think this is high resolution, you should've seen my working copy. It was about 8000x6000px, I shrunk it down about 25% a side. to help blend in my restoration. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I noticed a couple of lines, but they don't detract from the overall image. Would it be completely blasphemous to suggest a reduction in overall resolution? The nature of the woodblock print means that it has to be viewed from some distance--as it is now, you can't really tell what it's supposed to be at full resolution. --jonny-mt 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those will be the gaps between the woodblocks I mentioned - removing or not removing them has proven controversial in the past, so I tried to compromise by leaving some traces of them, but removing them from all the important areas. As for a reduction in resolution - well, it's an A3 engraving, and probably needs to be about this size to reproduce well at its original size when printing it. However, you do have a good point, so I've set up some sub-pages to assist viewing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Defer to others the degree to which woodblocks gaps should be preserved, although I err more on the side of more preservation. I do have a question though; what's with the grey smudges visible in white spaces in the foreground (especially the man's hat on the right)? I would expect the original is just white and full-black from the ink. - Enuja (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's mostly the remains of text-bleedthrough from the other side of the paper, mixed with dirt, smudging from the page pressed against it, etc, etc, etc. - in the end, this was from a very old newspaper, with all the problems that causes. It was much worse before the cleanup, but I probably missed a few spots, as going for perfection is all too often a case of "that way madness lies". And, of course, the final shrinking down from 8250px wide to 6000 px may turn some small black marks into grey itself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. - Enuja (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good restoration, encyclopedic subject. Durova^Charge! 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support diego_pmc (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg MER-C 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

i have recently noticed that when my images are featured they become more viewers and this increases the chances for them to be translated and to move into other wikipedia proyects. i want to try to feature my main diagrams so that they can get improved and or better distributed... plus i think it is of a great enciclopedic value...

Articles this image appears in

Flagellum

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top notch diagram. Only thing missing is the disclaimer not to use it under mousetrap --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor point Does not say what type of flagellum it is, and this editor is far too sleep deprievd to be trying to deal with this =) Sheesh, I thought "Well, clearly there's the Type III secretory system in there, the one used by plant pathogens and Yersina pestis so it's Eukaryotic."... god, I'm stupid before my coffee. It's Bacterial, of course. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done it aded the label in the description page -LadyofHats (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then Support! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - I will support strongly if the text background is made transparent - at the moment, the two columns of text are on white boxes which seem randomly distributed and don't even touch the edges of the image. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not take the white squares away since they are there so that text can be readed ( when removing them there are still colors bellow that would make reading the text confusing). would it help you if i extend them so that they go out up to the borders?. i can not make them both have the same width becouse it would be useless empty space on the right.so what do you sugest?.-LadyofHats (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might suggest having a white background under the whole thing. I can't see any reason to have a transparent bg on this image. I might also suggest changing the stroke color on the L-Ring to be black or blue other than red, which looks weird. You may want to add a label that says Cytosol. I'm also confused about the label Cell Wall, my understanding is that the inner and outer membranes, together with the periplasmic space in-between, all together make up the cell wall. Is there a reference to check? Otherwise very nice image, Support. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main references are: [11],[12], [13], [14], between others, where the first 3 are my main sources. I changed the colors. -LadyofHats (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, make the entire background white, just so that the sections of BG don't stand out. Remove the current white boxes, then fill the entire BG with white again. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support,Oppose I'd like to see a mention that this is from a Gram-negative bacteria in the caption because Gram-positive flagella and eukaryotic flagella are quite different. I also believe this type of flagella also moves in a rotational fashion, not so much a whip like action.D-rew (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i do have a diagram of an eukariotyc cillia. but tell me what is the diference between a gramm positive flagella and one gramm negative? if it is so big maybe i should do 2 diagrams -LadyofHats (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's big enough that its not trivial. The main differences are in the attatchment points, because think about it, for a Gram-positive its gotta go through one plasma membrane, but in Gram-negative its gotta go through two which involves a whole other smattering of proteins. Here are some outside links to other diagrams to give you something to work with. Scroll down to section figure 2.47 about 2/3 the way down the page. There are also some good diagramshere. This page fig 1.4 should show you some of the differences in how they move(note it is a Eu flagella that acts like a whip (a la sperm), but a Pro flagella that spins like a propeller).Also note that eukaryotic cilia aren't the same thing as eukaryotic flagella. Here are the differences between cilia and flagella put simply.D-rew (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't even get me started on spirochete flagella. My point is that there are a lot of different types of flagella, and a lot of them don't look like this, so I think some specification is in order.D-rew (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ok i got what you mean :P geesh, i think the more diagrams i do the more complicated they get. I have changed the description page to astop it

to do :P -LadyofHats (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Yup, complicated is right. Keep on keepin' on though, well made diagrams are always useful and much appreciated. =->D-rew (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would still like to see a specification of the type and a correction of the motion of the flagella.D-rew (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support de Bivort 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeSupport The flagellum looks straghely squeezed against the outer membrane, and shouldn't it the junction be a ~45 degree angle compared to the rotor? And the caption should mention what type of bacteria it is (a proteobacterium?). And it doesn't have any references. Narayanese (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • squeezed against? i didnt got that part, can you explain?. my source makes the hook 90 degrees. but i changed it a bit since some other sources do show it less inclinated. I added some information on the description of movement. and none of my sources metioned a specific kind of bacteria. so i have no idea if it is or not a proteobacterum or not. Plus if you read a bit up in this discussion you can see the links to some of my sources. The reason why i dont place them on the description page is that they are external links and with the time they tend to become invalid. -LadyofHats (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only seen unipolar flagella myself and they point out from the cell and only start bending a lot further out, but at second thought I suppose the amphitrichous/peritrichous; ones do lie close to the membrane like in the picture. Now I see your sources, good. I looked up the hook angle, it's 65 degrees in Salmonella (Foruta 2007, PMID 17142059), so your current bend is ok.Narayanese (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is there issues regarding the caption lines at different sizes or is it my browser? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I changed the caption, likening it to a propeller. (source: [15]) and specifying organism. Narayanese (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg MER-C 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent image

Articles this image appears in

Acapulco

Creator

A. Boot ?

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It would be nice if it was a bit larger, but I'm not going to look such a beautiful gift horse in the mouth. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It adds to the article--CPacker (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Puerto de Acapulco Boot 1628.png MER-C 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great picture of the school

Articles this image appears in

Los Gatos, California, Los Gatos High School

Creator

user:Mike24

• Support as nominator dimo414 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I just don't see anything special about this. If you say it's the front of my university I'll believe you. Dengero (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - fails criteria 1, 2, 3 and possibly 7. Way too small, technically not great, and definitely not compelling. "Great picture" is also not a reason for FP. Please read all the way through the criteria for FP before nominating, and really consider whether the picture is worth it. You may also want to try PPR before here. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above and harsh shadows --Mike Spenard (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Vanderdecken. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Very, very low resolution, to be included in FP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego pmc (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I feel that the picture definitely meets most of the 9 criteria with only a couple of doubts.

Is of a high technical standard.  Done

Is of high resolution.  Done more than meets 1000x1000 criteria

Is among Wikipedia's best work.  Done defintitly IMO, is compelling and would make reader want to learn more (both in optics and the page for the reature itself), well lit and amongst best insect photographs on WP

Has a free license.  Done licensed under GNU 1.2

Adds value to an article Done illustrates insect well in its own page as well as a useful tool for shoing transparency

Is accurate. (only criteria I'm unsure on)

Has a good caption Done is decribed within its page well and includes links to appropriate articles.

Is neutral. DoneNo POV issues.

Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation? not in a position to comment as I'm not a photographics expert but it's free of the most obvious usual distortions.

Articles this image appears in

Transparency (optics), Greta morgane, Greta (genus)

Creator

Achim Lehle (Commons Username)

• Support as nominator BigHairRef | Talk 00:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way way to much noise. --Mike Spenard (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Wow. It not only has considerable noise (or maybe filmgrain), but it is also unsharp and has very little detail. This offers way less resolution than a 1000x1000 picture with decent definition. Too bad, the subject is kind of nice. --Dschwen 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to noise. Cacophony (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, very bad technical quality. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Horrible quality. "Over 1000 px" doesn't mean a thing here - looks like this is upsampled from a lower res, noisy digital original or grainy film. --Janke | Talk 08:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Aqwis and Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whilst I agree there is some noise this is a picture which suffers from quite a degree of unproducability. The butterfly itself is not that common and there's not a reasonable prospect of gettting a better one. BigHairRef | Talk 06:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment in all the articles where this will be used the scaling is almost certain to be such that the noise can not be seen. I know it's not an official criteria but per Dschwen the subject of thepicture should have some bearing. BigHairRef | Talk 06:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some noise" is the understatement of the week... ;-) Also, please note that FPs are NOT chosen on the basis of thumbnail images, they are always judged at full size. --Janke | Talk 07:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some noise? I saw a photograph of atom with less noise :-).--Svetovid (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A rare daguerrotype showing San Francisco's economic activity during the California gold rush. Merchant ships crowd the harbor and freshly constructed clapboard buildings fill the foreground. Hardly any of this scene could be replaced with a later photograph: the gold rush ended shortly afterward, construction projects began on Alcatraz Island in 1853, steam ships replaced sailing ships, and the great San Francisco earthquake/fire of 1906 destroyed most of the city's early architecture. Restored version of Image:SanFranciscoharbor1851.jpg. This is San Francisco 55 years before the earthquake and more than 80 years before Alcatraz became a federal prison.

Articles this image appears in

History of San Francisco, California, Alcatraz Island, California gold rush

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historic, unique perspective, excellent restoration job, and as you say, daguerrotypes are rare. Dr. Extreme (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice image with good historic value. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was just reading a book about SF in the Gold Rush and how the harbor was so full of boats that many had to wait for days before they could unload, and along comes a photo of that very phenomenon. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:SanFranciscoharbor1851c sharp.jpg MER-C 08:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is an uncommon view of Tower Bridge (as many tourists/photographers don't walk this far down the river beyond the city), showing most of the span of the bridge, and also the skyscrapers towering above the office blocks of the City of London. It was taken shortly after sunset, allowing for a beautiful red glow in the sky. It is aesthetically pleasing, but still quite enc as it shows the detail of the river, bridge, construction of the city, the skyline and St Paul's cathedral in the background, etc.

Articles this image appears in

London, Tower Bridge and River Thames (controversial, but I think it is settled now - see its talk page for more info)

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the image description says all that needs to be said. Dr. Extreme (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per DrExtreme. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was hoping for slightly higher rez, but it's great as is.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good job Diliff. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2008

(UTC)

• Support Wow. It almost looks fake... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry not to join the bandwagon but I prefer the actual Tower Bridge FP on enc grounds. This one is artsy and beautiful but much less detailed. Also, the denoising process was a little too radical in my opinion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There actually was no de-noising processing on this image at all. It was downsampled significantly from 13126x4876 so even if there were any noise reduction, this would largely mask it anyway, but I can confirm there is none. Can you be more specific about your complaint? If you're referring to the river, it was a relatively long exposure so movement would soften the texture. And if you're referring to the buildings in the background, any lack of texture can be explained by atmospheric haze. Also, this image is not intended to compete with the existing FP (unlike the Big Ben photo). It isn't even supposed to show the Tower Bridge in detail. The point is to show the Tower Bridge, the Thames, the wharves and the city skyline as a single composition. I'm not intended to try to convince you to change your opinion, but I wanted to set the record straight. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, the softness is explained. I would probably support this picture at COM:FPC, as I am quite sensitive to artsy works. But I also think that the enc interest is somehow affected by the lack of detail and unnatural colours. Why not re-shoot this during the day? - Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It just doesn't look nearly as aesthetic during the day. I still maintain there is more than enough detail visible though - the softness is extremely minor. A daytime shot of this same scene would not really give you any detail that this one does not. In fact, I suspect that many features would be less distinct during the day due to the lack of lighting, but as I don't have an equivalent daytime shot, I can't say for certain. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support You're actually allowed to upload up to a 20 meg file - how about a little more resolution? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I keep them for my commercial photography. Withholding ultra high resolution images is probably the one thing I can do to prevent pilfering of my best photos without my consent, unfortunately. And it does happen. Regularly. :-( Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar and also the image is too small.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to be following you around Mbz1, but as I mentioned in reply to Alves, his arguments were a bit weak since they mainly related to the incorrect assumption that it was primarily illustrating the Tower Bridge. So in a sense, I feel that you are agreeing with point that is unfounded and therefore a bit null and void... And as for size, it is more than large enough as per the guidelines. Plenty of smaller images with less visible detail are featured. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic Image which enhances the articles it is in. It's a shame that the photo hasn't been uploaded at the maximum resolution possible, however I can sympathize with the author over their decision not to upload a higher resolution copy. --Dave (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For the most part, it's a very nice image. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This image has been brought forcefully to my attention,and as it is being proposed as a Featured Picture this gives me an opportunity to explain exactly what I think is wrong with it.
• As an editor I am looking for pictures that support the text of the articles I am working on. Given the limited space available, the pictures need to be information-rich without being crowded and if possible tell more than one story at once. If I was looking for an image to illustrate any article, I would definitely not choose this one. In terms of content it is primarily a mass of nondescript buildings with a mid-distance floodlit image of a well-known bridge. This is an interesting bridge because it is the only bascule bridge on the Thames, and it is designed to match the Tower of London alongside. Neither of these elements is illustrated in the image. St Paul's Cathedral behind it is simply a poorly-placed sillouetted dome, and the Gherkin lacks interest. Some isolated cranes on the skyline do not say much about building activity on an uninteresting selection of the skyline. As for the river itself it looks like a stagnant pond with nasty bits floating on it. There is no life in this picture. Would anyone consider proposing it if it the same scene was seen in clear day light?. I think that is very unlikely. That means that only story this image tells is that the sky goes a funny colour when the sun goes down.
• The image is double width and in consequence has to be shown larger than conventional images in order to be a reasonable height.
• Another editor has described it as a picture postcard view, but in terms of composition I don't not think it even qualifies as that. The vertical centre line is emphasised by the dip in the suspension cables which splits the image into two. If this is a deliberate ploy, it does not work - it simply makes the image look like two bad pictures stuck together with nothing pulling the whole together. The picture lacks depth - everything is fused into the middle distance with no significant foreground highlights to create perspective. There is a lack of compositional balance and no dynamic interplay between the elements to keep the eye interested. Finally there is the issue of the colour. I can quote another editor in referring to the "lurid red". For some the shock effect may have an immediate dramatic impact, but others find it unpleasant. I would challenge those who have responded positively on first impressions to see how long they can stand looking at the picture. Several have commented that the colours look artificial which does not in fact count in the image's favour. It is a personal view, but it is not an image I want to be hit in the eye with every time a go in to revert a vandal or edit a page on which I have much editorial work to do. I do not believe it has a place on Wikipedia, let alone as a Featured Article. In the latter respect I have a serious concern that pictures like this encourage people to illustrate articles with uninformative sunsets because they think they look pretty, rather than pictures that, however crude, at least provide informational value. I further believe that given the desparate need to obtain illustrations for articles that do not have them, priority should be given to images that address uncharted territory rather than rehashing well covered areas.
• I hope the contributor will welcome my input rather than assume an "attitude" beause I have objected to the the manner in which this image has been forced onto an article. Motmit (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't respond to your points individually (suffice to say that while I disagree with most of them in general, I do welcome your input), but I will say that I'm glad for Wikipedia's sake that not everyone agrees with your sentiments as I think the project does benefit from photos such as this one, or I wouldn't upload them and try to find a home for them in the first place. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like the atmospheric perspective, it reminds me of a certain painting of the Canale Grande. --Dschwen 03:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's named "Tower Bridge, City of London and Thames at sunset" so saying it's too artsy or that it should have been taken during a day is irrelevant.--Svetovid (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Honestly, it's one of the better pictures of Tower Bridge. crassic\^talk 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is a beautiful picture of the Tower Bridge and the photograph gives a adequate view of the bridge and it surroundings (City of London, Tower of London, Thames, etc.) The fact that it was taken by sunset gives a beautiful side-effect. I support the opinion of Svetovid saying that earlier made comments don't really make sense. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg MER-C 08:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution and detailed depiction of a small insect, probably the best available photo of a biting mosquito.

Articles this image appears in

Mosquito, Culiseta

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose It's quite good, and certainly a valuable image, but the depth of field is a bit low. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Depth of field is an inescapable issue with macro photography (Fir0002's focus bracketing as the exception), and I think Alves has done well to keep as much of the mosquito in focus as he has. Could really only be improved by an action shot of it sucking the blood from an animal. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment changed a typo in the caption. Mamals --> Mammals.D-rew (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I thin it's very good, especially considering how close-up it is. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Shoemaker. Sathmar (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Shoemaker. Angelono2008 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm not that picky about DoF. The picture is clear and shows the mosquito in good light, this isn't an art gallery. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The bar for bugs is very high and this doesn't quite make it there. Matt Deres (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I've had bug photo nominees rejected for focal plane issues (see this), and this one isn't even as good -- the out-of-focus foreleg is especially distracting. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I took this not thinking about wikipedia but maybe for an iStockphoto upload or just a art shot. Then I looked at it and thought it was pretty damn illustrative. It is a wide-angle perspective which adds a ton of interest and I was shooting with a polarizer which enhanced the blue of the sky. The image is sharp at full res (vote on the full res, not the 800px description page). Also, this is a good example of the bristlecone pine as most of that species are more weather beaten.

Articles this image appears in

Juniper, Juniperus osteosperma

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The caption seems a little off - It's not the Oldest tree species (a claim that would be very hard to quantify, anyway, as evolution means there's no hard-and-fast borders between species) - it's a species with the oldest living trees. Also, it would be nice if it weren't cut off at the bottom. Still, it's a good photo, and I can't bring myself to oppose outright. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For encyclopedic value, the horizon angle kills it. It's a smashingly beautiful, fantastic art shot, but the fact that bristlecone pines are weathered and strange and often at odd angles is part of the encyclopedic value of this specimen. Straightening it up a bit (while crazy tilting the horizon) takes away from that. - Enuja (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I know the horizon is pretty near to level... Not that it looks straight. The tree was tilted at that angle from vertical, there wouldn't really be a good way to show that with the surroundings of jagged hills. Also, I'm not totally sure the horizon would need to be perfectly level for this picture of a tree, the same way it doesn't really matter if a macro horizon is level. If it was a landscape, sure, but I think it isn't that important. Just my feeling... -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Too good for me not to support, though I agree with the concerns expressed above. It's definitely a beautiful shot, but a bit more on the artistic side than the encyclopedic side. Even so, I find it informative, useful and (my top criteria) I believe that seeing this picture would interest people in reading the article. faithless (^speak) 09:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per above comment Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would prefer to see more of the base of the tree and less of the sky, but nonetheless, a quality shot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think this is a Bristlecone Pine; take a close look at the foliage, and compare to the closeup in Image:BristleConeBranch.jpg. This looks like some kind of juniper.--ragesoss (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all three articles, this image was used as an example of a Bristlecone (in tree, it was in the "Oldest trees" section). As a result, it's no longer in any article. Unless and until it can be correctly identified and placed in an appropriate article, Oppose.--ragesoss (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose as the species is incorrect - not capable of being encyclopaedic unless it's identified. It seems certain it's not a Pinus aristata as the leaf, branching, coloration and bark are wrong. Per Ragesoss the structure is indicative of a Juniper...I'm tempted that it's a Juniperus osteosperma but am not sure - Peripitus (Talk) 05:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Damn it, sorry guys. I should have doubled checked the species. The cheap field guide I picked up at a gas station showed the scaly bark of this tree as as the Bristlecone Pine. Actually, I'm pretty frustrated over this... I have been trying to avoid a mix-up of this kind but alas, I could have been more careful. Anyway, it looks quite like the Juniper species Peripitus mentioned above and I'm tempted to call it that but for the problem of changing the file name etc. Let me know what you think, I'd be willing to upload a fresh version with a good title and have this one deleted. I'm just not sure if this would be worth keeping this nomination or what? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not in any article now. How could we keep the nomination?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have got to be kidding me. look at this nom of YOURS in which you changed your identification of the flower almost 4 times. Shall we delist that image? Anyway, I'll see to it that all the appropriate changes are made tonight. (In a couple of hours unfortunately.) The image will be added to the appropriate articles and it will be neat and clean. No worries. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is strange. You asked a question: " I'm just not sure if this would be worth keeping this nomination or what?" and I responded it without even opposing the image and you got angry with me? About my own image - I'll be the first one to support the delisting of this nom of mine . It is not my kind of an image, and I really do not care about keeping it as FP. You know what, it might be a good idea, I'll nominate it for delisting myself. How that?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done--Mbz1 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listen, I'll vote Keep on that delist nom. Why? Because yours is a good image. The same reason that I nominated this image. I didn't oppose your image in the initial nomination and I believe it is a good image deserving of being a featured picture. You voted support as nominator on your initial nomination and you cannot change that fact. You can do nothing to prove that you don't hold a double standard and that is really what I care about. Anyway, vote as you will, If the tree is not the central subject god knows is someone could take a picture that illustrates anything. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak conditional Support - Conditional in that it's only valid if the species is cleared up . Weak because of that purple fringing all over the mountains farther back ... --Mad Tinman _{T C} 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's a very good image, but that angle is very odd. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose IMO this very beautiful image is more about the scenery and not about the tree whatever this tree is.Sorry. Whatever--Mbz1 (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Image has been replaced and is now in two articles appearing above. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing to weak support - I really like the picture and it now seems to have the correct name and be in the right place. Well composed and well taken. Weak support as, although it looks very likely, I can't be sure we have exactly the correct Juniper as this is such a well weathered specimen - Peripitus (Talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It's a great shot, but it doesn't show the whole subject; it would probably be better as a Commons FP. It also seems like we're shooting from the hip with the species identification.--ragesoss (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposse - Per Ragesoss--CPacker (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, full ack rageross. It's fairly pretty though, and I'd support it on commons. --Dschwen 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons is a joke. It serves a reasonably important purpose for the community but it encroaches on Wikipedia featured pictures with, IMO, distorted and wavering standards. Look, the people here, at wikipedia FPC and POTD, serve what I think of as an important purpose. They help get good images for en.wikipedia and make the encyclopedia look better for all the visitors. Commons FP serves no good purpose IMO. Save, perhaps, making it easier for people to find only the very best images to use commercially for free. Nobody outside the commons community visits commons for anything but free stock photos. Commons mission is flawed and not one I support. I will not nominate this image at commons and if nominated, I would oppose it. Look, why should en.wikipedia have to suffer having only dull and boring pictures as FPs? Why can't we show something of beauty on our main page. A main page that is for the cause of promoting knowledge. Not the mission of promoting lower wages for photographers. Just my two cents. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to hear you think this way. wikipedia FPC and POTD, serve what I think of as an important purpose. They help get good images for en.wikipedia. As I expressed above I do not think this picture has enough encyclopedic value. And I do not see FPs as mere eye candy. --Dschwen 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is a re-nomination of sorts... This was the first nom which failed because of distortion issues. So I went back to the source files and re-stitched and labored to get all the lines as best as they could be. This is the result which I feel is better. It also has some added sharpness to boot. I would encourage people to vote on the full sized image (as per the criteria), not the 800px image description page, where what's left of any distortion is unnoticeable to my eyes. Anyway, I hope this one fares better as it took a lot of work to take this and I doubt the sharpness and composition could be improved upon.

Articles this image appears in

Grand Central Terminal, Rail transport in the United States

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OpposeSupport Is that a yellow stretch limo or a taxi? Why is/was there so much distortion at 38mm? Distortion is much improved in edit1, unless someone can point me to a better photo of grand-central I support--Mike Spenard (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stitched panorama, the focal length used for all the segments was 38mm. The panorama is I think 4x2 with some overlap, it would have been about 10mm on DX if taken in one shot. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I would have been hard-pressed not to support the original, and this is certainly an improvement. I think I prefer this to a straight-on shot; a little more interesting, I think. faithless (^speak) 10:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The stretched taxi/cars are distracting and detract from the image. Mangostar (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks better but still a bit weird, but maybe that's because I'm overthinking it. I'll just not vote. Mangostar (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for the unfortunate distortion. Building is bowed upwards in the middle. The centre line of the road forms a long S bend. The straight Stone walkway curves in two directions, rather than simply curving away at the left as it should. A bin (bottom left) is distorted far from rectilinear. Check out the people at the stand (bottom left) - appear to be very wide and the bottom left corner of the stand is stretched from square. Taxi (front left) wheels are no longer round - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. The distortion ruins it. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, I had to download a special projection (variation of a equirectangular projection) to get everything in proportion. I really hope third times the charm... as they say. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 07:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, it looks a little better, but I just noticed a couple of things. The glare from the lampost near the middle and from the lights at the bottom left are distracting. Also, the people and taxis and such at the bottom seem a little cluttered. Maybe a crop? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, it still looks like a funhouse mirror. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - looks much better now. Still a slight wave in the road centre line but there's no guarantee that it was painted dead straight. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. The 2nd story guard rail is curved, and I'm assuming that the building in the background (center left) is, indeed, in three sections with three different angles. If I am correct about both of these things, the projection looks good to me. I actually like the busy taxis and homeless guy and such. If we want a simpler, non-cluttered image, it should just be taken from the road/bridge leading direction to the front of Grand Central Terminal. I think this angle is quite advantageous. What I don't like is the lack of contrast/detail in the masonry/sculpture (especially the words "Grand Central Terminal"), I but I think we get more detail at night, so I think this is about as good as this building from this location can possibly be taken. And I like this location. -Enuja (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. crassic\^talk 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yahel Guhan 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Image-Grand central Station Outside Night 2.jpg MER-C 08:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Its about as illustrative a picture of tugboat as I can think of. Its technically well executed with a tight composition, good sharpness, and good light. It was taken in the late afternoon and I think it does a good job of drawing the reader in...

Articles this image appears in

Boat, Tug boat

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, with a slight preference to original. I just love the heat-smudged horizon behind the smokestacks! - Enuja (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, with slight preference for the number 2.--ragesoss (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Just not up to quality standards. Need sharpening I think. Dengero (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MER-C, if you happen to close this nom, I think you should take into account that the above voter called Diliff's big ben picture small and noisy when to my fairly well trained eye there is no visible noise. Aside, this image has been downsampled from a damn sharp original size and was processed for extra sharpness. There is no more available sharpness at this image size. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have disregarded the Big Ben picture comment as a mistake. I stand strong this picture just isn't FP quality. Dengero (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you elaborate a bit? In what way is it not up to FP standards? Sharpness? Because it is as I said above down-sampled and sharpened and processed for optimum detail. All you said is that it could use sharpening. Adding extra sharpening would start to make halos become visible. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's take the original as example. Spare the bit where the smoke fuzzes out the background (this can't be changed due to physics) The rest of the background is all fuzzy-ish. If that doesn't make a point (since we're talking about the tug boat), then like Mikespenard says, everything is so dull. Dengero (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, the fact that you think the colors are dull is valid enough IMO. While I don't share that view, one can point that out. Actually, the fact that the rest of the background is "fuzzy" is also, in part, due to physics. See, the image was shot at... f/5.6 or f/6.3 or something and with a relatively long focal length lens somewhere between 150-300mm because of this. There is a limited DOF (Depth of field) Many people (myself included) find the background separation afforded by limited DOF appealing and desirable. If you take a look at Bokeh you'll see some examples. Cheers -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to many dull tones. Then again its a tugboat operating in a dirty harbor near a dirty city.--Mike Spenard (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. A much more intriguing photo of a tugboat than I thought possible. Mangostar (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A pretty good photo of a tugboat. Could probably be improved on by showing it tugging a much larger boat, but as for the boat itself, I have no complaints. Sharpness is fine, the background is about as in focus as you could reasonably expect, as per Fcb981's explanation above, and is incidental to the image, not critical. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tug Boat NY 1.jpg MER-C 08:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This was recently re-touched, and the image was made much more clear than before.

Articles this image appears in

Street light, Street furniture, Lyme Regis, Twilight

Creator

MichaelMaggs

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Seems slightly blurry, the lampost is off-center, and that clumb of trees on the bottom left are distracting. Other than that, it's ok. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Eye-catching, but enc value seems to be something of an accident. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not much enc. value. Cacophony (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I supported this on Commons on photographic merit. Need to be convinced of its encyclopedic value to support here. Durova^Charge! 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Don't get me wrong, I like the image, quite a lot actually. But I have to agree with the above concerns about lack of encyclopedic value. The article it does the best at representing is street light, but as this is an exceptionally nice street light, I feel that it's not quite an accurate representation of the subject. Meets most of my criteria, but unfortunately I can't support. faithless (^speak) 10:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeBeing in silhouette really reduces the EV, though I agree it's a beautiful picture. Also, as Faithless mentioned, this rather pretty arrangement is hardly typical of modern street lights. Matt Deres (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support stunning. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it just me or does the lamppost have jagged, aliased edges on the curves? Makes it look like it was cut-and-pasted onto the background. :S CillaИ ♦ XC 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just you. This is an actual photo and there is no cutting or pasting. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you. I see it too, though I think it's probably the result of downsampling (it's 2MP from an 8MP cam) rather than cut and paste. The relatively low dpi of computer moniters just isn't good at displaying this level of detail. Thegreenj 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lack of EV. And the postprocessing makes it look like black cardboard. Plus I fail to see how the pic adds significant value to Street light. Oh, and the placement in Twilight is just wrong, the picture looks like it has been taken with the sun above the horizon! --Dschwen 15:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No encyclopedia value, imo. crassic\^talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree it's a great looking image but I just don't see the encyclopaedic value, sorry. Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Rare, Quality, complimentary to its article etc

Articles this image appears in

Euphorbia milii

Creator

Alok Prasad

• Support as nominator Alokprasad84 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nowhere sharp, noisy. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Seems to be some camera shake... --Janke | Talk 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very high resolution, free image, and very tasty-like.

Articles this image appears in

Cookie, Chocolate Chip

Creator

Sarge Baldy/Pathoschild

• Support as nominator ComputerGuy890100^Talk_Polls 19:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry, image quality and resolution are far from adequate for such an easy subject. Please try again (with a better camera!) - Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wonderful as a Wikicookie, but not feature-worthy. Keep it as a contributor/goodwill thing. :) Durova^Charge! 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose It's just a cookie, it shows nothing worth mentioning, at least not worth mentioning among featured material. diego_pmc (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose so much noise, so little contrast. overexposed with a cheap camera. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

1. scientific artwork of the highest technical standard
2. high resolution
3. among Wikipedia's best scientific artwork
4. free license per default policy of NASA/US Federal gov't
5. Adds value to an article by helping readers understand the new astronomical concept of ringed moons
6. accurate, to the extent of our current scientific knowledge
7. Has good captions on the two pages where it is used
8. neutral: clearly drawn in the style of an artist's impression, so as to not give the false impression that it is a photograph or otherwise based on more data than the article and source suggest
9. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation: this is the unaltered, full res file straight from NASA

Articles this image appears in

Natural satellite and Rhea (moon)

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --M@rēino 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's just an artist's impression... aka worthless. They just noticed Cassini picked up less electrons when its sensor passed on either side of Rhea so it must have rings. That's sooo far from a spectacular picture of the rings of Rhea. Also rhea itself is just splotches of grey, and the rings are somehow perfect vector shapes.. :D\=< (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is precedent for approving artist's impressions -- even in the specific field of renderings based on data from spacecraft. If you read my nomination, I never claimed that this was anything other than an artist's impression, and I acknowledged the Cassini data. --M@rēino 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - may not be an accurate depiction. This is a concern - I've opposed other astro "art", too. --Janke | Talk 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For me it doesn't have enough to justify being an FP, especially as it is a computer generated image. There's also the issue of accuracy in it's depiction, as Janke states. --Cpl Syx (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Same here, I've opposed artists impressions before and I'm opposing this one again. Too speculative and too little true information content for an encyclopedia. --Dschwen 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think the speculative nature of this image or the fact that it is computer generated disqualify it from being a featured picture. I believe it meets all the requirements for a featured article. Xasz (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh. Did someone just remove all the oppose votes, which was all but 1? :D\=< (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snicker Yah. Someone revert I have to go NOW :D\=< (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the votes. Should we have a talk with Elena about this? Dr. eXtreme 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather more serious than being a bit mischievous. Especially when last week she just stripped three candidates off the FPC page - see here. She's only a new user, so may just be finding her feet, but someone may need to at least tap her on the shoulder. --jjron (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite fair, the stripping three off of the page was one possible interpretation of a suggestion I made, and they were all her own. Dr. eXtreme 12:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't alter the fact that it's entirely inappropriate (and not something that should have been suggested to her). The point remains that she may not fully understand what is and isn't acceptable. --jjron (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose low encyclopedic standard - rings very conjectural and specifics of hypothesis not clearly illustrated. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I wanted to try and nominate something a bit different, and this looks good enough to eat. Another good, but somewhat less appetising image is Image:Trippa2.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Tripe

Creator

Yun Huang Yong

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First and most importantly, it is nothing special. It just doesn't 'pop'. Aside from that, the glare is distracting on the items around the pot. Also, it is very cluttered, with a bunch of half-shown items in the image. Lastly, the tehnical quality isn't great. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because it's too cluttered and at an odd angle. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SilkTork. crassic\^talk 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Gross! :P Kaldari (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Itwas already once nominated as set, together with other bones. it was then sugested to be nominated apart. so i am now placing each image at a time -LadyofHats (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Wormian bones

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and question Is this based on any specific example of Wormian bones? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Lady of Hats has done it again --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Obviously another great one from LoH. But I think the image could be much improved with some labels or some other information as to specific bones. A top view would also add a lot of information as well. Also, I generally like to see vector drawings with this level of detail uploaded at least 1000 px wide or so, so that it's easier to see and examine the detail without having to download it. I know that LoH uses a variety of sources, so it would be good to list or link on the image description page. Making sure the image description page is complete is an essential part of the FPC process. Putting in a little extra in terms of labels and putting the finishing touches on this drawing and image description page will make it so much better. Nice Job. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think all of them have standard names, as they're unusual "mutant" forms of the skull structure. Some common ones probably do, of course. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I uploaded a bigger image and added some of my references into the description page.I do not think the image would benefit from any labels since the subject is clear enough and ading extra text would add the need of translation. The image like it is now can be used in any Wiki project.

Also i did not copy an existing case of wormian bones, instead i gave already done skull some extra sutural bones following more or less my sources. -LadyofHats (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One other thing, it looks like at the base of the skull the outer line is brown while the rest of the lines are black; is this supposed to be that way? Otherwise Support. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • er..it shouldnt be this way.. i fixed it. LadyofHats (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is fantastic encyclopedic content. I doubt there is a better image of Wormian bones anywhere elso --Blacknightshade (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wormian bones.svg --Malachirality (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's a difficult decision to nominate a recent video where people die, particularly of an ongoing war. No disrespect is intended toward the surviving families, and no political statement is implied in this nomination. This is war, though: not sanitized by selection or distanced by time. And war is important and encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

Human rights in post-invasion Iraq

Creator

United States Department of Defense

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Considering the source, the rather sensitive nature involved, and the relatively high quality. Dr. Extreme (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Because it's highly disturbing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I think we can do without the scare quotes in the caption; whatever your feelings are about the situation, the men shot were suspects, and putting quotes in there makes it sound like an ironic statement, which is POV. Matt Deres (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to modify for maximum neutrality. It looked like neutral distancing to me, yet in subject matter as sensitive as this it's important to take a full range of perspectives into account. Durova^Charge! 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The video was first released on a right wing forum by a member of the U.S military (filmed december 2003?), rather than through an official source, this is taken on a farm and there is a tractor on the left, the tube like object may not necessarily be a weapon, but a marker pole used for plowing irregularly shaped fields. I don't think the encyclopedic value is great because of the caption, if it's used in the article about human rights in Iraq it should go into how that they may not have been insurgents and the fact that the wounded are also killed and the act depicted in this video in particular was criticized by many including a retired general. If you change the caption I will change to support. Shifthours (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if scare quotes removed from caption - Wikipedia guidlines are to not use scare quotes. Saying they were suspected insurgents is a fact. Whether they were insurgents or not does not change the fact. Johntex\^talk 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually to be npov would means you should state the U.S military believes they were suspected insurgents while others have disagreed. Shifthours (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; changed description per request. Durova^Charge! 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just the US military that uses the phrase "suspected Iraqi insurgents" with no qualifier or scare quotes. The main source in the article uses the same phrase.[16] Johntex\^talk 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new caption doesn't assert that the suspicion was unique to the U.S. military. Go ahead and modify the caption if you think it's important to forestall that misinterpretation. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your caption is a nice improvement - thank you. I made one change I think is better, which is to remove the "suspected". Now that we are stating who believes they were insurgents, I think it is clear that the US military believed the actually were insurgents, not just suspected insurgents. OK with everyone? Johntex\^talk 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per WP:ENC. Not nice. Not pretty. However thought provoking and encourages a desire to learn more about the subject. Exactly what WP is about. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Encyclopedic and depicts the subject of modern warfare, as well as related topics, well. Hello32020 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. DAMN! Angelono2008 (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly informative, good quality for what it is. faithless (^speak) 10:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, enc, but not very high quality. gren グレン 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very encyclopedic. Video quality is not significant importance here. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if this was the highest quality video there was in existence. But it isn't. This is analogous to a poor scan of an encyclopedic image. All it would take was getting access to some recorded news footage from when this was played and ripping it. It's very doable. gren グレン as 128.175.80.58 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Apache-killing-Iraq.ogv --Malachirality (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

There are minor technical problems such as the crosses that overlay the image. So what? It's a picture of Mankind's first journey to the moon, and it's not exactly a repeatable photograph, unless you believe the conspiracy cranks and can find the sets used by the studio in California.

Articles this image appears in

Apollo 11, Apollo Lunar Module

Creator

Neil Armstrong

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I think tech quality is entirely OK. The crosses are from the pressure plate in the Hasselblad camera, so all shots have them. Support is weak because we see only the back of Aldrin. Threr are better Apollo 11 shots, so if we get an alternative, I can change my vote in favor of that. --Janke | Talk 13:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Changing to full support, this indeed shows the LEM to advantage. --Janke | Talk 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is the best shot of the Lunar Lander on the moon, at least that's been uploaded to commons, and as NASA has released all photos of the Apollo missions, Commons (presumably) has the best of them. Here are the other options.

Shot from Apollo 15. A very good shot, but probably not as encyclopedic for the pages where this one is used. If we were going to switch, though, this is the one to switch to.

commons:Category:Apollo 16 also has a couple, but similarly lack focus. (Also, we'd have to get better resolution photos for those, though the NASA site probably has them).

An Apollo 17 photo, similar to the Apollo 15, though not as good.

And, well, for the record commons:Category:Lunar modules

There are some excellent photos from the Apollo missions, but for encyclopaedic value about the Lunar module, I think this one is the best. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think it looks good. The crosshairs don't bother me that much. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good pictures, but i can't help thinking that the background on the second picture looks increadibly fake! Hope it isn't though... ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Apollo 11 Lunar Lander - 5927 NASA.jpg --Malachirality (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution daguerrotype of a paddle steamer riverboat, taken 1852-1860. By far the oldest photograph of its type in either of the articles where it appears, it predates the next oldest by 60 years and is the only paddle steamer photo that dates from the era when this was cutting edge technology. Fortunately the archival version Image:SteamboatBenCampbell.jpg was in unusually good condition for a daguerrotype and needed relatively little restoration.

Articles this image appears in

Paddle steamer, Riverboat

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though it would be nice to have a cite for that "only paddle-steamer photo from that era" claim =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if the context is unclear: I mean within the article. All the other photos are twentieth century. Durova^Charge! 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo--CPacker (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Where are you getting all these historic daguerrotypes? Dr. eXtreme 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Library of Congress archives. Durova^Charge! 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:SteamboatBenCampbellb.jpg --Malachirality (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very similar photo to this was originally featured but I was never 100% happy with the sky, as it was a bit overcast and hazy, so I endeavoured to take a new photo at some point. Well, its been sitting in my collection for 9 months now and I've just got around to stitching it and fine tuning it. The angle is slightly different (better?), as the last one was taken from a slight angle, and the tower appeared to lean. This one still has the issue, but as a photographer you're quite limited in where you can take a photo, and I think this is close enough. I'm proposing to de-list and replace the old FP if this one passes (either automatically or by nominating it for de-listing, whichever procedure dictates). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster and Secular Icon

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The slight tilt and the blurry tree in the foreground are a little distracting, but otherwise it's gorgeous. Definitely makes the original seem a bit drab. CillaИ ♦ XC 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I might wish for a bit more panorama of Westminster Palace to the right, and a bit more view downward, but I can't deny that what we do see is a fantastically good image. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hope the old one won't just be delisted automatically; I think I like it a bit more than this one. Both are superb, but I think the original has a better angle (getting to see another side of the tower and removing that unsightly tree from the lower left corner), and the shadows just look better, softer somehow. I certainly wouldn't oppose this, but I do prefer the other one. Thegreenj 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not that I mind the overcast sky in the original shot; it is London, after all. But this one is so sharp, great detail. I agree that tree is distracting, but that's small potatoes, certainly no reason to oppose IMHO. faithless (^speak) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Oppose - I'm with Thegreenj, the other one has a better composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way too small, and noisy even at that size. Dengero (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Disregard and Weak Support There were 4 other windows open and I was looking at the wrong picture before, sorry. But weak support anyway mainly because I think there's no need to replace/upload the new one. Dengero (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small and noisy? Are you familiar with the guidelines?? This image is 2500 × 4986 in resolution (almost 5 times the minimum and larger than the vast majority of images submitted here), and emphatically almost noise-free. It was taken with a Canon 5D, renown for being one of the least noisy digital SLRs on the planet, and has been processed with noise reduction software. Please point out the noise you're refering to. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol, same way my tugboat nom is blurry and needs sharpening. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perfect, brilliant quality. @Dengero - er, wut? This image is massive and has no noise whatsoever. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We already have almost the same Existing FP. Do we really need the two of them? I'd say, if Diliff (the creator of both images) likes his second version better, he could nominate the first one for delisting, and after, and if it gets delisted, renominate the new image.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a silly reason to oppose. I don't see any reason why we can't image AFTER this one is successful. I agree, we don't need two FPs, but what if I requested a delisting of the first one and people supported it on the proviso that the second one replace it, and then the second one was not promoted to FP? It makes far more sense this way. I'd like to see you provide a legitimate reason for opposition to this specific image, as I stated quite clearly that I'd be happy to have only one of them as FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason is in this very nomination. Have you read the comment from User:Thegreenj? He/she likes the first image better. To answer your question about what happens, if you requested a delisting of the first one and people supported it on the proviso that the second one replace it, and then the second one was not promoted to FP,it is going to be very hard on all of us, but I hope we'll survive. On the other hand may I please ask you, what happens, if the second image gets promoted and the first one will not get delisted? May I please also ask you do not use a word "silly", while talking about the reason of my oppose. I do not find it to be civil and/or polite.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noticed that user:Alvesgaspar likes the first vesion better too.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're still being silly though, and if I think you are, I will say so. Just because someone else thinks something, it doesn't mean you don't have to explain your reasons for opposing. Others have their own vote and you have yours, and you have to provide your reasons, even if just to say you agree with them, but you still haven't provided your own reasons. You've only alluded to Thegreenj and Alvesgaspar's reasons for opposing, without actually stating yours. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • May I please ask you once again to stop making personal comments/attacks and to stop being uncivil Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look, saying your reason for opposition is silly is not a 'personal attack'. I'm being slightly less than courteous mainly because you frustrate the heck out of me! ;-) And can I ask that you keep some semblance of order by using intents correctly? I'm having to place all over the place in reply to you because you're inserting them randomly and making it very confusing to follow. :-) If you want to reply to something I've said, put it directly below and intent it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Here' what you said: "You're still being silly though, and if I think you are, I will say so" and IMO it is a personal comments/attack. I posted my comment excatly after the comment of yours, where a personal attack has occured.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • And for the record, the two people you mentioned who prefer the other image haven't actually opposed this nomination. It has been discussion and nothing more. There are more than two people who DO support the image, however, so it isn't as though the opposition is overwhelming. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I believe I spelled out the reason of my opposing few times already. Let me repeat it once again: IMO if the second image gets promoted and the first image does not get delisted we would have one (or maybe even two) FP images too many.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Then let me spell it out again for you: I don't think that is not a valid reason for opposition. You should be able to provide a reason for opposition to this image in isolation and in relation to the guidelines, not just because you don't want two FPs of the same object. I'm quite confident we'll be able to ensure that only one remains FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I gave the reason, which is valid IMO. Please delist Existing FP and I'll be the first one to support the current nomination even after you, Diliff, were so uncivil towad me.Until then I oppose the current nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • May I please also ask you do not edit my contributions. You know what I'm talking about. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • *Slaps forehead*. Argh, you're still replying in random locations and you've placed the wrong image in there now, in two different locations. OK, since you've asked so nicely, I will leave it there so everyone can see how silly you still are. ;-) But I will reserve the right to edit the formatting your contributions (not content) when it aids the flow and doesn't detract of the discussion, which is what I did originally. This is common sense and I did not try to hide what I did - I disclosed it fully in the edit summary. Anyway, note to closer: could you please note my issues with Mbz1's opposition when closing this nomination? Thanks. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • May I please ask you once again to stop making personal comments/attacks and to stop being uncivil Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Geeeeeeez, stop it already. I'd be thinking twice before wagging the WP:UNCIVIL and WP:ATTACK fingers... --Dschwen 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • May I please ask you instead of "thinking twice" review civility and personal comments/attacks pages? May I please also ask you to stop giving me orders? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Honestly, Mbz1. You're the one barking orders through a thinly veiled 'request'. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• <restart indent> May I please ask you once again to:

1. Place indents in the correct location as you have made this page extremely messy as a result.

2. Stop being so sensitive as I was criticising your actions and decisions, not you as a person.

3. Provide a reason for opposition to this image according to the criteria, not your opinion on how you think the nomination/denomination process should occur.

Thank you in advance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I stated the oppose reason, which is a valid one IMO.criteria # 3 states :"Is among Wikipedia's best work." Some people might like your first image better, other might like better the second one. Wich one is the best for the given subject? Few weeks ago I saw a delist nominatin (cannot find it now) which was actually delist/replace nomination. I'm not sure, if it is a valid option at the present time, but I believe it should be an option for such situations. In one of your comments you said: "Anyway, note to closer: could you please note my issues with Mbz1's opposition when closing this nomination". I believe it is what you should have started with. May I please ask the closer, if he/she belives that the reason for my oppose is invalid, please disregard my vote. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to organise the formatting so it's easier to read and moved the pictures of the existing FP to the right hand side. Pstuart84 Talk 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, but watch out, Mbz1 won't be happy that you've removed her images in the body of text as she complained of me doing the same. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Pstuart84. You've done a great job by posting two big images side by side.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Great photo but I prefer the very similar previously featured pucture (mentioned and displayed above) which I think has much more detail and a better angle (the tower looks a bit 2-D in this one). I also find the colour of the sky quite harsh around the area of the clock face - although that could just be personal preference/my moniter settings. It seems logical that only one of them should be used in articles as they are so similar so it doesn't seem possible that they could both meet criteria 5. Guest9999 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about the use of the image in Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster here. Guest9999 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nomination. Seems preferable to the one already promoted. Rudget. 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The angle is better on this one. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While I think that blue skies are indeed pretty the tower comes out worse in the new version. First of all the dead frontal perspective is not preferable to original slanted view IMO. Secondly the light, seems to come from pretty much behind the camera, which makes the tower look flat. All the pretty masonry relief work is almost invisible. Don't get me wrong, this probably is a 90% picture competing with 95% picture, but for the reasons I pointed out it does not represent Wikipedias best work (in the field of Big Ben pictures ;-) ). And what really tips the scale toward an oppose is that despite my fondness of blue skies I would't want to see only fair weather pictures among the FPs (yeah, take that last reason with a grain of salt). --Dschwen 01:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your comments on the pretty masonry, I uploaded this comparison (apologies for anything my quick cut and paste did to the image) which I think it shows pretty clearly the original image does show greater detail. Guest9999 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Comparing the two - now that it has been brought up - the masonry looks too flat in the new proposal. In the FP, you can clearly see the relief. For this reason, enc is lower in the new one. I don't care so much about the sky - it's the building that matters. --Janke | Talk 08:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The new one is nice but I think the old one provides better resolution of the stonework. However my comment relates to the time. Would it not be nice if the clock showed the hour or a time with some significance that an editor could pick up on rather than a random disposition of the hands. I know this means waiting for the right moment but I think it is worth it. Motmit (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• 'Oppose' Per Guest9999 --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Given that your main complaint of the proposed replacement is the 'flat' view of the tower, but many of you have prefered the vibrancy of it over the original, I've taken it on board and decided to go back to the RAW files and re-process it, as looking at it again, I can see plenty of room for improvement without messing with the accuracy, as I think the sky was actually not quite as dull in the original as it seems (poor processing in the first place on my part, I think). I'm going to upload a new version as a third candidate (as I said, using the original's RAW files), and see what you think. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. OK, here we go. A re-processed version of the existing FP. Comparing this to the original FP, this is far more accurate in my opinion. I originally assumed that I processed it properly in the first place but looking back on it, I can't believe how badly I messed it up. The colours are far more accurate now (compare the white balance on the clock face, for starters), and the sky is no longer dull (I didn't have to pull any fancy tricks to do this either, just got the white balance and exposure right and a little squeeze on the saturation trigger). The tower itself is also more accurate (I think). Hopefully this is the one we can all agree on. I suppose we can always hope. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, with this many votes already cast, should this nom be closed and a new one created? Or perhaps archive the discussion and just bring it back to the top of the page? Any ideas? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The blue sky isn't enough to overcome the loss of texture to the facade, and the angle of the earlier photo gives a better view of the dimensions of the structure--with the side walls partly visible. Both are very good photographs, but I prefer the current FP. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you support what I've designated Option 3, which is a reprocessing of the existing FP? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do like that. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All are wonderful pictures, but I prefer the current FP, the reprocessed current FP is second, and the nominated image third. The masonry detail is best in the current FP, and I like the tilted angle better, as well. The reason I don't like reprocessed current FP is that some of the detail in the gold is missing. Thanks for nominating the new one, though, Diliff. I understand why you weren't happy with the sky, but I actually prefer the sky in the original. - Enuja (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: Since I definitely prefer Option 3, the cleared-up edit of the current FP - I think that Diliff would be entirely within his rights to upload that edit over the original, preserving its FP status. Only contrast and color balance are changed, the picture is the same... --Janke | Talk 07:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any, but with a preference for the already featured one. I'm not so sure the new edit of the existing FP is so much more accurate. I like the warm tones of the old one (personal tastes). Should the white color of the clock really be a white balance reference ? Wasn't lighting actually a bit warm ? . Also, the most recent shot doesn't show as much details. Still, I think they are all great pictures. -- Blieusong (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a current FP or the edit of the current FP because IMO they show much more details than the nominated image. All the images are great and involve a huge amount of work.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I prefer the existing FP - it has more detail. The new one is tilted and some details are washed out in the bright sunshine. The cleaned up existing FP is the best of the three. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 3. the detials are really good. Yahel Guhan 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option 3 (to replace existing version) per general reasoning above and Diliff's statement. --jjron (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• commentHi, Diliff, I am not asking who was being silly, but may I please ask you who was right? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I please ask you what you mean? Right about what? There were so many issues in question in this nomination that I haven't got a clue what you're referring to! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just meant that IMO I was right that in such situations (where the images are almost the same) the current FP and the nominated image should be discussed and voted at the same place and at same time.I have one more question, but I put it to your talk page.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I love the lighting on the original, don't see any reason to change it :D\=< (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to add to the party, I Support option 3 over the original; much, much better "development". --mikaul^talk 01:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (+12/-8) for original, no consensus for option 3 --Malachirality (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

FLOWERS ARE MY WIFEYYYY

Reason

Image I found while surfing the commons in a category I created. I moved it immediately to the article it is in now. The image is high quality, very encyclopedic and has with its addition to the article it's in, has improved the article quality greatly.

Articles this image appears in

White-tailed Trogon

Creator

Commons:User:Mdf

• Support as nominator ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High-quality, highly illustrative (I feel like I could recognize one of these birds if I saw it), and beautiful. Good find. Dr. eXtreme 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though you just know that someone's going to object to that branch blocking part of the view. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support can we just go ahead and make all of Mdf's pictures featured? :P Kidding aside, another superb shot, great quality, obviously encyclopedic value. faithless (^speak) 06:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to weak oppose It's a good image, and it has good encyclopediac value, but I don't like the way the branch covers so much of the bird. Also, the flash in it's eye is distracting, and the coloring isn't the best. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If the flash is a problem in its eye, could someone edit it out?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Unfortunately, the branch is really thick and does cover a lot of the bird. A great picture, but I think there could be better shots. Jared (t)  01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- not one of Mdf's best works. Besides the branch, the lighting is too artificial. howcheng {chat} 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As much as I hate opposing Mdf's great contributions, I must agree with opinions above. The branch is just too significant to ignore, and the whole pose of the bird isn't particularly 'comfortable'. --jjron (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Howcheng and jjron. It almost looks like an ex-Parrot to me. Was it shot from below, d'you suppose? or maybe it was poisoned? (sorry). --mikaul^talk 01:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high quality reprodution of a gorgeous old nautical chart from one the best cartographers of the 16th century, a category which is very poorly illustrated in Wikipedia

Articles this image appears in

Fernão Vaz Dourado, Nautical chart, Cartography

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You don't see many old maps which aren't either mappa mundi or of Europe. At least I don't. Nice quality. faithless (^speak) 11:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Important to both Portugese and African history, high quality file. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality and historical importance. - Darwinek (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent! diego_pmc (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and comment. As a flag buff, I find myself wondering about the flags in this image. The Coat of arms of Portugal is pretty easy to pick out, and the gyronny-patterned (pinwheel) flags apparently denote city status in Portuguese heraldry (see Flag of Lisbon). But I don't recognize the gyronny flags with the knight's order crosses in them-- I wonder what they are (and I wonder what they're doing in West Africa). I also wonder about those crescent pennants-- do those represent one of the Barbary Coast states? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry not to be able to satisfy your curiosity about the flags. What I know is that the cross inside those gyronny flags are of the Portuguese Order of Christ, the same that the ships used in the sails. As for the crescents, could it just represent the moor's (muslim) domination in the northern Africa?

Promoted Image:Fernão Vaz Dourado 1571-1.jpg MER-C 09:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not long ago a few FPC regulars commented about the shortage of women in Wikipedia's featured pictures. So here is one of the leading figures of eighteenth century politics and intellectual life: Madame de Pompadour. She ran a salon where Voltaire was a frequent guest and she encouraged Denis Diderot to pursue his Encyclopédie project, which became the first modern multi-volume encyclopedia. During the 1750s she determined a good part of France's military and diplomatic policy. A commoner by birth who rose through talent and determination, her physical relations with the king ended in 1750 and she selected later partners for him, while as official mistress she functioned as the equivalent to an important minister of state. A good portrait for its era on technical merits and a quality file large enough for nomination.

Articles this image appears in

Madame de Pompadour, Bonnet (headgear), Embroidery hoop

Creator

François-Hubert Drouais

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's a bit small, though otherwise very good. Can we find a bigger one? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll replace it if I can. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bigger would be nicer, but it is big enough. faithless (^speak) 11:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Small-ish, alone not enough to oppose, but combined with some serious jpeg artifacts... Thegreenj 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unusual dress fabric (likely a painted silk rather than an embroidered one), lovely illustration of period use of lace and striped ribbons, and a stunning floor-standing tambour frame, all of which are of encyclopedic interest. - PKM (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Thegreenj. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Artifacted and too small. Of course size is a perfectly valid reason to oppose in a case like this. Just like we excuse sub par sizes for irreproducible images we should enforce above par sizes for simple reproductions. Quite frankly I do not see the point in featuring every single ok quality scan of some old painting we have (same with NASA pics by the way). And I find the lack of quality original shots on FPC a bit disappointing/frustrating lately. Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest... --Dschwen 03:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- too artifacted. howcheng {chat} 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Many hours of work have been put into this map. This map shows predominant features such as arches, peaks, rivers and streams, mines, and roads. I hope to do more maps of Utah Parks and areas in the near future. I feel this map meets the criteria for selection. I submitted this first to the Picture peer review for constructive feedback, to which I got.

Articles this image appears in

Arches National Park

Creator

Justin Morris

• Support as nominator Justin Morris ^{(talk, contributions)} 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for top enc. (If any errors are found, I may revise my "vote".) --Janke | Talk 08:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It might have been better to make it a little larger (so the text was sharper) or to make it an SVG, but it's nonetheless great. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No need for svg since there's shaded relief, and size is plenty large enough. Just a few housekeeping suggestions: consider migrating to commons, so that other projects can use the map. Also consider using the Location template to put in the GPS coordinates, and you could make a section on the image description page to list your sources. Great job! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-03-06 14:32Z
• Suppport per Janke and Brian0918. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent map. M.K. (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. But instead of Location I would suggest Overlay. --Dschwen 03:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fine work. - Darwinek (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support diego_pmc (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Out of curiosity (I couldn't find the answer anywhere) how long do images stay here before being promoted? Justin Morris ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One week = 7 days = 168 hours = ... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Arches National Park Map.jpg MER-C 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great photo of enciclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Siberian Chipmunk • List of mammals of Korea

Creator

User:AndiW

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Angelono2008 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A bit more tail would be nice, but good enough by my standards. faithless (^speak) 10:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good picture, but the sharpness compares unfavorably to our other squirrel-type FPs. Mangostar (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image quality and sharpness at full size are not good. The light destroys texture of fur. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - for encyclopedic and cute value, also its a gr8 image to be fair --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good picture, but I would prefer if the tail was a bit more focused. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This needs to be a lot clearer to pass FPC. howcheng {chat} 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful, and very clear.

Articles this image appears in

Golden Gate Park, Crepuscular rays

Creator

user:Mbz1

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I added the image to Crepuscular Rays. I replaced my own very similar image with this one, so it's OK. I'd also like to point out that the image is rather rare because as it stated in the caption it shows two sets of rays.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An encyclopedic and beautiful view of the phenomenon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though, as a native of the Bay Area, I'm a little biased. :) faithless (^speak) 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. So THAT'S what they're called. I always just called them "angel rays." Dr. eXtreme 12:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. --Schcambo (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Isn't it wonderful to have Wikipedia around providing definitions of all that stuff none of the grownups we asked knew the names for when we asked, years ago? Now I'll try to remember how to spell this... Durova^Charge! 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Incredible! Djk3 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support truly eye catching, M.K. (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yeees, nice one! - Darwinek (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo. crassic\^talk 18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Matt Deres (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it. Enigma ^msg! 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Totally awesome --Blacknightshade (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg MER-C 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

better version of Wilma, the strongest storm in the Atlantic.

Articles this image appears in

2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season, Hurricane Wilma

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great photo of the strongest storm of the 2005 season. I think this one has EV and AV. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is probably the best of the hurricane pictures up right now. Unlike some of the others, there seems to be a sort of sense of movement about it, a sort of "pop" that the others lack. Dr. Extreme (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, fails criterion 7 (adequate caption) and criterion 5 (adds to article) because it is not in any mainspace articles. If those are resolved, I'll gladly support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - ineligible. Good pick up. Indeed this is not in an article, and was not in the listed article when nominated, if ever. Shoehorning it into something now is not good enough. --jjron (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to appear in at least one article and a caption before it gets considered for promotion. MER-C 08:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment. Honestly, this is just flouting our basic conventions if this is promoted. It's been nominated deceptively (as mentioned above it was never in the claimed article), and if not for the OTHER FIVE hurricanes that had been nominated in the couple of days before this, by this same user, people may have actually been bothered to check this one out. It's also a concern that all those that supported evidently never bothered to check the "encyclopaedic value", i.e., whether it was adding value to an article. Because it's now been shoved in somewhere and given a caption doesn't make things right, and is not how things should be allowed to be done. This just makes a joke of the process. --jjron (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Agree with jjron, this doesn't even need a discussion the promotion was just invalid. That can happen, and we should quickly fix it. --Dschwen 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

In San Francisco the setting sun is rarely round. It is due to mirage, which in my opinion is a really fascinating subject. The image has high encyclopedic and educational values and IMO as FP image would make Wikipedia readers to want to learn more about mirages.

Articles this image appears in

Mirage

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's certainly very pretty. One might wish for the shillouettes to be a bit sharper, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comment Shoemaker's Holiday. May I please mention that this image is not about being pretty, it is not just another pretty sunset. This image shows a very interesting, rarely observed and even more rarely photographed phenomenon of complex mock mirage sunset. Because the cause of mirage is strong ray-bending in layers with steep thermal gradients the image quality of this mirage is as best as it gets for such images. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ogh, I understand that, but aesthetic quality + encyclopedic value makes for the best iimages. I just don't know enough about mirages to vote on it, so comment only =) Shoemaker's Holiday

(talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is great words:"I just don't know enough about mirages to vote on it, so comment only". Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not so sure about the encyclopedic value, as it's just one of many sunset mirages in the gallery (which BTW probably should be moved on the grounds of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY). howcheng {chat} 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You are absolutely right. This is one of many sunset mirages. May I please ask you, if you also noticed that all of them were taken by me? Yes, in San Francisco I see mirages 20-30 times per year, but I wonder how many times people from different parts of the world see a mirage? May I please also mention that all sunset mirages are quite unique and that's why all and every one of them have encyclopedic value.Scientists around the world are trying to explain my images. That's why I kind of hoped that it might be nice to have one sunset mirage as FP. About moving the images to the gallery. I'd rather moved them to sunset mirage article. I tried to find somebody to write an article about sunset mirages, but could not. The people I talked to are afraid that they would put lots of work in writing and then somebody, who's never seen a mirage would change their work. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nothing in this image is in focus and the image has no caption in the article. Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that's enough. I withdraw the nomination and I am really sorry I uploaded to Wikipedia "so many" "out of focus" sunset mirage images. I truly believe Wikipedia would have been much better off without any one of them. I'd like to end up my contributing to FP project with three quotes that I really like:
  " I just don't know enough about mirages to vote on it, so comment only =)" by Shoemaker's Holiday
  the second quote from Commons FP criteria:
  :"A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject."
  The third quote from a friend of mine after I showed few nominations to him:
  "Are you sure you put it in the right place? Is it really encyclopedia?"
  Thank you all for comments and for the vote--Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't take it so hard, Mbz - Commons is a totally different place, and the quote there doesn't necessarily apply here - Wikipedia FPs need both high quality and a lot of encyclopedic content (I'm not saying your image lacks it) - and often, that is the stumbling point for many candidates. Keep nominating, don't take comments too personally. We all try to make a better 'pedia, and photos are always welcome. Whether they will make it all the way to FPs is another matter - it's a tough test! --Janke | Talk 09:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mira-- you're a valued contributor (with what, at least 7 FPs that were personally taken by you?). Please don't take comments personally. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean anything personally, just trying to judge the picture based on the FP criteria. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad about it, you didn't do anything wrong. Threatening to quit WP or FPC is just poor style. --Dschwen 00:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cannot agree with you more,Dschwen. It is a poor style and I am sorry, if the statements I made offended or upset somebody. Thank you all for the comments.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn.

Reason

I think it's fairly notable that this is the earliest known depiction of a European cannon. However, I'm not sure if that grain is from the photograph, or from the age of the diagram.

Articles this image appears in

Cannon, pot-de-fer

Creator

Walter de Milemete

• Support as nominator · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for graininess. I'm pretty sure it's the image file; a JPG image of that size saved at high quality would be far larger than 1.06 MB. howcheng {chat} 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice image, very poor scan. --mikaul^talk 13:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, you guys seem pretty sure that the grain is from the photograph/scan, so I'll withdraw the nomination (I assume I'm allowed to? If not I'll just oppose as well). · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn.

Reason

Greatly illustrates the article Charles Griffin and of course has great enciclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Charles Griffin

Creator

Unknown, mabye Brady?

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not the best quality but, as always, I'll take encyclopedic value over less-than-ideal technical aspects. faithless (^speak) 06:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The encyclopediac value is high, but, per above, the technical quality isn't great. For example, it is quite blurry on the bottom right. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, the technical quality is very high for a picture taken so early in the 19th century. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great encyclopedic value and quality for such an old image. crassic\^talk 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. This image could probably go in Epaulette too. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It does have great enc value but really doesn't appeal on any other level. Quality portraiture for this era relied more on the subject being able to stand still during the exposure than anything else, and Charles seems to have been a right fidget. Look how clear and sharp the static elements are. The print lacks density too, which doesn't help. Sorry, but I wouldn't hold this up on the main page as an outstanding example of its kind. For comparison, I've pulled this one out of commons at random, based on capture date (as we say these days). Much more like it, no? --mikaul^talk 01:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CharlesGriffin.jpg --Malachirality (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Although there are things that could be better - the full set of equipment could have been attached to the rover, for instance - the Lunar rover was only used on the last three Apollo missions, and as such, if we want an image of it in use on the moon, our selection is limited. I think this image has superb composition, has a wonderful shot of Cernan [in his spacesuit, of course], and is just generally exciting. It must be said that it looks better at lower resolutions than full, but I'm uncomfortable downsampling, due to, well, loss of information from an irreproducable photo.

Articles this image appears in

List of Apollo astronauts, I've added it to Lunar rover as it's the best shot of it in operation I know of.

Creator

Harrison H. Schmitt

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Doesn't do much for me, personally, but the obvious historical importance and acceptable quality leads me to support. faithless (^speak) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For encyclopedic value. --Cpl Syx (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -as per above --Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 09:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Those crosses placed throughout picture are a little annoying. crassic\^talk 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changed vote. crassic\^talk 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, pretty much all Apollo lunar surface pictures have them. They're artefacts of the camera used. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO they're an important part of the picture. This wasn't a day in the park shooting flowers with a Canon Digital SLR, it was shot on the surface of the moon, 35 years ago, very extreme technical conditions. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Don't really understand why those crosses had to be there, but they don't seem too bothering to me. diego_pmc (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's something to do with the camera - I don't know the exact details, but may have something to do with the modifications that allowed it to be used on the moon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The crosses are on the pressure plate ("Reseau" plate) in the special NASA Hasselblad camera. The plate keeps the film flat, and aids in photogrammetric measurements. --Janke | Talk 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose unnecessary shadow and odd angle obscure most of vehicle. Why not image:Apollo 15 Lunar Rover final resting place (cropped).jpg?

Promoted Image:NASA_Apollo_17_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle.jpg --Malachirality (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It completely illustrates the article Baggage claim and the Baggage carousel. It also displays other things in an airport such as baggage cart, baggage enquiry desk, busy arrival on the right.

Articles this image appears in

Baggage claim

Creator

Base64

• Support as nominator βαςε_LXIV™ 08:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a picture of HK airport, yet it isn't in its "home" article? Dengero (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Couldn't find "Baggage claim area" in the article Hong Kong International Airport. If the picture is put in Baggage and cargo facilities, it could not illustrate that part, because that part only says the underground baggage handling, which means it cannot fulfill criteria 5: "Add Values to an article". So Baggage claim is the best place for this picture, the place which it can illustrate an article. βαςε_LXIV™ 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Not really sharp, no "wow". Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Baggage claims will never be exciting, but compared to a wide angle shot, it is much more interesting. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I usually don't like panoramas, but this one is very interesting, and from what I can tell the technical quality is good. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually like panoramas either, but when you look at this one in full resolution and scroll from left to right, it feels like you're looking around. Very well put together, would be cool as an animation too. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and likewise, I added it to the HK airport article. Yahel Guhan 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as exciting a shot of a baggage claim area as anyone is likely to take. Matt Deres (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Baggage claims are never going to be thrilling, but I think this is a very good depiction of the subject. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference for edit 1 -- I know it's indoors and all, but it looked really dark. Added an edit which brightened up the lighting a bit. howcheng {chat} 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:VHHH_baggage_claim_area.jpg --Malachirality (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Breath taking, the image was taken during the exact right time.

Articles this image appears in

Canton of Glarus, Klöntalersee

Creator

Ikiwaner

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful image with encyclopedic value!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose easily reproduced image that should be retaken when the hillsides are sunlit rather than 70% in the shade (or with more

diffuse lighting, the contrast between sun/shade detracts from the image IMO). Cacophony (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above --Mike Spenard (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Great picture, and I think the light/dark bit is a good picure split. Although the darker bits need to be lightened up just a tad. Otherwise great. Dengero (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportThe darkness doesn't detract at all, from what I can see, and the split actually adds the "pop" that I need. Dr. eXtreme 14:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Nice image. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - lighting, per Cacophony. Mangostar (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate support This is a very nice image, but the lighting is a small issue. If you have a photo program, you can adjust the lighting, but if you don't I'd be happy to do it for you, because I would like to see this as an FP. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A nice thumbnail, but when I expanded it ... it wasn't anything special. crassic\^talk 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support Yahel Guhan 07:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate oppose Good illustration of a Swiss lake in winter (you can feel the chill) and excellent encyclopedic in that it has supported the article since its inception. However the problems are the weak tree to the bottom left and the positioning of the clouds. They would be better to the left where they would lighten up that side and give a reflection, instead of overblowing the light bit to the right (IMHO). Motmit (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Malachirality (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Nicely done, for the image is very clear and sharp.

Articles this image appears in

Rotterdam Blitz

Creator

Commons:User:Trebaxus

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Of course!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You are aware that this is just a commemoration of the event? The caption (which I have adjusted) previously seemed to imply that this was taken in 1940. Thegreenj 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am. The nominated image was taken in 2007, but IMO it is still a very interesting image. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support if caption is further revised to something like "A "line of fire" memorial on May 15, 2007k commemorating the 1940 Rotterdam Blitz. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, has that wow factor. Durova^Charge! 06:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting subject, good quality picture.--TBC!?! 07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Angelono2008 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would definitely make me interested in reading the article. faithless (^speak) 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Makes you want to read the article read immediately. Which I am going to do now. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to Weak support It's an eye-catching photo, but I really don't like the glare from the buildings and from the streetlights on the bottom. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice thumbnail. Disappointing at full size (which isn't even that big). --Dschwen 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Almost the one I voted for for Commons Picture of the Year last year. Daniel Case (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Doesn't show much at full size, and it's not very encyclopedic either. diego_pmc (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Artifacting around buildings' edges, and the article needs a section about commemoration activities in order for this to be encyclopedic. Like, what do those lights mean? The article doesn't tell us. Is this a yearly event? If so, someone can get a better shot this year. howcheng {chat} 00:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to answer your questions: All the dots made out of light encircle the area which was bombed to the ground in the WW2. And no, it is not a yearly occuring remembrance. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:HerdenkingVuurgrensRotterdam1940 2007 edit1.jpg --Malachirality (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is a extremely clear image, very sharp.

Articles this image appears in

Slavic mythology, Ilya Repin, Sadko (opera)

Creator

Butko

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful. Durova^Charge! 02:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Brilliant painting, image quality is clear and sharp.--TBC!?! 07:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Angelono2008 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of my favorite images I've come across on Wikipedia, would have nom'd myself had I realized it wasn't featured already. faithless (^speak) 10:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, strikes me as mediocre quality for a painting 323cm wide. Sure the subject matter is great... but in FPC it's the scan that matters most. Had it been smaller I would have supported. gren グレン 08:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What makes this stand out amongst the tons of reproductions we have? Clear and sharp?! Sorry but at the given size this is barely the standard! --Dschwen 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support per some of the concerns above, but I think it still passes muster. Matt Deres (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor scan quality and/or processing; it's really shouldn't carry so much in the way of "dead" blacks and clear whites, the sort of thing that happens if you go the "auto levels" route. I suspect the original would be much more subtle. A real pity, it's a stunning painting. --mikaul^talk 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sadko.jpg --Malachirality (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Stunning picture - FP on Commons.

Articles this image appears in

Golden Gate Bridge

Creator

Grombo

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reasons see above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - low technical quality and it's not among best work in Wikipedia. (It's a nice picture but no FP.)--Svetovid (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Where exactly was the creator standing when he took this? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The walkway extends outwards around the pylons. Been there, taken the same pic :-) --Dschwen 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Not the best representation for the GGB. crassic!^[talk] 01:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Easy pic to get (see above), not really a good photo in the encyclopedic sense. Something taken of the bridge from the headlands might be better for our purposes. (Yes, the walkway does a little detour around the bridge pylons, so no safety rules were compromised.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heeey, what's that supposed to mean? If I can shoot it, anybody can? ;o) --Dschwen 04:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Safety rules? Years of FPCs and that is singularly the dumbest oppose reason that was almost made. :D\=< (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Low encyclopedic value. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose but simply because a better pic is so doable. Go back on a sunday morning and wait until there are no cars. Also a wider angle would be nice. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A gorgeous picture and the best available old illutration of the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the Universe.

Articles this image appears in

Geocentric model, Bartolomeu Velho

Creator

Bartolomeu Velho (? - 1568). Photo by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality, plenty of wow, illustrates its subject well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it, though I'd like an article on Bartolomeu Velho to go with it. I'll start one. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I'll see if I can contribute to its improvement -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions The yellow and light brown areas have an odd speckled quality to them. In some places it looks like noise, in others it looks like compression artifacts. Given the size of the pic and your abilities I assume that's not the case... was this an illuminated work? The field in the center looks like it's been flood filled; it seems so uniform compared to the rest of the picture. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything; I'm just describing what it looks like to me; I assume there's another explanation. Check out the (four star symbols?) immediately to the left and right of "FIGVRA" - don't they look kind of odd? To my inexperienced eye, they remind me of when I'm retouching a picture to despeckle it and haven't set the tolerance values correctly. Matt Deres (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answers Yes, this is an illuminated work in the sense that gold was used in the painting. That might explain the funny looking of some of the smaller details, with clearly visible solid particles. The photograph was not manipulated other than the normal brightness and contrast adjustments. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question This is from the 16th century, and it shows the American continent? diego_pmc (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course! America began to appear in maps as early as 1500, with the world map of Juan de la Cosa, in 1502, with the Cantino planisphere, and in 1507, with Waldseemüller map, the fisrt to use the name "America". During the 16th century, the Americas were shown in dozens of maps, with increasing detail and accuracy. See also, for example, the well konwon (at the time) map of Sebastaian Munster (1540) (here) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for dumb question. :\ For whatever reason I had the impression Columbus lived in the 17th century. diego_pmc (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bartolomeu Velho 1568.jpg MER-C 09:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Do I really need to give a reason for why I tink this is one of the best images on Wikipedia, and encyclopedic to boot? It is one of the great artworks, wonderfully reproduced, with historical interest, wide usage, and a liveliness that few artworks manage.

Articles this image appears in

Ukraine, Cossacks, Ukrainians, Mehmed IV, Flag of Ukraine, Khokhol, Ilya Repin, Zaporozhian Cossacks, Islam in Ukraine, Dmytro Yavornytsky, Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, Bashlyk, 100 Great Paintings

Creator

Ilya Yefimovich Repin

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Totally blown highlights. --Janke | Talk 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have blown out highlights on a painting? O.o TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of color in the scan of the painting. (Are there, in fact, blown highlights in this scan, or are the white areas in the original really that white?) Spikebrennan (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A quality historic image of Tibetan Buddhism iconography.

Articles this image appears in

Thangka, Guhyasamāja tantra

Creator

unknown, Image taken from here (commons) and some adjustments, cleanups and color work by Jaakobou.

• Support as conominator Durova^Charge! 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as conominator and cleanup guy Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. I like the royal blue more than the light :D\=< (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either --Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support alternative balance. Is darkness in original image due to specular reflection, so an actual viewer would see the more striking blue from a different angle anyway? In any case, the subtle blue is lost on my monitor. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only; the edit seems overly bright and slightly posterised to me. On sight of the original at Commons, I've changed my mind :o/ With the unedited version there you can actually see that this is painted silk, and the colouring and line work is really subtle. Most of this subtlety is lost here, even in the original nom. Can't you have a go at it instead, Durova? --mikaul^talk 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art2.png MER-C 09:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: replaced with Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art.jpg, see [17]. MER-C 08:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Nicely taken image, with good enc. value. It's hard to get a cow like this with such a background.

Articles this image appears in

Transhumance in the Alps, Livestock, Cattle, Braunvieh

Creator

Daniel Schwen

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful image. faithless (^speak) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I employed a very brief, generic statement since I saw this as an image which will easily gain the support required to be featured, and therefore I didn't see the need to go in-depth with it. However, since the wording of my support has been attacked (for lack of a better word) below, I will expand on my reasoning. Shoemaker echoes my sentiments on the article's encyclopedic value - a good detailed image of an animal is unquestionable encyclopedic, IMO. Though I'm far from an expert, the technical quality of the image seems very good to me. Most importantly, as far as I'm concerned, this is the type of image that is immediately striking and will make the reader interested in reading about the subject. faithless (^speak) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - "Beautiful" isn't enough for WP FP - while it is on Commons... The enc of this image is not very high - the animal isn't seen completely, and doesn't do much for Transhumance, either. --Janke | Talk 07:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support nice image. Caught my attention. Yahel Guhan 07:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support Wladyslaw (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the encyclopedic value of this image is high. It is the only illustration of this breed of cow, having been introduced into the home article where there was no prior illustration. It has stood the test of time having been in the articles without objection for a reasonable time. It illustrates more than just the features of the cow - it shows it in its natural environment. As a composition it works well - the back of the cow immitates - but not too obviously - the line of the mountains behind. The image has good depth and an interesting dynamic thrust with the line of mountains driving to the right, being countered by the drive along the cow to the lower foreground. This keeps the eye interested. The placidity of the scene is enhanced by the way in which the cow is nestled within the mountain background, and it is a scene that one could look keep looking at. I am not sure about the sky - there is a lot of it but I think it works. Motmit (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I might wish a little more sharpness to the background, it probably would violate the laws of physics or something awkward and inevvitable like that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support perfect image. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a great image and I am sad to oppose but I just don't see it being of great encyclopaedic value. Most of the cow (the intended subject) is not in view and the background isn't enough to make up for that. Guest9999 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well taken photo. It also has some enc. value, and it's very high quality. diego_pmc (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Though it is a nice picture, there isn't too much enc. It also looks very artificial to me for some reason... TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before wild speculations get started: This pic is straight out of the camera, zero postprocessing. Full stop. --Dschwen 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? It doesn't look fake to me at all. It may be just your computer. It was taken my a great photographer ;) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean synthetic, I just meant that it seemed very staged. The lighting is very good, for photographic effect, but the artistic composition distracts, and being that the subject is not completely seen it means that there is less enc. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really amazing for something in nature to appear this way. Great. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Great photo, but not really encyclopedic... crassic!^[talk] 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Strong Support Was a finalist in Pricture of the Year 2008 on Commons. ComputerGuy890100^Talk_Polls 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: How an image performs on Commons has nothing to do with Wiki FPs... Here, encyclopedicity is of prime concern - on Commons, lack of that means nothing... --Janke | Talk 06:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Pricture of the Year" a Freudian slip? And should we just automatically promote all pictures from that competition with Super Strong Supports for that reason? --jjron (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I was wondering the same thing. Who knows, maybe I'd have won that competition... --Dschwen 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Best cow Wikipedia has to offer... Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well, I'm not going to say it's the best, but it has certainly caught my eye when I've seen it in articles. I think it meets other criteria sufficiently well, including encyclopaedic value. --jjron (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's good. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Raj Krishnamurthy (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The pic illustrates not just a cow, but the Swiss Braunvieh breed, as indicated, so there is enough encyclopedic value. A vivid environment resembles The Lord of the Rings to me. --Brand спойт 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Janke--CPacker (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CH cow 2.jpg MER-C 08:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Already a featured image on Wikimedia Commons, this juxtaposes two types of zipper in detail. Good textures and resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Zipper

Creator

Rabensteiner

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 00:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Where'd you find some non-YKK zippers? Dr. eXtreme 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose diego_pmc (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support Not a whole lot of EV here; a diagram showing how the zipper works would be a lot more valuable, I think. Matt Deres (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those diagrams are 80px (FP here and on Commons) and 80px. Durova removed it from the Zipper article and added this one. Not cool. Cacophony (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - removing an existing FP from an article to substitute with a new candidate is not cool. --Janke | Talk 06:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's featured? Apologies in that case. I'm a member of the textile arts wikiproject and hated to view that article because the animation gives me a headache. (Converting animations to links here because otherwise I'd have to stop revisiting this nomination). Durova^Charge! 08:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a member of every wikiproject -_-;; I agree that the animation is wayy too busy for the image at the top- my suggestion is to put this nom at the top of the article and put the animation down at the bottom (which isn't far for that article) :D\=< (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee, I'll blindfold myself and try. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support once this picture finds a stable home in an article. (as of this posting, it isn't in any). Spikebrennan (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Having thought about this for a couple of days (after the surprise of seeing it nominated) I'm now going on more than a gut reaction to oppose. OK, reasons? No 'wow', bland colouring, really weird arrangement of having two zippers arranged like that and no information on why they are so, ordinary composition, especially the way the two zippers feed out the top of the photo differently, and finally, limited encyclopaedic value (what does it tell me about zippers that I can't see just looking at one? It doesn't show how they link together, etc). --jjron (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. IT does have good resolution, and the photography work is good, but what point does this picture have? It's just two zippers. Good quality isn't the only featured picture criteria. And it a little bright, too. -- Ketchup Krew ^{Heinz 57!} 21:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per quality concerns, M.K. (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sure of the EV. crassic!^[talk] 05:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An early daguerrotype by an early African-American daguerrotypist about a uniquely African-American topic: the repatriation of African-Americans to Liberia. A difficult piece of history and a striking portrait. Restored version of Image:ChancyBrown.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

American Colonization Society, Augustus Washington

Creator

Augustus Washington

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 only Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either one. faithless (^speak) 02:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, although I actually like the original more; it gives off a more historic "vibe." Dr. eXtreme 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Could you elaborate on how this image illustrates the article? (i.e., the first one - I hardly regard Augustus Washington as an 'article', and this probably isn't the best possible illustration for it anyway). This individual is not mentioned at all in the article, and I don't see how he illustrates the content very well. --jjron (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13,000 African-Americans moved to Liberia during the early- to mid-nineteenth century under the aegis of the American Colonization Society and this had a long term impact on Liberian culture because these people brought Southern plantation culture with them, setting themselves up at the top. Note the thoroughly Westernized apparel of this African state official: epaulette, tuxedo front, velvet jacket, and satin or silk vest--all status symbols. The article had no image at all until I added this, and a mid-level government employee illustrates that cultural juxtaposition better than a president or cabinet member, who arguably would have needed to imitate European/North American fashions for diplomatic reasons. Durova^Charge! 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's rather interesting, but I still can't really buy this as a good illustration of the particular article/s. It almost seems that it's been a picture in search of an article, and I don't feel it's found a particularly good home (admittedly I have been wondering what would make a particularly good illustration for this article; I haven't got a good answer, but I don't think this is it). Also the fuzziness that Janke mentions helps sway me. So, on the balance, have to Oppose. Sorry. --jjron (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too low quality scan. Very fuzzy in full size. --Janke | Talk 06:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scan was up to the usual superb Library of Congress standards: 50 megabytes on a clean high resolution machine. The original was soft focus. I sharpened as much as I dared without introducing too much noise. For this subject I doubt we'll find much alternative imagery. Durova^Charge! 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and no vote. I agree with comments above that this image doesn't really effectively illustrate any of the articles in which it's presently located. How about History of Liberia or someplace like that? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, despite being a quite compelling portrait. I'm sure it would make a good illustration somewhere, but you would have to find a scan of an original print, rather than a photo of a framed copy, to get the quality up to FPC levels. --mikaul^talk 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: A Daguerrotype is a unique original, and cannot be printed, only reproduced by photography or scanning the original silvered metal plate! It is this plate that is framed, often in elaborately decorated frames. We're talking of the very first photos - there were no negatives at that time! --Janke | Talk 06:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right enough, I missed that. It doesn't excuse the poor repro though. Image quality wise, these weren't so different to wet plates and scan equally well; this one was photographed in the frame, which if you look closely at the scratches etc on the original, has resulted in a double-image, making the image look really blurred. --mikaul^talk 11:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original - Gif of a Cicada (Tibicen sp.) Molting.

Reason

Very nicely done animation, has good encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Ecdysis, Cicada, Exoskeleton, Moult, Tibicen

Creator

T. Nathan Mundhenk, (edit: CarolSpears)

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fascinating and highly encyclopedic. Durova^Charge! 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed large animation (4.5 MB) from display. The title of this nomination is appropriate in more ways than originally intended... MER-C 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - maybe the resolution could have been better, but it is a great animation. diego_pmc (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crassic!^[talk] 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportHaving grown up in the home of the 17-year cicada cycle, this brings back vivid and unpleasant memories. Dr. eXtreme 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very encyclopedic. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While it would be awesome to be able to fly, there are definitely some insect traits I would not like to see on a daily basis among the general population of humanity. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-03-13 19:21Z
• Support - Wow. ^8thstar 04:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cicada molting animated-2.gif MER-C 08:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Like many people, I'm a huge fan of William-Adolphe Bouguereau, and this is a fine reproduction, showing off his very delicate use of flesh tones, and ability to capture expressions extremely well.

Articles this image appears in

William-Adolphe Bouguereau (gallery), Sewing (Note: Newly added)

Creator

William-Adolphe Bouguereau

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes this noisy, slightly soft focussed, and not particularly high res reproduction stand out among all other pictures in the article? How much value is it adding to the article where it only shows up in a gallery? --Dschwen 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is WP:ILIKEIT a good enough reason? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, did you actually read that page?! --Dschwen 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Dschwen. The noise in the skirt detracts from the quality of the photo. And is it just me or does the first sentence in the caption make no sense? Bobbit bob (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mathematician talk :) :D\=< (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as far too soft/noise reduced - Any detail of the painting technique is lost. Far better scans of William-Adolphe Bouguereau images on commons - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high quality image of DDR2 computer memory with a second module added for aesthetic purposes. It has very high encyclopedic value for people with and without knowledge of computer hardware.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=DDR2

Creator

victorrocha

• Support as nominator Victorrocha (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Just want to check something before I full support: are we going to have any problems with having the company logo on that RAM? I wouldn't think so, but, you know, copyright is mad, so... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There shouldn't be any problems concerning copyright with this image because it's not being used for reasons of profit. The only way this image will be used for is for educational purposes. If anyone can help with this I would greatly appreciate it. I'll be happy to add another version with the logo removed if it would put the issue to rest. victorrocha (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.6.185 (talk) [reply]
    • If you are talking about fair-use, then that's not enough for Commons.--Svetovid (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Only if the logo thing is cleared. Other than that very nice picture. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad, harsh, direct-flash lighting, not acceptable for such a common object. Also the white background is too artificial. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. A no-wow shot that could be done better. --Janke | Talk 06:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh, very harsh. Dengero (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral The heatsinks are distracting and cover the ICs. Good picture of this particular model, but not for DDR in general. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intentions were to make a picture of a High Performance RAM module. There is already a clear picture of a standard module of DDR2 RAM that shows every component but I doubt it would have made for a more interesting pic.victorrocha (talk) 9:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What's with the removed logo? OK what is the deal here. It's a picture of corsair memory, and corsair memory has a corsair logo. They don't make the memory without the logo. Why the heck would you remove it? This is so lame seriously who did that ;_; This is like photoshopping out the blemish on that super rare gillion dollar baseball card because it was ugly. Come on people, use your brains. :D\=< (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logo was removed to prevent issues with copyright. I did some researching and it is in fair use to use the version with the logo. I put the one with the logo removed to have people make their own decision on which they like best for wikipedia (as an encyclopedic image). victorrocha (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.6.185 (talk) [reply]
    • It shouldn't be. According to this Commons guide, utilitarian objects (like this) are not copyrightable. The presence of a logo on it is just incidental and does not affect the copyright status of the entire image. Now, if the photograph were of only the logo (or possibly even if the logo were the subject), it would be subject to copyright, but since it's of the RAM as a whole, that is not the case. IANAL, so don't hold me to it, but I'm fairly sure that the logo does not need to be removed. Thegreenj 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Commons page doesn't even mention trademark protection, which I think is the real concern with using the Corsair logo, not copyright. Here is a discussion of trademarks and photography. IANAL and I am not offering an opinion. -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well we're not just cutting things out of the encyclopedia to satisfy some law... if it can't be considered in its completely uncensored form, then as far as I'm concerned it's ineligible for FP. :D\=< (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The lighting could be better (softer) and the arrangement shouldn't be an unmotivated heap. How about showing it more from teh side so that we get an idea how the heat sinks are clipped on. --Dschwen 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose non special product photography. Conveys nothing beyond what caption says, and looks like anything in a computer catalog. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose harsh lighting loses details in the shadows. I'm sure that the PCB material is not that dark as well. The composition is not sufficiently illustrative and consider something to give the image a sense of scale - Peripitus (Talk) 12:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material is fairly dark it's just a bit lighter than you see here. I tried making the board stand out more than it is but it does not reflect very well. victorrocha (talk) 9:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support original (oppose edit), I think it's well done and I don't really see any lighting problems. Crisp, professional, etc. gren グレン 03:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit crassic!^[talk] 05:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great depth of field, and collects together all the main elements of the Piazza del Duomo in a compelling way. NOTE: Yes, it's supposed to be tilted. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is only the most extreme example.

Articles this image appears in

Pisa, newly added to Piazza dei Miracoli to replace a very blurry overhead shot.

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to Weak Oppose It could be a little sharper in certain areas. diego_pmc (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unacceptable perspective distortion - mostly because the non straight verticals are actually making the Leaning Tower appear less leaning than it should. Mfield (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Every single one of those four buildings are leaning. The tower of Pisa only leans the most out of those four. Therefore it appears less leaning then it could appear like from a different angle. This picture represents how Pisa is. The tower of Pisa thus isn't as leaning as most people think, since it isn't as leaning from every corner. Therefore I truly don't understand your arguments following your rating. The Edit1 version of my photograph gives a wrong impression of what the Campo dei Miracoli is really like. The other three building appear to be not leaning in the edited version. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may all be slightly unstraight in reality BUT... unless they are all leaning in the exact directions such that an a centered perspective distortion correction would straighten them all perfectly then what was clearly evident to anyone with any photographic experience is that the camera back was not horizontal when this photograph was shot and thus perspective distortion has caused them all to appear to lean backwards. I am pretty certain that the verticals on the arches of the building in the rear left are true and that's what I judged the correction by. If you need any further proof, look at how the top of the building in the foreground appears narrower than the base. It's perpective distortion. And it shouldn't be there in an encylopedic architecture shot. If people don't know how to/don't bother to photograph architecture correctly then it should be left to people who do. If this photo had been shot correctly in the first place then we would be able to see how the buildings lean in reality. This is an argument for opposing any version of these images. Mfield (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not distortion. The building in the foreground is leaning in the same direction as the tower. They are both leaning to the right. I can prove by the way that it isn't distortion through other photographs. I've made a lot of photographs with different cameras. And as for your remark: "If you need any further proof, look at how the top of the building in the foreground appears narrower than the base." The top of the building is narrower than the base! Just type in Google the words: battistero and Pisa. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 85.223.118.251 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you google it and find some better taken pictures you will discover what I am talking about. I am not talking from a position of ignorance either - I have been to Pisa multiple times. It is clear that from the position the original was taken and wide angle lens involved, that it is suffering from distortion. I may have overcorrected it in my example edit (that I didn't support either) but it is impossible to correct the distortion accurately without an accurate reference and that would be having the camera back vertical. This makes it useless as an accurate depiction of the subject. End of story. Mfield (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. This is a never ending discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimo Catarinella (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well fair enough if you will. I did some additional research. According to Baptistry (Pisa), the Baptistry only leans 0.6 degrees toward the cathedral. That is barely visible given it's away from the viewer in these images rather than L-R. More interestingly, according to Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa, the tower leans 3.97 degrees. Well, if you open up my edit in Photoshop and use the measuring tool on it, you get 4 degrees which is pretty close. I still suspect thus that my edit is far closer to reality than the original based on facts from WP itself. Mfield (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1 But definitely oppose original per Mfield. faithless (^speak) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, despite wanting to support at first glance. Lighting is great & should really carry the whole shot, but the opportunity wasn't well taken. Lens wide open (why??) ruins all chance of good fine detail, obvious distortion isn't countered by camera orientation, perspective correction has helped the all-important "leaning" issue but left the battistero looking squashed. It needs to be more of an architectural shot, not a tourist snap & there's any amount of those of this subject on Flickr which are no worse than this one. --mikaul^talk 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's a better shot than that panorama at the top of the article which goes all over the place, but it has problems. If it had been taken from further to the right the line of buildings would have been better and we could have lost that weak white wall to the left of the dome. Probably needs to be taken from higher up as no amount of cutting will disguise the camera tilt which confuses the real tilts. Also although the replaced picture was fuzzy it actually gave good context and should be put back somewhere. Motmit (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think it is a beautiful photograph. We don't have a lot of good photographs of canals in Amsterdam on Wikipedia. Also, I would like to know, how you people would rate this photograph.

Articles this image appears in

Keizersgracht, The Netherlands

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The photo is quite good, though it may fail here on purely encyclopedic grounds. A little digital manipulation of the sky would fix some noise issues. Some of the streetlamps are a bit overblown (that is, they're so bright that detail is lost around them), but that's probably unavoidable and I refuse to hold it against this photo =) ). I think I like your photo of the Prinsengracht (Image:PrinsengrachtAmsterdam.jpg) better, as, having visited Groningen regularly, it seems a more typical Netherlands sight. If it doesn't pass here, try it on the Commons FPC (fix the sky first - WP:GL/IMPROVE can help with that), but be warned that people there aren't always as friendly as one could hope. commons:COM:QI is friendlier. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I don't see much noise at all. One thing that I would recommend, though, is that since you obviously have some sort of support for you camera to take a five second exposure, it surely can't hurt to stop down to f/8 and make it a 12-second exposure (risking a little more noise, but it would likely get much better sharpness, especially in the corners). Thegreenj 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, maybe it's this stupid LCD screen. Used to have a nice CRT, but it died. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd add to other recommendations (esp Thegreenj) by suggesting you shoot with a level camera. This one would have been better with less sky and more foreground, yet the camera is pointing upwards, resulting in that unpleasant perspective distortion. Slightly earlier in the evening would have been better, too. --mikaul^talk 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would love to make more photographs with a "higher-level" camera. Will you buy me one?...... Really, I'm not opposed to critique, but this comment doesn't add any value to the conversation, whether this is a good photograph or not.Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "level camera" just means that it's parallel with your subject so that the buildings don't seem to become skinnier as they go up. Thegreenj 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to be fair I thought the criticism was quite constructive, even allowing for the misinterpretation of level/high level. For example, less sky, more foreground - check; that means we don't have as much sky but say get the lights on all the arches fully reflected in the water. Same for other remarks; you may disagree with some, but they weren't just throwaway comments like many nominations get. --jjron (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only throwaway comment in my opinion was the remark about the camera and that rose out of a misinterpetation. More foreground was not an option while taking this photograph. There is a large rail just below the point from where I took this picture. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this anonymous reply is from the creator/nominator, then you've misinterpreted another comment - perhaps spend a bit of time here getting familiar with the process before nominating again. If it's from someone else, then it doesn't make much sense. --jjron (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - you are brave to put this up and you have asked for feedback so I hope you will find my comments helpful. Compositionally the picture is an absolute No-No. You have a very sharp corner pointing at the viewer and strong direction lines driving straight out of the picture in all directions. Everything screams "get out of here". The only picture I have seen in 600 years of Western art that has anything like this (Rain in Paris) has strong components blocking the run out and pulling against it. Incidentally, if you look at it in terms of Feng Shui you are disturbing the viewer by pointing a sharp edge. On top of that it is really a picture of light bulbs. I read in the article that there are some 1550 monumental buildings in the area, so why black them out? The article makes it look as if the place is inhabited by vampires. Surely with all that water there must be boats and people on the bank and interesting reflections to give the pictures life (and I wont comment on the one daytime one). Perhaps you are limited by winter conditions so I beg you to go out on the bright summer day or warm evening and take some pictures that show what it looks like and give atmosphere instead of another set of indistinguishable lights. Furthermore think of the composition - have a focal point that draws the viewer in. In addition, successful paintings typically have three key points that make the eye move round the image and keep it interested. - Whoops forgot to sign - Have looked at your other pics - again think of the composition and where the lines are taking the eye. All the best Motmit (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I am nominating this picture for Featured Picture status because I believe that this is truly one of the best pictures on Wikipedia, it simply is the best picture of the U.S. Capitol that we currently have on Wiki Commons. It is used in over 50 different articles and if you were to compare it to all the other Images of the U.S. Capitol that we have on the Commons [18] it truly is the best full view image of the U.S. capitol that we have.

Articles this image appears in

This is a widely used Image, and it would be in-practical to list all the pages that it is used in, if you would like the full list see here

Creator

Kmccoy

• Support as nominator Mifter (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it's nice but it's too small and the perspective distortion needs to be fixed, something that isn't easy to do well with this small of an original to work with. Mfield (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per size requirements. crassic!^[talk] 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Size issues as per above, but also the perspective isn't particularly good and there are a lot of distracting elements in the foreground. It is used in a lot of articles but that seems to be by virtue of being in a template.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Does not meet size requirements. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artificial crepuscular rays in San Francisco.jpg

Reason

The picture is of reasonable quality and shows a quite remarkable meteorological effect. The picture is a striking image, well-framed and quite unique.

Articles this image appears in

Crepuscular rays

Creator

User:Mbz1

• Support as nominator JBG (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment holy oversharpening, look at the halos around those buildings actually on closer inspection that may be a side effect of the fog and the limited DR of the camera. Neat image - I'd support a larger version that was better cropped and processed Mfield (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm afraid this is the only version I have. May I please tell you the story about taking of the image? I took it, few years ago. I got out of my office and saw the effect. I had no camera on me. I went back to my office and borrowed a bad point and shot camera from my co-worker. After this I tried many times to see the same effect, but it has never been so prominent as this first time. That's why I Support the image for now, but, if I am lucky enough to take a better picture of the same effect, I'll delist this one( if of course it ever gets promoted) and nominate a better one. Thank you. May I please also ask, if somebody could make it better in photo shop?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Just tried playing with it in photoshop and aside from some noise reduction, there simply isn't enough information there in the original to permit much improvement. I think its this or nothing. Damn those early 0.75 megapixel digital P&S cameras - such a step backwards from P&S 35mm. Mfield (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much for trying.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to add that the image description was written by a very famous atmospheric optics expert, which IMO adds to the encyclopedic value of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to tilt, grain, and barely acceptable size. (If you're picky about 24 pixels, I'd oppose based on grain and tilt alone.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Great image, huge enc value – why does it have to be FP to be appreciated? It clearly lacks a deal of technical finesse to be an obvious candidate. --mikaul^talk 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High encyclopedic value as it demonstrates the phenomenon in an urban environment in contrast to all the other images in the article. Compositionally it works very well with the forward splay of the rays being emphasised by opposing backward drive of the buildings. It is a rare example of "tilt" adding value rather than spoiling. I think it would look better without the white buildings to the right, and with more of the square building on the left, but thats being picky and in shots like this, you get what you get. Doesnt need higher resolution as it looks good and clear at thumb. Motmit (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not judging thumbnails. --Dschwen 20:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much noise. Also, the size isn't quite up to the "standards" of most FPCs. crassic!^[talk] 05:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crassic.--CPacker (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeAlexNebraska (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think that it meets all the criteria. It's a large image without any technical problems that I can see, it's visually striking, and it's an important part of both of its articles.

Articles this image appears in

Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, Empire (style)

Creator

Dan McKay

• Support as nominator Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A so-so quality of a very commonly photographed structure--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted, shadows across details Mfield (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'd be looking for something of this standard. Pstuart84 Talk 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually kind of surprised that one passed with its lean to the right. Doesn't anyone like verticals to be vertical when they are so easy to correct/get right in the first place. Mfield (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The tilt is a bit obvious. If it were straightened, I might reconsider - though unlikely to change my vote. crassic!^[talk] 05:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Proof of alien life on earth! Just kidding, it's the face of a dungeness crab. It's sharp, detailed, well-composed, and all the important parts of the crab face are in focus (with the known caveat of focusing in macro shots).

Articles this image appears in

Dungeness crab, Crab, Rostrum (anatomy)

Creator

Kevin Cole

• Support as nominator howcheng {chat} 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Technically very well done image, but if you told me to look at it and tell what it is, I don't think I would have said "crab". I would have given a Strong Support, if the image showed a little more of its body. diego_pmc (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then you wouldn't have gotten as much facial detail. In the context of the article, it works fine IMHO -- there's already a full-body shot there. howcheng {chat} 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a well done macro of a very strange looking crab! (Oh eyestalks, oh eyestalks, where are you? I didn't know they were so short as to be not noticeable as a stalk in dungeness crabs. It does look the eyestalks are probably just laying down and that they do normally stick up, but I'm more used to eyestalks like this.) - Enuja (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My personal feeling is that in order for images like this to meet the EV requirement for FP's, they've got to help illustrate something important about the animal the reader isn't otherwise getting. Yes, the face is in great detail here, and it's a good shot. But the article mentions nothing about the face or eyes; I don't know from the image whether there's something special that I'm supposed to be seeing or whether it's just a cool shot. If the face is a pretty unremarkable part of the animal, and this image leaves out parts the article discusses relatively extensively, like the claws and shell, I don't see the EV as particularly high. At the very least it needs a caption that will answer the "what should I be looking for?" question.SingCal 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high quality photo with lots of detail. Detail=information, in this case about the crab -> EV. de Bivort 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For some reason, fugly isn't a valid reason to oppose ;-). While it's true there are parts that lack sharpness at full size, this thing is magnified to a huge extent. When I zoom out on it so that it's only, say, twice life size I find pretty much everything is tolerably clear. I would prefer a whole-crab shot with this same pixel count, but then DOF issues would really wreak havoc. Matt Deres (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AFAIK, the 'face' of this crab isn't remarkable as crabs go. Although I hear the objections re. lack of sound reasoning for the close-up, I'd have supported a properly captioned entry at crab, where such detail would be highly valuable. --mikaul^talk 13:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I disagree that the "face isn't remarkable as crabs go" this photo really helps illustrate what the face of a crab looks like, which must photos don't.--CPacker (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of that remark was that there is no mention in the article of the face of the Dungeness crab, nor of it being so unusual as to warrant a close-up. If it was in the crab article, it might have decent enc value. --mikaul^talk 10:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With some research, I added this to crab and rostrum (anatomy). howcheng {chat} 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dungeness crab face closeup.jpg MER-C 08:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

one more of the images of the set to eat up all the skin.

Articles this image appears in

Acromion,Arm, Capitulum of the humerus, Clavicle, Coracoid process, Coronoid fossa of the humerus, Greater tubercle, Humerus, Lesser tubercle, Radial fossa, Radial styloid process, Radius (bone), Scapula, Ulna, Ulnar styloid process

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's very detailed, but a bigger res one wouldn't hurt. diego_pmc (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • done-LadyofHats (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Can't see anything wrong with it, but it could , perhaps, be a bit more explicit about what the left and right sides are labelling in the image itself. Also, could show the left hand as well as the right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but Shoemaker has raised a valid point. H92110 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestions (maybe it should have gone to PPR before coming here?).

1. Fix inconsistent capitalisation (again); I'm not pointing them all out.

Done -LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. As mentioned above the labelling is confusing. It makes it look like the bones in the two arms are different (despite the image description and caption). I'd rather both arms appear the same, maybe with the bones done as callouts to allow labelling of the characteristics. Or label bones in both arms, but with the extra detail on one using a different font/colour. I'm not sure, but perhaps there's a way to make it less confusing?

both arms are the same color now, labelings in diferent color.-LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Colour coding is confusing. Radius and clavicle the same colour, scapula and ulna the same colour. Why? It makes them look 'related'. And why are the same bones on the other side then different colours? This exacerbates the labelling issues.

no more diferent colors now but if you want to know what is confusing labeling then look at my source [19]-LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Why aren't the bones in the hand labelled? Not necessarily individually, but at least to the extent of carpals, metacarpals, phalanges? They're as much, if not more, bones of the forelimb as are the clavicle and scapula.

to cite the article, ... in colloquial speech the term arm often refers to the entire upper limb from shoulder to wrist... adding information who doesnt belong to the actual subject would make things even more confusing- LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd say the article is misleading. If you look at it from a biological/evolutionary perspective (which is surely more meaningful than "colloquial speech") you'd get my point. Refer to Tetrapod#Limbs where these bones are discussed for more of an idea of what I mean. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. One hand is supinated, the other pronated, altering the layout of the forearm bones and hand/thumb positioning. Possibly this should be labelled or explained in some way.

bones, specially those in the forearm twist when changing position, if this wasnt this way it had been enough to do just one arm to explain everything. when you wish i would add a note in the description page but i do not think it is needed in the image -LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand supination/pronation, but isn't this meant to be assisting people who don't? I just think people will look at it and be confused by the different positions of the bones in the two forearms. --jjron (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it just me, or are the arms exceptionally large and long in relation to the ribcage and spine? It just seems out of proportion.

the arms and the ribcage are coming from the image of the whole skeleton. as a (graphic) rule the tips of the fingers should reach the half of the femur.-LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Maybe it's just that it's been disembodied then, because my gut feel would be that the hands here would reach to about the knees. I was also talking about the thickness, not just the length, the arms just seem very thick compared to the torso. --jjron (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to carp on this, but I think there are some easy improvements. --jjron (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i dont mind critics, great part of nominating it here is presicely to improve the image, still i think that sometimes you ask far too much from a diagram, you should remeber the main sorce of information is the article and the image works together with it- LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can I also ask for sources? This ought to be documented on the image description page. You could even create a heading for sources, just like an article. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • some of my sources:[20], Gray's Anatomy "williams & Warwick", Atlas der anatomie des menschen "Sobotta", Anatomia del cuerpo humano "Yokochi, Rhoen, weinreb", and a lamina printed by "rüdiger-anatomie GmbH"- LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think these always ought to be on the image description page. Sourcing, documented on the image description page, should be a normal part of every good technical drawing. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - Correct and good quality illustration, as usual. But I don't believe this is the best of the kind Wikipedia has to offer. As Shoemaker, I see little logic in the way the right and left arms are labelled. To be a FP, I would expect some more detail in the drwaing and the bones of the hand also identified -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - After the improvements -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "I would expect some more detail in the drwaing and the bones of the hand also identified." It's called "arm bones."--Svetovid (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above... --jjron (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion What if you used brackets at the ends of the lines to explicitly show the left side was pointing to the bones as a whole, whereas the right side was pointing to parts of the bone (or small bones, which should also get small brackets) This would make it a bit more explicit and clear. Also, doesn't the bit of cartiledge connecting the scapula and clavicle have a name? Finally, it's not entirely clear that the head and capitulum of the humerus are part of it, since they're coloured so differently. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion I think it's better to replace the invisible background with a white one. diego_pmc (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• infook i changed it all again in order of changes:
  • maked it a white background
  • added the bones of the hand even when the article says nothing about it and no other internet reference i have seen counts it. actually must of them think the arm is just the space between the shoulder and the elbow.
  • i didnt add braklets becouse i dont know if you notice the radius and the ulna cros each other but i did changed the color of the outline. dont worry this time no color repeats itself.
  • i refuse myself to add more detail just to satisfy a need for complexity. if we are talking about people who can not distinguish between a hand looking foward and one backwards(supinated/pronated) then more detail would only be confusing and distracting. wich is exactly the oposite a diagram wish to do.if someone wants to know more about the subject they can always read the individual bones articles.
  • i added the name of the bones to the specific characteristics on the left. this makes the names extra long but now noone will come to the idea that they are "extra" bones. and if they come to this idea i would recomend them to read the article to come out of the doubth
  • i also doble check that the bones had the right proportion (wich they do)
  • i wrote a note on the description explaning what pronated and supinated means and seting clear no human being has two left hands and therefor the image has one hand looking foward and one looking backwards so that people can see the urna and the radius crosing themselves.
  • any further changes you may wish please write them below this text so i dont have to read all the above once again... thanyou -LadyofHats (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Are those arms really the average size of a human arm? They seem extremely wide/thick/muscular to me. Maybe it's dead on, but I just wanted someone else to do a reality check for me. Sorry to be picky. Everything else looks great to me. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read the above comments? Refer to my original Suggestion 6. --jjron (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless it is referenced. Diagrams need to be as verifiable as articles. Especially featured ones. gren グレン 03:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i will cite myself. on the 9 of march i wrote...**some of my sources:[21], Gray's Anatomy "williams & Warwick", Atlas der anatomie des menschen "Sobotta", Anatomia del cuerpo humano "Yokochi, Rhoen, weinreb", and a lamina printed by "rüdiger-anatomie GmbH"- LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC).. would that be enough for you? -LadyofHats (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, not fully ideal. The best would be "Gray, Henry. Gray's Anatomy Cambridge: University Press, 2005. p. 41" or whatnot... and not an image linked from image shack so that we can know that all images you based it on are themselves authoritative... if you can do that it'd be great but the closest you can get is still decent. gren グレン 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg MER-C 08:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This photo has great enciclopedic value and adds to its articles, and I mean it is Mathew Brady.

Articles this image appears in

Mathew Brady, 1870s in fashion, Self-portrait

Creator

Mathew Brady

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original Original LOC file had much higher resolution, more detail. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Alternative no. 2 I'd vote for the alternative, if someone (I could do it) would remove all the artifacts, and defects. Is it all right for me, or anyone else to modify it, and remove the defects? diego_pmc (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why not. I'd use the PNG (Image:Matthew_Brady circa 1875.png) for editing, though - saving in jpg repeatedly causes artifacting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean this? I can see it, nor download it. Wikipedia says it's too big and cannot be displayed. diego_pmc (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If one of you want to remove all of the defects, please do. I agree with Shoemakers Holiday the the 2nd photo is better than the first.--CPacker (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia can't scale PNGs above a certain size - You can still see and download them if you click on "Full resolution", or, for that matter, here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the new image. It might seems a little brighter at the first look, but that's just because I didn't pay much attention to keeping the background the exact same way. Matthew Brady however didn't suffer any brightness changes. diego_pmc (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be nice if a little more repair work could be done to his face, which has a lot of degredation artefacts on it. I'd like to see the bottom of his waistcoat and his elbow left in, but how practical that is, I dunno. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's pretty hard to do it, since, it's the face, and thus it needs special attention to preserve all the details. In the meantime, I adjusted the brightness a little. The hardest parts to do on his face are the eyebrows, the eyes, and the area where the actual head ends, and the neck begins, near the ear. I don't think I'm going to be the one continuing the fix, at least not in the near future...
        EDIT: I gave it a try. I have no problem going the elbow, the forehead, or the nose, but he had a lot of small puckers on his cheeks, that it's almost impossible to remove the artifacts without removing all those small puckers. diego_pmc (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support - i learned something today, and indeed it is a good shot. Prefer alternative 1: he needs his hands! Potatoswatter (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While it's good-looking enough, even for it's time it's not a very accomplished capture, and someone (my guess would be the photographer) has scratched away at the emulsion around the face for some reason – reduce contrast? add detail? who knows... – leaving it thoroughly ruined as far as restoration is concerned. --mikaul^talk 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Request suspension I think Alternative 1 may have more salvagable than Alternative 2 salvages, but that will take some time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus . Just renominate later. MER-C 08:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Certainly a FP worthy subject, did I do it justice?

Articles this image appears in

Painted Hills, John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

Creator

User:Cacophony

• Support as nominator Cacophony (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unfortunately, to really appreciate this image you must see it at full-size, and it therefore lacks an initial "wow factor." Also, ideally the sky would be better. Still, I like it enough, and now I'm going to check out the article for Painted Hills, so it's effective in that regard. faithless (^speak) 11:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having been to Arizona, I know that lighting in the desert is usually rather more harsh than this implies. Was this taken near sunset/sunrise, or should the brightness be upped a tad? (Or does my experience of Arizona simply not apply to Oregon?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken towards dusk, but there was a lot of overcast. Normally the lighting there is very harsh as well. You are right about the brightness though, I uploaded a newer version but may have gone too far. Fir always does a good job, maybe he could help? Cacophony (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support orginal. Since the image was taken on a overcast day around dusk, the original looks to have realistic color balance to me. Oppose edit 1; it doesn't look like the lighting is harsh, it instead looks somewhat fake. - Enuja (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The composition looks a bit bland. Do you have any with any with some foreground features or some more three-dimensionality?? -

Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose Regretfully, but I feel like the composition leaves the image very 2 dimensional with little in the way of scale. Light isn't Ideal either. Good sharpness but there are more important considerations IMO. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Enuja. Dr. eXtreme 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great subject, but lighting is going to be crucial to do it justice. Some sunlight would have helped immensely. As it is, it's flat and lacks vibrancy; the edit just looks oversaturated. Both are noticeably over-sharpened (halo along the mountain/sky divide) and one last minor niggle: there's no real indication of scale. --mikaul^talk 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Per Faithless.--CPacker (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This nomination has been moved to "Older nominations requiring additional input from users" as consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from the users who have participated in the discussion. This is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them has been determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting. microchip08 ^{Find my secret page!} Talk to me! I feel lonely! 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, lighting problems and many of the new panoramas are coming in with better resolutions. gren グレン 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 08:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very clear, and sharp.

Articles this image appears in

links to the articles that use this image

Creator

User:Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone think a cropped version would look better, I can provide it. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think a slightly cropped version would be better. Juliancolton ^{(Happy St. Patrick's day!)} 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This image has already been nominated: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schizophyllum commune with Pollenia sp. male — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is a good example of using animation to visualize a tricky mathematical idea.

Articles this image appears in

Calculus

Creator

OSJ1961

• Support as nominator OSJ1961 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm worried that this is not getting any attention; people may be unsure of its significance given the terse statements in the caption and reason. I wonder if you would be able to provide a pretty straightforward paragraph or so saying what this is actually showing, what that means to a layperson, and why you think it's particularly valuable for the article. --jjron (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some further quick thoughts that may or may not be relevant:

1. Axis labelling is sloppy (the x is labelled, albeit in a weird spot, the y isn't labelled at all).
2. Isn't it still standard to put arrowheads at the ends of the axes?
3. Wouldn't it make sense to include the equation/function that is being graphed? --jjron (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd rerender this with antialiasing first. --Dschwen 12:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No idea what I'm looking at. Shouldn't there be an equation or something as part of the diagram? Kaldari (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The animation itself is very good. It would benefit from a graph that is not as stretched on the y-axis. There is a problem on your graph in that the x-axis is labeled to the right of the one and the y-axis is not labeled at all. Consider labeling the axis on the right and the top of the graph. Overall a very clean job that shows the concept well. victorrocha (talk) 9:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does anybody bother to read preceding comments? --jjron (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A quite good animation but does not illustrate well the concept. I'm not sure how to do it better but I think the axes are not necessary and the curve could be simpler, without inflextions-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --microchip08 ^{Find my secret page!} Talk to me! I feel lonely! 10:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful subject, good composition, interesting illustration.

Articles this image appears in

brocken spectre

Creator

ja:user:Σ64

• Support as nominator Potatoswatter (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Are you sure this is showing a true Brocken spectre? Given the size of the shadow in relation to the surrounding features, it looks rather just like a normal elongated shadow taken in a fog or mist. (Are you around Mbz1?) --jjron (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If I may, I'd like to answer your question please. IMO the size of the shadow alone cannot be a good indicator, if this is or it is not Brocken spectre. IMO the size of the Brocken spectre excatly as the size of a normal shadow deppeneds very much on the position of the sun and on how far down compare to the observer the fog is. Here are two examples of the Brocken spectre:
  and . The second image was taken at night time and instead of the sun I've used headlights of my car (that's why there are two Specters). Both images were taken with the same 8 mm fisheye lens and both for sure show the Brocken spectre, but see how different the size of Brocken spectre is. IMO Brocken spectre is more about how the shadow looks. In both samples that I provided you might see that the shadows look more like the rays, which is a very clear indicator that it is Brocken spectre. I'm not sure about the nominated image, but I believe it does show Brocken spectre. In any case I'd like to Support the image before User:Froth would say "Oppose. Technical quality is, well, pretty terrible " without slightest understanding of the nature of the picture.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know much about this, but isn't the key feature that the shadow forms on the cloud/mist rather than the ground, thus giving the viewer the suggestion of a 'spectre' as the shadow moves around with the moving cloud/mist? The key aspect of the size is then I suppose that the bigger the shadow, and the further from the ground, the better that optical effect would appear. That is where a better representation would seem to involve bigger shadows forming away from the ground as described in the article where you had the opportunity to see this (and if I may add, as I think better displayed in Mbz1's Golden Gate Bridge picture); the shadow in this image looks to be mainly formed on the ground. --jjron (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm no expert (thanks for improving the caption) but the shadow remains equally distinct in the distance as the ground is lost in the fog. So it appears to me that the shadow is cast upon the fog, not the ground. As for moving with the clouds, that depends on cloud consistency, an independent factor. Examples using wide open spaces would be more encyclopedic, but leave little room for such beautiful composition :v) . Potatoswatter (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I'd never heard of this term until now, but it appears from the article that what separates it from a mere shadow on an uneven distant surface is the fact that it is projected onto mist/cloud below, and this image doesn't do that... I'm not sure that any of the images in the article are ideal to illustrate the concept, and incidentally, I found it difficult to understand from the article until re-reading it a few times. It didn't seem to clearly state that the phenomenon occurs when your shadow is projected downwards onto the cloud. I was confused as I could not understand how your shadow could be projected upwards onto the cloud. I know it does explain that in the article, but it could be a bit clearer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to there being no votes although the 7 day period is now up, I am resetting this nomination, and will bump this to the top. Please await a further seven days ( from 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) ) before closing this nomination. 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microchip80 (talk • contribs)

I strongly disagree with this practice. Lack of comments show lack of interest. I might as well just oppose it then. --Dschwen 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose bumping, also picture. This is not the way to do it. No votes=no interest=no support. --Janke | Talk 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agreed. As discussed, it doesn't actually seem to illustrate the article, anyway. But yeah, no votes = no support. No support = Closure, not bump. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Enuja (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Greatly illustrates the article Lysnader Cutler and of course has great encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Lysander Cutler

Creator

Unknown, Library of Congress

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not outstanding. I really think we have more than enough of those. --Dschwen 02:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because there are a lot of Civil War photos doesnt mean that there can not be anymore. All of them add enciclopedic value to the articles which they belong to. If we say that there are too many Civil War photos we might as well say that there are too many bird photos or too many NASA photos. All of the photos you listed, and this nomination hold great encyclopedia quality and deserve to be featured.--CPacker (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must admit I was thinking a bit of a similar thing about Charles Griffin, who I'd never heard of either. --jjron (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 'Snot like we have a limited number of FP slots =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just ridiculous, it's not just american civil war photos it's american civil war union general photos. We have featured and are featuring so many of them we might as well make them their own FP category! --Dschwen 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean studio portraits of american civil war union generals. Funny that there are about 15 old studio portraits featured, but portraits of contemporary political leaders don't get anywhere near the same support. I could also use a break from these nominations for a while. Cacophony (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's out of focus & has insufficient enc value to mitigate. --mikaul^talk 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, we need MORE featured content from ACW, not less. MrPrada (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a bizarre 'reason' for a support, that incidentally addresses absolutely none of the criteria. Just for the record Wikipedia is an international project - would you be so ready to jump in and support every studio portrait of every general from say the Boer Wars using the same reasoning? --jjron (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, maybe if he was interested in that particular conflict he would. Also, I don't really see how Wikipedia being an "international project" should have any bearing on whether a America-centric photograph is featured. (Oh yeah, and support) -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, for god's sake! That's exactly my point - he's supporting because it's a picture from the ACW, not because it addresses the FP criteria. And I suspect he's not the only one doing so. --jjron (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice but not fabulous photo. Unimportant subject. Unsure why this should be Featured Picture quality. Some reviewers seem to vote for 19th century works merely because they are 19th century works. Oscar (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Enuja (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think this is the only Apollo 11 video footage from the surface of the moon that we have.

Articles this image appears in

Apollo 11, Buzz Aldrin, Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm a sucker for this. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What on earth is going on in the background from about 1:00 onwards? There seems to be a man not in a spacesuit skulking up from behind Buzz then off the right-hand side of the shot? TSP (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is weird. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deduction says that would be neil armstrong, the first man on the moon, in a spacesuit. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So who's holding the camera? --mikaul
        • Obviously, the studio cameraman at the backlot where they faked it. No, the camera's probably on a tripod that Armstrong placed before Aldrin came down the ladder, or else it's attached to the lander itself. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, yes, I see the spacesuit now. The low contrast had made it look like he had a much smaller silhouette where he blends into the background. I'd also assumed that Armstrong was holding the camera, as it's not a totally static shot (I wonder why that is - vibrations from machinery on the lander, perhaps?), but it is of course precisely the same viewpoint as the better-known shot of Armstrong's first steps on Mars.
          • As a sidenote, it's not utterly impossible that there could be non-moon-sourced material on this clip - the camera used was incompatible with the television broadcast technology of the time, so what viewers actually saw came from camera pointed at large screens, onto which were projected the images from the moon, so if the clip came from the TV footage it might include artefacts from this. TSP (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^talk 13:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Isn't all the NASA movie footage freely licensed like their photos seem to be? I'm not sure whether the reason is saying that this is the only such footage on Wikipedia or the only such footage in existence, because I thought there was quite a bit of this footage around, and at better sizes, and possibly quality. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is (licensing). I think the issue is not enough people having the connection speed, the software (ff2mpeg) and/or the know-how to convert videos to ogg and upload them. Not to mention the 20MB upload limit: video files get very large very quickly (bug spam). A how-to would be ideal for the dispatches section of the Signpost. MER-C 09:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, low quality. And there is higher quality footage available somewhere--such as we can rip it from DVDs, etc., gren グレン 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "high-quality" footage of this, anywhere! It's a capture of the first TV transmission from the moon, using a "smeary" vidicon camera. In full-size (720 x 486) the quality is even more horrible... --Janke | Talk 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the footage was not recorded on film? 16mm and 8mm cameras were available in hand held size for many decades before the moon landing Thisglad (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This particular footage came from the camera mounted in an assembly on the lunar module's side, to capture the first steps onto the moon (when obviously there was no-one there to hold the camera).

They COULD have made this camera a film camera, but I'm not sure that people would have responded well to, "People have stepped on the moon - we'll have some pictures in a couple of weeks when the film gets to earth" :-) I'm also not sure how well a film camera would respond to a low-pressure environment. I think that all the motion picture cameras on the moon were for TV transmission, not film recording.

This article tantalisingly suggests that there may be better footage available - the generally-available footage is from the Apollo camera, projected onto a screen, then filmed with a TV camera. Apparently there was once recorded footage taken straight from the original signal, before the conversion to TV format; but it has been lost. It wouldn't necessarily be a *lot* better, though. TSP (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, even the original TV signal at full or closer to full resolution would be MUCH better, right? I didn't expect DVD quality but slightly higher than 320×240. gren グレン 00:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original resolution of the video is approx. 220 x 220 pixels! Yes, there is also film footage from the Apollo missions, shot with Maurer 16 mm cameras, but only at 4 fps, IIRC. That footage was for other purposes, and due to the low filming speed, there is really no continuous movement - it's like a very fast slide show. Remember that this video was transmitted from the moon - with a rather low bandwidth due to the slow scan camera (see image at right) - and then recorded on earth. That partly explains the low quality. --Janke | Talk 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - unlikely we can get much higher quality. --Janke | Talk 19:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Enuja (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very detailed, well illustrates the subject and adds significantly to its main article, Bald Eagle.

Articles this image appears in

Bald Eagle Toledo Zoo

Creator

MPF

• Support as nominator scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 18:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Subject is partly obscured by blurry foreground foliage. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much noise. I kept waiting for it to get more clear ... never happened. crassic!^[talk] 07:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I don't fully mind the back shot... but, the leaves covering it are problematic. gren グレン 04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Leaves. ^8thstar 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yeah, this was a bad idea. Is it possible to remove my nomination? — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted As per nominators request. microchip80 I am Microchip08 in disguise! 11:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great close up showing nice detail to the species.

Articles this image appears in

Cetonia aurata

Creator

Chrumps

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Some minor DOF problems with the rear half of the animal, but the detail and color otherwise are great. SingCal 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree, for a large beetle there should be more DoF but then again, for f3.5 this is remarkable. Small chips have their advantages... great composition and angle from which minor artefacts and slight highlight clipping don't detract. --mikaul^talk 10:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent color and detail. Only problem is the rather shallow depth of field that blurs part of the back of the beetle. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good macro. crassic!^[talk] 05:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Narayanese (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No significant problems, adds value, meets criteria, nice photo. --jjron (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cetonia-aurata.jpg MER-C 06:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An early example of close air support in warfare, high resolution and good composition

Articles this image appears in

close air support F4U_Corsair

Creator

Cpl. P. McDonald

• Support as nominator Thisglad (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unsharp and doesn't show anyting else than smoke. Also, no sign of F4U's & not very encyclopedic. --Mothmolevna ( © ® ) 13:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's not very well focused, and, as Mothmolevna ( © ® ) said above, nothing but smoke. microchip08 ^{Find my secret page!} Talk to me! I feel lonely! 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. crassic!^[talk] 05:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whats with the dates? last one is 20 days earlier. ^8thstar 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not many people know what an atoll is. This is a simple explanation in a picture. Also, it is original.

Articles this image appears in

Atoll

Creator

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (to try to get this started). Very useful and informative, but I don't see anything stunning in quality and presentation. I know there's no official limit on size with animations, but 320 × 237px, and total file size of 38kB - well compare that to what we expect of photos. Things such as the detail in colouring and textures are very basic, as is the quality of the illustrations themself. There also seems to be slightly varying definitions of what an atoll is, which don't necessarily consist of having a fully open lagoon within the fringing reef (though that clearly is one accepted definition). And this illustration appears to indicate that as the island erodes the reef builds up, suggesting that the reef is formed from the eroding island itself - I know that's not what it's intending to illustrate, but that's rather how it appears. --jjron (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I agree with Jjron - I don't think that the illustration gets it quite right, and I think the land as a whole generally subsides, but the coral builds up atop the shells of the old coral to keep at the proper depth, forming the ridge. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A clear, well-focused macro shot showing pollen on the stamen of a lily in surprisingly good detail. I didn't notice any major color flaws or artifacting, and the picture is aesthetically-pleasing to boot. --jonny-mt 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Stamen

Creator

Commons:User:Zantastik

• Support as nominator jonny-mt 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks kind of grainy. ^8thstar 04:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's actually quite artifacted. A 5MP photo saved with a higher JPEG quality would be around 2MB in size. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just doesn't strike me as a stunning photo. When I opened the full-sized image, it seemed all the color blended into one. crassic!^[talk] 05:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Besides being aesthetically pleasant, this picture shows a very typical locomotive for Russia, and in general it shows very well how locomotives look.

Articles this image appears in

Diesel locomotive, w:ru:2ТЭ10, w:ru:Тепловоз

Creator

User:Anthony Ivanoff

• Support as nominator Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've struck the uses on Russian Wikipedia, which are not relevant to English language Wiki FPC (just as use on English Wiki shouldn't be relevant to Russian FPC). --jjron (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How was this created? Did you tone map a raw file? If so, that introduced quite a bit of noise. Do you have an unprocessed version for comparison? --Dschwen 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at the moment. This is so amazingly noisy I'm not even sure it's noise I'm looking at; it's almost more like a canvas print, or like some type of filter like that has been run over it. I was even wondering if it was a photo of a painting, though it's just claiming to be a photo. It's a shame, because I really like the picture, and would support a nice version. --jjron (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can we see original of this pic? M.K. (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noisy and motion blurred. Would like to see original --Mothmolevna ( © ® ) 14:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Its almost certainly tone mapped, and not realistically at that. The noise seems consistent with noise I've seen when post-processing to dig deep into shadow detail of RAW files in Adobe Lightroom. I think its the raw processing algorithm that introduces those weird geometric shapes. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Noise, but it looks extremely cool imo ^8thstar 04:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If there was less noise/grain, I would support. crassic!^[talk] 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I would give it a Strong Support on Commons, but not here, per above. diego_pmc (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above. I'd like to see it as an FP, so I might have a go at reducing the noise using an FFT filter if I have time, assuming that's OK with Anthony Ivanoff. Time3000 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too much HDR effect. Not realistic. Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A dramatic picture illustrating the behaviour of ambush spiders, not very easy to catch. Composition is a bit confusing but that contributes to suggest the struggle of the prey.

Articles this image appears in

Spider, Crab spider

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I'd definitely support this if it was a bit easier to see what was going on. Also, when viewing it full sized, very little is in clear focus. Usually I'm sympathetic to DOF issues in macro photography but I can't help thinking it could have been improved a bit. What aperture was used? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some EXIF info added to the image file. Yes, maybe it could, but we have to think and act fast on those occasions -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very true. I've missed many good macro opportunities for lack of time to prepare the shot. :-) It looks like you did about the best you could under the circumstances. Stopped any further down and you'd have just made it less sharp, probably. The extension ring obviously contributed to the lack of DOF though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think the degree of difficulty for this shot gives us some leeway to approve despite the DOF issues. howcheng {chat} 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
• Oppose. It's quite hard to see what exactly is going on. microchip08 ^{Find my secret page!} Talk to me! I feel lonely! 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. crassic!^[talk] 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A conservative and minimalist depiction of a common subject, yet very detailed and sharp, clearly illustrating the flowers, buds and leaves of a Cherry tree.

Articles this image appears in

Prunus cerasifera

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could you reduce the sharpening radius? The flowers have a rather thick halo. Thegreenj 21:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's done. But most part of the halo is due to other causes: motion blur and unsharpness. I never use a sharpening radius larger than 2 or 3. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The insects eating away at the plant isn't very appealing, imo. crassic!^[talk] 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shows flowers and buds well, and even manages to include a herbivore (raises EV).Narayanese (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had a source for the caption though. Narayanese (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: The text These shrubs or small trees are among the first to blossom in spring is taken from the article, but that bit does not have a source in the article. Narayanese (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have verified it myself, spring is coming in Portugal! Anyway, that could be a problem with the article, not the picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it. Narayanese (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's quite nice, but only two petals and part of the branch are in really sharp focus. I'd need at least one whole flower to be in really sharp focus to support this image. - Enuja (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - nice piece of detail but it could be slightly better placed in the frame so that the top shoot goes deeper into the TR corner, and more of the lower stalk is given so that there is a bit of a support line before the branch - and this would centre the main blossom better. It replaces a very very fuzzy image of a whole tree, which was actually the wrong tree for the article - it is a nice detail but a shot of the whole tree would be more useful Motmit (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A fine image depicting an important actor, in an important (if now forgotten) play, by an important playwright, based on one of my favourite (and no doubt also important) books. Who needs more reason?

Articles this image appears in

Silas Marner, Hermann Vezin, Dan'l Druce, Blacksmith

Creator

Francis Sylvestre Walker (1848-1916) - Engraved by the Dalziel Brothers.

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. That's not a caption, it's an article! --jjron (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, the rules say it must give enough context. They say nothing about giving to much context. =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crassic!^[talk] 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Why is this Featured Picture quality? The nomination talks about the actor and the playwright, but really says nothing about the artist nor the quality of the picture. A photo might have some additional value, but this is a rather non-notable 19th century drawing and just doesn't make the grade as an FP. Oscar (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopaedic value, my good fellow =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly detailed and encyclopedic.Jellocube27 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minimum supports not met.

Reason

I think it's a very atmospheric photo of the statue

Articles this image appears in

Creator

Sharon Lynette Taylor

• Support as nominator SharonLynette (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Horrible quality. ^8thstar 01:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 8thstar -- mcshadypl ^TC 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. It looks like you registered, uploaded a picture and came straight here. You may want to read this and get the lay of the land a little before nominating something else. SingCal 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose bad quality, suggesting to speedy close. M.K. (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted You are requested to read about what featured status is before nominating another picture, and to consider going to Picture Peer Review first (it tends to be a less harsh process). Hope to see you nominating another picture soon! --Mⁱc_rochipL ⁰⁸ 11:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Encyclopedic photograph of Metanephrops japonicus.（＾＾）／

Articles this image appears on

Metanephrops japonicus

Creator

Dieno

• Weak support as nominator Laitche (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Encyclopedic, though pretty uninspiring composition. SingCal 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha ha, I agree. -- Laitche (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose A very useful photo, but I would like a higher resolution. I understand that this is above the requirements, but this image is two photos pasted together so I'd expect the combined image to be bigger. I don't know about this particular lobster, but lobsters generally are rather large, so one would think a better image could be taken. Mangostar (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info This lobster is not so big, around 200mm. -- Laitche (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw thie one. I think that just only encyclopedic does not deserve FP. -- Laitche (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn.

File:Chitrakot Waterfall Jagdalpur.jpg

Reason

Articles this image appears in

Jagdalpur

Creator

Alok Prasad

• Support as nominator Alokprasad84 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does not meet size requirements. An easily reproduced image like this should be much larger. Also, it looks like it is tilted to the right. A composition that shows more of the falls would be much preferred. Cacophony (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cacophony. crassic!^[talk] 07:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thank you for your nomination Alok; it is a nice photo. Please ensure you fill out the template carefully (e.g., you have failed to give a reason), and take note of opinions given here. Could I suggest you nominate at Picture peer review first in future, in order to get a feel for the requirements at FPC; it tends to be a more 'gentle' forum while you get used to the process. --jjron (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The angle is too small; if we could see the whole height of the falls, I might reconcider. Spinach Dip 07:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

We have a lot of pictures of insects, but by and large almost all are of the adult stage, while the eggs, larvae and pupae are largely ignored. I think this is a fine image of mosquito larvae. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Mosquito Culex, Siphon (insect anatomy)

Creator

James Gathany, Center for Disease Control

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support crassic!^[talk] 07:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Pretty well done and attractive photo of these little buggers, though a proper macro of just one would probably hold higher encyclopaedic value. The possible pupa, if that's what it is (from image page "It appears that the darker structure at the top center of the image is one pupa."), is quite out of focus. Why's it a png? Could be reuploaded as jpg. And shorter captions please Shoemaker! :-). --jjron (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah. PNGs are better.. JPGs add artefacts. And that's a pupa. I knows my mosquito pupas. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stick with jpgs. And if the person that took the picture (from the Center for Disease Control) also presumably supplied the original description, then I'm glad you can tell more from this picture re the pupa than he could tell in person - see WP:OR. --jjron (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source is not the CDC itself, it's a paer in PLoS med, which does not directly caption it, the description is, in fact, created by the uploader and appears nowhere in that paper in the first place, although much of the information does. I'm sure that Gathany could identify a pupa - they are very obvious, and look exactly like that. But he's not the one doing the description. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that it looks like a pupa, but as per my original comment, it's very out of focus, so hard to say for absolute certain (and trying to avoid original research). I was mainly making the point that having what is apparently the pupa there wasn't really increasing value. --jjron (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I have flu and am not as with it as I should be. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, I wasn't very clear on why I was mentioning the pupa anyway, amongst the other stuff. --jjron (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support VERY interesting view. Spinach Dip 07:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Culex sp larvae.png MER-C 06:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of those "I can't believe this exists" sort of images - who'd have guessed that a photo of the original production of Tristan und Isolde was floating around? There's some degredation, but it is nearly a century-and-a-half since the photo was taken. In short, a surprising and wonderful find that I really think deserves recognition.

Articles this image appears in

Tristan und Isolde

Creator

Joseph Albert

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good picture. Quality is good for a daguerreotype. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo given the background and age. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- given the size and the heavy artifacting, should we try for some downsampling? --Malachirality (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, there isn't much artefacting on the people themselves, and the main effect that the degredation had on them seems to be to cause the highlights to get overblown a bit, losing detail on exposed skin. Downsampling doesn't help with that, and since things like the beard and her hair still manage to retain plenty of detail, I think downsampling would hurt the picture, without fixing anything really worth fixing. Levels adjustment might have good effects, if done carefully so as not to lose detail in the black areas while bringing out whatever detail is salvagable from the lighter ones. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, trying darkening brings out the JPEG artefacts, and shows me what you meant. Still, it's highly unlikely we'll get anything better than this. Maybe we could ask Durova for help? I believe she does a lot of restoration. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Also remarkable poses. --Brand спойт 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've uploaded an edit - be harsh, the picture's more important than my amateur editing skills =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.B. Accidentally relinked the original -oops! Fixed now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the levels adjustment is probably an improvement, but the blurring to get rid of the white line is not an improvement. This is usually done with cloning, and I certainly don't know how to do it. - Enuja (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used cut and paste to fix the white line - the blurring was to fix the JPEG artefacting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Joseph Albert - Ludwig und Malwine Schnorr von Carolsfeld - Tristan und Isolde, 1865e.jpg MER-C 06:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good composition and fascinating photo.

Articles this image appears in

Suspension bridge
Ortaköy
Tourism in Turkey
Ortaköy Mosque
Istanbul

Creator

Dietmar Giljohann

• Support as nominator Dsmurat (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The composition actually seems a little cluttered to me, but then, reality is cluttered. I like it, on the whole, but am not sure if it counts as "best of the best" as FP tries to be. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't find it cluttered and I like the composition, there is a clear theme with the waterfront and the span of the bridge stretching across the whole frame. But it is leaning! And I'm not too terribly excited about the amount of detail/resolution, as the bar has been set pretty high by previous FPs. --Dschwen 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too blurry. microchip08 ^{Find my secret page!} Talk to me! I feel lonely! 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor composition, bad time of day for lighting, non straight verticals. Mfield (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. And it's got a few "jpeg symptoms", mostly with the bridge in the distance. crassic!^[talk] 07:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks like something was edited out above the leftmost suspension bridge pier. The slanted minaret is distracting. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 03:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's Enc. value Nicely done animation.

Articles this image appears in

Newton's cradle

Creator

DemonDeLuxe

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Previous nomination here. Pstuart84 Talk 16:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original, Support Alternative Why does the last ball seem to start moving away before the first ball has impacted the line? It needs more frames. Mfield (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -Yes, I agree. It does need more frames. Rj1020 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per above. Would support one with higher amount of frames. crassic!^[talk] 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative. crassic!^[talk] 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is unencyclopedic - a Newton's Cradle does not keep going ad infinitum; it dissipates energy to noise, heat, etc. and eventually stops. Pstuart84 Talk 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - I can't understand the objections, this is one of the very best available animations, including the featured ones! It is realistic, stylish and sophisticated, adding considerable value to the article. I particularly like the excellent taste detail of the "Principia" under the cradle -- Alvesgaspar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.172.45.104 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I think that if you'd never seen a Newtons cradle for real and you watched this animation, you'd be forgiven for not understanding that the ball striking the line is what causes the end ball to swing away, The missing frames make the end ball appear to leave before the first one has made contact. If I just saw this, I would guess there was magnetism involved. Does it not look like that to you if you put aside previous knowledge of what is happening? Mfield (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree it is not perfect, a longer pause after the ball strikes the line should be enough to solve the problem. And I would be the first to suggest it to the author if he were available. But I honestly think it is a minor flaw (maybe easly corrected by someone here?)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you address my objection? This depiction of the balls swinging endlessly is simply incorrect. Pstuart84 Talk 00:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody is likely to continue watching this animation for the length of time necessary for this to be any real issue, apart from the already hypnotic effect that this image has. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 03:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - I voted for this on the 2007 POTY and im gonna vote for it now too, cos its top notch and its simple and easy to understand --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Image is very tastefully done, good quality, except for the issue with the ball leaving before the other strikes. I'm going to see if I can apply my very limited skills in Imageready and make it look more realistic. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 03:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 03:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done that's what it needed, I'm supporting this new version, changed vote above Mfield (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt. per above--CPacker (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - alternative - very well done. diego_pmc (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Egad! A perpetual motion machine! Shouldn't the balls bounce to lower maximum heights in each cycle? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be very difficult to accomplish without having the original computer animation, and without making the GIF file much larger (because of added frames). — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a great reason to make an unencyclopedic animation featured. Pstuart84 Talk 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then clearly the solution is to have a more explanatory image that exaggerates the decay rate (due to time/size constraints) but also explains within the image what is going on (either with a graph or equations). — BRIAN0918 • 2008-03-18 14:13Z
• Oppose due to perpetual motion and background. Cacophony (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pstuart84, Spikebrennan. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wouldn't recommend that this be put in the article on Conservation of energy but it serves it's purpose to clearly and accurately depict how a Newtons cradle works in an encyclopedic matter, the whole perpetual motion issue is inconsequential when it comes to whether this is encyclopedic or not and adding the extra frames to show loss of energy would just make the animation larger in size without contributing much in how the image is currently used encyclopedically. Cat-five - talk 03:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really doesn't "accurately depict how a Newtons cradle works in an encyclopedic matter". In fact, it's inaccurate for the reasons I give above. Pstuart84 Talk 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if a video of the real thing would be a good enc illustration of the phenomenon. Maybe not. IMO, the important concept to be illustrated here is the transmission of the momentum, rather than the friction damping of the motion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A quick 'back of the envelope' calculation suggests that this contraption (in the favoured Alternative version) is almost a metre tall, and the book below it would therefore be around two metres wide. If correct, this would be another slight parting with reality, as this is considerably bigger than typical Newton's Cradles which are about 15cm in height. Anyone want to check and see what figures they come up with? --jjron (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much more than that, if we assume the "small oscilations" linear approximation. For a period of 3 s, the length of the pendulum should be more than 2m [L = g.T**2/(4*pi**2) ]! Did I make a mistake somewhere? This is a good way to make my point that a "realistic" animation is not very illustrative as it is too fast -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It takes awhile for the wave or whatever to pass through the middle bearings right? And what is jjron calculating based on? The thing could be a meter high or a millimeter, without some reference for size it's impossible to tell.. :D\=< (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh the amount of time it takes to fall, of course :D\=< (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, time. Actually that's probably a better way to do it, but I'm not sure where Alvesgaspar's 3s period comes from. I get a period of nearer to 1s, which gives length of pendulum ≈ 25cm, so the total height would be maybe around 30cm, which is somewhat more realistic. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The period is the time of a complete oscillation, not just the time of fall -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that, but (at least on my computer) I get a period of about 1s (with a 'time of fall' of about 0.25s, which was the figure I used in my first calculation). Do these things animate differently on different systems? --jjron (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well yeah that's what you plug into the formula, but the gravitational force is your "some reference for size" that I couldn't see earlier :D\=< (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, of course all calculations have been done on the assumption this thing is happening on Earth with g = 9.8ms^-2. Also assuming the absence of friction, which seems to be fair enough since it's in perpetual motion ;-). --jjron (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have to disagree with the above estimates. Using ${\displaystyle T\approx 2\pi {\sqrt {\frac {\ell }{g}}}\,}$ (see Pendulum), you get ${\displaystyle \ell \approx {\frac {9.8T^{2}}{4\pi ^{2}}}}$. Taking the timing from the original GIF as 0.72s (there are 34 frames, all at 20ms except for two at 40ms), this gives ${\displaystyle \ell \approx 0.0180}$m, or about 1.8cm. This won't be exact, as it assumes the maximum angle to the vertical is small, but it's fairly close. Time3000 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • But the time that really counts is the one we perceive when looking at the animation !... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Agreed. --jjron (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Excellent animation that contributes enormously to explaining the concept. That the speed is decreased and energy loss is neglected are both appropriate for this type of illustration, and contribute to clarity. (To :D\=<: Yes, it takes some time for the wave to travel – a very short time. The speed of sound in stainless steel is about 5790 m/s, so if these are 1-cm balls the travel time is about 5 microseconds, obviously negligible.) --mglg_(talk) 21:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Strong oppose per perpetual motion concerns, but suggest it might qualify as encyclopedic under the GIF article as an illustration of GIF's animation potential. Reluctant because it is a very nice bit of work. Matt Deres (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - I live in the real world. MER-C 06:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not a particularly high resolution image, but a fantastic illustration from an old 19th century botanical book

Articles this image appears in

Coffee, Coffea arabica

Creator

Franz Eugen Koehler

• Support as nominator - especially if colours of higher resolution image can be adjusted properly. My comment on accuracy of representation appears further down. CharlesC (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wonderful, but way too small for the encyclopedia, let alone FP. Please check the criteria before nominating. If you can find a bigger version, I'd love to see it. --mikaul^talk 10:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I read the criteria and I came across this bit which made me think it might be OK: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed" --CharlesC (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one. Does anyone want to clean it up? MER-C 11:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These old illustrations, as attractive as they are, are not always particularly accurate, and therefore not particularly encyclopaedic for our modern usage. I can't speak for this particular image, but I have been doing a bit of work recently with Australian birds and have come across a number of beautiful images by noted 19th century ornithologist John Gould. As nice as they are, I'm yet to find one that is entirely accurate with respect to its representation of the bird. The point of this is that it seems rather a long-shot to invoke the "Exceptions to this rule..." clause, when I'd need to be convinced it's actually completely correct. --jjron (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd agree about the "exceptions" purely due to the fact that other versions clearly are available. I'd stand up for it's enc value though, as it has historical significance among other virtues.
        That bigger version is from another source – the flowers are white (uncoloured) and the colour repro is completely different. I really don't like it as much and we'll never squeeze that nice vibrant green of the original nom out of it. Good trawling though :o) --mikaul^talk 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Besides the possible lack of accuracy I mentioned above, encyclopaedic value is further compromised here with those numbered small images around the bottom having lost the key they presumably originally had. --jjron (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Abebooks has a reprint of Köhler's Medizinal-Plantzen for $30. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the perceived lack of accuracy is a red herring. Just because someone saw some inaccuracies in a another book by another person about birds (which let's face it don't sit still to be drawn), it doesn't mean that Franz Eugen Koehler was innacurate in his drawings. In fact he is renowned for his highly detailed and accurate representations. My feeling is that if someone has that amount of talent at drawing, specifically for a biologically focussed book, with a plant that doesn't move sitting in front of him - its not unreasonable to suppose that it is going to be as accurate as any representative drawing from a human being is possibly going to be. --CharlesC (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Except it's not very hard to check how accurate a drawing is with today's images on Internet... and his drawing looks more like the leaves of an elm than a coffee bush (the folds at the veins are wrong). And both drawings have strange colours. Narayanese (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Variation may of course be the result of human selection (i.e. breeding)... --CharlesC (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Considering the articles it appears in, one would expect accurate rather than historical depictions, i.e. photographs. Narayanese (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great enc. value, the image is very clear, and the detail is incredible.

Articles this image appears in

Too many to list...

Creator

User:UserB

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kind of an odd orientation, with some but not all of a logo visible in the top left, and only a portion of the stitching appearing on the horizon in the top right. Spikebrennan (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Spike. And it's not very interesting. ^8thstar 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not as encyclopaedic as made out - it's a picture used as a stub icon, so isn't a main image in that many articles. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 11:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as you can see only part of the logo. All or nothing. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 12:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I wonder why this hasn't been nominated before. This is one of the most famous paintings of all time. The depth of the symbology and era in which it was painted make it utterly unique.

Articles this image appears in

16 articles in total: History of Painting, Infrared, Oil Painting, Renaissance, Jan van Eyck, Las Meninas, Early Renaissance painting, Early Netherlandish painting, Arnolfini Portrait, Giovanni Arnolfini, Pentimento, Flemish painting, List of people from Bruges, Western Painting, Do Not Open, and National Gallery, London Collection Highlights

Creator

Jan van Eyck

• Support as nominator Spinach Dip 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Is it that famous? I'm no art expert but I've never heard of it. I can think of plenty more famous paintings... Anyway, I'm guessing the reason it hasn't been nominated before is because at 100%, the quality is quite awful. Very blurry/soft and seems to have artifacts, but it is admittedly difficult to determine what was on the canvas originally and what is as a result of the capture of it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as the most well-known piece of early-renaissance painting, and the frontispiece of that article right here of Wikipedia, I would say so. Spinach Dip 06:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because of low quality. Yes, it must be a bit famous, since I've seen it in a few art books... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yes, this is a very famous painting, and it's great that we have a fairly good quality image of it here on Wikipedia. However, because this is an image of a work of art, I'd like to really be able to see lots of details in the art by looking at the image. I'm afraid that, even thought the resolution is amply over the listed minimum requirement, it simply isn't high enough resolution to really see the kind of details of a work of art I like to see in featured images of works of art. - Enuja (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, the painting is a little fuzzy. But, I believe it would be quite impossible to get a more detailed version at any resolution close to 2024x2777 (of course, if someone submits one, I would gladly support it). As for any artifacts, aside from doing a side-by-side comparison with the original, it will be impossible to tell what are actually artifacts, and what are the effects of 570 years of aging. Spinach Dip 06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The years don't generally leave blocky gradients. :) Thegreenj 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. One of the most famous renaissance paintings but atrocious quality. Check out this closeup of the mirror. I want that quality in a full shot before I will support. :D\=< (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose for same reason as :D\=<. Visit the National Gallery in London, if you can, to admire the original. Motmit (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my experience, though I support the Yorck Project's goals, their reproductions tend to be of very poor quality, with loss of detail, poor colour reproduction, and so on. Comparing their reproductions to anyone else's, even of significantly smaller resolution, tends to show major flaws in theirs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose per Froth (:D\=<). This is a wonderful painting, but we could have a far, FAR better quality image of it. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Grainy. Spencer^T♦C 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very high quality and full of color. There is so much captured in the image without the feel of the picture being cut short.

Articles this image appears in

Garden

Creator

User:Daderot

• Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - subject is cut off and its not like it can't be re-taken --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - suffering from clear snapshot issues; it's artifacted and the fountain is blown. I like the purple fringing however (ha) --bad_germ 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'll add low technical quality to the above mentioned. Also, why is it not in Comons?--Svetovid (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above. crassic!^[talk] 03:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above, plus the phallic-looking thing in the FG is pretty distracting. SingCal 19:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sorry. Spencer^T♦C 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Ontario.JPG

Reason: A nice shot- natural and vibrant colors. A very different perspective view of the Lake.

Creator

User:Sidsizzle

• Support -nice clear one Aswink (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose low encyclopedic value for the subject matter. A very pretty shot, but something with the scale of Lake Ontario can't be described with a view through a window, sorry. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a nice shot but doesn't really help illustarte the intended structure subject - low encyclopaedic value. Guest9999 (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Uncle Bungle. crassic!^[talk] 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where are we getting this glimpse from? If the location is significant - some sort of cave, or historic location - this could be encyclopaedic, but as it is, we're not getting enough info. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• All right! I kind of figured thats its got a low encyclopedic value. Probably this picture would be well off calling it just a lake rather than Lake Ontario. And as far as the location is concerned, it was one of those snowy days and this glimpse was from a window between icy patches. No caves. Taken from the ground level of the bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.170.128.65 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Sorry, anon votes are not allowed. Please sign in.
    • Uh, he didn't vote, he was telling us about the shot. Please read before commenting. And sign in. Matt Deres (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even if it were encyc, you still have the tilted horizon and the lake out of focus. Sorry. --Bridgecross (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I do like this picture, I think it's pretty and I would be very proud if I had taken it, but all the concerns above are completely true. This wouldn't make a good featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per shoemaker. Spencer^T♦C 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Because it is pure awesomeness.

Articles this image appears in

Schrödinger's cat

Creator

Sloyment

• Support as nominator TheKillerAngel (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - poor quality, doesn't meet the size guidelines --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose and Speedy close Not even close; horrible quality and small size. Matt Deres (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose and speedy close, bad faith nom. Doesn't meet a single guideline, and 'Because it is pure awesomeness' is not a serious reason. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and speedy close per above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Saw this on Commons FPC and loved it, and it provides images of things we didn't have before now. It combines encyclopaedic merit with artistic merit in a very compelling way. The use of colour is just gorgeous.

Articles this image appears in

Cluster fly (formerly no image), could reasonably be added to Schizophyllum commune, but I didn't feel comfortable replacing the image there myself, even if I think this one is better.

Creator

User:Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If it's just illustrating the fly (which it is), then the fly is probably too insignificant a part of the picture. If you cropped in you'd probably miss the size requirements, as well as affect composition. ATM this is looking like a good Commons candidate. --jjron (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cropped as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As Jjron and for lack of enc interest. The picture IS the composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a good shot but not among Wikipedia's best work in terms of depicting the insect (clarity, composition). Support if resting on fungus is an important behaviour (and is documented as so) of the fly - if so it may well be a very good depiction of such behaviour. Guest9999 (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This is a good image, certainly, but cannot compare to our other insect FPs as a picture of the insect. I'm with Guest9999: if this image is specifically to illustrate the fly in relation to the fungus, then it may be worth reconsidering. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Höckerschwan Cygnus olor 7b cropped.jpg

Reason

Very nicely taken shot. Sharp, and clear.

Articles this image appears in

Mute Swan

Creator

User:Richard Bartz

• Support both as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose crop very uncomfortable composition; the bird is pressed up against the edges/corner and has no space to fly into. --Malachirality (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original or Edit 2 per nom Muhammad(talk) 12:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose crop, Oppose edit. The bird in the bg is no problem and especially no reason to fudge with this picture. --Dschwen 13:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original The bird doesn't detract from the image; it actually provides a sense of scale. Dr. eXtreme 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - can anyone identify the bird in the back ground? Adding that information to the caption would help with the scale perception. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like some type of gull, but identifying it won't help with scale because we have no idea how far behind the swan it is. --jjron (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gull in the background is most likely a Larus ridibundus in winter colours (the single spot behind the eye gives it away). Lycaon (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question? - sorry if I'm being dense but what is the swan actually doing in the picture, is it important behaviour? Guest9999 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Landing. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I'd say he's taking off - the 'running on water' is more characteristic of taking off, and the splash in the water behind him indicates that's where he's come out of the water, or at least taken a previous step. --jjron (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I presume this photo is taken at the same time, seems like a landing. Narayanese (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, he takes off and watched the tower for a OK--Richard Bartz (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2. crassic!^[talk] 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the bird is taking off. The other picture in the article shows the bird landing - with both feet forward. If it is taking off it has EV as that isn't illustrated. If not its got an odd greyness that does not make it striking enoughMotmit (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - the colouration of this scene seems unnatural somehow. Can I just get a confirmation that the swan's beak isn't red like other mute swans? --Fir0002 08:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a subadult stage the color of the beak isnt developed. Here is a better one ... if the beak is red its a male, pallid red is a female and gray-red is a teenager --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 07:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

quality for main page picture of the day?

Articles this image appears in

Panorpa Panorpidae

Creator

Luc Viatour

• Support as nominator Luc Viatour (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Wow, this is an excellent photo of a very interesting insect. However, it's right on the borderline of featured picture quality. The blown highlight on the insect's face and the fact that the (abdomen? man, I do need to learn my insect anatomy) is a little washed out and hard to see the details in are problematic. It's beautiful, though, and it is by far the best image of this group of insects currently being used in the articles, so I'm going to support it. - Enuja (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information:It is a Panorpa cognata (which is almost transparent white) Panorpa Communis is brown.--Luc Viatour (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Pretty much agree with Enuja. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent lighting and detail, inspiring composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality. crassic!^[talk] 03:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice Image, very worthy of FP status--Mifter (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: What everyone else said, it's a fantastic picture of top encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cool image. Spencer^T♦C 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Panorpa communis 2 Luc Viatour.jpg MER-C 07:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Crystal clear, you really can't miss on detail about the fish.

Articles this image appears in

Mandarinfish

Creator

Luc Viatour

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - Wow. Even at full resolution there are no artifacts, and detail is absolutely stunning. A good image for illustrating the subject. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Stunning colour. crassic!^[talk] 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support per both above. Dr. eXtreme 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Striking colour. Lord Foppington (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love the picture. It's beautiful! ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support' Amazing depiction of the fish, very usful (high encyclopaedic value)for illustrative purposes, although the background is a little distracting. Guest9999 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Uber-Support The detail and color are amazing! Spinach Dip (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I would be inclined to oppose--but, how much of the fuzziness is a necessary part of the photo being take through water? gren グレン 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you ask Gren, here is a somewhat similar shot that I took through glass. The difference is quantifiable I think. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. It is a pretty good shot until you view it full sized. I don't know what everyone else has been seeing, but there are artifacts in the image at full size. It looks like it has been hit with some very strong noise reduction (the background is ultra smooth but the detail on the fish is very muddled and a bit posterised - looks almost watercolourish as a result. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Did the fish just happen to be swimming at an angle when the photo was taken? If the fish's normal orientation is more horizontal, then I would suggest rotating the image. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fish swim like that! It is a normal posture.--Luc Viatour (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Because of poor image quality at full size, and even at 1024 pixels wide. The effect is not from being in water, but I'll defer to Diliff on what the image quality problem is with the fish. - Enuja (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reduced the size here and I see no more default on the other image Featured here ?.--Luc Viatour (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which was featured two years ago.. --Dschwen 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't find the image quality to great, it looks choppy --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Although this image is not technically perfect, it is still a pleasant picture which illustrated the subject very well. Jellocube27 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks good. ^8thstar 22:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic image. The most important thing I look for - will the image pique the reader's interest and get them to read the article? In this case, I certainly think so. faithless (^speak) 08:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic Image, High quality and interisting to look at.--Mifter (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Colourful and encyclopedic. Spencer^T♦C 16:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks pretty fantastic to me. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 04:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The green thing above the fish takes the focus away from the fish. May I suggest blurring it out? 154.20.181.98 (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Synchiropus splendidus 2 Luc Viatour.jpg MER-C 07:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very encyclopediac, and it looks extremely clear and detailed.

Articles this image appears in

Coconut

Creator

Koehler's Medicinal-Plants. 1887

• Support as nominator Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Small as per FP criteria, could a higher resolution version be found? -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found this. Bewareofdog 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Pretty small. ^8thstar 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Does not meet FP criteria for size. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. We've found a bigger version. Does anyone want to restore it? MER-C 05:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suspend - I've ordered a reprint of this book, so a much better version that hopefully won't need restored will be available soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ummm, that could take a while (i.e., more than the week this will be up here). Does the nominator want to withdraw the nom pending Shoemaker's scan, or wait for a restoration of the Beware one? --jjron (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should (in theory) have it in a couple days. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other question is: is this 1887 (or so) drawing still considering scientifically accurate? I know nothing about coconuts, but a modern illustration could work just as well. We also have no idea how big the original drawing is (do we?), so the current digital image might not be a whole lot smaller than is possible. However, I'll abstain until Shoemaker'sHoliday puts up his new version.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some advantages to illustrations that photos may not have - stages of the plant's life, e.g. flowers, fruit, and seedlings, that do not normally occur at the same time can be collected together. That said, one could reasonably expect Köhler to be less accurate in his illustrations of tropical plants than ones that are native to Germany or even Eurasia. The trunk looks bizarrely spindly if you ask me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re HereToHelp, refer to similar comments made on this nom, I believe by the same illustrator. I think the same considerations apply here, and would tend to oppose unless convinced otherwise. Re Shoemaker, my immediate impression was also that the trunk looked entirely unrealistic; I doubt this tree would be standing up to any tropical storms. I'm more interested in it being scientifically accurate than it being an attractive old drawing. --jjron (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we have a scale there?--Svetovid (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree that the trunk is much too spindly (and the leaves much too bushy). Doesn't look like any coconut palm I've ever seen. Compare to Image:Cocos nucifera-01.jpg and Image:Coconut harvest.jpg. Mangostar (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - does that particular image have any historical significance, the first European depiction, famous author, etc? Guest9999 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author and the book are famous and significant - I believe the book's article is on the Vital articles list or some sort of list in that line - I have flu. I don't have to research. Bah! . However, as I said, I wouldn't trust them on tropicals. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Can you believe we didn't have this picture anywhere? Yes, it's just a big white blur, but it's the first satellite photo of the Earth, for Pete's sake! Do you need another reason?

Articles this image appears in

Satellite imagery, Explorer 6

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator howcheng {chat} 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - brilliant picture! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry but I can't see anything... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even with the caption, I'm having trouble figuring out the image. From what I infer it's a smeared picture of clouds over the Pacific; the apparent curve to it is unrelated to the curvature of the earth. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 21:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Usually I place historical importance over technical issues, but even knowing what this picture is, I can't figure it out. Therefore there's no 'wow factor' at all. Highly informative so I won't oppose, but sorry, I can't support. faithless (^speak) 22:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Atropos235 --Uncle Bungle (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- Looks like a scuff or something... ^8thstar 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's the first, but unfortunately so poor that it's almost meaningless. It should certainly appear in any history, but I don't think that's enough to transcend the very poor quality and become a FP. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A good reason to have this picture, but not a good reason to feature it. --Dschwen 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, sure, it's a poor photo of the earth... but that's not the point... it's representing what the first satellite photo looks like--like the first photograph. Very important for satellite imagery gren グレン 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For comparison; the first photograph does have distinguishable features in it. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What the heck? Why did they even put a camera on it if all it can do is make smudges? This is a terrible picture; it's just a significant smudge that's been scratched to death. :D\=< (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. I guess it's not gonna get passed, but I still see this as an image of super-historical importance. The image is of the picture itself, not of what it shows- the 'wow factor' comes from knowing what this picture is. It's like with the first photograph (which is featured)- you can't say that nothing much can be made out; it's not what you can and can't see, it's that it exists at all that's so 'wow'. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Historic, but its going to take a lot of explaning what it actually is. Spencer^T♦C 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The caption clears up any problems for people who can't identify the image. As has been the case before in these parts, EV wins over esthetic/technical appeal. SingCal 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The caption doesn't help at all. It says it's a sun lit patch of the south pacific, but all I see is a white smear on a scratchy black field. Historical importance is worth consideration, but not when the picture is this bad. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an historically important but crummy image which I would not object to (except that surely a higher quality scan of this exists). --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I looked for a larger version of that image too, but could not find anything bigger than what we already have. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It almost seems daft to try to find a super high res picture of a very inherently low resolution image, similar to the first photograph linked above. I'm not being critical, and I know there are some other considerations because of resampling and it being analog, but there is a limit at some point. The first 'TV' image though does indeed seem somewhat more impressive/interesting, but a bit weasely because of the 'TV'. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I'm not trying to push the TV as an alternative. I was merely using it to illustrate the level of crumminess which I would accept. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I was actually in the midst of writing a vote of strong support based on high historical value, but I just can't bring myself to do it. This is like... nominating Ansel Adams' first photograph even though he took it with the lens cap on or something... there's nothing there to feature. I'm glad we have this photo in the encyclopedia, but I can't think of a reasonable definition of "best" that would somehow include this. I could be convinced otherwise, I think. Matt Deres (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Being big and historically significant doesn't mean it's a good photo.The freddinator (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The first picture I've nominated for a while (yay for easter holidays!) and also the first I've nominated with my latest bit of kit - the Canon 400mm f/5.6L. Taking this shot was much more challenging than I expected - the moronic race organisers are killing the sport by giving general admission abysmal vantage points. The corner I had planned to photograph from (no. 3) is now fenced off an extra 30m from the track (needlessly I might add) and even has a huge piece of plastic covering the best viewing position!!! Ugh! What are they thinking? I can only guess they're trying to force people to pay for a grandstand! Anyway enough of the rant. I ended up after a considerable trek settling on corner 6. They had pulled a similar trick to corner 3 here (the track was probably 70m away) but at least there was no black plastic preventing a head on view! I had brought along a black permanent marker hoping to shade in the wire fence between me and the track (this improves the contrast loss when you shoot through it - I saw a pro doing it in 2004 :)) but they made another smaller fence so you were kept 2m back from the main fence. So that was another challenge. Anyway DESPITE all this I think the shot came out pretty well for a high speed sport (the 400mm blurred out the fence pretty well too) and shows an interesting bit of driving with Rosberg braking hard for the corner.

Summary of above (for the majority of people who can't be stuff reading the mass above!): good EV and excellent technical quality in a challenging subject

Articles this image appears in

Formula One, Albert Park, Victoria, Australian Grand Prix and 2008 Australian Grand Prix

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator Fir0002 09:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks like some anon editor has removed your image from the 2008 Australian Grand Prix article... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-- Diniz (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-- Typ932 (talk) 20:07 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Only nit-pick I could make is it would also be nice to see more of the flag and official then it may have worked in safety car as well -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 20:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 07:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Linczone^Talk/Watch 09:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great photo which meets the criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent photo, very sharp. --Schcambo (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting and sharp. Spencer^T♦C 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo. Blurred out what fence? ;)  - oahiyeel ^talk 18:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Laitche (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain -- interesting shot, but what is this supposed to show ? Guroadrunner (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Heidfeld and Rosberg - 2008 Melb GP.jpg MER-C 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: One of the better pictures I have seen of a heron on the Commons. It shows great detail of the bird.

Articles this image appears on

Black-crowned Night Heron

Creator

User:Calibas

• Support as nom. crassic!^[talk] 03:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wish it would be in a more natural environment. Otherwise a nice picture --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Is that another one in the background? Matt Deres (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's not very interesting. ^8thstar 03:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per unnatural environs - I'm fairly sure this is a relatively common bird and so a better shot can be taken --Fir0002 08:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above...don't like the environment. Spencer^T♦C 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article says these are often city birds, so "unnatural" environment is not a problem. If these birds commonly perch on fences, it is silly to insist that we have a photo of one in a tree. Technical quality looks good to me. Mangostar (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A historic moment in space exploration: the first reusable spacecraft making its first safe landing.

Articles this image appears in

STS-1

Creator

National Aeronautics and Space Agency

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Our video standards are atrocious. This is 1981 people, we have color TV and we have video more than 200px across! This recently we shouldn't even be considering black and white video :D\=< (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the video shot of this event was shot by copyrighted private press. This is NASA (i.e. public domain). Durova^Charge! 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be true, but how does it address Froth's concerns? --jjron (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll see what I can do. The image size is pretty standard (unless I'm mistaken) - so look for color? Durova^Charge! 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally I find the size a bit small, however that size seems to have been quite readily accepted on other recent video noms. But yes, surely it should be colour. --jjron (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right about them being accepted... but some of us editors thinks that needs to change which is why we oppose a lot of the overly small videos. gren グレン 12:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Froth gren グレン 12:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good picture, already an FPand QI at commons.

Articles this image appears in

Four-spotted Chaser

Creator

User:Dschwen

• Support as nominator Muhammad(talk) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Properly identified, well composed, and certainly large enough. Definitely an encyclopedic photograph. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great picture and clearly encyclopediac. DOF (out of focus wings) is as good as you're going to get unless the creature is square on - Peripitus (Talk) 02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A quality picture. crassic!^[talk] 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original -- Great composition, good quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunate angle makes it very hard to get a sense of its body plan (covered by wing). Not as enc as it could be because of that. Mangostar (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Original - too much dead space + the sharpness/definition is lacking (check out the eyes) and the angle/composition isn't particularly good for EV. Weak Support Edit 1 Weak because of the reasons I just stated minus the dead space issue. --Fir0002 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yay, Fir is back. Hm, I didn't think there is that much dead space. To adress the EV concerns: there are plenty of body plan pictures of dragon flies. I even provide a top down view of this very specimen untder other versions. So instead of having yet another one, my intention was to illustrate something else, the resting position between hunting runs (plus giving a slightly different more spatial perspective as most other pics are dead on top-to-bottom or straight from the side). The dragonfly rested there, with its abdomen pulsating heavily (presumably breathing) then took off to fly around for minute or so, then coming back, and repeat. The straw it is sitting on actually shows claw-marks, I found that quite remarkable. --Dschwen 12:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• sure, we only have ten FP dragonflies and all of them look kind of alike. Why do not have one more? oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.123.124 (talk • contribs)
  • Please sign your comments. Generally, only registered users' votes are counted, but if you would like to make a constructive contribution to the discussion, please feel welcome. It's probably worth noting that dragonflies encompass a large range of creatures that certainly do not all look alike, and opposes should typically refer to a failure to meet one of the criteria for FP. Thegreenj 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Great Photo. Great Scene. Good Quality. I love that the fly is sitting on a broken stem or whatever that is. Much character in this photo. Rj1020 (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dragonfly macro.jpg MER-C 06:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A detailed and high quality picture of a beautiful and somehow exotic species of insect adding value to the arcticle. It's not the author's intention to compete with the excellent picture of Luc Viatour, this was just a coincidence (it's a shame they can't mate, they are from different species...)

Articles this image appears in

Scorpion fly

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative; original is a bit confusing. Alternative is better. unsigned vote by DrExtreme -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Anonymous users do not have suffrage, sorry. Please consider creating an account --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not anonymous, the vote was from DrExtreme -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that was me, sorry. I guess SineBot failed me. Dr. eXtreme 12:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - The original is a great illustration of an important documented behaviour of the insect, the alternative is still a great photo but as a straight representation of the insect the pollen is distracting and possibly misleading. Guest9999 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The end of the abdomen ("tail" if you like) is what gives this group of insects their names. But it's concealed by the wings in both these shots, making it much less encyclopaedic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only in the males the genitals are up-curved -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even still, it'd be useful to see the difference, which is obscured here. I'll admit that I haven't studied them beyond being told they're evolutionally related to something or other due to the use of some protein that's only found in those two groups. For more information, ask me when I don't have flu =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll give a Weak support to the alternative, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per Shoemaker, its a pity --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Poor sharpness and the lighting looks a little flat/dull --Fir0002 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This photo is beautifully dynamic with the bay water as a stage, the rocks as a far wall, the foliage as a close frame, the sky and passage as "the beyond", and the boats are the life of the photo.

Articles this image appears in

Southeast Asia,

Vietnam, Halong Bay, List of World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia, Cinema of Vietnam, Template:Vietnamesefilmlist, List of Vietnamese films, User:Derlinus/Unesco User:Qweqweqweqweqweqweqweqweqweqwe

Creator

Ekstazo

• Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, looks like a photo that could be taken by every tourist. The location is notable but the photograph is not unique or special. Witty Lama 14:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The shot or caption doesn't really give information as to why the boats are there; is there a landing or dock there? Sky nearly totally overexposed. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above -Wutschwlllm (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've struck the userpages as 'articles' - they don't count. The two above them are also dubious. --jjron (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Funny, I just saw a similar photo in Yesterday's paper. I've seen other pictures of the bay, and this doesn't rank too highly among them. Spencer^T♦C 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Snapshot Mfield (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose However, it's not just a tourist snapshop - it is an excellent composition and well framed. It has depth and activity and is an image that hold the attention - but - I agree totally with atropos235 It looks washed out in the distance - it must be possible to catch the scene with much more colour, and the activity needs explanation.

Motmit (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think that it is a good photo, but not an excellent one. Two reasons: overexposed sky and level (clockwise rotation needed) -- Dmottl (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|250px|Original - Hadrian having anal sex with Antinous in Egypt, portrayed by Édouard-Henri Avril.

Reason

Painting by Édouard-Henri Avril showing Hadrian having anal sex with Antinous in Egypt.

Articles this image appears in

Sexual intercourse

Creator

Avril, Édouard-Henri

• Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, without the original size of the image I cannot make a definitive assessment, but this seems like a mediocre scan. If you can provide the original size of the image and it is sufficiently small therefore making this scan relatively large please tell us. gren グレン 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Size is a bit small, needs to be cropped on the left side. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Small size, patchy. How big is the original? J Milburn (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose doesn't meet size requirements, poor quality Thisglad (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't meet size requirement. Rj1020 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Nowhere near requirements. Nominations from this user are looking more and more like either trolling (refer especially here) or a personal obsession. Furthermore, suggest any future nominations from User:Otolemur crassicaudatus are done through a neutral intermediate who can gauge their suitability first (previous noms have generated substantial discussion and bad feeling, and though user has claimed he now understands the criteria, either that is incorrect, or he is now deliberately ignoring criteria and community feeling). --jjron (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - fails size requirements (even with possible historical excuse), no reason given for nom (is anal sex a reason now?), possible bad faith nom as per jjron. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Terrible quality, size below requirements, no apparent historical value. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor quality, and lacks interest. It appears that Otolemur crassicaudatus has an interest in promoting erotic art - and, while I feel that candidates for the main page should take into account the impact on the readership, I can see that a stunning and notable piece of erotic art would make an interesting FP. Édouard-Henri Avril is a pornographic artist who has done much racier pictures than this - but I don't think any of his images are of the quality that would justify being FP. An artist like Aubrey Beardsley might provide a more acceptable and appropriate erotic art image. SilkTork *^YES! 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy closed per above discussion.

Reason

A very good image and a good example of a mosaic.

Articles this image appears in

Black Madonna of Częstochowa

Creator

User:Yarl

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When was this mosaic created? It looks like it could be a modern image (and if so a copyright violation). Mangostar (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the artist's signature on the lower righthand corner strongly suggests it was created in 2000. I'm (regretfully) nominating this for deletion on the commons. Mangostar (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is suspended until Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jasna Góra - mosaic 01-removed from the wall.jpg is completed. MER-C 08:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion request has been completed - image has been Kept. Nomination can resume. --jjron (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Delete. It's still a copyright violation as far as I can tell. See my comments on the deletion discussion. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I won't second guess the IfD and it is quite an impressive image. gren グレン 14:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The image doesn't appear particularly sharp and the crop which follows the outline of the stone border means the image loses context. Pstuart84 Talk 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is a Featured Picture on the commons and I think that it is an absolutely stunning picture, it is used in a few articles here at the en. Wikipedia, and I think that it truly is one of the best pictures on the Commons and Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Prunus ♦ Sour Cherry ♦ Nowruz

Creator

Commons user BenHur

• Support as nominator Mifter (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Image is blurry in full res, but good encyc value and good composition otherwise. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the WB right? I've never seen a sky like that... Thegreenj 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Quality. ^8thstar 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Excellent composition, but not enough detail. Matt Deres (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose quality. The freddinator (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matt Deres Mottld (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good encyclopedic as it shows the whole tree. Really good composition with depth and balance, (but the the tree could be further to the right in the frame - reducing the empty blue and giving a bit more supporting ground to bottom left). Pity about the vapour trails in the sky as they clash with the harmony. Motmit (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 04:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This photo gives a good exapmle of the the kind of work firefighters have to do and the risks that can be involved in being a firefighter.

Articles this image appears in

Firefighters, Fire photography

Creator

Sylvain Pedneault

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose looks grainy overall. The freddinator (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. First of all, for such an easily replicated photo this falls short of the highest technical quality requirements. Second, it fails at encyclopedicity. It actually doesn't show any firefighters really doing anything except standing back -- one guy has a hose, but it's concealed. The caption mentions ladders, firetrucks, and other equipment, but none of that is visible. It's a nice catch of the fiery gable collapsing, but it just doesn't seem like the strongest eample of either firefighting or fire photography.--Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Have done a bit of work to improve technical quality. It's not as grainy as some may think, as there's a lot of smoke and water spray around. I like the dynamic nature of the photo, but as Dhartung says, it is oversold in the caption and it may be nice to see more action from the firefighters. Still it is well composed and taken at a opportune time. --jjron (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image has two very strong messages driving the viewer away. The sharp corner of the building is a negative symbol and dissipates attention. And then the hose jets make an enormous "X" - (don't look!). This immediately loses the attention catching impact of the fire, and disguises the lack of composition. And as mentioned above the friefighters don't seem to be doing much. The long explanation explains why this is not, as it first appears, a training exercise, but the point of a picture is to save words. Motmit (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor quality and poor composition with the unseen building on the left being watered by firemen who are looking at the fire on the right. The figures lack the drama of the fire itself. SilkTork *^YES! 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is probably the most famous photo of Canadian history. It is symbolically important as well, illustrating the coming together of the Dominion of Canada.

Articles this image appears in

Last Spike, Canadian Pacific Railway, British Columbia, Craigellachie, Donald Alexander Smith

Creator

National Library and Archives of Canada

• Support as nominator 99boy (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite size, the photo is still excellent and quintessential towards the articles it's in. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 08:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - Important, but the size is way too small. diego_pmc (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - which exposes my ignorance in this matter, but I have to ask. If someone took a print of an old photograph like this which hadn't been blown up and put it on a high res digital scanner, would it make any difference? It seems to me that just because it's the highest resolution available on the national archives website, doesn't mean a better quality scan couldn't be made if someone put forth the effort. Please advise. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, yes. The exceptions would be if the print was badly damaged, or if you were using a low-quality reproduction [e.g. a highly half-toned reprint in a newspaper or cheaply-printed book. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because this is nothing near the quality of the original (I don't think). So, we need a better scan... even if one currently isn't online. gren グレン 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the same photo, and some degredation, but: [22] - I like the one currently up for FPC better, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose high historic value and good composition, but because it's so famous, a higher res version could surely be produced. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Just look at the clarity and how the object pops out of the backround. You can clearly see what this picture is about.

Articles this image appears in

Reykjavik

Creator

David Blaikie from Hampshire, UK

• Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Crop too tight, oversharpened (heavy fringing) and too small. Also, the caption should refer, at least, the meaning of the piece and its author! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is the work of sculpture that is depicted here subject to copyright? Also, doubtful encyclopedicity for Reykjavik. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Nice. —αἰτίας •discussion• 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a suspected copyright violation because freedom of panorama in Iceland is essentially for non-commercial uses only. Does anyone want to start a commons deletion request? MER-C 07:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is for non-commercial use, I don't see the problem. diego_pmc (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licenses for FPs must allow commercial use... --Janke | Talk 09:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a two dimensional reproduction of a copyrighted two dimensional work... it's a sculpture and therefore originality... I'm not sure why that would be an issue in the first place. If it were a sign on the side of the building it would be... gren グレン 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is a derivative work, see Commons:Derivative works. MER-C 06:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Looks over-saturated and over-sharpened. Also likely a copyright vio. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Kaldari. Also, the crop is fairly tight; I'd like some more empty border space.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

admittedly it doesn't meet the size guidelines, but take into account the quality of the photo and please do consider that this is the only good original photo we have of the most famous ship in history, then I think that's a good enough reason to support; after all the thing is now 3.5 km beneath the surface, its not like we can just take another one

Articles this image appears in

RMS Titanic

Creator

Uploader User:Daniel Chiswick, but the image would have definately been photographed in 1912 so all existing copyright laws are rendered invalid, so the image is, as far as i can tell, freely-licensed

• Support as nominator Hadseys Chat_Contribs 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - low resolution Mottld (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't know if this is relevant or necessary but the image doesn't give any source information to show it was published before January 1, 1923 which is the reason it's claimed to be in the public domain. that the image is in the public domain. Guest9999 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a photograph of the titanic which sank in 1912, how could it not have been taken before January 1, 1923

• Obviously it was taken before 1923, it's when it was first published that matters though. Guest9999 (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to me it seems nonsensical to keep a photo on film for 11 years, so i think its ok to assume it was published before then. It probably would have been all over the papers too --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It may well have been published years before 1923 or it may have been kept as a memento by the individual who took it and published by their great-grandchild in the 1990's. Without any source information we don't know and I don't think it's right to base copyright status on speculation. Since it has been published (or it wouldn't be here) it should be possible to find out where and when and confirm whether it is in the public domain (which I imagine it is). Guest9999 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - if any, I'd vote for this one: --Svetovid (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - great historical value --Brendan44 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Quality is not good enough. A really good image of the Titantic will turn up here one day - this is not it. SilkTork *^YES! 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well when and more importantly if that happens, we can delist this 1
• Comment There appears to be several higher-resolution images in the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs collection. I like the composition of this one, but would be unwilling to support without a good browse of the LoC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please provide a link to those images please --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking the LoC images is a little awkward, but this is a link to the catalogue. Search for "Titanic". Note: In order to get FP-quality versions, you generally need to download the "Archival TIFF" and convert it to PNG or JPG [Or GIF, I guess]. But if you see any likely, I'm sure one of us can help out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another good place is google image search,chooing the "Extra-large images" option. This is probably one we should grab. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It doesn't tell me anything except that the Titanic was a big boat. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well what more do you need to be told? --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing as the Titanic article is 48kb, it seems like there is a lot more that could be said. And....The freddinator (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Small, kind of generic photo of the ship. Also, the caption is poor. Passive voice, "were to survive"; redundant language, "being the largest moving object ever constructed in all history during it's era"; and finally, the awkward "she" placed in the final sentence. The freddinator (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Technically perfect image, high encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Kiwifruit

Creator

Lviatour

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reasons see above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, you opposed a photo of the same exact kiwi due to color balance. How is this photo better? Cacophony (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - looks grainy around the edges sorry --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At "3664 × 2738 pixels" DinA3 printing is without grain! --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well sorry but I can see grain and for that reason I oppose --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 13:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose it is grainy around the edges and I would prefer if it had a transparent background. Spencer^T♦C 00:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Glare- needs a softer flash, and it's blurry :D\=< (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No flash used;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good, its a shot of a Kiwi fruit, how far are you people zooming in to find things to complain about?! Mfield (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This one, too, looks a bit washed-out and yellowish. An easy subject needs to be practically perfect in every way...--Janke | Talk 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that so? --Fir0002 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A ";-)" was implied, but since you bring it up, the mustard "compilation shot" got my vote because of high enc. --Janke | Talk 09:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I thought I saw some graininess, but it just turned out to be the atoms of the fruit caught in mid-vibration. Yeah, I'd prefer a shot that showed more of the skin (i.e. probably a whole one beside the half one), but I'll support this until you get that shot...  :-) Matt Deres (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would say it would be more useful if you could see a view of a full fruit as well as the cross section, like we have on Image:Bright red tomato and cross section02.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It meets the size and technical quality requirements. Though it is not certain, it is believed this to be the first ever printed map showing the Pacific Ocean.

Articles this image appears in

Pacific Ocean; Timeline of Colombian history; Maris Pacifici

Creator

Jan Arkesteijn

• Support as nominator diego_pmc (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great map! --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bewareofdog 02:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great detail, historic value. Mangostar (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the map itself deserves an article. I don't have time now, but I'll start a stub. SilkTork *^YES! 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub started. SilkTork *^YES! 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Ortelius - Maris Pacifici 1589.jpg MER-C 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

more quality for old featured here

Articles this image appears in

Kiwifruit Actinidain

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator Luc Viatour (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support As long as the old featured isn't featured anymore. Why have two featured pics, showing the same thing. Besides, this one does look better. diego_pmc (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the existing FP no longer appears in any articles, it should probably be delisted anyway. Unless people think this is an inferior replacement, of course. --mikaul^talk 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weird color balance (too yellow) - the kiwis I see are also much darker. --Janke | Talk 09:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it just be that these kiwis are less ripe? I rarely eat them so I have a poor frame of reference. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 01:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose per Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not really interesting. ^8thstar
• Oppose weird positioning99boy (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Please log in to vote.--jjron (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Over saturation, wrong white balance, and only mediocre composition. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows a well-defined storm in the Gulf of Mexico

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Rita

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator *****Elena85******User:Elena85/2008cyclone 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again?! You just nominated this two weeks ago and it didn't get promoted. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Rita 2005-09-21 1610Z.jpg --Dschwen 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few editors suggested posting one at a time. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is what a hurricane picture ought to look like, IMO. Centered, crisp, and the visible landmass gives some impression of the storms immense scale. A major hurricane in a particularly harsh season. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What are the red boxes visible at full resolution? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they're "thermal anomalies" detected by the MODIS Rapid Response System - inconsistencies in the infrared and thermal infrared bands. There's a bit more info here. Time3000 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Shows a well defined storm that compares to the Gulf of Mexico Moonlight567 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan97 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC) . Might as well just strike this vote as Elena and Joan seem to be the same person. --Dschwen 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you'd be right. MER-C 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't understand the motivation for someone to resort to sock puppetry for something as uncontroversial as an FP for a hurricane. Recommend suspend and report as sock puppet. Comments? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer here. --jjron (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, very close to flying aircraft

Articles this image appears in

Su-27

Creator

Dmitry A. Mottl

• Support as nominator Mottld (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good, especially considering tat the subject is moving (i.e. no/minimal motion blur). Unless someone finds a fault I've missed...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you have any information you can add to the image page description and image captions, such as where this picture was taken? --jjron (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added to caption
    • Thanks. Wikilinks added, and caption in article updated. --jjron (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, agree with HereToHelp on the lack of blur. Looks great. MrPrada (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good capture -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image, mainly regarding that it's not easy to get really good aircraft images. --KGyST (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Su-27 on landing.jpg MER-C 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A free, user-created typical anime character is hard to find. Plus, it's in SVG format. It has also attained Feature status in both Wikimedia Commons and Spanish Wikipedia, plus considered a Quality Image in Wikimedia Commons.

Articles this image appears in

Anime

Creator

Niabot from the German Wikipedia

• Support as nominator howcheng {chat} 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cacophony (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support, looks like a good depiction of an anime character, made far better by the fact it is SVG, but I would like to hear the opinions of someone who is a little more familiar with anime than me as to how well it actually does depict an anime character. J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's watched a fair bit of anime I can say with some confidence gradually fading confidence that the image is a good representation of an archetypal female "amine-style" character and I wouldn't be suprised to see a character matching the image in any number of anime series. Guest9999 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not that I'm an anime expert (far from it), but this definitely is a good representation of the style. Well done. faithless (^speak) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sure. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The tree and window in the background look like clip-art. Also I don't like the pattern on her coat, and suspect that it's so overly geometric because it's unnecessarily SVG. There's a lot of very high quality anime drawings out there, and this one's freeness and SVGness doesn't give it a free pass. :D\=< (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great Picture. Something new for Wikipedia's featured pictures. Rj1020 (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I must disagree with the nominator -- A free, user-created typical anime character is NOT hard to find. Nothing special about this one. Nicely polished up though. 99boy (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nominator's reason for nominating this seems a bit poor, as many others have said there are many free anime illustrations out there. However, just because the image is not unique in that respect doesn't mean it isn't a very good representative image. § I'm unsure of what Froth means by the geometric pattern on her coat; it looks as though it's solid red with folds/ripples in it. (My) firefox's SVG renderer butchers the image but it looks nice in Inkscape or with WP's renderer. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Laitche (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nothing special -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The eyebrows are shown on top of the hair. Is this normal for Anime? Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it varies, often the hair over the face/eyebrows is translucent so that the detail beneith can be seen. I have just noticed the way the hair cuts off above the right eye - I'm pretty sure that's not normal, although my knowledge is far from comprehensive. Guest9999 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it fairly often. It depends on whether they draw the eyes on top last I guess. :D\=< (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. Guest9999 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Nice, but not FP; also a very strange-looking posture: neck and spine don't line up... --Janke | Talk 09:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very well made generic representation of a genre. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per :D\=< and Janke. ---Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 20:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yess.. score one! :D\=< (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with :D\=<. This is nothing particularly outstanding.Lmaowitzer (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Voting Compromised!! http://zip.4chan.org/a/res/10533685.html --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Please explain... --jjron (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a 404 now. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seesm 4chans mods were quick to delete that thread. Thought it did have alot of....."questionable concerns" about the pic above. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oh, so much better than poor old wikipe-tan. It looks pretty skillfully done, the only thing that detracts is that the blur filters don't render properly for me in full-size. Also, the eyes don't seem to have the white highlights in the thumbnail size. I don't know much about this style of art, but it looks like a good example to me. I might support if rendering problems were fixed. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]