Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/May-2005

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.

A couple of photos I took of blackberries.

• Support Ripe Blackberries. Self Nom --Fir0002 22:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sorry, not very special, mostly like any close-up of berries on a bush. But I think you should use them to contribute to the Berry article. I see they can already be found at Blackberry, that's nice! Jonas Olson 22:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support blackberries in a range of ripeness, and ripe blackberries. --brian0918™ 03:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose nice photos, but not good/fascinating enough to be featured picture --Bricktop 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - not strikng enough for FP, sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 08:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Ordinary. Enochlau 10:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Good enough as illustration for an article but that's all JoJan 18:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 02:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1983 image of a 10 meter tall lava fountain on Hawaii. Striking enough? The date on the bottom is a tad distracting but it should be easily removed by someone photoshopically inclined...(not me! :o) --Deglr6328 06:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support--Deglr6328 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a GIF! A JPEG version is available, along with other vocano images, at U.S. Geological Survey. The JPEG is smaller and a bit dull (more realistic, probably, no indexed colors), but probably better anyway. Jonas Olson 07:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have uploaded both a version of the GIF with the date painted out and the JPEG linked above, for possible alternative voting. Delgr6328, could you please give a URL whenever you upload a web-accessible image? It helps find other images, verify copyright status, find out where to ask for higher-quality images, and so on. As for the JPEG version above, I don't know how they got rid of the date (photoshop, I guess). --Andrew 07:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (In fact I think the GIF was from another scan of the same negative/print. --Andrew 11:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC))
• Support both undated images. I don't see any significant difference between GIF and JPG, at least not enough to oppose a gif. Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are technical concerns; see GIF. GIF uses an algorithm that was patented until recently (and the patent was being enforced); this meant that legal decoders had to pay money, and legal open-source decoders were basically impossible. Most geeks still harbor a certain amount of malevolence towards GIFs for this reason. More relevantly, they are (supposedly) lossless, so they lead to huge filesizes for photographs; the quality is low in spite of this because they have only 256 colors to work with rather than millions, so they must discard a certain amount of color information. However, this specific image does not contain a broad range of colors, so the GIF conversion process probably did not mangle it too badly (although its colors are very different from the JPEG we have for some reason). In any case neither undated version is actually a GIF; the undated versions should be judged on how they look (with a caveat that the colors may be more dubious on the GIF-derived one). --Andrew 11:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support the JPEG version; beautiful, striking. I prefer the colors; also it is (now) much higher-resolution. --Andrew 11:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support only the original JPEG - I trust the volcanologists to get the colors right. After all, this is supposed to be informative, not just pretty, and the color contains (for example) information about the temperature. --Andrew 22:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support JPEG. Cool photo. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support the undated JPEG, its colors look more natural then the GIF's colors. --Bricktop 12:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the 2nd version. --brian0918™ 13:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2. There's a lot more detail visible, even when shrunk to the same size as #3. —Korath (Talk) 16:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support although full res photo looks pretty ordinary. But it certainly is striking. Something to give a perspective on the size would have been good aswell. --Fir0002 07:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support final image. I've had mornings like this... Denni☯ 02:27, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Support the JPEG version the GIF image with its reduction to 256 colors is a bit too unrealistic IMO, however the JPEG can get with more saturation/contrast. Ericd 16:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. What article does this illustrate? Matthewcieplak 04:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah. Lava. Matthewcieplak 04:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2. -- Solipsist 16:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support I like them all, so just count this vote as one toward the picture with the most votes in the end ;) TomStar81 05:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2 or #4. Sango123 16:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2 - unusual picture worth being featured JoJan 18:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2 - Doesn't need any tweaking or color changing to show how amazing this is. --jacobolus (t) 04:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pahoeoe fountain original.jpg +15 / -1 With preference for #2 -- Solipsist 12:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrates Jupiter (planet) sublimely.

• Nominate and support —Sandover 07:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 07:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems to have been very heavily post-processed to bring out detail for analysis. I'd prefer a more realistic view - Adrian Pingstone 08:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - bringing out detail isn't a bad thing; that's how it's done with all the nebula images which are featured. They're actually pretty dull looking without the false colors. --brian0918™ 14:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but barely. The swirling fluidity is very beautiful and mesmerizing. However, the resolution is low and the banding artefacts of the scanning vidicon tube are distracting.--Deglr6328 01:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Bigger resolution=me likey :)--Deglr6328 03:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support Beautiful and certainly add significantly. Circeus 01:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Original. I have made a half hearted attempt at removing the banding artefacts of the scanning vidicon tube, but of course that came at the expense of blurring the image slightly. I don't think that they are too bad on the original and only really become visible on the full res photo. --Fir0002 07:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here is the TIFF of the thing [1]. Maybe you can get more sharpness of it --Bricktop 23:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support either. lovely. Enochlau 10:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support edited image. I remember how this image took my breath away when I first saw it. Denni☯ 02:23, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Adrian Pingstone. Janderk 08:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. There are multiple views in the article, and this one certainly enriches it.--Eloquence* 05:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Jupiter from Voyager 1.jpg +8 / -3 No clear preference for either version, so I will go with Image:Jupiter from Voyager 1.jpg which is on Commons and appears to be identical to #1 here.

Image:Foxtrot_wikipedia.jpg Well because it's a bit fitting =). Cartoon was drawn by Bill Amend in his comic: FoxTrot. - Akds 06:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Akds 06:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps this is the first time Wikipedia was in a comic?
  • Comment: That's quite likely. I'll have to throw in my vote if I ever stop laughing... but just think about the level of exposure we just got.
  • Oh, and in other news... 1. Sorry. I had to. --Kizor 10:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably been in web comics, but it's a safe first comic in print. -- user:zanimum
• Oppose. Amusing, but fair-use images aren't featurable. —Korath (Talk) 11:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived. ed g2s • talk 13:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mojave suncup flower at the mouth of Titus Canyon.JPG

File:Aerogelbrick edit.jpg

Shows the really nice comparison between an old brick and a sample of aerogel, which looks like a diffuse gas, but is indeed the world's lowest-density solid. Used currently in Aerogel. --Bricktop 23:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support (now the third version). Thanks for improving the pic! --Bricktop 23:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Another of the many images I was thinking about nominating at some point in time. I might clean up some specks and adjust the balances later. --brian0918™ 00:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Some cleanup sure would be usefull on this image! --Bricktop 00:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I would also like to see a higher resolution. Then I could come back and support. Until then, neutral. (A vote that really doesn't mean a thing, does it?) Jonas Olson 06:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Couldn't find any better resolution. At the source [2] they only have an additional TIFF version, which is of same size and cleanness as the JPEG. --Bricktop 07:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support to cleanup. Circeus 01:57, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Greatly exceeds expectations of an aerogel photograph. --SEWilco 02:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Edited version. Amazing stuff! --Fir0002 07:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Change my vote to support third version. If its alright with everyone else I'd even suggest removing my version. --Fir0002 11:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support Great picture! - Adrian Pingstone 07:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Here's my obligatory version. I used the original uncompressed TIFF, and tried to clean it up so that the edges on the brick remained sharp.
• Support third version. --brian0918™ 09:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support third version. Enochlau 10:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Now =this= is cool. Denni☯ 02:18, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Support Graphic, interesting and I learnt something. -- Solipsist 16:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too dark, and the lighting is fake. The whole image looks like it's trying too hard to be dramatic. - Pioneer-12 19:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's usually how good photographs are made. --brian0918™ 19:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Good photographs are made in many ways--setups are just one way. Fakeness is not a virtue. A photograph can be an obvious setup but not appear "fake".... the chosen elements can be absurd, and the arrangment ridiculous, but it will appear as an honest expression of a desire to communicate a message through visual means. This just looks like a phony (see Catcher in the Rye), done to impress others for PR purposes. Furthermore, it is not particularly attractive or clever. Thumbs down. - Pioneer-12 22:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support third version. James F. (talk) 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Aerogelbrick3.jpg +10 / -1 / 1 neutral with preference for #3

I like this image by Pidalka44. It's simple, nice and clear. - Metju12 05:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - Metju12 05:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm not sure whether the middle stage in the pic has a name. If it does it should be numbered too. If it doesn't I don't see the need to number the other two. I'll support if the numbers are removed. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- odd numbering and caption makes the image a little confusing. - Longhair | Talk 03:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't show much for a diagram. Unclear and not very informative. Junes 10:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its a well executed illustration, and I believe the numbered labeling is the recommended approach on Commons (to facilitate translations). Its just that it is a relatively simple diagram. -- Solipsist 07:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nice shapes, but why not label the bits inside the image and do away with the numbers and external caption. - Ian 07:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ed g2s • talk 11:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:1936NurembergRally.jpg

A featured picture is an image that is "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant". And while this image is surely not a perfect photograph, it certainly is one of the most striking, shocking, impressive and fascinating pictures I have ever seen. As a person born about 20 years ago, it is totally incomprehensible to me that such an event could take place. Sure, I've read about it, but numbers don't impress me. This image does. --Conti|✉ 14:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Conti|✉ 14:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be a lot of good pictures at the same source. Not all of them have very high resolution though. Jonas Olson 15:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It is historically significant, and actually surprisingly artistic. It is a bit washed out, but I'm not sure any correction is warranted. --SFoskett 15:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Wide-eyed frog support Circeus 16:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --brian0918™ 21:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but this image most certainly isn't beautiful. undoubtedly shocking though. --Fir0002 22:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive. --Bricktop 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ground 01:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Poor old swastika Denni☯ 02:16, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Support both shocking and striking. Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 05:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Wow! - Adrian Pingstone 15:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Amazing! - Longhair | Talk 12:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support although I feel that the colours could do with some tweaking. I tried, but failed to come up with anything convincing... any photoshop experts want to try? Lupin 14:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I can hear the chants of the crowd.... Very ominous.... Cue imperial march theme. - Pioneer-12 18:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive. Sango123 16:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Impressive composition JoJan 18:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - like they say: a pictures worth a thousand words. - Ian 02:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Heil --SPUI (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - feature this already. - Kizor 22:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg +21 / -0 -- Solipsist 13:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo taken by sannse, featured in Ring-tailed Lemur. Currently an FPC at Commons as well. - brian0918™ 17:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - brian0918™ 17:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sure nice but only just another animal photo. Or are the twin babies something special? If so it would be a reason for me to support it --Bricktop 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tend to agree with "just another animal photo". Jonas Olson 14:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Pretty nice shot of an important animal to us primates. Denni☯ 02:11, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Support great shot. Nice colors, cute baby lemur. :) Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice. --Bernard Helmstetter 13:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all that special. Enochlau 09:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - great pic, love it! - Adrian Pingstone 15:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Circeus 16:43, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just another animal photo. - Pioneer-12 18:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And you supported "Working dog". Hmmm... Denni☯ 22:17, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
    • That photo had artistic merit. At least, some quality in that photo struck me as interesting. This just feels bland. - Pioneer-12 23:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice, crisp image. Satisfying depiction of photograph's subject. Sango123 16:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Makes my cute-o-meter spin. —Korath (Talk) 20:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, very cute, nicely illustrates the "behaviour and reproduction" section - they have litters of one or two. --Andrew 10:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I wasn't going to support my own image (seems a bit vain ;) but why not - this is one I was pleased with. Thanks for the nomination Brian -- sannse (talk) 19:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Nice shot and unusual picture JoJan 18:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 03:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose They're funny looking creatures, all right, but the photo seems nothing spectacular. Just a straight on shot of the lemur. No particular emotion, flair, creative framing, etc. Cute, but not spectacular. --jacobolus (t)

Promoted Image:Ring_tailed_lemur_and_twins.jpg +12 / -5 -- Solipsist 13:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a fascinating image I thought. This log is securely embeddded in the white box, it could support my weight without any movement. This is also the fist series of images I have uploaded to Wikipedia with my new Canon 20D. --Fir0002 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I see nothing startling or educational in these imagesDuncan.france 00:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support 01. Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the first version, it provides more global view and has better light conditions. Nice unusual picture! --Bricktop 23:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support first version. Unusual subject. First image has best light conditions and composition. Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 14:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose What does this pic add to the article ? Ericd 16:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. And just what article are we talking about ? Sandover 19:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thats a bit of a problem. I put that question to the reference desk and although people thought that if we could find out what the term for a foreign body inside something (such as shrapnel inside someone's body) that would be a good place. But the best temporary location was to put it onto the Australian Flora page - both the log and the tree are white box. --Fir0002 22:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - fascinating pic - Adrian Pingstone 15:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the pic can be added to an actually related article. Circeus 16:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Really, how can this add to anything? Enochlau 23:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support It could add alot to pages discussing the damaging effects of wind or of tornadoes or something along those lines. TomStar81 07:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Solipsist suggested that, but I don't think this was as a result of a tornado, as we don't get them where I live (which is near where this photo was taken) --Fir0002 10:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well actually, I suggested it couldn't be a result of a tornado (although that was my first thought) - the dead branch has small side branches which would have been ripped off if the log had been driven through the tree. I suspect the dead branch lodged in the fork and the other tree grew round it. It is a shame the question on the reference desk didn't illicit a better answer, but it seems there may not be a term for this effect. My best guess is still inclusion (biology), although I'm not sure that is a term that is actually used, and we don't really have a page on it. Its an excellent picture, but I'm not sure it has found its natural home yet. -- Solipsist 15:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the page and the pic are apropriate for one another, but you might consider placing it in the article Natural phenomenon. If this was the result of a tornado or microburst, or something along those lines then you can sight the picture as evidence of the damaging effect of winds, but if the tree branch was already there and the tree simply grew around it then you could sight this as an example of nature phenomenom. Its a long stretch, but I figure a long stretch is better than nothing :-) TomStar81 05:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The log looks like it was cut with a saw, and may have been placed there on purpose. Does not do a great job of illustrating any article. --Andrew 10:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, I dont think so. I can see no reason whatsoever for a tired logger of cutting a log and sitting it in the fork of a tree trunk to produce a biological curiosity which he'd probably never see happen. It was obviously cut back for either a post when the fenceline went through our property (ages ago) or it was cut as firewood. --Fir0002 08:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 14:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photo of my dog, and I think it's a good example of a working dog.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is that working? Tell my boss! Jonas Olson 14:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad light and exposure, bad composition, bad background. Ericd 16:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, can't see his eyes, and don't see why this is a working dog. Mgm|^(talk) 18:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • He is working dog in that he is expected to earn his keep. We use him to protect our chicken coops from foxes and to kill snakes. Neither of these can really be illustrated in a photo unless I'm fortunate enough to see him as he kills a snake. I think it still illustrates a 'working dog' because this particular breed of dog is what all farmers around here (East Gippsland) use. --Fir0002 22:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It's....just a snapshot of a dog...--Deglr6328 22:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose A picture of a working dog should actually show the dog working. Denni☯ 23:58, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• Oppose Just not striking enough (but a nice pic) - Adrian Pingstone 15:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not striking, and you can't see the dog's eyes clearly. Circeus 16:19, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support (The top picture.) I find the colors and the angle pleasing and intriguing. "Working dog" refers to the type of dog, by the way. Are for being "just a picture of a dog", the current picture of the day is just a picture of a bird. And the Mona Lisa is just a painting of a lady. - Pioneer-12 18:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Crisp photo, interesting demeanor. --brian0918™ 04:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. While he is a working dog, you can't see that from the picture; surely we can find a good picture of a dog at work... --Andrew 10:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 14:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:6th ave by sloan.jpg

Finest art by John French Sloan. PD from NARA. -- Darwinek 13:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Darwinek 13:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I have corrected the name (it's at Third Street). --SPUI (talk) 13:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have had some better (IMO) art photos featured already. --Fir0002 22:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'll think again if this really is a black and white painting(!!!) - Adrian Pingstone 15:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, same as above Circeus 16:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appears to be a black-and-white scan of a color painting; fails to capture the style of the artist. Surely we can do better. --Andrew 17:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 14:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great photo. PD from NARA. - Darwinek 13:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Darwinek 13:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, striking. Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, although striking the quality of the image lets it down, especially at full res. You can only just make out the animals. --Fir0002 22:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, impressive, gives you a feeling of that time. --Bricktop 23:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Auschwitz for cows. Denni☯ 23:40, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
• Support Very striking and I'm not bothered by the slight lack of focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support an extremely striking pic Circeus 16:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The extent of the subject of the picture makes it quite powerful... the blurriness is not a problem, it's an oldish picture. Enochlau 23:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Shocking, adds significantly to Livestock. Aarchiba
• Oppose the res is too low BrokenSegue 19:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Fir0002. Junes 10:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Livestock chicago 1947.jpg +8 / -3 -- Solipsist 19:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is used at the start of the Bell X-2 article where I believe it serves to really grab the readers attention. Additionally the look on the face of the gentleman who is looking at the camera is priceless. - Triddle 01:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Triddle 01:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• weak oppose WHile it add significantly, I can't say I find it too good or interesting. Circeus 16:22, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can stare for long times at photographs of fascinating vessels like this one. Nevertheless, I don't find it appropriate to be a FP. Jonas Olson 18:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, I'll be a contrarian. I like the high quality of the image, the long crash track in the dirt and the nice shadows. Leonardo 22:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not interesting. Enochlau 23:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Incredibly illustrative and dramatic. Matthewcieplak 03:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It lacks that fundamental spark that captures my attention, and the colors seem a bit to light. TomStar81 07:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The arrangement of figures, the contrast of dark and light, and the placement of shadows--all artistic yet unplanned--make this a fascinating pic. In addition, it is the snapshot of a moment in history. The picture has a surreal quality. - Pioneer-12 18:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --brian0918™ 02:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Srtiking, adds significantly to the article. --Andrew 16:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I kind of like this crash, but it is a bit small and doesn't have good source and copyright info. -- Solipsist 20:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you think of this one or this one from NASA's Controlled Impact Demonstration? Triddle 01:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • NOW you're talking!! Those are my kind of pictures. TomStar81 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - I prefer the NASA crash image above. Janderk 19:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Less fire than in the NASA crash image above, but more suggestive and historically more significant. --Bernard Helmstetter 14:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support The men are a bit dark, but it's certainly strinking. Junes 10:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +8 / -5 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 20:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Famous photo. Ansel Adams. Used on Ansel Adams and Manzanar. Do I need to say anything else? --Dmcdevit 05:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: New version uploaded to the Commons. Purge your caches.

• Nominate and support. --Dmcdevit 05:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose picture has little appeal by itself and I'm not even sure it adds significantly. Circeus 16:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Really good photograph though. Jonas Olson 17:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If it's a good photo why are you opposing it? --Fir0002 08:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. not appealling Enochlau 23:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I still oppose the new image... I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I just don't find it appealing... what in your mind makes this a good picture? Enochlau 03:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too dark shadows. --Fir0002 08:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- too dark. - Longhair | Talk 11:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Big Fat Rant: Do not oppose for easily fixable technical reasons. It's a public domain image; if you think it's too dark, say so and fix it, or wait for someone else to fix it. Can't we treat this process more like the FAC process and try to nudge an image along to featured status in a constructive manner? --MarkSweep 17:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I added this picture to the Ansel Adams out of desperation for finding a PD example of his work. However, although it is has an echo of Adams' style, it isn't really a good representation of the work he his known for. Some web sites claim the image of 'The Tetons an Snake River' (eg. http://www.inkjetart.com/2450/48bit/page4.html) is public domain. But I couldn't find enough evidence to verify this. If anyone can confirm that it is PD, I would support the Snake River picture. -- Solipsist 15:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah that snake river photo is fantastic. I have a similar one for my desktop background but it isn't PD Snake River --Fir0002 01:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That one looks like a modern version of the Adams classic. In fact I've read that there is a marker on the road side indicating where to place your tripod if you want to get the same angle that Adams used. -- Solipsist 07:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That image is in fact available from the US National Archives and Records Administration, here. However, the copyright status is still a bit unclear: Adams donated prints to NARA but kept the negatives. The prints held by NARA are in the public domain. So as long as we start from scans of those prints, we might be Ok. However, the only digital scans available from the NARA site seem to be tiny, low-quality GIFs. --MarkSweep 17:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you are on the right track Mark. On the Library of Congress site all the Adams shots except for the Manzanar War Relocation Center photos have this copyright explanation. However the good stuff is on the NARA site even though the scans they make easily available are not so great. The instructions on how to find them are here, and the details for the Snake River picture (#148 in their standard search) are at basic-seach and enter 519904. The usage restrictions are marked as 'Unrestricted', which coupled with the evidence that he was working for the National Park Service in the early 1940s is good enough to state {PD}. So all we need now is any good scan of this picture. This site gives some good pointers and this is the best version I can find, which will do just fine. -- Solipsist 07:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • NARA provides two versions (scans of their print, I assume): a small but decent GIF version and a larger but too contrasty JPEG version. I strongly prefer the GIF version, since the JPEG scan doesn't look like an Adams print at all. I'm not so sure about the rationale for the {PD} tag. If Adams was commissioned by the NPS, his estate may still hold the copyright to the images; if he was employed by the government, he never held the copyright in the first place. What NARA is claiming is that the prints were gifts to the NPS and are in the public domain, whereas the negatives are not. I'm not sure if that is a defensible position, but we could take the view that if it's good enough for the US government, it's good enough for us. --MarkSweep 19:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is from the Library of Congress digital archive. A large high-quality scan is available. I'll adjust the contrast and upload a new version to the Commons. --MarkSweep 17:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. See note above. --MarkSweep 18:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ugen64 03:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adams deserves a better example of his work to be featured (hence the nom above.) Matthewcieplak 11:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This contest is not "pick the one most representative example of Adams's work". First, this is not about Adams, but about striking illustration irrespective of who produced them. Second, what would be wrong with designating more than one example of someone's work as featured pictures? Just because an entirely different sort of picture (landscape, as opposed to documentary/photojournalism) by the same photographer was been nominated later doesn't mean this one here has to be voted down. I think it's best to consider each picture independently and in the context of the articles it occurs in. --MarkSweep 12:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -7 -- Solipsist 20:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Image removed]

A very nice image overall. Public Domain from NASA [Note: Arpingstone says it's not PD - see below]. Used at Andromeda Galaxy. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:34, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:34, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very Striking. TomStar81 07:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe this pic is copyright and permission has to be sought to use it. Has this been obtained? Have a look at the source (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021021.html) where the important words are Credit and Copyright:Robert Gendler That does not sound like PD! Click on Specific Rights Apply and when the new web page appears read About Image Permissions - Adrian Pingstone 08:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support if copyright status is cleared. Fantastic image. --Fir0002 08:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many galaxies are beautiful, but this I don't think is anymore special than any other. A picture I believe is less ordinary, and which I suggest we promote instead, is the Sombrero Galaxy. That one is also available as JPEG or TIFF, both in a gigantic resolution (11472×6429), creating a whole little world to explore. Jonas Olson 10:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want it promoted, nominate it. --brian0918™ 19:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • OK. What do you say about the higher resolution, should we get that one first? The JPEG is 7.12 MiB large. Of course, if anyone else wants to promote this image, and perhaps knows their way around here better than I, feel free to beat me there. Jonas Olson 15:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It is already a featured picture :-) Image:M104_ngc4594_sombrero_galaxy.jpg. Uploaded the big JPEG onto Commons Image:M104 ngc4594 sombrero galaxy hi-res.jpg if you want it to use --Bricktop 18:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Jonas Olson --Bricktop 23:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although we all tend to say wow to pictures of galaxies, I would think that a picture needs to have something special to get it approved. Enochlau 12:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This image definitely has copyright problems. It is originally from Wikimedia Commons at this link which also has a copyright violation notice posted as of 24 April 2005. CoyneT ^talk 01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great pic folks. - Darwinek 17:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +4 / -5 -- Solipsist 20:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently took another couple of photos of a wolf spider, and although the spider probably isn't in a position that is quite as good as the current FP, I think the quality of the images is slightly better.

• Support replacing for no. 3. Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -Enough [3] with the [4] spider [5] pics already [6]!! --Deglr6328 19:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He wants to switch a current featured picture (bottom right), with one of the other three. --brian0918™ 19:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Then....what are we voting on? If he wants to replace the image with another just replace the links in Wolf spider and Araneomorphae to the new one. The old image is what became featured and should stay as is. If you want a new picture featured it should be listed here as a new picture!--Deglr6328 20:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • This has happened in the past where people want an image delisted as featured, as a similiar image may be better. What you are voting on is supporting the original being delisted, and one of the others to be supported in place of it. --brian0918™ 20:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Current one is by far more striking and unique. Circeus 15:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Circeus; although the focus on the current one is not great, its composition blows the others away. Junes 09:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -3   Or at least; leave previously promoted image unchanged. -- Solipsist 20:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best bird photos I've seen around. There is a little motion blur on the wings, but that is more than made up for by the pose. Used on Osprey. Not quite what you expect from the NASA, but they have a number of good wildlife photos. -- Solipsist 14:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 14:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive. --Bernard Helmstetter 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. WOW! That is what I call a good animal photo --Bricktop 23:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Awesome --Fir0002 00:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --brian0918™ 02:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Jonas Olson 15:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely stunning. Sango123 16:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Some feathers are a bit fuzzy and the sky is too gray… just kidding. Support. --MarkSweep 22:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, support support! Circeus 23:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Triddle 04:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- yes. - Longhair | Talk 03:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:OspreyNASA.jpg BrokenSegue 22:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So good, I had to write the article on Lichtenstein Castle (which was quite confusing, given that neither this castle, its replica in South Africa, nor Castle Liechtenstein is actually in Liechtenstein.) This photo was taken and contributed by Andreas Tille. -- Solipsist 14:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment from the author to the story of the pic: When pulling out my Minolty 9000 for this shot I noticed that the batteries were low. Fortunately analog cameras do not need much power and thus putting the batteries into my pocket gave me two extra shots. Andreas Tille 14:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 14:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --MarkSweep 17:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support — TomStar81 20:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, why can't I get my holiday shots to look like that? Mgm|^(talk) 21:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not good enough. Lower left is too dark. --Bernard Helmstetter 22:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks good small, but full version closeup looks heavily photoshopped, especially where the sky meets the castle. ed g2s • talk 00:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uhmm, if at all it looks Gimped. :) And, yes I had to get rid of some dust which was on the slide when it was scanned for Kodak Photo CD. Andreas Tille 14:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Hmm, the sky seems to have been darker originally, right? Jonas Olson 15:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it was not Andreas Tille 14:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Full res photo looks blurry --Fir0002 00:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. Maybe a bit of cropping in the lower left corner would better enhance the subject of the image. Sango123 15:54, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I just cropped the image but it fits exactly my taste now. Andreas Tille 14:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- Blows me away. - Longhair | Talk 12:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support I want to go there now Circeus 23:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support nice pic Lorax 02:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The thumbnail's worthy, but the full res is visibly out of focus (even if reduced to 50%). —Korath (Talk) 22:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:Castle Lichtenstein at Lichtenstein-Honau, Baden-Württemberg.jpg +9/-3 BrokenSegue 11:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination. I took the photo (and it cost me). I think it portrays clearly the mechanism of wasps to inject venom. It has been used on the venom page.Pollinator 07:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked for a larger format version, which I don't have access to in this computer, but I should be able to get in a couple days. However, as I recall, the image was heavily cropped. It was shot by holding down a young polistes wasp with its abdomen hanging over the edge of a picnic table, and awkwardly shooting one handed with the camera. I took many shots but had only a couple of the stinger that were useable. I got popped a couple times while disassembling the nest, but I can't blame them for that, right? I also took photos of the larvae and pupae, but they were not so good.

I do not like to "pose" a photo, but had little choice here, as I wished to show the stinger extended. When done, I released the wasp; she and her sisters rebuilt the damage to the nest surprisingly quickly. BTW I regard the criticism about too little color as unfair. What am I supposed to do, paint the wasp? Pollinator 03:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, fuzzy and not much color. Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support An excellent illustration for the article, and bonus marks for danger money. -- Solipsist 09:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Mgm. Also too low res. Interesting object though. Jonas Olson 15:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Useful illustration. --MarkSweep 22:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work. Triddle 22:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great image regardless of technical limitations. Postdlf 03:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Images that are hard to make (and a closeup macro of an extended stinger of a living wasp definately goes into that category) while showing interesting stuff (not many people will have seen such a clear view of an extended wasp stinger) deserve my support. Bonus points for not killing the wasp. Janderk 11:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Could use some sharpening, but still gets my SupportCirceus 23:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting, but it being small and fuzzy with a lack of colour or contrast outweight that. ed g2s • talk 16:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It would indeed be a better photograph with better color (although I have difficulty imagining how that could be arranged; maybe a top wildlife photographer could pull it off) but the difficulty of the subject and the value of the picture in enhancing both articles far outweighs that. --Andrew 16:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support what Janderk said. Lorax 02:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a little fuzzy yes, but on weighing up interesting and technical composition, I think interesting wins here. Enochlau 12:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've added an auto-leveled version which puts the color back into it. Support either. --brian0918™ 21:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - I want to zoom out and see how this stinger fits into things. Perhaps a magnified image within an image would achieve this. - Pioneer-12 23:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support auto-leveled; I believe this image deserves to be a featured picture because of its uniqueness. Ground 18:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, unique and certainly practical. A bit fuzzy, but I doubt you can pose a better photo with a wasp. --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. A highly illustrative image, and a better (and braver!) one than I've ever taken, but the composition is iffy. It'd benefit from a tighter crop (particularly to remove brown blur in the upper left), but I'm waiting on the higher res version Pollinator mentioned before taking a go. —Korath (Talk) 22:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Waspstinger1658-2.jpg +10 / -4 / 1 neutral (not including presumed support from Pollinator. Promoting second version, although preference isn't clear. -- Solipsist 20:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice and calming image. There is something about the angle of the pier leading your eye into the picture. Illustrating Lake Mapourika, but I prefer it on Peace. It also reminds you why you said you were going to take a holiday in New Zealand after seeing each of The Lord of the Rings films. Photo by Wombat. -- Solipsist 17:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -- Solipsist 17:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Illustrates either article well. --brian0918™ 18:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Easy call. —Korath (Talk) 18:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Illistrates peace very well. TomStar81 20:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support God, how I wish my own life looked like this. Denni☯ 22:12, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful photo. --Fir0002 00:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Enchanting. Sandover 01:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Aesthetically pleasing. Great asset to the article. Sango123 15:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- If I ever find peace I'd want it to look like this. -- Longhair | Talk 12:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support I absolutely love it. A+ Work. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. So perfect I almost thought you had computer generated it ;) Enochlau 12:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:Lake mapourika NZ.jpeg BrokenSegue 17:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most amazing 19th century portrait I have ever seen, of a very elderly William Cranch, a DC judge and Reporter of Decisions for the U.S. Supreme Court. If this were taken 100 years later, I would have thought it was by Avedon or Arbus. However, given the time period it was likely taken with reverence rather than ironic distance, despite the subject looking like he was dressed and propped up for the occasion and may not have even understood what was going on. I have been unable to discover who the photographer was. Postdlf 03:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This photo was taken at Mathew Brady's studio. Scans of the original daguerrotype plate at very high resolutions are available from the Library of Congress here. Because of the long exposure times in early photography, subjects had to strike poses that they could maintain for several seconds without moving. This almost by necessity reduces the number of available postures and expressions, and the result often appears pensive and introspective. --MarkSweep 16:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Postdlf 03:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would say the portaits nominated here are, though surely well made, not very special. You know, just portaits. This one is also low res. Jonas Olson 09:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is very low resolution, and it is indeed just a portrait. Nonetheless, there the image has powerful clarity and artistry that exhibit the whole history of such a man. An image like this will embiggen the article it illustrates in a way that very few do. Matthewcieplak 10:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I was going to try uploading a higher quality version, but apparently this image is a retouching of the original, which is too messed up for my abilities. --brian0918™ 12:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Power ful pic Circeus 23:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Fir0002 06:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - this picture has a very special atmosphere - Adrian Pingstone 15:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've given up on finding a high-res version, so I'll support this one. --brian0918™ 16:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice but nothing special. Enochlau 12:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - until someone can explain why the "atmosphere" is so special. - Pioneer-12 23:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I don't care to speculate what the photographer is trying to do; this is an excellent picture. The hair and face are fantastic. I see an old man who's clearly been up to a lot over his lifetime, and looks intellectual, but is still an old man. In that respect, he looks real enough to look a bit silly in the clothes. It's like it's time for him to leave the strictures of the world he's in. --Sambostock 19:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - if someone can retouch the original higher resolution version, it'd be a great illustration for an article (not yet written) on retouching. --jacobolus (t) 20:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:William Cranch.jpg +8 / -2 / 1 neutral

Self-nom of picture I took in Scottsdale, AZ of Teddy-bear Cholla. The ends of the spiny branches of this cactus detach from very little force—a slight brush up against it or even wind can knock them off (as my roommate learned that day much to his chagrin). This closeup illustrates what the fleshy core of the plant looks like, after such a detachment. I can upload a higher resolution version, if preferred. Postdlf 03:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Postdlf 03:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you upload a larger version? At least twice as big. The larger, the better. --brian0918™ 03:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I just uploaded a larger one—let me know if that's fine. Postdlf 03:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ugen64 03:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Illustrates well, but not FP. Also, if you have more too give, make that resolution even higher, thank you. Jonas Olson 09:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. In focus and good color, but it fails to illustrate the plant as a whole. Also, it looks like there's a stem from another plant among the ... what do you call the spines on a cactus? Matthewcieplak 10:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but it agree that the pic is far from self-illustrating. Great pic and colors, though. Circeus 23:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Good pic but not quite a FP IMO --Fir0002 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll try harder next time. Gives me something to shoot for.  ; ) Postdlf 06:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a nice picture, and nicely illustrates what the flesh of the plant looks like, but the flesh itself is overexposed in places and the directly end-on view is a little confusing. A valuable picture; if you keep on taking and submitting stuff like this I'll be delighted. --Andrew 10:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +2 / -5 -- Solipsist 20:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intense photo of an interesting aircraft. - brian0918™ 00:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - brian0918™ 00:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 10:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice photo but it does not "add significantly to that article". Just stuck at the bottom. Maybe on commons:Featured pictures? --Andrew 16:25, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, now it's at the top of the article. It illustrates the aircraft better than the other image, which is relatively low-res. --brian0918™ 16:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree - the original image shows the plane doing what it's designed to do, carrying (and air-dropping) marines. The flares add to the photo's prettiness but don't show anything about what the plane is for. And simply moving it from the bottom to the top hardly makes it "add significantly" to the article. --Andrew 06:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special about this particular photo --Bricktop 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very unusual plane, and the flares are a bonus. --Fir0002 03:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support — TomStar81 04:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Unusual aircraft. Illustrates article on the V-22 Osprey perfectly. Crisp image. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really couldn't tell it was interesting until I read the comments above that told me it was supposed to be interesting. Enochlau 12:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying this case is the same, but that's essentially what you have to do for the Chopin and First photos to be interesting. --brian0918™ 13:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a very special aircraft image. Janderk 20:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - stunningly deadly (even if they are only flares). A great action shot. And check out those propellers! - Pioneer-12 23:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh? It's not even (necessarily) armed! Check out the other picture in the article, which illustrates what it's actually for. --Andrew 10:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose there's many a spectacular aviation photo, and this one is just adequate. Also, the crop (or lack thereof) doesn't work to its advantage. Matthewcieplak 06:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +5 / -6 -- Solipsist 21:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is titled "A smoky day at the Sugar Bowl", and was taken by Edward S. Curtis, one of the masters of photography. It depicts a Hupa man with spear, standing on a rock midstream; in background, fog partially obscures trees on the mountainsides. It looks like a painting come to life. - brian0918™ 05:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - brian0918™ 05:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 10:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide a reason for opposing? Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think at this point most of us aren't really taking his votes seriously. --brian0918™ 14:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well you can speak for yourself, I don't see any reason why his votes shouldn't be respected, and either way, they still count. ed g2s • talk 16:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you do still frequent this page, eh? --brian0918™ 16:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, our instruction do still suggest that an oppose should be followed by a reason, but perhaps this is one for the talk page. -- Solipsist 20:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never thought of that, actually. I guess we all sometimes state our support or opposition without reasons. Should there really be a need for reasons all the time? You know, it's a matter of personal opinions, isn't it? As for this picture, I like it, I really do. It has a calm mood that I approve of, and the layered background in different shades of gray is nice. Yet, it simply didn't catch my eye as some other pictures do. By the way, feel free to take my votes seriously at any time! That's what I put them here for. Jonas Olson 22:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taking your vote seriously is, at times, an exercise in patience because (through my eyes, anyway) you never seem to support any of the pictures placed here. Its gotten to the point where "Jonas Olson" and "oppose" are synonomous with one another. I grant you a point for not necicarily giving a reason for supporting a picture, but a reason — even a lousy one — for not supporting a picture would be apreciated, just so the nominator of the picture can get get a feel for the problem. TomStar81 04:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beautifully put --Fir0002 08:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's sort this out. My conception of WP:FP have been that it is a place where you end up only if you are a brilliant picture. Very few will therefore make it there, and there are a lot of pictures that are good, illustrative or interesting that won't. The default mode of any picture would therefore be not FP. With this approach, it feels natural to suggest that motivations should accompany support of a candidate, rather than opposition. Still, I would say, it is to a great deal a matter of opinions, which in many cases makes it hard to formulate reasons for either standpoint. And what to say if someone suddenly nominates just anything? Well, perhaps WP:FP really isn't compatible to these ideas of mine, and perhaps that's something I should already have realized. In that case I will not bother you anymore. Jonas Olson 09:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, having looked at this picture for a longer time now, I have actually changed my mind. Support. Jonas Olson 16:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Has stunning atmosphere. Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Soria 11:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - brilliant photograph. - Pioneer-12 23:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 03:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support I really like the way the layers of different shades of grey show distance. --Fir0002 08:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I was going to oppose and suggest one of Curtis' close-up portraits, such as Geronimo. This one looks a little odd in the thumbnail (possibly the vignetting), but the layering and detail is very nice in the full view. -- Solipsist 08:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The detailed version is really something special. Unfortunately the reduced size version most people is quite plain though. - Ian 08:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The image is worthy, but it only illustrates a substub. Oddly enough, we don't seem to have an article on spear fishing, or I'd put it there. —Korath (Talk) 22:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Meanwhile Native American is quite a lengthy article with hardly any illustrations. Is this because it is politically sensitive? Also, whilst Edward Curtis is well illustrated, it doesn't really show the much of photographs he is famous for. You could also consider the stub Salvage ethnography which I briefly considered for VfD the other day. Though a quick search showed not only was it a real term, but Curtis was considered a classic practioner of it. -- Solipsist 23:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As luck would have it, Salvage ethnography is growing up quickly, so it is now illustrated with this photograph. -- Solipsist 20:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Promoted Image:A smoky day at the Sugar Bowl--Hupa.jpg +9 / -0 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 22:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another photo by Edward S. Curtis, in 1904. Seven riders on horseback and dog trek against a background of canyon cliffs. Illustrates Canyon De Chelly National Monument.

• Nominate and support. - brian0918™ 06:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry, I don't like the sepia look to this pic, nor the gloominess - Adrian Pingstone 08:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Jonas Olson 10:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive! --Bricktop 21:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great image. I like the sepia effect.--Fir0002 03:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Got a nice rustic feel to it. TomStar81 04:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support I love it. Junes 09:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Amazing Photo. Curtis is a genius. Canyon de Chelly is amazing. --jacobolus (t) 10:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good version of a classic Curtis. -- Solipsist 08:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:Canyon de Chelly, Navajo.jpg +8 / -1 -- Solipsist 23:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Humphrey Bogart by Karsh (Library and Archives Canada).jpg

I'm not sure how this works, but I saw this photo on Sam Spades' userpage, and I think its a pretty good portrait of the actor. It is used in the Humphrey Bogart aricle (which I've noticed is featured article).

• Nominate and support. --Abdominator 09:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too low res by the way. Jonas Olson 10:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks great! Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support A classic. We already have pics of much lower res as featured, BTW. Circeus 15:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again a Karsh portrait. It's not hard to find an higher resolution version IMO. However may I suggest Wikipedian to look for some Wikipedians pics instead of turning the Featured pictures in a Karsh/Edward S. Curtiss gallery :-) Ericd 16:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW as far as I know there's also a lot of photo by Dorothea Lange and Lewis Wickes Hine in the PD. Ericd 21:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Will support a higher-res version --Bricktop 21:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice pose, but I would prefer to see a higher-res version too. And there's this strange artefact between his head and the smoke. Enochlau 12:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - the resolution is fine. Many pics are absurdly huge and should be reduced to a 1024 by 768 maximum. Anything bigger won't fit on the screens of 95% of users. - Pioneer-12 23:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the resolution, which may be fine for thumbnails in online Wikipedia articles, but not for use in print. There is no need for pics to be reduced in size because you can always view them in two smaller sizes (thumbnail and on the image page). Junes 09:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +4 / -4 -- Solipsist 23:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A striking image of an awesome building. Check out the detail in the avenue on the left. Amazing green hues in the trees against the beige sky. A 28mb TIFF is available if anyone wants higher res, or to do some cleanup or adjustment. I was impressed enough is it is. Currently illustrating Hildesheim, it may become the starting point for the Photochrom or Photochrome article (the process used to create this picture, a sort of hybrid between photography and lithography). [7]

• Nominate and support. - Matthewcieplak 10:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Fascinating image. Unusual style. --Fir0002 10:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Bernard Helmstetter 23:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 03:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Lovely. Also, does anyone else find it a bit odd that there's no Photochrome article? This was a pretty common technique, wasn't it? Junes 10:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I wish Wikipedia had more postcard images like this. Sandover 02:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I wasn't studying for finals now, I'd be browsing the LoC photochrom archive here. It's prodigious. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 20:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The Hildesheim article has too many historic photos. It really ought to be illustrated by something like this. I would probably support this image on a good article about Photochrom/e colourizing. -- Solipsist 08:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:Townhall-hildesheim.jpg +6 / -1 -- Solipsist 23:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self nom. It will never be a masterpiece of photography, but I'm proud this one. - Ericd 11:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose as is. Too bad quality in regard to resolution. Do you have a higher res version? The picture is great otherwise, though (Nice composiition and very very illustrative.) Circeus 15:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Small and, as you said, not a masterpiece of photography. ed g2s • talk 22:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose not interesting.--Deglr6328 02:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose interesting subject and good find but bad photo. Cavebear42 03:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 00:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explosions and fire, a remotely piloted airplane, and science; it doesn't get much better than that. This picture is used in Controlled Impact Demonstration and comes from the Dryden Flight Research Center inside Edwards Air Force Base, California. Triddle 17:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. self nomination - Triddle 17:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support This is a striking image. TomStar81 18:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Illustrates article well. I have a similar demo video that shows a giant dump truck ramming at full speed into a short "impenetrable barrier" and being stopped immediately... couldn't find any high-res pics of it though. --brian0918™ 19:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Janderk 20:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - try cropping the image into a square or a letterbox - the content is good, but the framing is undramatic. - Pioneer-12 23:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (cropped image) - looks good now. Nice job. - Pioneer-12 23:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great pic --Fir0002 10:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain I have a real hard time deciding on this one. Circeus 15:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

*Object -- framing does not do the image justice. Would change my vote to support if framing was improved. - Longhair | Talk 03:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support -- as promised, changing my vote to support (for the cropped, reframed version). Now we're talking FP. - Longhair | Talk 11:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (especially the cropped version), looks great to me. --Spangineer ∞ 19:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Explosions - mmmmmmm! Denni☯ 17:29, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Support either, although I might prefer the wider shot. -- Solipsist 07:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CID closeup 1.jpg +10 / -0 / 1 neutral with a preference for cropped version. -- Solipsist 18:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add your reasons for nominating it here, say what article it is used on and who created the image. - Newnoise 22:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Illustrates Tamil people, Meenakshi, and Meenakshi temple. --Andrew 01:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - Newnoise 22:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (only get to vote once! --Andrew 01:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC))
• Support. Cos its pretty? is that a good reason? - Newnoise 22:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Newnoise, please state what your reasons are for nominating this image in the space provided above. Enochlau 12:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd like to be able to see more detail; the sky is also a bit drab. Junes 10:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose That striped tent just trashes this image. Denni☯ 17:27, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Oppose. ditto about the tent. Ian 06:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think if you look closely you'll see that the "striped tent" is actually part of the building - if you'd like to argue with the architects, go ahead, but you'll wait a long time for a pciture without that in it. Also is a nice illustration on Tamil people for art and architecture, but it would be a much better picture if we could see more detail of the carvings - I find myself wanting to zoom in more. --Andrew 01:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -4 -- Solipsist 18:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is striking—hmakes me want to look up! It extremely well illustrate undercarriage too. - Circeus 01:49, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support.- Circeus 01:49, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose An OK photo but only that. Quite noisy at full res and parts are over exposed. --Fir0002 08:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I didn't ask for this pic to go into Featured Pic candidates, nevertheless thanks to Circeus for adding it. In reply to Fir0002, you probably know that it's difficult to get correct exposure on the sunlit fuselage and on the shadowed underside. Each time I go to Heathrow I try some more of this type of shot, it's great fun! - Adrian Pingstone 18:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I fully agree and appreciate the difficulty. But IMO, this shouldn't be an excuse for a slightly less than worthy (again IMO) pic becoming a FP. When you manage to overcome this obstacle I would support. --Fir0002 06:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - That couldn't of been easy. Triddle 00:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great support image for article, but not striking enough for FP, IMO. Denni☯ 17:25, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Denni. Junes 20:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No doubt its a difficult shot, but I also agree with Fir0002 & Denni. -- Solipsist 07:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +3 / -4 -- Solipsist 18:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, focus is not ideal, but the atmosphere is extraordinary. Illustrates Place de l'Étoile admirably. - Circeus 01:54, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Circeus 01:54, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad composition and focus. Junes 10:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - focus not good enough (sorry!) - Adrian Pingstone 17:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having the location conveniently labelled by an illuminated sign in the middle of the picture is neat, but it doesn't make up for having the lamp obscure the main subject. Plus agree with the above. -- Solipsist 07:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above --Fir0002 09:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Streetlamp in the way! --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It seems to me that the shadows in the picture- especially at the back end of the structure- give the arch an illusion of "floating" in mid-air. TomStar81 04:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the lamp kills it. - Ian 07:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +1 / -7 -- Solipsist 18:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful picture take by my brother's girlfriend on her trip to Costa Rica. - →Raul654 06:43, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) Illustrates Iguana. --Andrew 04:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - →Raul654 06:43, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, just a little out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 17:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Arpingstone. It would be OK for the body to be out of focus, but the face (in particular the noes) should at least be in focus. --Fir0002 06:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not only bad focus but poor centering (though that at least could be fixed) Denni☯ 17:22, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Oppose A bit small and I don't like the framing or focus very much, sorry. Junes 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose great expression, but lacking focus. Circeus 21:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Submit to commons instead. Nice picture, I like the expression on his face, but it doesn't help the article that much. It's not a full-body shot so it really can't replace the non-free one we have now, and it's one of three pictures on a stub. --Andrew 04:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with most of the above, but he looks like he has character. -- Solipsist 07:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear case of submit to commons this picture is slapped onto the end of the article in a mish mash of several overlapping pics. Make it more prominent or try again on commons. (I'm going to at least put them in gallery format, but having a see commons link would be better). BrokenSegue 17:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Striking pose. Ian 06:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +2 / -6 / 2 Commons -- Solipsist 18:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A really compelling photo. I think it's powerful and well done, but actually I'm sure you'll all find some way to criticize it :) . It's used on Rwandan Genocide, First Congo War, Consequences of the Rwandan Genocide, and Rassemblement Démocratique pour le Rwanda. --Dmcdevit 02:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. --Dmcdevit 02:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small by current standards and does not really show the true magnitude of the situation. Denni☯ 17:21, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Oppose, the air looks overexposed. Mgm|^(talk) 18:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Way too small. Also not very special, IMHO Junes 20:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While it adds significantly to all four articles listed above, and the subject matter is striking, the photo itself is unfortunately not great. It's hard to see what's going on, and the lack of color provide little to hold the eye. --Andrew 04:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its a useful illustration for Rassemblement Démocratique pour le Rwanda and First Congo War. But the image quality is fairly low and I would have thought there were more dramatic images of larger refugee camps (I can't tell whether that is a town in the distance, or a continuation of the camp). Image:Rwandan Genocide Murambi skulls.jpg is a stronger illustration for Rwandan Genocide. -- Solipsist 07:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Powerful. - Ian 06:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +2 / -5 -- Solipsist 18:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this photo lives up to featured picture standards. Not very contrasty, and there is too much sky (IMO).

I can't find the archive where this was voted on. Can you? BrokenSegue 01:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it either --Fir0002 09:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you checked the archived discussion from this page from when we did the big renomination, you'd find [8]. Just so you know. ed g2s • talk 11:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten how we do de-listings. Surely some sort of tag or note should be placed on the image page to alert the original contributor and anyone else watching it. -- Solipsist 08:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK we don't do delist that much, so there isn't a set of templates, or procedure for notifying the uploader. Feel free to create them. ed g2s • talk 12:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Delist. --Fir0002 08:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Delist --jacobolus (t) 10:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Junes 10:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This might go with a bit more contrast Ericd 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - From the image's info page "This photo was taken the morning after a wild storm. I think it shows the essence of the Gold Coast, perched on the shore, the buildings disappearing into the sea-spray". - Bevo 16:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pretty in pastels, and adds significantly to Gold Coast. --Andrew 00:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -It speaks to me, and does significantly add to Gold Coast. TomStar81 03:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist BrokenSegue 19:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Looks like a blurry tourist snapshot. Sandover 20:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sharp ! Ericd 21:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It caught a moment of beauty. And it should not be artificially "enhanced." Pollinator 21:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. It's all right, but if you let this kind of picture be featured, then the standards aren't high enough to bar any picture. Deltabeignet 22:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any technical problem in this picture nor any problem in composition... So what ? it's pastel and people like saturated colors ? Ericd 14:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. 6-delist 5-keep - Bevo 16:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent nighttime panorama of Wellington, New Zealand, taken by user:Geocachernemesis and GFDL licenced. It's incredibly detailed, showing a great part of the city. It's also, incidentally, rather attractive.

• Nominate and support. - John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --brian0918™ 00:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful shot. TomStar81 01:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The detail is amazing, now can we have one on a sunny day too? Ppe42 01:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Not high enough resolution. Well, maybe I can live with it. :P Support, beautiful, nicely complements the pictures on the city page. How's the New Zealand tourist industry doing? --Andrew 03:39, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic. Is it all one exposure? - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 04:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although it is difficult to place these wide panoramas to good effect. -- Solipsist 07:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. It isn't particularly sharp and it's pretty noise. But it's a fairly good panorama. --Fir0002 09:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marvellous - Adrian Pingstone 14:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good! Robert P. O'Shea 23:43, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful. -- Ian 06:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice photo, but I like other panoramas by the same author even better.-gadfium 03:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support,Fanrastic Giano | talk 05:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Brilliant. Sango123 19:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This photo is absolutely breathtaking. It is the first time I have ever seen such a detailed panorama on the internet and it is just stunning. Just wish I had a 325" screen to view it all at once ;-). Brusselsshrek 18:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just updated the file with a re-stitched version (look here for more detail). (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 08:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wellington City Night.jpg +15 / -0 -- Solipsist 05:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lithograph created in the 19th century, released into the public domain. Excellent picture quality, great detail, looks just plain striking to me. - Kizor 09:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrating Art Nouveau and Alfons Mucha -- Solipsist 15:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Kizor 09:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It does nothing for me. Sorry - Ian 06:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like it, technically good, and adds significantly to Alfons Mucha. --Andrew 01:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Very good example of Art Nouveau -- Chris 73 Talk 07:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Lupin 21:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A perfect example of the genre. Denni☯ 00:36, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
• Support for illustrating Art Nouveau. -- Solipsist 15:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg +6 / -1 -- Solipsist 05:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opte Project map 1105841711.LGL.2D.4000x4000.png

This doesn't really fit any of the well-defined criteria for a photo, but I think it adds much to its article Internet. It is a map of the Internet's top level domain using colors. Don't know what else to say, but it's also quite pretty. And note: The size used on Internet where it's not a thumb allow it to show up much better. - Dmcdevit 03:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Dmcdevit 03:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- sorry, a pretty pic but I have no idea what it represents. I suppose it means the net has a lot of connections but I knew that already ;-) Adrian Pingstone 19:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not knowing what it was hardly kept anyone to be in favor of the promotion of Z machine (though it had to be removed) Circeus 21:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Groovy shot. TomStar81 22:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Intriguing... ^_^ Sango123 01:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. About a year ago, I spent quite a while looking for a map like this to illustrate internet, but couldn't find a free use version. It could use a better explanation on the caption. -- Solipsist 08:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. very nice. - Ian 13:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Nice, but difficult to interpret. Perhaps it would need better explanations about what nodes and edges represent. Also, the graph has black on black edges, as is written on [9]. The author wrote he would correct the problem soon but he doesn't seem to have done it yet. Looking at the LGL edge colors file, the black edges are still there. --Bernard Helmstetter 16:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not that interesting. Fredrik | talk 16:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A pretty picture, but devoid of useful information. Denni☯ 23:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Neutral / Weak Oppose. It's a very nice image, but, as others have said, it presents no useful information. — Asbestos | Talk 10:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Invalid license, not eligible. cc-by-nc-sa. --Andrew 15:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, because of the comments brought up here about the lack of usefulness (which, upon reflection I'd tend to agree with) and how the idea of the map interested me, I just created an article on the Opte Project. Surely now we have a place for the image that makes it a useful picture. (PS, please help expand the article!) --Dmcdevit 05:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted, archived early - Aarchiba is correct, this is inappropriately licensed. Sorry. James F. (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination of own work - when I saw this color composition, I knew I had to make this photo. Photo taken in the fishing port of Ostend, Belgium. This photo illustrates the article Fishery. 10:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. JoJan 10:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but I find this a mess of colours, shapes and lines - Adrian Pingstone 12:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as a photo I like the colours shapes and lines etc., but I just don't see that it has much relevance to it's article. - Ian 06:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too much distracting stuff from the boat in the pic. Mish-mash of colors and shapes, nets aren't clearly subject of shot. Mgm|^(talk) 14:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Far too messy composition --Fir0002 08:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The full-size version is quite illustrative, if a bit cluttered (and it's more relevant to fishing net, where I've just put it), but it's too hard to figure out what's going on in the thumbnail. —Korath (Talk) 22:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -5

A picture I took recently while at Longwood Gardens. →Raul654 05:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I don't know why but I just like it. - Ian 06:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I just like it too - Adrian Pingstone 19:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - colors a bit white, but nice picture (and I like those succulents) and adds significantly to aloe aristata. --Andrew 00:59, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good photo, even though the top is a bit clipped -- Chris 73 Talk 07:38, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice texture. - Solipsist 15:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. James F. (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Aloe aristata.jpg +6 / -0

Definatly striking. Illistrates the weather conditions the carriers endure while on patrol. TomStar81 05:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. Self-nom TomStar81 05:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Flash is overexposed and not very good to see, everything else is pretty dark. If this is a self nom, are you U.S. Navy Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Aaron Ansarov? Also, I think the image provides little or no value to most articles where it was added (Aerial warfare, Military aviation, U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom), except maybe for USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not a self nom. Sorry, in the past three days I have been studying like crazy to pass collage finals, and the net result has been decreased sleep, and consequently I have found myself making a lot of stupid mistakes ;) P.S., if anyone knows how to 'submit to the commons instead' please feel free to put this picture there. TomStar81 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page there's a box of featured picture tools; in particular, there's a link to commons:commons:Featured picture candidates; that page works like this one. --Andrew 19:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Submit to commons instead. Doesn't add significantly to any article but is striking. --Andrew 09:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ian 09:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +2 / -1 / 1 Commons

Finally tracked down a good PD version of a classic photo from one of the masters. Illustrating Ansel Adams. - Solipsist 09:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - Solipsist 09:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I would support a higher resolution of that one. Jonas Olson 15:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm... well I was going to say - yeah right, good luck finding one. But instead, I'll say - OK, hit <refresh>, that big enough for ya'? -- Solipsist 15:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Around 6 megapixels is enough for me, also enough to notice some white spots on the image. I am surprised because Ansel Adams was amaster in printing. Do you think it had been scanned from a not so clean negative ? And what's your advice about some dust removal ? Ericd 21:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes the dust is from their scanning and hard to avoid. I'm not a fan of automatic dust and scratch removal. Careful hand cloning over the worst hot spots is often effective. I was tempted to remove the scratch in the clouds top right, but I've already put in too much time on this one and its quite a useful identifying mark. But go ahead if you want to. -- Solipsist 23:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not a fan of automatic dust and scratch removal too. I think I have too do that by hand. But not today.... Be patient please. Ericd 21:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Probably unrelated to this image, but Adams was known as a poor "spotter". Supposedly a careful viewer can distinguish prints that he spotted personally from those he handed over to his assistants (with steadier hands and sharper eyes). -Willmcw 01:20, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Jonas Olson 09:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support of course. Ericd 21:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Where did you find it? Perhaps an explanation of its copyright status on the image description page is in order. --MarkSweep 22:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The image is actually on the Commons. Follow the link to the 'description page' and you will find reasonably comprehensive source information. A good starting point is the NARA press pack for the Picturing the Century exhibition. There is also good introductory information on NARA's Adams collection here. Most of this was found despite NARA's search engine's best efforts to prevent anyone from finding anything useful. -- Solipsist 23:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! Got confused by the {fpc} tag and didn't even see the Commons notice. Good job tracking down that JPEG file on the NARA site, which seems to be designed to make navigation and search particularly difficult. --MarkSweep 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support: beautiful Triddle 22:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, excellent version of the photo --Fir0002 23:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A huge wow. Sango123 00:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's good, but can we get it in color? (I kid, I kid.) Matthewcieplak 11:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure - if you insist. See Fir0002's suggestion on the Manzanar picture below. A non-Adams non-PD, but color version is available here and there are plenty of others around :) -- Solipsist 12:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only can we conjure up full color Ansel Adams, we can turn them into the pictures from those cheesy motivational posters. Truly we live in the world of the future! Matthewcieplak 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I support the full tonal range version. Matthewcieplak 06:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. --brian0918&#153; 11:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 12:27, 25 Apr 2005

(UTC)

• Support Great picture- good quality also. --Electricmoose 19:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This NARA scan has no real black. I had a look on the histogram show that the darkest tone is around 10/255. I'm sure Adams printed this with a full tonal scale. Thus I adjusted it to have a tone range from 0 to 255. What's your advice. Ericd 22:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I love these photos Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Sublime. Sandover 16:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. But the second version, with "full tonal range", at least on my monitor darkens to the point of losing detail. Be careful about increasing the tonal range, maybe using (for example) photoshop curves instead of adjusting linearly. --jacobolus (t) 11:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been very carefull in adjusting contrast. I have several computers and monitors and used the old 15" monitor I trust for photographic work. On the 17" monitor I'm using now I can't see any difference between the two versions. The adjustement doesn't loose any detail on my "good" monitor, it just makes the black black, not grey. I'm sure the details are still there by looking to the histogram. Your monitor is not well calibrated or is not able to show a difference between a real black (0/255) and a very dark grey (10/255). Ericd 12:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That's all very well having a proper black (and my 17" LCD monitor shows up tonal range exceptionally well) but it comes at the expense of less detail in the foliage of the trees in the foreground. --Fir0002 10:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • You can find I'm conservative (I still shoot film.) but no LCD will will beat a good cathodic for photography. Ericd 22:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd have to disagree with you there. I used to use a CRT, but after I got my LCD I never looked back. All CRT's I see now just look bland.--Fir0002 08:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I uploaded yet another version. This one also has full tonal range, but I used the photoshop curves to make sure that we don't lose detail in the blacks. I also made sure to get whitest whites. I took original image, and my control points in photoshop curves tool are (9,0), (35,31), (218,219), (251,255). I think this one is the best ;-). Also, your full tone range version was more than 4 times as big as original jpeg. mine is a bit bigger than the original, but should preserve quality as photoshop level 10/12 jpeg. --jacobolus (t) 10:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change my support to the last version (prepared by jacobolus) --Fir0002 09:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Adams The Tetons and the Snake River 3.jpg 14 / 0 / 0 Apparent preference for third image --Spangineer ∞ 19:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of the Chicago based architect Helmut Jahn before, but this photo of his award winning complex for the Sony Center in Berlin makes me interested in learning more about him. Its the sort of thing that gives modern architecture a good name. Another impressive and very colourful photo by Andreas Tille on Commons and the German Wiki. - Solipsist 18:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things I would criticise myself in this image and why I personally hesitaded to nominate it: The usage of a 20mm lens resulted in strongly leaning buildings and I did a strong editing in this image: Try to follow the link to the image which is added to the description page at commons to my web page and see what I did with the video screen which was simply white on the original ... (You might also have a look at this image - so I potted kind of a live cam from different perspective onto the video screen.) I'm not sure whether this is acceptable for a featured image. This is not an oppose from my side - but I wanted to honestly point out some problems by myself. Andreas Tille 21:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 18:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice shot. TomStar81 22:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow. Sango123 00:08, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ian 09:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful --Fir0002 00:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice picture. Almost perfect! WB 08:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely magic. I only shot the center at daylight, but what a difference it makes. --Wpopp 21:17, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• Support Great, love the colours. --Silversmith 23:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:SonyCenterAtNight.jpg 9 / 0 / 0 --Spangineer ∞ 01:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe I'm biased because I know how exhilarating a winch launch can be, but this photo captures a lot of what gliding is about. A sleek fibreglass glider, being launched into an open sky, the pilot's face profiled though a clear canopy, and the wings flexing under a G and a half of acceleration — all this nicely composed within the frame. It could be beaten by an aerial shot of a tight group of gliders in a thermal, but those are really hard to obtain. Photograph by whiteplanes.com, and illustrating gliding. - Solipsist 21:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 21:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Photo is by someone else, he is simply friends with the sites owner and got permission.

• Support. Nice picture, illustrates the article well (I would have had difficulty picturing winch-launching, and I wouldn't have pictured that much acceleration), beautiful colors. Resolution not quite high enough to tell whether the pilot has a mustache, but I don't mind. --Andrew 02:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. You might see the moustache better if he was flying towards the camera. ;) Mgm|^(talk) 20:53, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. That'd probably be bad news for the photographer. ^_^ Sango123 00:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in general the glider can't launch if anyone is in front of it. Every now and again the winch cable breaks and you would have half a mile of wire wipping towards you at ~60 mph. It would probably hurt if that hit you... -- Solipsist 10:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, would be nice if the image was moved to commons (commons accepts that kind of copright, right?). BrokenSegue 02:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Ian 09:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo --Fir0002 00:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. – ugen64 03:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2b glider being launched at Lasham Airfield in UK.jpg 9 / 0 / 0 --Spangineer ∞ 01:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Support #2. Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 illustrates bread; 1 is not used. --Andrew 12:39, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

As usual, I'll put the most favored photo on the bread page. For now #2 is on it because that is my personal favourite. --Fir0002 22:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Close-up has my support. Though it could use focus encompassing the whole lenght of the bread, the central focus is still nice. Circeus
• Support #2 - yum. #1 is a bit dull (but 10 times better than I could do) -- Ian 06:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support #2. --brian0918&#153; 09:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Submit to commons instead unless someone writes an article on Strucla; on bread it's just another picture. --Andrew 01:03, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Don't you feel that Wikipedia's Featured Pictures should also be of high quality, not just illustrative? --Fir0002 08:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so - they should be striking/high quality/etc. and add significantly to the article. This one doesn't really add significantly to bread, so regardless of how pretty it is, it doesn't belong on FP here. The commons featured pictures does not have the "add significantly" criterion; there, it's just striking that matters, so this image woule be better there. --Andrew 19:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. #1 isn't striking, and focus is far too narrow on #2. —Korath (Talk) 22:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Nice photo, so I hope it gets promoted on commons. I agree with Andrew. BrokenSegue 02:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion on the photo, but to me, this looks like a Hefezopf (bread plait; here sprinkled with poppy seeds), a type of (usually sweet) bread common in Germany and Switzerland (and maybe elsewhere). There is a Polish kind of cake that is called "strucla", a traditional Christmas cake, but from the descriptions I have been able to find, it doesn't seem to be braided but horseshoe-shaped. Am I missing something? Lupo 10:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my mothers cookbook (both my parents came from Poland) this type of bread is called strucla. The photos show the traditional plaiting, in particular the tapering size. I'm not sure on those other recipes, but this book had a photo so it was pretty clear. --Fir0002 22:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• No clear concensus - moving back to voting for a couple more days. -- Solipsist 05:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clear illustrative pic, weak support - Adrian Pingstone 07:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'd like to support #2, but most of it is not in focus. - Bevo 20:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - very nice pictures, but not quite FP quality (not to say that half the featured pictures are FP quality; we need some thinning.) Deltabeignet 21:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoted (no concensus +5/-4) BrokenSegue 03:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrates Hot chocolate quite well

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very appealing and a beautiful photo. As you say, it illustrates the subject well - Ian 13:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fredrik | talk 16:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose That thing in the handle of the cup is too distracting. Denni☯ 23:11, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Support. Very well shot: great texture on the foam. — Asbestos | Talk 10:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yummy! Mgm|^(talk) 13:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Hardly any of the pic is in focus. How could we make a blurred pic a Featured Pic? - Adrian Pingstone 14:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, only small part is in focus. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:08, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the low DOF, but due to the low lighting in the cafe (this photo was shot at 1600iso) I had to take the photo at a low aperture value (something like f/3.5) which resulted in the low DOF. --Fir0002 22:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Use a tripod and a slow speed for this kind of shots... And even with it DOF is often a problem. Ericd 07:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware of the beauty of a tripod, and if I had one on me I would have used it. Shooting at f/32 can produce an OK DOF. --Fir0002 10:44, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

it is not a bad picture, it is just not quite good enough for feature quality. While I am not an expert, would an external flash be helpful alternatively to a tripod? Fir0002, you are a superb photographer, and took many great featured pics, but this one is not quite good enough. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well put that way, what more can I say? Thanks.

I'm no expert on photography either, but ordinary flash would usually only result in a burnt out over exposed shot. To do that kind of close up (even though this photo isn't quite macro), you either need to have a proper macro flash ring, or fiddle around with using tissue paper (trying to diffuse the light). I don't have a macro ring, and as I took this photo on a school excursion to investigate local businesses (the cafe that this photo was taken in had only just recently opened) I was supposed to be listening and couldn't be messing around with tissue paper. --Fir0002 01:30, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to have over exposure with a modern TTL flash. With a white mug my fear would be underexposure. A macro flash ring not mandatory but an extension cable to put the flash somewhere else than on the camera is often enought. (BTW buy a small table tripod, properly used it's very useful.) Ericd 14:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on the grounds that it doesn't, strictly speaking, actually show any hot chocolate. Deltabeignet 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. That's not true. The black is chocolate, and is undoubtedly hot. Superm401 |

Talk 21:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought it was, I was beginning to think that the hot chocolate they serve in our cafe is pretty unique. So unique that most people apparently can't recognise it.

Oh, all right, there's a little bit of hot chocolate. Still, the vast majority of the picture is a mug with cream on top; the streaks of hot chocolate don't illustrate the concept well enough. Deltabeignet 22:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Not enough focus and not enough hot chocolate. -- B. Ramerth (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The lack of focus is kinda sexy, which hot chocolate is. I like the dribble as well. Pity about the spoon (I think it is) in the handle. --Silversmith 23:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoted +5/-5/2 BrokenSegue 03:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Keydrive, by John Fader. A well-presented and highly informative picture- Deltabeignet 21:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. Deltabeignet 21:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Do something about that Great Wall of China length picture description, then I will reconsider. TomStar81 22:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Much better. TomStar81 05:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I love geeky stuff, this does not make the cut for FP. Denni☯ 23:41, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Support Good and informative picture. Only the "template for deletion" has to be sorted out, and the text copied in the appropriate location. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Netoholic fixed this. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - beautifully clear picture, with very excellent descriptive stuff - Adrian Pingstone 22:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – great illustration, really descriptive and informative. --Spangineer ∞ 01:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Informative, but just not a great photo. ed g2s • talk 10:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would like to see more illustrations like this in the wikipedia. --Bernard Helmstetter 13:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Usefull, support extra special support if it and the others pics are moved to commons for others to use. BrokenSegue 23:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. oppose I think that this is a great pic and I see on the pic's page that the numbered items are explained, but I would really like to see a small key at least naming the items in the pic itself. this way when it is copyied elsewhere (even without the text which the wikipediea would include) that data will not be lost. Cavebear42 18:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • for example: 1: Male Type A USB connector 2:RISC based mass data controller 3:test connector used durring manufacturing...
    • I'm generally reluctant to put text on an image itself as a) it looks kinda crappy when the image is thumbnailed and b) it really looks ghastly on a foreign language wikipedia. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Putting text directly in the image inhibits translations, so the numbered labelling is prefered by Commons. Anyone using the image elsewhere jolly well ought to pick up the text on the image description page, as under GFDL they need to preserve the attribution information. -- Solipsist 06:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point that Arabic numerals seem to have caught on faster than English but I still feel that the picture should stand on its own accord bot needing further explination in order to make sense. Also, I didn't see this keep Image:Gun-type Nuclear weapon.png from getting FP. Cavebear42 17:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well Commons was just getting going in Nov/Dec 2004, and neither the Nuclear Weapon example nor this nom are actually on Commons. Personally I would prefer direct labeling in English too, but then I'm an English speaker and don't use the other Wiki's much. On the other hand I can appreciate that it is a highly significant factor for ease of translation, coupled with which I just translated a rather nice diagram on insect that came from the Polish wiki yesterday (in fact I'm considering nominating that diagram). I doubt I would have bothered if the Polish labels had been embedded. It also seems harsh to object on grounds which are expressly recommended on our sister projects. -- Solipsist 19:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well done. We could do with more illustrations like this. The lead image on keydrive is about what I would expect, but this is so much better. -- Solipsist 06:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. More stuff like this please. — Chameleon 20:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Did you have to sacrifice the usb key for the photo or was it still OK? :-) --Fir0002 06:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —Korath (Talk) 23:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:Usbkey internals.jpg +12/-3 BrokenSegue 03:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cato.jpeg

This image of Cato the Elder was apparently found on the web, being used as part of an online slide show in a Roman civilization class, and uploaded by TheGrza. It is an old plate of a classical subject. It appears in Cato the Elder and Culture of Ancient Rome, and on my user page also. I am quite fond of the image; the sculpture is well preserved and brimming with character — he looks like a character out of a Fellini movie — and the strong shading from the tintype photography adds even more interest to the picture. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a reference to indicate why you think this image is out of copyright? Photographs of statuary do have expressive content, but it sounds like this is an old photograph - how old? Is it out ofcopyright everywhere in the world? --Andrew 15:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The uploader's talk page indicates that there was a discussion concerning the image's copyright status with Muriel Gottrop, and it was determined that it is public domain, and tagged as such. The uploader apparently got a larger image from the source, since the image was smaller on the course page given as external link. More details than that, I ain't got; but I posted a note asking for further info on the user's talk page. It certainly looks old. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The website I got the picture from was the University website whose operator said that the source of the picture was unknown but confirmed that it was in the public domain. It was explained to me that the picture is by Anonymous and had no licensing or copyright protection ever. --TheGrza 19:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - even if the source and copyright issue is resolved, this is a good example of what you should not do when lighting a face (look at the nose shadow for instance). Ericd 10:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 03:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it visually appealing, it gives a much more accurate view of election results than your standard red state/blue state map. An enlightening and thought-provoking piece. From U.S. presidential election, 2004, byJacoplane. - Deltabeignet 22:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. Deltabeignet 22:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I live in England and I have no idea what this map shows even though I've looked at it carefully. Maybe people in the US will understand it and vote for it. Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 07:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this is suppose to be the US Electoral collage results on a county by county basis, but I am not 100% sure; therefore I oppose for the reason cited above. TomStar81 18:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarifiy: I oppose this picture because I am not sure what this map shows. TomStar81 22:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me ask you something; have you ever truly been 100% sure of anything? Deltabeignet 19:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I'm 100% sure that I'm alive and that I will pay taxes. I used 100% in my oposition because I couldn't figure out what the picture was suppose to show even after I was on the page the picture was on. It wasn't until someone suggested this picture and the other illistration should be shown side by side that I figured out what the picture should show. TomStar81 00:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll agree to disagree on philosophical grounds. Deltabeignet 20:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Out of courisity, would it be possible to combine the other image above this one on the '04 election page and the picture here into one picture for a before-and-after kind of model? The key objection here seems to be that the image is confusing on its own, but if the two image were combined into one I think people would grasp the data represented in the cartogram better. I know I would. TomStar81 23:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've made something at Image:2004 election maps.PNG; it combines a standard state by state with the county by county and the cartogram.
            • Thats much better at illistrating the US Election. I would vote support for that image. TomStar81 23:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quite interesting, but I feel the US bias is rather too much for me, a non-US viewer. Brusselsshrek 18:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope all of these votes are invalid. The picture is about a specific topic. Should we ignore a photo of Big Ben because it is British in topic, or to continue the absurdity, ignore all photos because they are too biased toward their topic? At most, the caption could use a little bit more context telling what election it is for. - Taxman 16:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Relevant, innovative, and interesting way of showing accurate information. Not only does it illustrate the information about the relative support for the US presidential candidates, it also shows an interesting example of Information Design. Johannes Brodwall 22:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- if you think there is a bias seek promotion of non-American pics don't oppose American ones. You must vote on this based upon it's illustrative value not its subject matter. Would you oppose featured articles candidates about American things since we allready have lots of American featured articles? I think not. BrokenSegue 22:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- Djinn112 03:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Visual is great, and food for thought. -- --Wpopp 14:27, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Can I make it clear I opposed the pic because I simply don't understand what it shows. It doesn't matter where I happen to be (in this case England) and it doesn't matter which country it's a map of . If I don't know what it is then I guess many other readers won't either. My vote is entirely valid, but I do agree that Brusselsshrek comment is invalid! - Adrian Pingstone 16:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Adrian, I suppose the picture shows "real" voting power of the different US states. Maybe we should ask the author to do the same for European Union states to make clear the impact of population (as opposed to political negotiation). The picture in itself doesn't mean much, but it could mean a lot if you oppose it to another map showing the influence of the states related to their votes in the electorate college. --Wpopp 00:33, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not visually appealing. if you didn't know what the US was supposed to look like normally (like a side by side might do) and/or you didn't already know what a cartogram was, then it is a sploch of blue and red. this pic in no way stands on its own accord.Cavebear42 18:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this is a tricky one because it is quite an attractive and interesting image. The problem is that is also quite confusing and doesn't tell me much. The map at the top of U.S. presidential election, 2004, tells me that red won and it was the South and Mid-west that voted Bush in. But this is a distorted view because the states count by the given number of electoral votes not their geographical size. Hence a cartogram should be a good idea, but it should be one based on states and hard red/blue first past the post results like this. This one fails, because it goes down to county scale and then colors on a percentage of the vote (ignoring 3rd parties). We end up with an image that looks like it should be a 3D scan of a body organ; it is almost unrecognisable as the US, and only tells me is that everywhere is kind of purple, so the election was closer to 50:50. This image is also a poor choice to illustrate cartogram where a version of the world map scaled by population would be a more typical and understandable illustration (guess what I'm going to look for now.) --Solipsist 06:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You shouldn't vote against the picture just because you personally don't understand it. If people still have questions, ask the nominator on their talk page. Don't clutter this area, and don't vote before understanding the topic of the picture on some basic level. Superm401 | Talk 21:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nonsense! Are the readers who may see this pic going to ask questions in order to understand it? NO! They just expect that the pic be understandable by reading the article or the Image Description page. I didn't understand it by reading both. Finally, I'm certainly not creating clutter by explaining why I opposed the pic - Adrian Pingstone 13:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't have said it better myself. TomStar81 23:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Why nominate a low-resolution image when there's a larger version? —Korath (Talk) 23:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +6/-6 BrokenSegue 03:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. I took this myself and just love the bridges perspective and the framing of the opera house in the background. - Ian 03:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Illustrates Sydney Harbour Bridge. --Andrew 12:42, May 3, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Ian 03:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- Solipsist 07:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hate to say it because it is a pretty good image, but although the middle of the image looks good, for some reason the sides look extremely compressed (the boat in the bottom right corner, the top left hand part of the bridge for examples). Will change to support if these can be fixed. Another small thing is the license. It's good that although its copyrighted that the it is ok to copy it for any purpose, but if it were to be released under the GFDL or even PD, it would be less confusing. Sydney Harbour Bridge--Fir0002 09:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added {{NoRightsReserved}}, a less-confusing but equivalent license; if the author wants to switch, that might help. --Andrew 13:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

License changed (it's all very confusing to us earthlings).

I don't really understand what you mean by the sides looking compressed. It hasn't been touched up at all - it's straight out of the camera. Ian 14:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To see what I'm reffering too, you have to be looking at the full res photo. If you look in the top left hand corner of the picture, the bridge looks smudged. The same type of thing occurs in the bottom left hand corner the littel ship is bloctchy as is the water. But I'll change my vote to Neutral as the auto resized version looks great. --Fir0002 22:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do see it now, but I can't explain it. Must be my cheap camera. (?) - Ian 23:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice picture, fills a niche in the article. This license, although confusingly worded, is functionally identical to being in the public domain; it does not appear to be possible to release material into the public domain. --Andrew 12:51, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• No clear concensus - moving back to voting for another couple of days. -- Solipsist 05:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- has no one noticed the buildings are leaning, not something to be tolerated in an FPC (in my opinion) - Adrian Pingstone 07:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There are perspective issues here (the buildings on the left and right slope in opposite directions) but also the water was not flat. I've rotated the image slightly so hopefully both problems will appear less severe. Lupin 16:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +3 / -1 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 06:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. I took this picture a couple of years ago, and like the way it gives the impression of really watching one of these guys do their stuff (though it's best seen at a larger size than this thumbnail). I believe it illustrates Fire dancing well (though there are several other pictures there along-side this one). I've released the image into GFDL - — Asbestos | Talk 08:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. — Asbestos | Talk 08:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very impressive. Easily the best version on the Fire dancing page. -- Solipsist 08:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Great photo. Ian 13:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. James F. (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sango123 19:06, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Denni☯ 23:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Support a fire dancing "Hot Shot". Very Nice. TomStar81 02:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, small with compression artifacts. I've seen better. ed g2s • talk 11:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also argue it doesn't actually illustrate fire dancing that well, e.g. a short exposure closeup of a sparkler would illustrate it better than someone writing their name in the air with it on a long exposure. ed g2s • talk 11:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree with you if the article were on "sparklers", instead of "writing your name with sparklers". Here, though, the article it illustrates is "Fire dancing", where movement is very much key to everything these guys do: it's the movement that I wanted to illustrate the article with, not a static picture of a poi. — Asbestos | Talk 09:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, quality issues. – ugen64 03:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, low res, quality issues --Fir0002 22:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The borderline low resolution is forgiveable; the compression artifacts are not. —Korath (Talk) 23:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, artifacts and low resolution. It's hard to make the picture out. BrokenSegue 03:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoted +7 / -5 -- Solipsist 06:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great photo of an American Eskimo Dog taken by Robert Southworth. It seemed to stand out from most other dog images, and I feel it's very striking. Sango123 23:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Sango123 23:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support! - I tried repeatedly without success to get a decent photo of my own American Eskimo Dog for this very article, so I know how much work went into this. The dog is clean and the color contrast is perfect. This is a terrific photo. H2O 07:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry, not a striking pic to me. Certainly it's good but not good enough for Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 14:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A nice snapshot, but not of FP quality. Denni☯ 23:44, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Support The picture is right on the money: a perfect moment for the dog is captured, and it doesn't look contrived. It's both beautiful and striking, and significantly adds to the article it was posted for. Bagginz 06:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too low res. --Fir0002 22:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is the resolution too low? If it's not good enough for a book, it looks fine for the web. Bagginz 04:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it's just my monitor's resolution (1280x1024), but this photo is too small even for web. --Fir0002 06:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • The image is now at the original camera resolution (1546x1213). Sango123 00:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, well that's better. Support --Fir0002 22:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why do people insist on trying to make every nice picture they come across featured? Deltabeignet 19:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think this is not just a "nice picture"; it illustrates the article Dog, American Eskimo Dog, and several others very nicely. Unlike other dog pictures, the subject of this image is not unnaturally stiff, and its expression and position aren't forced. This may not be the best picture out there, but it's definitely outstanding in its category. The color contrast, in my opinion, is aesthetically pleasing, and to me, the dog's expression is captivating. Well, that's just my opinion. You guys decide. :-) Sango123 00:21, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very striking photo, perfect focus. I like it. --JiFish 00:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've uploaded a new version at the original camera resolution (1546x1213). Robert Southworth 00:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)][reply]
• No vote. The dog is excellent, the background is dull suburban lawn. Maybe someone can transplant it. I think it'd help if some sky were visible. Deco 22:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, but I think the dog's more-or-less pure white contrasts nicely with the darker green of the lawn. Transplanting the dog into a new background or changing the background into another scene would probably make the image look "Photoshopped", as it can sometimes be difficult to get fur and hair to look natural and not ragged when doing such a thing. Sango123 22:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - It's a good photo, and one of the better dog photos I've seen.--Silversmith 23:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:American Eskimo Dog.jpg +7 / -3 -- Solipsist 06:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it illustrates the lens very well. Looks nice, very deatailed. Used in Depth of field, # F-number, and Prime lens. Created by MarkSweep. - WB 23:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - WB 23:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. That's a very nice, clear, useful, and attractive piece of studio photography. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very deserving of FP status - Adrian Pingstone 16:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - excellent. -- Solipsist 06:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clear, attractive, informative. Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support We need more good technical pics -- Chris 73 Talk 10:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice. — Chameleon 20:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great detail and clarity. --Silversmith 23:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, outstanding. —Korath (Talk) 23:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great detail, very useful as an illustration for various photography topics. Alight 20:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:Lens_aperture_side.jpg +11 / 0 BrokenSegue 02:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]