Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2010

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.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 02:57:34 (UTC)

Reason

It is a good picture. It is featured on Commons and German and Turkish wikipedias also it came in 3rd place for 2009 picture of the Year so alot of people thought it was good

Articles in which this image appears

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (Moscow), Honor Guard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

MC1 Chad J. McNeeley, USN

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a nice photo, BUT... (a) it focuses on a single soldier who afawk is not notable (minor point), (b) DOF is so shallow as to make location unrecognisable, therefore (c) greatest EV seems to be for the uniform, but nothing is said about it, and (d) even the uniform is not shown in full (counter-example with bland composition but more complete view of uniform); also, (e) in reality, the uniform seems to be a bit more blue (another example). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Has no EV to the tomb as does not show the tomb... Shows guards, and in particular this one guard... Has no other relevance than co-incidence that this was taken there (if it was - we have no proof from this photograph of course that it actually was)... I would even go as far as to suggest speedy close but will understand if no-one else agrees with that request... gazhiley.co.uk 10:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would have EV in Honor guard#Russia if there were such a section, which there could be along the lines of the other countries noted in the article. Chick Bowen 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I could go for that, but then I'd argue that it's too arty a shot and doesn't show enough of the guard to give full EV - a full length portrait would be better... gazhiley.co.uk 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought of that article, too - there is a very Monty Python-esque image there of the Kremlin guard that could do with replacing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent suggestion. I have updated the photo in the Honor guard article. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. Short of the main subject (the chap second from the right) or the photographer being notable, I really don't see how this could have the EV necessary. It's a very nice picture, but far better suited to Commons FPC than here. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Limited depth of field. Spencer^T♦C 22:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC
• Support - I agree that this photo does not have very high EV in the context of Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, but it is an excellent illustration of an honor guard. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howso? Surely, a picture showing the full uniform would be far better... Not to mention the fact there isn't actually a single mention of Russian honor guards in the (already heavy illustrated) article. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a good illustration of soldiers standing in formation at a formal state ceremony. Contra Spencer, the shallow DoF serves to emphasize the length of the honor guard. I agree that a similar picture which showed the full uniform would be better to document the dress uniform, but I don't think that's the only thing that gives a photo of an honor guard encyclopedic value. Frankly, I think this is a better photo of an honor guard than most of the pictures already on the article, many of which are poorly composed, off center, low resolution, and in some cases do not even appear to be of an honor guard. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this image, although with an angled composition, is a smidgen better (imagine the traffic light switched off and a crop from the right) - certainly when you consider encyclopedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak EV as it doesn't show anything but a line of heads Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Clearly no EV. Great for Commons, but not here. upstateNYer 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2010 at 14:01:57 (UTC)

Reason

An impressive picture of an exceptional event, on October 2, 2007 in Gwalior, India.

Articles in which this image appears

Janadesh 2007, Ekta Parishad, Rajagopal P. V.‎, Public speaking

FP category for this image

People/Political

Creator

Ekta Parishad

• Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the subject is hard to identify facing in that direction. Foldedwater (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the subject if the crowd ready to walk 350 km to Delhi. It is so obvious that you can't have the speaker's face and the public at the same time. Yann (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a photo of him taken of the back of his head... gazhiley.co.uk 09:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canceling my oppose above since the setting has been changed as well. Now is not a picture of a man but a picture of that movement and that meeting and in that case that is maybe a good picture. When I voted it was presented as a picture of the man and for that it is certainly not a good one. Foldedwater (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not really getting this, could we perhaps have some further explanation? Surely the highest EV would be in Janadesh 2007, but you haven't mentioned that? J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, right. I added this. Yann (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Foldedwater -- mcshadypl ^TC 02:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose perhaps VP-worthy. Nergaal (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Hard to see the EV here for any of the articles where the image is used. You can't see the speaker's face so none there. You can't tell anything about what Ekta Parishad stands for or its history. It gives a vague idea how many people attended Janadesh 2007 but nothing about its significance. The only thing that tells you the picture is noteworthy is the caption.--RDBury (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just added this to Public speaking, if that makes a difference for anyone's !vote. I'm not really convinced it's feature-worthy, but this improves its EV. (Though there might be other, better public speaking photos floating around elsewhere.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 07:22:30 (UTC)

Reason

Was unanimously supported last time, but stayed 1.5 supports short of the minimum. According to earlier nominator Adam Cuerden, this lithograph demonstrates a very advanced technique that results in the fading of more distant objects.

Articles in which this image appears

Lithography, Charles Marion Russell, Battle of Little Bighorn

FP category for this image

Artwork/Others

Creator

Charles Marion Russell

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the use in lithography. J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: ooh, interesting! This is a great example of lithography, and adds plenty of EV to Battle of the Little Bighorn. No real technical squabbles from my admittedly shallow depth of digital imagery experience. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The EV for Battle of the Little Bighorn seems very weak as the horses and riders in the front centre overlap so severely that it appears that they're occupying the same bit of ground! As a result, this is not an accurate depiction of the battle. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the BoLBH EV is minimal; I was supporting (and I get the impression PLW was nominating) for the EV in lithograph. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I was following Adam's lead; the instructions do say most to least EV, so it would imply most in lithograph and least in battle of LB. I think we're meant to give a full list of articles where the image is transcluded. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happened to look over this page today. I'm still mostly retired though - my new work's been going up on my DeviantArt account. It's in the section on The Battle of Little Bighorn in art. If the article didn't have that section, I wouldn't have put it in. Also, may as well Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cowtowner (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Spongie555 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Charles Marion Russell - The Custer Fight (1903).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 03:51:43 (UTC)

Reason

A cool image that accurately portrays the subject. Previous nomination here didn't garner enough votes.

Articles in which this image appears

Pyrite

FP category for this image

Sciences/Geology

Creator

Noodle Snacks

• Support as nominator --WiiWillieWiki 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Existing Pyrite FPC. Spencer^T♦C 04:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's not actually used in the article, and wasn't at the the time of nomination. Featured pictures are promoted because of their contributions to articles, not merely on their own merits. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. I've replaced the lead image in the article with this one, because in my opinion this does a better job of illustrating the subject. WiiWillieWiki 15:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, I agree with this replacement. The previous image is essentially the same type of picture, except it is cut-off, has random stuff in the background, and is of lower quality. Spencer^T♦C 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can the nominator do what he did by making it lead image? Spongie555 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything really stopping them... Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 07:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is the free encyclopedia. Cowtowner (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sad oppose It is already featured, and honestly, the current FP is soooo cooool. Nergaal (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a valid reason to oppose. We have featured pictures of animals from the same species. Suggesting that these two images are too similar to both be featured would be mistaken. They show different ways the crystals can form. Suggesting that minerals all look the same is akin to suggesting that all animals of one species are identical. Both cases are naive. For the record, support Cowtowner (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The back half of the image is out-of-focus. User:Rmhermen (who has lost his tilde key)
• Oppose, sorry. This is not the best photograph, and it's not exactly a rare material. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2S, 4O

Not promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 03:59:17 (UTC)

Reason

Very good quality image of him. Taken by famous photographer Mathew Brady

Articles in which this image appears

Rutherford B. Hayes, List of Governors of Ohio, Electoral Commission (United States), List of American Civil War generals, 1876 Republican National Convention

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Mathew Brady

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great quality photograph. Meets all criteria. - Darwinek (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with questions on FPC standards. Reagan is dead and his official portrait is featured. Obama is alive and his official portrait was shot down but is a Valued pic, while we feature this far lower quality, far less-well lit picture simply because it's "real". If we're going to feature this lets just get it over with and feature all 38 dead presidential portraits (43 unique presidents by not counting Cleveland twice, minus Carter/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama). High quality photographs that perfectly display the subject are, in my opinion, of featured quality regardless of being staged or not. And if they're dead (like Reagan) you can't make the "but we could get a better quality 'real' photo" that seems to have been made with Obama. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is an edit, if that means anything to you. upstateNYer 00:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a side note: There are only 38 presidents who have taken a picture the other have paintings(even thought i know you dont mean picture). Just something to know. Spongie555 (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a superior photograph to the Obama official portrait. The Obama picture cuts off his shoulder in an awkward way (in order to give more prominence to the flag, which might add to the picture's political value but not its aesthetic or historical value); this one is better composed. This is why we consider individual photographs separately, rather than in batches. Support. Chick Bowen 22:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems to be about as good as can be expected for its age. High EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I'll support too. upstateNYer 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:President Rutherford Hayes 1870 - 1880.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 03:25:26 (UTC)

Reason

It shows a F-16 for the Solo Display Team in flight beacuse Solo Display Team is famous for aeroacrobatics. It was featured on Commons,Spanish,Polish,Turkish wikipedias. Its also a Quality and valued image on commons

Articles in which this image appears

Solo Display Team

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Airwolf

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful machine. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: doesn't get much prettier than that. Dig the livery, no obvious technical issues, appropriate scope, reasonable EV, good visual depiction of a F-16. bahamut0013^words_deeds 09:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upstateNYer 00:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pile-on... Great shot... gazhiley.co.uk 10:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not seeing this one at all. EV isn't great: one plane a team does not make. Quality is below standards too: significant motion blur and noise. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what. One plane does make a team... sometimes. Like in this case. That's why they call it solo display team. (air)Wolf (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but the article says it has three parts: "The F-16 Solo Display Team uses the fighter jet F-16, the PC-7 Solo Display Team flies the low-wing tandem-seat training aircraft Pilatus PC-7 and the Apache Solo Display Team uses the helicopter AH-64 Apache." I don't see the particular advantage in showing one over the other. It's the case of good EV vs. exceptional EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not really three parts. It's three independent teams, just all with the common denominator of solo display. I'm fairly sure they never appear in the air together. (air)Wolf (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009 b.JPG --Jujutacular ^talk 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 18:15:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, focus, lighting.

Articles in which this image appears

Zebra

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support great lighting, illustrative --Ikiwaner (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Zebra is a bit small in the frame, but the background is illustrative too in this case imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And what Noodle snacks said. Maedin\^talk 06:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A vote for striped animals:). Actually, this is a good shot of animals in nature.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Group behaviour as well as details of an individual zebra illustrated. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Plains Zebra Equus quagga.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 00:34:48 (UTC)

Reason

an another fine chemical element image

Articles in which this image appears

Rhenium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice sharpness, very educational. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, of course. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and enc. Spencer^T♦C 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I want all photos to be this sharp. Now. Do it. --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This picture was taken in a controlled environment. Unfortunately the same can not be for all the pictures. --Muhammad(talk) 05:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image was made via focus stacking software from 12x single images. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we want more! Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Foldedwater (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rhenium_single_crystal_bar_and_1cm3_cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 19:49:07 (UTC)

Reason

nice metalic view

Articles in which this image appears

Cobalt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jealous of the 5D mark II. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support damn good and jealous :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 18:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I'm not a photo nut and even I'm jealous of that camera. --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we want more! Nergaal (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it needs a better caption. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change or complete it. I'm only a "basic level of English" speaker. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am starting to think these are computer generated graphics. But I will start complaining when you come with elements with more than a hundred protons. :p Foldedwater (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I agree with Nergaal about the caption. I consider myself an enthusiastic amateur on the topic of elemental physics, I read the article on Cobalt, and I'm still not sure what "third (fourth) magnetic metals" means. Perhaps a brief mention of the historical use of cobalt compounds as pigments would be more appropriate? Xtifr _tälk 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it means "One of the three (four) ferromagnetic elements". Just my guess. --Priest zadok (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More simple: magnetic metals. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kobalt electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg —Maedin\^talk 19:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 04:32:30 (UTC)

Reason

Fascinating, high EV value. While under the resolution threshold, it should be ok for an animation.

Articles in which this image appears

Geologic time scale, Plate tectonics, Geological history of Earth, Plate reconstruction

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology

Creator

Eveilaje

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Absolutely morally support this. I was actually thinking last night that we need something like this as FP. Very elementary and important. However, this version doesn't do it for me. I think it would be great if someone could just smoothen it by inserting extra intermediate frames. Morphing can probably do this. Make sure to note which frames are real data and which interpolated, perhaps by inserting pauses and displaying the corresponding time before present. Speed in the end product should probably be linear, except for the aforementioned pauses. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the intermediate frames are killing it for me. If it was more motion and less of that, I'd like that. --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ideally yes, but I don't know if we have the frames to create a more smooth motion. Nergaal (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Frames can be extracted from gif. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the part when you say that about "frames that are real data" :) In what sense some of them are real? Foldedwater (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on actual scientific research, aiming for an authentic reconstruction of past conditions; morphing, by contrast, will only do linear interpolation (or some more sophisticated 2D manipulation). Morphing cannot take into account plate tectonics, that would be *way* more advanced. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose currently, per the concerns mentioned by PLW. Jujutacular ^talk 01:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Needs to be smoother... gazhiley.co.uk 10:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above. Kaldari (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 22:34:29 (UTC)

Reason

This is an interesting photograph taken from the guided missile cruiser USS Yorktown (CG-48) showing the Soviet Krivak I class guided missile frigate Bezzavetny (FFG 811) impacting the guided missile cruiser USS Yorktown (CG-48) as the American ship exercises the right of free passage through the Soviet-claimed 12-mile territorial waters. This collision has been called "the last incident of the Cold War."

Articles in which this image appears

USS Yorktown (CG-48), Burevestnik class frigate

FP category for this image

War

Creator

United States Navy

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That's pretty cool, actually. upstateNYer 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: interesting, high EV (as an image of a significant event in the history of the Yorktown and the only image available for the Brezzaventry), no technical squabbles, and good overall image. It's amazing how well this came out, given the circumstances of the collision. It's kinda wierd... I was just looking at this a few days ago and thinking how cool of a photo this was (Tom, stop reading my mind!!!!). bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support, exceptional EV, and a dynamic image. Just one problem: Can the caption please say where this took place? Soviet-claimed waters was a large chunk of planet. Also, when. --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article doesn't say, but this video of the incident claims the bumping took place in the black sea. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would be interesting to see a script for that video... Just couldn't quite understand it myself... But thanks for the link... gazhiley.co.uk 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow... ballsy; bet that helmsman had nerves of steel. Anyone ever heard that joke about the red shirt and the brown pants? bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Courcelles 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support gazhiley.co.uk 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:USS Yorktown collision.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 00:35:44 (UTC)

Reason

The historical value of the image is irreplaceable. It is a very strikingly taken portrait, as well as being of a high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Declaration of war by the United States, National Recording Registry, Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Veteran Corps of Artillery of the State of New York

FP category for this image

History/USA History

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the related File:Franklin Roosevelt signing declaration of war against Germany.jpg is of much higher quality. Maybe the crop is impossible to fix, but the image needs some restoration (contrast or something) before it can be considered among wikipedia's best work. Nergaal (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very strong EV, but the quality of this reproduction is poor. Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nergaal. The other image works much better for all articles except Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor (though I suppose the argument could be made if one were inclined to play Devil's Advocate). Regardless, the quality difference between the two is telling. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 11:14:12 (UTC)

Reason

high EV, nice lighting, face expression, high res

Articles in which this image appears

African buffalo, Horn

FP category for this image

Mammals

Creator

Ikiwaner (talk)

• Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate Oppose Should really be the whole animal to have enough EV for me... From this I can see what the animal looks like from the shoulder upwards (and how cute?!) but not the whole animal... And for that reason, I'm out... gazhiley.co.uk 20:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past it has not been a requirement for FPs to show the whole animal. See File:MC_Drei-Finger-Faultier.jpg, File:Giraffe_feeding,_Tanzania.jpg, File:Zebra_portrait.jpg or File:Hereford_Calf_Portrait,_SC,_Vic,_13.10.2007_edit.jpg. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two were promoted for showing a behaviour (feeding), and the last one is from 2007 and could plausibly be revisited. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the case for those noms, and thank you for the work you have done to find that... However my opinion is my opinion - I personally would like to see the whole animal if the image is representing the whole animal... How many noms are there that are rejected for not showing full animal though? Just curious... gazhiley.co.uk 13:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, sorry, not seeing the EV- could you explain? This is not suitable as a "this is what they look like" picture as above, and so, unless there's a pressing need for a portrait... In any case, the forground grass is rather distracting. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the back half of the animal is not shown. Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added image to horn and expanded the section in the article to accommodate the image. --Muhammad(talk) 05:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info Correct link is Horn (anatomy). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and IMO good Ev as well since it shows both the sexes possessing horns --Muhammad(talk) 05:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't identify the sexes in this image, maybe someone can tell me how, since the genitals are not visible. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The dried grass in front of the buffalos is distracting. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per the above. Also, the fact that the subjects are staring into the camera is a bit disconcerting; in a picture of an animal in the wild the subject should be seen going about its normal business, not warily eying the photographer.--RDBury (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per Redtigerxyz. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 02:45:12 (UTC)

Reason

This is a sharp image of a historic building with high EV in its primary use.

Articles in which this image appears

Wheeler-Kohn House
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
List of Chicago Landmarks

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Joe M500

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- looks like it could do with some perspective correction, plus there is quite noticeable chromatic aberration in some places, particularly along the left edge of the house. I don't know whether it's possible to fix the latter in JPEGs. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just trying to think of the word for the angles - perspective... Not keen on the angles in this - notably the road is flat on the left, then suddenly angles up once you pass the doorstep... Plus the whole house looks like it's leaping in fear! Otherwise a decent nom... The main article should be expanded though - there is nothing mentioned in it as to why this is on the register of historic places or what's special about this specific building... gazhiley.co.uk 07:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The curvature of the road might be due to lens distortion, which is different to Perspective distortion. Both are potentially fixable, but I don't know how to do so in this case. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the clarification... :-) gazhiley.co.uk 10:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The time of day is slightly suboptimal. Lots of lens and perspective distortion problems. Can't help but wonder if the car park behind would have been a better vantage point too. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the building on the left is just too distracting. Try to get a better perspective. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should be possible to add some geographic data to this, since it's a known address. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think the building on the left dominates the house, rather I think the photo is taken from an interesting angle. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 15:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Pretty much what NS said; for me the distortion is more of a drawback than the lighting. Doesn't seem a difficult subject, though, should be fairly straightforward to improve on this? Maedin\^talk 06:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 S, 3 O

Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 10:11:35 (UTC)

Reason

We have a FP of a single warthog which is very good but IMO this image adds to EV as well since it shows that warthogs usually appear in groups. The water body behind is also a plus point and the wet recently bathed warthog adds to the image.

Articles in which this image appears

Warthog

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. Would you consider a bit of a crop at the bottom? Foldedwater (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: A nice enough picture, but I'm really not seeing the EV. Ok, it shows a group of them rather than one, and it may show a wet one, but as a comparison- would we promote a picture of a single mushroom, and a picture of a group of them? No, I don't think so. Seems to be just another image (and by no means an important one) in an over-illustrated article. I doubt it would remain if someone did some serious work on the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A close-up image of a single warthog shows the animals more than the surroundings and habitat. While that is no doubt important, IMO a good view of the habitat is also important but unfortunately both of these can not be completely shown in a single picture. Consider a close-up view of a single bee and another of a colony, or a single wildebeest and another of a herd of thousands. Wouldn't you say both images have sufficient EV for the article? --Muhammad(talk) 04:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The scattered group of Warthogs must be occupying less than 25% area in the photo. The features of none of them are clearly visible. Questionable EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2S, 2O

Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 07:11:06 (UTC)

Reason

a view of a typical (electrolytically refined) nickel nodule, incl. visible green nickel salts in the pores. (and Nergaals wish for more)

Articles in which this image appears

Nickel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Golbez (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the image, but I really don't get the caption. Also, specify in the description that the salts are the green ones. Nergaal (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to change or complete it. I'm only a "basic level of English" speaker. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nickel_electrolytic_and_1cm3_cube.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 23:11:34 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and encyclopedic value

Articles in which this image appears

Noctilucent clouds

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics

Creator

Martin Koitmäe

• Support as nominator --K731 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I'm sure this is a great representation of the cloud type and it's quite pretty but it's too dark for me to give it a full support... I know this might result in someone pointing out that it needs to be dark to capture this effect, but it still is too dark for me to give full support to sorry... gazhiley.co.uk 08:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in the thumbnail I thought there were artifacts but in full size I saw those were stars. Those are stars right? I find it of very good quality. Foldedwater (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not seeing the EV. What's this adding that the lead image hasn't already shown? J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead image has rather low resolution compared to this one and focuses more on the 'scenery' than the clouds. K731 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this one does a better job of being the lead, it should, y'know, be the lead. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead image is just gorgeous and is a portrait instead of a landscape. There could be more reasons for being in the lead than being feature worthy. Foldedwater (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then, like I say, where's the EV in this one? J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be concerned with criteria 5: Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. I don't really see any problems with that - the image is used in the article and helps readers to understand the phenomenon. What I can't understand is that how come all the encyclopedic value is reserved to the lead image. I don't think that the same criteria can be used to judge the encyclopedic value of different types of images: there could possibly be a number of featured images of, say Fridtjof Nansen, a very notable person, but speaking of noctilucent clouds - all the images of the subject will inherently look pretty much the same. Sure, the composition and artistic value can vary a lot, but you can't have ten completely different images with huge encyclopedic value, which is possible with Nansen. So, how can you say that the second image doesn't add anything 'that the lead image hasn't already shown' , when you could also say it the other way around? Composition wise the current lead image probably fits the infobox better, but that doesn't mean that the other images in the article are worthless (and the article definitely isn't crowded with images). Then it comes down to technical details - the nominated image has 7.7 MP and is of good technical quality, the current lead image is also of good quality but has mere 0.4 MP. K731 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Criterion 5 is my concern, yes. If this is the best illustration of the subject as a whole (as opposed to an illustration of a particular issue) then, I ask again, why is it not the lead image? It's pretty much redundant to the lead image, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support high EV, high quality. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done, beautiful picture. Cacophony (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, and I don't think this is the place to argue about image placement within the article. Sort that out on article talk please (if you must). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is not the placement in and of itself, the point is that it shows exactly the same thing as another image used more prominently. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the other image isn't eligible due to size, so I don't see how this affects FPC. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, to draw a comparison, you would be happy to support an image of a person that merely showed what they look like used in an article body when a similar image is used in the lead but "isn't eligible due to size"? I'd personally say it was fairly clear that the image in question had limited EV in that case, and I'm not sure I really see the difference here. Yes, images used in the article body will often have wonderful EV, but when they're redundant to the lead image... J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both of them have the same EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would a third portrait have the same EV? A fourth? J Milburn (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Correct. The EV of an image is not affected by where it appears in an arbitrary sequence. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So you would be quite happy to promote ten pictures of a person that all merely show what he or she looks like, as all "of them have the same EV"? J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've addressed that at 19:08 on the 4th, above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, you didn't, you said nothing about promoting ten pictures of a person. You just mentioned how another image used in noctilucent clouds is smaller than the nominated image. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But the present picture is actually a better depiction of the clouds than the current lead image is. I am going to switch them. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The ISS image has much better EV, since you can see how high they are in the atmosphere. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken with a 270mm analogue equivalent tele lens according to EXIF. I think that needs saying, otherwise, yes, they would seem very high. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that something that can be seen in the image (just the image alone)? If it is something that has to be computed from the metadata, from this one it can also be computed. From the latitude and date(time) you get how deep is the sun in the horizon, and with the diffraction of the atmosphere it tells you a lower bound for the altitude of the illuminated clouds. Foldedwater (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you mean the apparent altitude... and I think I agree with you. In this one they don't seem to be that high. Foldedwater (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Excellent shot. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Helkivad ööpilved Kuresoo kohal.jpg —Maedin\^talk 18:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 14:17:13 (UTC)

Reason

This is a unique depiction of a historic part of Chicago. It has high EV. This previously failed at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Chicago Michigan Avenue 1911 prior to restoration.

Articles in which this image appears

Michigan Avenue (Chicago)
Historic Michigan Boulevard District

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Copyright by Kaufmann, Weimer & Fabry Co, Chicago; restored by Smalljim (talk · contribs) at the Graphics Lab

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Slight oppose although it might have some EV, the curvature is really distracting. Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, tentatively, for its historical EV. There's bad curvature of field, but it's a century old panorama. How much are we expecting (or, can it be fixed?). Fletcher (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want rectangular projection, there's a limit on how wide your panorama can be. Wide panoramas always require some curving in order to be projected into a 2D plane. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since some found the original too distorted, I've created this version with less curvature. Of course there are compensatory distortions at the edges, and the foreshore had to go, but I don't think the distortion is too bad in this case.  —SMALLJIM  21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral but if anything I would prefer the original. The alt appears much better, but when zooming on the bottom right or left corners, an awful distortion becomes obvious. Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you could tilt the image ~2 degrees and crop it just above the rail tracks, the distortion might be way less obvious. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping above the rail tracks would not be beneficial to the project in terms of encyclopedic content. The trains going through the park is a part of the content that makes this image historical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think I'd stick with the original if the distortion can't be completely corrected. (My support !vote is above). Fletcher (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 18:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 15:59:45 (UTC)

Reason

Good resolution and detail, clearly reproduced colour pattern, encyclopaedic composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Siganus doliatus

FP category for this image

Animals/Fish

Creator

Leonard Low, Papa Lima Whiskey (edit)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• semi-weak support (about 3/4): tail seems a little blurry, but otherwise an outstanding pic. I thought there might be some issues with the head as well, but in full-scale (no pun intended), it looks fine. Xtifr _tälk 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• would a scale be necessary? Nergaal (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally, photographers would provide these, but some people oppose the late addition of a scale because there's often no reliable way of ascertaining exactly how big the fish was (there is a way to calculate this, but the necessary data is missing here). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not too sharp and lighting isn't great. —Pengo 02:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think following several discussions of marine images that have been nominated, there's now a basic acceptance of the necessity of flash for underwater photography beyond a few metres of depth. On sharpness, I would like to differ, too - there is surprising skin and scale detail. It may have looked like noise to you, but if you check especially near the anal fin, and at the base of the tail, you can see the photo shows up some well-magnified anatomical detail there. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no issue with using a flash. I use a flash for most of my photography. A flash doesn't make bad lighting. It's how it's used. As for the the lack of sharpness, it's around the edges that I noticed, e.g. the fins. It's probably motion blur actually, but if a flash is being used there's no excuse for motion blur. Perhaps if the exposure was longer to bring out the background there'd be a reason for motion blur, but the background is hardly visible. —Pengo 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Sorry, I don't think this one's quite there. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 12:15:48 (UTC)

Reason

The uncleaned version failed last month, after it was withdrawn, but some cleanup and lightening has been done by Smalljim (talk · contribs). EV as the lead image in a featured article is clear.

Articles in which this image appears

Fridtjof Nansen, others

FP category for this image

People/Others

Creator

George Grantham Bain Collection, restored by Smalljim (talk · contribs)

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support I think the lighter fold(?) at the top can be eliminated. I would try cloning first instead of cropping. Foldedwater (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Sir Richardson (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Striking photograph. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1: That's quite a portrait. Maedin\^talk 06:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fridtjof Nansen LOC 03377u-3.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 23:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 16:01:32 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful composition with great encyclopaedic detail.

Articles in which this image appears

Phyllorhiza punctata

FP category for this image

Animals/Others

Creator

Nick Hobgood

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Stunning. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Would the pic be better without the fish? Nergaal (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like an advanced marine biology question. The fish might be seeking protection, or might be nibbling (although that might kill it as it's likely vulnerable to the sting), so that would be encyclopaedic and biologically interesting. Even if the fish was just curious, it might still be interesting. I think I prefer the original for the "uh, what's this?" effect, but I'll add a cloned version in case there's a general preference for it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. It is not clear what is the fish doing (one could only guess) and it is distracting with it in. Nergaal (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: very cool and good EV. Prefer original—I think the fish adds interest to the environment/composition and is good for scale. Maedin\^talk 18:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt - the subject of the image is the jellyfish, not what role it has in the ecosystem, so I don't think the fish should be in this particular photo. Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. --Priest zadok (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Phyllorhiza punctata (White-spotted jellyfish) edit.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 16:03:59 (UTC)

Reason

Mesmerizing image that I think we're lucky to have. My favourite feature is that you can see inside its mouth - the mouth is where the arms meet.

Articles in which this image appears

Loliginidae, Cephalopod, bioluminescence

FP category for this image

Animals/Molluscs

Creator

Nick Hobgood

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not convinced about the EV here. The species does not seem to have been identified with certainty, and it's just another image in the family article. While it does lead the other article, I'm a little dubious about any kind of "automatic" EV for leading an article on such a high taxonomic rank- there are so many pictures that could lead, and would a collage not be better? J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was told that it can't be any other species, based on the geographical location. [2] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's right (see here). But where did the caption come from?! This species has nothing to do with bigfin squid. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I would be far more inclined to support if we had an article on the species. I'll write one myself (if I can find any sources) in the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We do have an article on the species: Bigfin reef squid. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cool pic. Nergaal (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice --Citron (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Squid are pretty cool, anyway, but seeing into the mouth of a glow in the dark one peering at you from the deep is even better. EV for the tentacles, mouth, and bioluminescence is good. Maedin\^talk 06:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good. --Priest zadok (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Squid komodo.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 00:37:32 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high EV depiction of a historic building

Articles in which this image appears

Dearborn Station
List of Chicago Landmarks
National Register of Historic Places listings

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

User:JeremyA

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose technically, I am not sure it is the best: the picture is fuzzy (just by looking at the clock), and the angle is not really the best (appears to be 60 degrees off the frontal direction, which to me is essentially a profile). Plus, the newspaper stands should probably be taken out of the picture. Nergaal (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Uneven lighting, doesn't seem quite sharp enough. Fletcher (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not sure the light is uneven so much as it's just the wrong time of day. It's a nice shot of the clock tower but it's difficult to see the front of the building in the shadow.--RDBury (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not the clearest of images. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 22:24:04 (UTC)

Reason

known and important metal

Articles in which this image appears

Zinc

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we want more! Nergaal (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question: what is the blue on the right piece? If you know try to write it in German on Commons and somebody will translate it. Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the small blue area is also a thin oxide film layer, similar to the bismuth crystal: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist-hp (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc compounds are colorless though. Nergaal (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is right, but please read: Interference (wave propagation). It is a thin layer property, similar to the bismuth colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful, I love the color on the rightmost sample. Meniscus (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Fletcher (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 15:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - wonderful! On a side note, I'd love to see how Alchemist might do one of the non-metallic elements, such as carbon or sulfur. Those ones definitely need better pictures. Ephemeronium (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's done bromine. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also chlorine. Anyways, for those interested what elements need better pictures check Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Pictures. Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zinc_fragment_sublimed_and_1cm3_cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 10:30:26 (UTC)

Reason

Commons FP that is typical of English Wikipedia FP standards. Used in taxobox.

Articles in which this image appears

Springbok

FP category for this image

Animals/Mammals

Creator

Hans Hillewaert

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The zebra on the top left looks orangish --Muhammad(talk) 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that's a dirty zebra. Compare with this dirty zebra. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good quality and ev. lighting not as I would have preferred but I understand the limitations of working in the wild --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nergaal (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. J Milburn (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I find the background a bit distracting and hence the half-support. Otherwise very good, imo. --Priest zadok (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Antidorcas marsupialis 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 11:16:04 (UTC)

Reason

Same technical standard as other similar images recently featured. Already featured on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Melo aethiopica

FP category for this image

Animals/Molluscs

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was going to nominate this myself until I saw its placement in the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can be co-nominator - I don't mind. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not what I was meaning- I was meaning the EV is not so clear due to the fact the article is overillustrated. Personally, I'd say remove the two other images and lob this in the infobox. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great. I would have put the two last in a different row since the views separate naturally in two groups. Foldedwater (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great EV. Nergaal (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Hopefully we expand the article with more than pictures though) —Pengo 02:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Melo_aethiopica_001.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 23:25:24 (UTC)

Reason

I think the image meets technical and encyclopedic value criteria as it depicts a significant landmark

Articles in which this image appears

Wadi Rum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Tomobe03

• Support as nominator --Tomobe03 (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure A very pretty picture, if there ever was one. However, I have two concerns—firstly, is the horizon meant to be straight, because its tilted at the moment and it doesn't look right. Secondly, I'm not at all happy with the tracks (tyres, I assume) at the bottom of the image, which are unnatural. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 13:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps it would be better to crop the part of the picture where the tracks are?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• On the second thought: if the tracks were removed, would that make the photo acceptable?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would certainly be more inclined to support, although if you cut out the sand at the bottom, the photo would be uneven and so the sky would have to be cut off too, only that would be a waste of such a pretty day. A panorama (i.e. with the tracks and sky cropped off) might look ok, but I'm not entirely sure. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 3 Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume you mean the third image from the top, i.e. edit 2 - there is no edit 3 at this point. Right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, yes, silly me. You are correct, I mean the panorama. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 15:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 3/4 support to edit 2 - full support if LHS of rock were better lit/exposed/HDRed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And nothing wrong with tyre tracks, no. I just think edit 1 has a bit too much sky - a different crop might be possible, without removing the tracks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either edit. I don't see anything wrong with tyre tracks. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only alt 2. Nergaal (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 2 only, weak due to lighting of LHS. The tracks in the other versions are too distracting for me. --Avenue (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Seven Pillars 2008 e5.jpg —Maedin\^talk 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 10:17:11 (UTC)

Reason

Feaured on Commons, has good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Apatura

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Comment The Emperors Butterflies (Apatura genus) often eat a moisture from unusual sources: rotten fruit, wet clay and even a dead frog. It is feature of emperors butterflies. This photo show Purple Emperors (Apatura iris) (has wing with a white triangle strip) and Lesser Purple Emperors (Apatura ilia) (has beige wing).
• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is an amazing picture but I feel it is not used to its full potential in the current article. Does the taking of moisture have some scientific term/article? --Muhammad(talk) 11:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only feeding in this case --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drinking. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes! Double whiskey frog :) But for a butterflies drinking = feeding --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is anybody else actually seeing the frog? I see something dark, but at no point does it look like a frog. (I'm not asking if there is a frog, I'm asking if you can see in the photograph that it is a frog.) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see a frog, no. And even though I can see those yellow straws?/tongues?/whatevers, if I didn't already know that they were feeding I wouldn't realise that's what they're doing, here. Nor is it clear that they're eating "moisture", although I suppose this can be assumed because of the species. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry. A very, very interesting picture, and I can see it having great EV, but it just doesn't seem to right now. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 12:24:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV and resolution. Previously nominated here where it was closed without any consensus. It has been stable in the articles for over 5 months now and since this is a young one, there is room in the article for the adult and the young. Picture was taken in the wild.

Articles in which this image appears

Sambar (deer), Rusa (genus), Deer

FP category for this image

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think they're both adult. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I supported last time. It wasn't mentioned in the last nomination that this is a juvenile, though; what's the basis for saying it is? Maedin\^talk 11:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was one user who opposed the image and changed it in the article to read juvenile. I assumed he had better knowledge than me so I borrowed that from the article --Muhammad(talk) 12:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, this really isn't screaming FP at me. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 01:42:08 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution image, is accurate, adds to the article, good caption on article. No digital manipulation.

Articles in which this image appears

Sydney Harbour Bridge, Port Jackson, Kirribilli House, Cockatoo Island (New South Wales), Kirribilli, New South Wales, Garden Island, New South Wales, Bennelong Point, New South Wales, Goat Island (Port Jackson), Fort Denison, Shark Island (Port Jackson), Rodd Island, Spectacle Island (Port Jackson), Snapper Island (New South Wales), Clark Island (New South Wales), Going to Australia, Berry Island, New South Wales, Glebe Island, Congestion pricing

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Grillo

• Support as nominator --—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:42pm • 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way out of focus. — raekyt 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Image quality not up to scratch. Good composition though, I'd love to get a similar shot. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate oppose A very nice angle on Sydney Harbour Bridge and the surrounding area, but as mentioned above, the image is awfully out of focus. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 13:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a FYI. It's not out of focus, that's just the normal image quality of the camera used. It's a 10 year old 2 megapixel Kodak camera. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, though it's a shame it's not up to modern standards as it's a great angle... gazhiley.co.uk 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 06:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 01:56:16 (UTC)

Reason

Criteria meets

Articles in which this image appears

Rhodium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe that the main reason Alchemist has not nominated this yet is the reflection on the right sphere. Nergaal (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt 2 Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a reflective sphere will always have a reflection of the camera. It doesn't detract that much. —Pengo 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The least, the reflection should be cropped out somehow. Anyways, I am curious if Alchemist has anything to say about possibly getting a better picture. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) ... perhaps in the future ... My next images: manganum and cadmium. And then ... all the other stable elements. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I like this picture, it nicely shows what the material looks like. To address the above concerns about the reflection, I have created a new edit with the reflection removed. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better. Could I ask you a small favor though? Could you also remove the yellow reflection from the background glass (leave the shadow though)? That reflection is also a bit distracting and is not really related to the material pictured. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I also mitigated chromatic aberrations since I noticed some cyan-red fringing. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for "alternate 2". Good work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC) P.S: If OK, then I'd like to upload the "alternate 2" over my original.[reply]

Of course it's OK, go ahead and upload it over your original. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info: the "edit2" version is now uploaded over my original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist-hp (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt 2 per above. Spencer^T♦C 04:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rhodium powder pressed melted.jpg —Maedin\^talk 06:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 02:04:15 (UTC)

Reason

Criteria meets

Articles in which this image appears

Hafnium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Van Arkel-de Boer process" or "van Arkel-de Boer" or Van Arkel-De Boer" but not Van-Arkel-de-Boer" in English. Rmhermen (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (I've fixed the caption also). Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not the same standard as some of the others, but it's got a scale and high enough res, so definitely encyclopedic. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and enc. Spencer^T♦C 04:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• <5 supports. Jujutacular ^talk 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 03:50:22 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev as its the lead image. Good image of him

Articles in which this image appears

Warren G. Harding, 1921 in the United States, Treaty of Bucareli

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Harris & Ewing

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there are some compression artifacts (particularly visible in the darker parts). Is there an uncompressed or higher quality version available? --KFP (contact | edits) 17:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOC has two high-resolution .tif files here. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at the image on that website but I still think this one is better.The one on the website looks like it needs alittle resortation Spongie555 (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The crop of this image looks quite cramped. The LOC ones have some more space (although they also have some white patch in the upper left corner). --KFP (contact | edits) 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ya that what i noticed about the LOC one. There are alot of White patches on the LOC one. This one looks liked someone did some restoration. Spongie555 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Good picture and important to articles, but I agree with the comments about tight cropping and artifacts. In my mind these issues prevent the image from being FP, especially since there are so many other early century B&W portrait photographs without these problems. Scewing (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 06:19:04 (UTC)

Reason

Best image of the Opera House. Full view of the Opera House from the side, high quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Sydney Opera House, Pritzker Prize, Peter Rice, List of official openings by Elizabeth II in Australia

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:19pm • 06:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info Existing FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are acceptable tho yeah? gazhiley.co.uk 09:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Can anyone explain why it suddenly loses focus on the left side? The whole picture is in focus and then it suddenly blurs... And it's a flat wall from what I remember so I can't think of why it would suddenly lose focus... gazhiley.co.uk 09:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not a fan of the composition, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as J Milburn. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 15:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noise, sharpness problems, not really interesting composition. This has got to be one of the most photographed buildings in Australia so an FP needs to be something special. It's not in the same league as the existing FP. Fletcher (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn and Fletcher. --Avenue (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Sydney Opera House is an iconic structure that is one of the most photographed buildings in the entire planet. This particular shot is distinctly inferior compared to most we’ve all seen. It’s hard to believe there aren’t much better ones on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 23:14:48 (UTC)

Reason

Good picture, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Ctjf83

• Support as nominator --CTJF83 chat 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image is a bit noisy and not very sharp. Angle of photo could be better, closer to perpendicular or further away would be better. Also, the time of day could be chosen better (lighting issues). Jujutacular ^talk 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific for future pics. CTJF83 chat 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • About time of day? Depending on what direction the photo is taken from, you either want to take it closer to sunrise or sunset. Taking it near midday makes the lighting very harsh. Jujutacular ^talk 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and what kind of "noise" are you talking about? CTJF83 chat 11:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • See image noise. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My understanding (and I may be slightly wrong here) is in simple terms the level of detail... "Noise" is shown on this picture as almost a blurred effect on the bushes and the stones... They are not sharp enough to give full crisp detail and just come across as "fuzzy" as such... Not massively technical, but compare this picture at full zoom to plenty of the Building FP's and you will see a remarkably higher level of detail... gazhiley.co.uk 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above noise issues... But framing is poor as well - building is not centre in the picture, and also is leaning... gazhiley.co.uk 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That can be cropped. CTJF83 chat 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • True... But until it is cropped, I still oppose... And I wouldn't bother because of all the other issues... gazhiley.co.uk 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would this meet Valued Picture criteria? CTJF83 chat 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ya it looks like it meets valued picture criteria. Spongie555 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image quality is really too inferior. Lighting is very bad indeed; the building itself is underexposed due to the bright sky behind it, and details are difficult to discern. Image is not sharp. Composition is also quite bad. The angle is exceedingly awkward. Building is to the side -- and cropping would make the picture framed way too tightly. If possible, this picture should be taken with a more decent camera at a better time of day with a longer focal length at a better angle. Nice building, though. The architecture is not bad. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 08:15:03 (UTC)

Reason

This bridge is a Chicago Landmark and this is a high quality image. Taken from the west it compliments the WP:VPICS that was just promoted from the east with the bridge raised

Articles in which this image appears

Michigan Avenue Bridge

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

User:JeremyA

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image quality is degraded in darker areas, which sadly are the main subject of the picture. Looking around the truss structure one can see noise and even posterization. The composition is ok, but a bit mundane (mundane subjects are ok, but IMO there is a greater burden to be technically perfect). If the same picture could be taken with the bridge drawn up it would be pretty cool. Fletcher (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Fletcher. It looks like a tight, cropped, face-on composition rich in rectangles. I’m not seeing how this is fine photography. Oh, BTW, I’m here in Chicago for two more weeks. Maybe I’ll see Sir Tiger. I’m staying in a B&B in the Bridgeport area. E-mail me; I’ll buy you lunch. Maybe we can use your camera and try to take a better picture of Wolf Point at night that doesn’t make others feint dead away because of rich, stunning colors. Greg L (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: but mostly because the bridge is so dark. It's hard to make out the structure of it; I would be more forgiving of that if it weren't the subject of the composition. Better lighting needed. Maedin\^talk 11:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 14:32:25 (UTC)

Reason

I think it meets the FPC criteria as its an unique image of a type of ship no longer in production. The six aircraft parked on the flight deck shows just how small these ships were.

Articles in which this image appears

HMS Avenger (D14), Avenger class escort carrier, List of escort aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures#Vehicles

Creator

Tokyotown8

• Support as nominator --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the picture needs some color correction or something (too much pink in the bakground). Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose for now. Concur with Nergaal's point, and it's not really eligible, size-wise. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Papa and Nergaal. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 07:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, just too small. This would be the perfect candidate for VPC (or what I wish VPC was). J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support: size is not a problem for me, but that hue is odd. I would support if the color is corrected. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I think that this picture has excellent encyclopedic value. It is a pity that the image size is so small. But I did what I could to correct the colour and adjust the black point and white point of the image in Alternate. I also sharpened the image slightly to bring out the details. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both... Sorry Purpy Pupple, but in your alt there is now a lot of what I think it called jpeg artifacting (lots of large pixels rather than a smooth image) but might be wrong in what it's called... The waves around the ship are now in lines of pixels... And the orig I oppose to for the colouring... gazhiley.co.uk 23:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I saved my version in the highest quality possible using Adobe Photoshop, the jpeg artifacts must have come from the original image then. Oh well. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 0.9 support for alt a picture from the profile of the ship would be ideal but this is quite ok. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative, this is a significant improvement. (air)Wolf (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the alt is a nicer image in technical terms, I'm concerned that it has much weaker EV - colour photos from the World War II era are fairly rare, and a colour photo of an escort carrier seems to have strong EV in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, on closer inspection I think that this was a black and white photo with a pink hue! As such I support the alternative Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose both. Nice historical photo, good EV, but small and tightly cropped below. --Avenue (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Great picture (valuable picture) but not FP on multiple gounds, as per above. BTW, I think the contrast and sharpening is a bit harsh on the alt - shadows under the wings look wrong. Doug (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 20:06:35 (UTC)

Reason

Very similar to lots of images that we've featured, especially on marine life.

Articles in which this image appears

Tripneustes ventricosus

FP category for this image

Animals/Others

Creator

Nick Hobgood

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very detailed. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak support. Nice detail, would have my full support if the widespread minor CA was removed. --Avenue (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 - CA much reduced, thanks. --Avenue (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tripneustes ventricosus (West Indian Sea Egg) edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 08:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 05:32:24 (UTC)

Reason

High ev as lead image in main article. Its a good picture of the planet considering it is the farthest planet(pluto not planet anymore). This image was taken in 1986 just so people know its a little older

Articles in which this image appears

Uranus, etc... (lots)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 07:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh there is nothing exceptional about this image. It looks like it could almost as easily been a blue sphere made in photoshop by a medium-skilled editor. Yes it is probably the original picture people have seen of Uranus, but this original doesn't really show anything of value. Nergaal (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, File:Neptune Full.jpg shows many features. Nergaal (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus has less surface features than Neptune, that is why this image doesn't have any surface features visible! As I understand it the features on Uranus are visible in the near infrared, you will never see much on a visible light image. - Zephyris _Talk 10:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an exert from the article about it, "In 1986, images from Voyager 2 showed Uranus as a virtually featureless planet in visible light without the cloud bands or storms associated with the other giants". Spongie555 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good EV and decent image quality seeing as it is captured by a probe in 1986. Shows exactly what Uranus looks like. Furthermore, this is, as far as I know, the only high resolution picture of Uranus that Wikipedia has. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uranus rings and moons.jpg Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It is a little "meh" and rather featureless, but I think that planets, like species, deserve to be considered "feature-worthy" no matter how dull, :) This is the best image we have and it's a good size, plus very widely used in article space. Maedin\^talk 11:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Purpy Pupple and Maedin. --Avenue (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Actually quite exceptional when you think about it. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Uranus2.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 20:28:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV. Though the quality appears fuzzy, this is what PETs look like.

Articles in which this image appears

Positron emission tomography, Scientific visualization, Fludeoxyglucose (18F), Full-body CT scan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

Damato

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, taking it on faith that this is of typical image quality for the genre, as you said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking around I could find this as an example of recent PET - it seems to have a similar resolution quality. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PET resolution on human-sized samples is typically 0.5-1.0 cm, this image is definately representative of the resolution you would expect to see. - Zephyris _Talk 10:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very interesting. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 12:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very detailed --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 00:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - oooh, colorful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pile on. Per above. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:PET-MIPS-anim.gif --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 01:54:40 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution of rare autograph partiture, Commons Featured Picture, adds significantly to two Chopin articles

Articles in which this image appears

Frédéric Chopin
Polonaise in A flat, Op. 53 (Chopin)

FP category for this image

History, Drawings

Creator

Frédéric Chopin

• Support as nominator --Scewing (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent scan, adds significant value to to the article. Jujutacular ^talk 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support enthusiastically. Really, really good and interesting. Maedin\^talk 11:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this is the kind of thing I love. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What? Oppose this is a good image BUT it needs some restoration before deserving the featured status. Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to list a few: remove yellow background, remove right and top edges that are from other pages, and perhaps remove the faded imprint from what looks like a page stored for a long time on the top of this one. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; this does not need restoration work. This is not like printed material or artwork that one would expect to find pristine and well-kept (because the assumption is that it was once in excellent condition and intended to remain so). For all we know, the paper he scribbled this piece on could well have been very similar to this at the time he composed it. Restoring it to make it look white, uncreased, unstained, etc would just be . . . wrong. It wouldn't be Chopin's polonaise anymore. It would be like featuring a handwritten letter by someone famous, but digitally removing the crease from where it had been folded in the envelope . . . why? That's part of the whole point. Maedin\^talk 17:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but what about cropping the pages in the background (top and right edges are consistent of pages that are not this one). Plus, I don't understand what is wrong with removing the yellow tint. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding removing the yellow tint, to remove the yellow tint would be like taking a photograph of a red coloured Ferrari and "adjusting the white balance" until the car appears grey and neutral. Simply wrong. The subject in question was this colour to begin with, and we should not alter that. However, if the yellow colour comes from, say, the scanner, rather than the original document, then of course we should correct for that (but that is not the case).Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. How about the edges? Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping to a straight line would really destroy the effect of the image. Plus the pages underneath that appear on some of the edges are not at all a problem in my opinion, why 'fix' them? In approaching any potential restoration, you must look at how much you can really change an image versus the reward you're getting from it. In this instance, it would be very difficult to get any sort of value back from digital manipulation. Jujutacular ^talk 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, absolutely. I agree with Maedin on the issue of restoration. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I'd say this belongs in Entertainment, rather than drawings or history. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and oppose any "restored" version. It is appropriate to retouch a photograph, poster, or print, which is an imperfect representation of an original. It is not appropriate to restore any original document, such as a painting or, in this case, a hand-written manuscript. This is an artifact of the past, and our obligation is to record the way it comes down to us, not try to resurrect (futilely) what it once might have looked like. Chick Bowen 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 20:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for only this original version. The yellow tint should not be removed, and neither should it be cropped. This polonaise is a triumph of human culture; I really like Chopin's music. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 more support to cancel out that oppose above. upstateNYer 00:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Chick Bowen. Very cool viewed full screen. Great find. Fletcher (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chopin polonaise Op. 53.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 21:30:05 (UTC)

Reason

Clear, detailed, high-quality illustration of the whole body of the culpeo. Also good for showing why it is sometimes hunted for its pelt. There are additional articles it could be in, but they are currently occupied by another FP, a close-up of the culpeo's muzzle: File:Pseudalopex culpaeus.jpg.

Articles in which this image appears

Culpeo, Salar de Uyuni

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Christian Mehlführer

• Support as nominator --Maedin\^talk 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since it is neither a fox nor any kind of wolf/dog, I don't we should call it a "wild dog in the summary." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copied what the article said. I've changed it to canid. Maedin\^talk 08:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a good picture of that animal. Image quality is quite good, although the background is slightly busy, but I suppose it illustrates the kind of terrain that culpeos are usually found on. Also, pixel-peeping reveals that there is some purple fringing along the outlines of the shadow. Not sure if that is a big enough problem to warrant retouching (probably not). Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could do with a smoother bg though --Muhammad(talk) 18:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done for finding and nominating this - I'd seen this a while ago, but never got around to throwing it on the pile. I actually like the background here, it does help to place it in the Andes, and to get an idea of the environment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've got nothing against canines.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Culpeo MC.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 09:05:23 (UTC)

Reason

This was nominated a few years ago, and people complained about a halo that was present at the time. Nobody thought of fixing it, which I've now done (it was easy), so I'm nominating in the spirit that the concerns have been addressed.

Articles in which this image appears

Brown Pelican, List of U.S. state birds, Aransas Bay, Hans and Pat Suter Wildlife Refuge, Hans Lollik Island, List of birds of Panama, List of birds of South Carolina, List of birds of North Carolina, Arenillas Ecological Reserve, List of birds of Maryland, List of birds of Connecticut

FP category for this image

Animals/Birds

Creator

Alan D. Wilson of www.naturespicsonline.com, Papa Lima Whiskey (image edit)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Erm, but you've just replaced an luminosity halo with a lack-of-image-noise halo. Maybe you should de-noise the rest of the blue sky to make it consistent. Also, I think what was overlooked is the fact that it it wasn't just the halo. The halo was just a side effect of the bigger problem which was the extreme shadow lifting that seemed to have been done to the original. I commented in the original nom that the photo looked overcooked, and I think it still does... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you've ever commented on the alt before. It'll be easier to think of what else it needs once we have a general preference for one or the other. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have. If you refer to the original nom, what you call the Alt here was the Original there. My comment to Fir specifically refers to it in detail. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The histogram shows no evidence of manipulation, and I can find similarly exposed photographs elsewhere, so I see no basis for doubting the assertion that this is how it came out of the camera. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd have to agree that there has been excessive use of the shadow/highlight tool. Fill flash would have the same effect on the shadows, but look at the haloing on the inside of the wing on the left. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit, although the pic lacks some 40 pixels of minimum height. Twilightchill t 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit: Months and months ago I was going to nominate this, but my halo reduction skills are nil. Edit is great and fixes the issue, the bird is sharp and handsome, and the flight is dynamic. To Twilight Chill above, there is no minimum height requirement? The pic meets the size criterion fine. Maedin\^talk 11:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WIAFP demands a minimum of 1,000 pixels in height or width, but here it's not so serious. Twilightchill t 17:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and it has 1,419 in width. Maedin\^talk 17:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit. Still think the shadows are lacking slightly, but it's otherwise a good capture. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 4.5 out of 5 required supports. Worth a re-nomination at some point. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 00:17:30 (UTC)

Reason

There are a few images of sonic boom of high EV available, and I think one of them should be featured

Articles in which this image appears

Sonic boomTransonic

Category

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

N.A.

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original is the best, but some might think others are better. I listed 5 others that are of high resolution. Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Caution These zones of condensation are routinely produced also at subsonic speeds; it happens all the time, especially at low level. The only instances that are clearly at supersonic speeds are those that clearly angle back at more than a 45° angle. Alt3 showing the F‑18 is clearly at subsonic speed. It appears to me that Alt5 showing an F‑14 might be going supersonic, but it’s hard to tell for sure. Given however, that its wings are swept back, it’s at higher altitude, and you can see shock diamonds associated with being in full afterburner all suggest it’s certainly at least trying to go fast.

  I am afraid that only a very authoritative source (like a military Web site that flat says so) can establish whether any of these are supersonic; you can’t rely upon news sources (traditionally RSs) because reporters are usually technical “dudes” on this sort of stuff but have been given a computer on which they can bang on. And you certainly can’t base it off a photo’s title unless you can track the provenance all the way back to a technically authoritative source. The exception are reporters for Aviation Week & Space Technology (a magazine I subscribe to) because many of those writers are pilots—often ex-military pilots. Greg L (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original description for alt4 seems to say that. Nergaal (talk)

Alt5 and original don't clearly say it. Rm alt3. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, Alt4 is a valid candidate for consideration. I hope the Navy PR dude was correct, because low-level passes near ships are seldom at supersonic speeds. In fact, I know of no cases. But it’s hard to prove a negative. Please don’t delete pictures as we have started discussion and it is important to have the full variety here now. Just add “(withdrawn)” in its caption. Greg L (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the navy.mil 's gallery and the only place I could find the an explicit direct statement of sonic boom is here; but if anything, that picture isn't very informative. This, this, this and this don't directly state it. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The description for alt2 also. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What's the deal with all the alts? Only one of the nominated images is actually used in the article. It's not FPC's job to adjudicate which image should be used in an article. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ut could be nominated as a set. Spongie555 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly- they're just a bunch of images showing similar subject matter, not a closed set. In any case, that doesn't change the fact that some of them are completely unused... J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note since nominating these images I have realized that it is a bit tricky to count any of them as sonic booms at 100% probability. Instead, all of them show transonic speeds, and they have high EV for that. I think it would be more appropriate to call this nom something like "Transonic" or "Transonic speeds" instead of "Sonic boom". And yes, if people are ok with it, they (or a part of them) could be used as a set. Nergaal (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly? Badly thought out nomination. Nominate a picture that has high EV and is of high quality. Don't throw loads of similar images at the process and hope something sticks- it creates difficult nominations, upset and the possibility that something gets promoted which really shouldn't have been because of the way the numbers stack... The article you claim these images add to does not use most of them, and is led by File:FA-18 Hornet breaking sound barrier (7 July 1999).jpg, which is a previous FP. The ones that are used are tacked on to the bottom of the article as an afterthought. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I did not make my point very well. Feel free to remove the nom from the list as I don't think it is worth my time trying to convince that these pics have good EV value if that has not gotten though until now. Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If I may be so bold, Nergaal seems a bit new to this venue, but his above post can be interpreted as “Nomination withdrawn”; correct me if I am wrong, Nergaal.

  I agree with your technical assessment that these are likely all transonic. Sonic booms are little understood by most people. One can often find newspapers with stories from the AP where the caption says something like “This photo shows the moment the plane broke the speed of sound.” The underlying assumption is that a sonic boom signifies the instant a plane “crashed through” a barrier known as the speed of sound. Of course, the entire time a plane flies at greater the speed of sound, it is dragging its shock wave along the ground exposing anyone near its path to the double-boom. Moreover, the double-boom is the product of a shock off the nose of the plane as well as its tail. The reason such short vehicles going so fast can have booms a significant fraction of a second apart is the two shock fronts are at slightly different airspeeds and therefore spread out at a different angle (I think I have that bit correct). Anyway…

  I would expect a photo of a sonic boom to show both these shock fronts. Alas, the only photographs I know of that truly illustrate a sonic boom are schlieren photographs like this one.

  I’m glad to see that our “Sonic boom” article has the phenomenon illustrated here in this nom (the Prandtl–Glauert singularity) properly explained in the photo caption in that article.

  This is also instructive about relying upon supposedly (seemingly?) reliable sources for the facts on technical issues. Two of the above photographs traced to Navy PR pages with captions about how the planes were flying supersonically. If you ever visited the department responsible for those PR releases and saw how things work, you’d understand. Greg L (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this nom looks like a dead horse. I thought initially that the original was cool; but in the end the nom just got confusing to reviewers. Nergaal (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah- if one of these is of high quality and has a solid use within an article, feel free to nominate it, but mass nominations like this are not a good thing. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe Prandtl-Glauert singularity is worth a look. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Withdrawn. —Maedin\^talk 12:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 17:22:46 (UTC)

Reason

A striking image illustrating what the islands actually look like.

Articles in which this image appears

Chatham Islands, Te Tai Tonga

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

Uploaded by Chin tin tin from Flickr by Ville Miettinen

• Support as nominator --Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In uploading this, I found out it's already been nominated and shot down. Second time lucky eh? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support it is a nice-looking picture; I like the composition and the colours. It is a well-executed HDR tone mapping, and presents this place in an attractive way. However, the image is very soft, possibly due to the following reason: EXIF data shows that the image was shot at f/1.4, which is probably the largest possible aperture for the lens used, and usually lenses perform worse at such a large aperture.[3] Furthermore, this aperture setting results in a shallow depth of field, which is not suitable for this type of photography, and usually causes some vignetting, which is somewhat visible in this picture. It is also possible that this HDR picture was taken from multiple handheld exposures, resulting in mild misalignment that degrades image quality when aligning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpy Pupple (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am just curious, but what is the EV for this image? Nergaal (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The EV is that it's a photo showing the reality of a place that very few people in the world will ever go. There are only a handful of photos taken from the islands on commons, and this is far and away the best of them. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Previous nomination Katalysator (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, very over-processed. Those are not natural colours. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't been to the Chathams, so perhaps I'm not qualified to comment, but from what I've seen in Southland and Stewart Island (which have a similar cloudy maritime climate), this doesn't seem too unrealistic. A bit yellowish, perhaps, but that ties in with the low-angled early morning shadows. --Avenue (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Nice scene, but the image is a bit small, and quite soft. --Avenue (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It looks fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.79.178 (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 18:27:14 (UTC)

Reason

The article's not the best (though it is by no means terrible), but hopefully someone will get around to working on it at some point soon; it's a moderately well known mushroom. Regardless, wonderful composition, high quality photography and obvious EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Mycena galericulata, Mycena inclinata

FP category for this image

Fungi

Creator

Dan Molter

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ticks all the boxes - EV, high res, pleasing composition. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't think it is that sharp for a macro, some noise and CA visible in parts. Fletcher (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as photographer Thank you for the nomination J Milburn. Another little brown mushroom ;)

I do not see problems with sharpness. There is some chromatic adoration - the thin purple line along the top of the mushroom's cap. This is a limitation of the camera. It shows up on all photos where a light object stands out against a dark background. The imperfection has been noted in photos from Canon Powershots going back to the A-70. The CA is only noticeable at full-size, and even then it is not distracting. If somebody has the means and inclination to make the image better, then I would happily support an alternate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fletcher mentioned CA, but the imperfection in the photo is really purple fringing.

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Purple_fringing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: Ditto what Fletcher said, particularly regarding CA. Maedin\^talk 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 S, 1.5 O -> less than five required supports

Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 23:05:01 (UTC)

Reason

A remarkably simple image that does all that it needs to to convey its point. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this was an SVG, because I thought it was just a really good photograph when I saw it in the article. Then unsurprised to see that it's already featured on four projects. No reason it shouldn't be here. Even at size shown at right, it's still deceiving that it's not a photograph.

Articles in which this image appears

Rubik's Cube

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Booyabazooka

• Support as nominator --upstateNYer 23:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think an svg is a suitable format for something that should be a photo. The colors are too bland and the detail just isn't there as it as an svg, and it doesn't do the image justice. Spencer^T♦C 23:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info The jpeg version is File:Rubiks cube.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: So this is a photograph that has been converted to SVG? J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know. upstateNYer 02:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is; see the image description page and PLW's comment above. The photograph isn't high quality though. --Avenue (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Spencer. gazhiley.co.uk 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info There is a version with the colors tweaked, File:Rubik's cube v2.svg. This is used in the {{Groups}} template which appears in dozens of articles.--RDBury (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And there is another version with reflections and shadows added, File:Rubik's cube v3.svg, which is a featured picture on the German wikipedia, and is used in many articles via {{algebra-stub}}. --Avenue (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And there is another version slightly different used on the Finnish Wikipedia and many articles there. File:Rubik's cube v4.svg --158.158.223.2 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm upstateNYer 04:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Illustrates the rubik's cube perfectly, who cares if there are other versions out there? The sonic boom candidate was shot down because there were too many alts, and now this looks like it might be shot down because there are not enough alts mentioned! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Like others, I'm not convinced an SVG is the best illustration of this. After all, a Rubik's cube is not a mathematical abstraction, it's a manufactured object. A diagram that showed how it worked, like File:Pin tumbler with key.svg, would be fine, but this is just what it looks like externally. It's really not a diagram, but a drawing based on a photograph. Chick Bowen 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some sympathy for that view regarding its use in the Rubik's cube article, although given the other images in that article, I don't find the argument compelling. I don't think it applies at all to its use in {{Groups}}. The whole point of using it there is a mathematical abstraction, where one views the operations on the cube as a permutation group. The partially completed move in the SVG image illustrates this nicely. --Avenue (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 2. A clean, simple, striking image with excellent EV in our permutation group article (via the Groups template). --Avenue (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Really not feeling the use of svgs for photographs... J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - EV is limited if it's just an illustation. Rubik's cubes are not hard to come by, and it would be more than feasible to take a feature-worthy photograph of one. --Ephemeronium (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is just one of those things that would better be depicted with an actual photo. -- mcshadypl ^TC 04:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count 4 supports and 5 opposes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 1:44:00 (UTC)

Reason

A good work by Javad. A first prize winner cartoon at Ankara cartoon festival,2007.

Articles in which this image appears

Javad Alizadeh, could also be used in Divorce

FP category for this image

Artwork

Creator

Javad, uploader: farhikht

• Support as nominator --Farhikht (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest suspending until license information has been processed. Also note that images that are only used in galleries are not eligible. You may have to expand or restructure the article a bit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- JPG artifacts are very noticeable so, license issues aside. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended per absence of objection. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuspended as license has apparently been processed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per NotFromUtrecht: JPG artifacts. Jujutacular ^talk 06:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't find it so fascinating. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 08:48:00 (UTC)

Reason

Nice high resolution scan, adds plenty of EV to the article. Original version: File:John Reynolds death - original.jpg

Articles in which this image appears

John F. Reynolds, Iron Brigade

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War

Creator

Alfred Rudolph Waud, restoration by User:Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 08:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You've gone for quite a faded paper colour there. I suspect you had a reason for that, but what is it? I would still be curious about a version where the light-coloured smoke is proper white (and other tones adjusted accordingly). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's certainly less faded looking than the original :P I wanted to be conservative with the adjustment is all. I uploaded the TIF, so if you want to make an edit, go for it. Jujutacular ^talk 15:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uploaded a more radical version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer edit. Thanks PLW. Jujutacular ^talk 17:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit but I cannot say I am happy with the original caption. Why is it "Death of.." since it is not too obvious that the guy is going to die? Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reynolds died from falling off of his horse, which is what this is depicting. This happened before the actual battle took place. Jujutacular ^talk 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • His article says he was shot in the back of the head or neck, before falling from his horse, and died almost instantly. --Avenue (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guessed it was something like that. The image doesn't clearly imply that, but the caption is ok in clarifying that. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit: very nice. Maedin\^talk 12:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit S Masters (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:John Reynolds death 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 16:07:50 (UTC)

Reason

Commons FP that also shines on Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicoreus ramosus

FP category for this image

Animals/Molluscs

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even though some bits are a little out of focus (especially in the right-most photo). Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Size reference? Spikebrennan (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article says "up to 327 – 330 mm in length". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support S Masters (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Specially!?!? 23:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaadddaaammm (talk • contribs)

Promoted File:Chicoreus ramosus 001.jpg —Maedin\^talk 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 15:12:20 (UTC)

Reason

Technically excellent image that is a Commons FP and just perfect for its taxobox.

Articles in which this image appears

Slate pencil urchin (Atlantic)

FP category for this image

Animals/Others

Creator

Nick Hobgood

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment the caption is confusing, and it is not clear if the coral beneath has any role to the urchin. Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slate Pencil Urchins feed on algae, turtle grass, kelp, sponges, mussels, barnacles, and dead fish/decaying matter [in the wild]. [4] Another source claims they eat Pavona and Pocillopora corals - the species shown here does not fall into either group. So the urchin could be grazing the surface for algae, or just happen to be walking across. I'd be surprised if corals were susceptible to algal growth, though. The coral species seems to be something along the lines of File:Colpophyllia natans (Boulder Brain Coral) entire colony.jpg (not yet nominated because no article). Also relayed question to Nhobgood. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the nomination. I am far from an expert on these urchins but from personal observation, the few that I have seen do not seem to feed on coral, whereas the much more abundant Echinometra viridis urchins are frequently seen in large groups on top of partially eaten brain corals of different species. I did run across another E. tribuloides on a Porites coral but I would speculate that both specimens were just traveling over the hard corals and not feeding on them as there was no evidence of predation on the corals.Nhobgood (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - lovely photo. Less jargon in the caption would be good though. --Avenue (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Another excellent capture. (Am loving the marine life noms.) Maedin\^talk 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good capture and nice lighting, despite the environmental limitations. S Masters (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although the caption should still be improved upon. Nergaal (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption used here is only for the benefit of voters; it's not the one used at POTD or in articles. We're not voting on the caption. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eucidaris tribuloides (Slate-pencil Urchin).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 15:45:32 (UTC)

Reason

A big, annotated scheme of the Japanese WWII sea god in his final configuration. Has a scale.

Articles in which this image appears

Japanese battleship Yamato, Yamato class battleship

FP category for this image

Diagrams

Creator

Alexpl

• Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I would say it looks good, but don't diagrams like this have a legend? Nergaal (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legend is visible when you click on the description page at Commons with the cursor on image (for some reason Wikipedia doesn't currently support the annotation feature). Twilightchill t 18:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can turn it on in your Preferences under Gadgets, there was some resistance to making it on by default though. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very high quality image. The one hundred and sixty-two 25mm anti-aircraft guns are intense! Of course, the version with annotations is better but even as is, this picture is pretty good.Purpy Pupple (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality image with lots of EV Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support The scale box is exactly the same size as the long line of boxes, it's just a optical illusion that makes it look bigger. Showing my ignorance here, but is a png meant to be so pixelated? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Depends how it was drawn... This was clearly drawn by single pixel pushing so the pixelation is understandable, although not ideal. - Zephyris _Talk 20:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking question What are the units for the waterline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaadddaaammm (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: great diagram, high EV, no quality issues. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: should an FP include a signature, if this can easily be removed? --Avenue (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's not a concern, but can contact the creator on behalf of that if needed. Twilightchill t 05:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done so at Commons:User talk:Alexpl. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious oppose, there should not be a signature. We do not allow photographers to add watermarks, why should we allow illustrators to add signatures? This very much is a concern. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. If signature is removed. Kaldari (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn -- mcshadypl ^TC 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the edges make it look like it was done on the cheap theyre not straight lines, maybe it'd be better as an SVG --Thanks, Hadseys 21:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This should really be an SVG. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support if an SVG can be made. I have no real concern with regards to the signature—I would support whether it was there or not, but I think it adds a nice touch. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is obvious that SVG would be much better. However, given the sheer amount of detail in the picture, an SVG would take a long time to load in most web browsers; furthermore, it would require a phenomenal amount of work -- I think that a disproportionate amount of work is not necessary to qualify this picture as a Featured Picture inasmuch as it is already quite good to begin with. Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with signature, in a png. It's a beautiful image, and we need to encourage artists to come and draw for us. Arguing over semantics just drives them away, depriving us of future encyclopedic images similar to this one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just lowers standards. I'm not saying it isn't good, but it is undeniable that it would be better in svg and without the signature. We actually have standard boilerplate templates saying "please remove the watermark/in-image credit". That's not how we do things here; credits should be on the image page, not in the image. Again, would you be ok with us promoting photographs with watermarks? J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image has been updated (the signature is out). Twilightchill t 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Watermarks, no, but I could definitely live with signatures for Commons artists... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why? What's the difference? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In any case, as the images would be more useful without the signatures, and we have permission to modify them, they would (rightfully) be removed over time anyways... J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- what is the thin blue line running the length of the ship just below the waterline on the bottom diagram? Looks like a mistake to me. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex has removed it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and the creator raised an interesting point why this image is png and not svg (check his commons talkpage). Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Enormous EV, detailed, interesting, well done, and lovely additional touches (like the rust staining below the anchor). Some jagged edges but they are far too minor to really detract. Accept that there are limitations to SVG (per Purpy Pupple and the creator) and am fine with making a PNG exception for this. Maedin\^talk 11:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Yamato1945.png --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 12:17:36 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp capture at typical depth.

Articles in which this image appears

Siganus puellus, rabbitfish

FP category for this image

Animals/Fish

Creator

Leonard Low (original photo), Papa Lima Whiskey (edit)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but please clarify in the caption where are the poisonous spines. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support; would be a full support if it was a little larger. Lovely composition, quality is good, EV is clear. Shame the article isn't a little better. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Size reference, even in the image caption or image page? Spikebrennan (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Nicely taken, considering the challenge of almost neon-bright subjects. The edit has really helped to make this feature-worthy, too. Maedin\^talk 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• +4.5/5 Please re-nominate some time. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 02:20:36 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and it is a painting of one the most important moments in Christianity

Articles in which this image appears

Jesus, Christ Crucified (Velázquez), etc..(theres alot)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Religion and mythology

Creator

Diego Velázquez

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this image seems to be missing a bit of the left border. The painting includes some black space to the left of the crossbeam, based on the images here and at "hubpages dot com/slide/Photos-of-Velazquez-paintings---Prado-Museum---Barcelona--Spain/3157956". (I've obfuscated the second link because otherwise it fails our spam filter.) --Avenue (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The image appears to be tilted a bit (visible at the top of the cross). Is that in the original? Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, but a similar tilt can be seen in my first link above. A much smaller tilt is also evident in their online high-res viewer,[5] which I can only get to work intermittently. --Avenue (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes those are better quality images then this one. If anyone could fix it or something it would be appreciated beacuse I'm not good with restoring images. Spongie555 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They would be better quality, if it wasn't for the museum's watermark being sprayed liberally (albeit faintly) over them. I don't know how to undo that. --Avenue (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well can you upload the better quality museum image and well see if anyone can help fix it. Spongie555 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anyone can easily upload the image linked to directly above, but fixing it doesn't seem easy, and as it is only about 30% bigger in height and width, this may not be worth the effort. The image that can be examined through the museum's Javascript viewer seems much bigger, but extracting it seems difficult. I'm aware people have done this sort of thing before, but I don't know exactly how. --Avenue (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd probably just use the watermarked image and this one, resize them to the same size, align them, colour-balance to the one I trusted more, then use them to fix each other. E.g. One could slightly enlarge this one, and use it to remove the watermarks, or slightly shrink the other, and use it to fill in the missing information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 20:52:29 (UTC)

Reason

I think this is among the best of the photographs Allan Warren has uploaded at Commons. It is technically sound, it is composed in a clear but interesting way (Warren is fond of mirrors and obstacles, but has avoided them here) and it captures the self-deprecating manner the Duke was known for.^{[citation needed]}

Articles in which this image appears

Andrew Cavendish, 11th Duke of Devonshire

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Allan Warren (see also Allan Warren)

• Support as nominator --Chick Bowen 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, absolutely love it. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not sure that this is the most encyclopedic picture possible. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is your "citation needed" template intended to cast doubt on my assertion of Cavendish's self-deprecating nature? The quotes in the article make it clear enough--particularly claiming that his own ministerial appointments were "nepotism." As for encyclopedic value, I might have also pointed out that the image shows him in Chatsworth, his ancestral home, which he turned into a tourist attraction. Other than that, I don't know how to more encyclopedically show a duke doing his thing, since they don't do much, really. Chick Bowen 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant is that if indeed he was known in a self-deprecating manner (or he wanted or liked to be seen this way) then this portrait is FP worthy. If he was the opposite, then this is not necessarily the best depiction of him. Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, now I understand. Is this obit helpful? Chick Bowen 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my view, just because someone has been described as 'self-deprecating' (amongst many other traits) does not, on the face of it, justify a lead picture of this nature being used. However, if this fairly and broadly represents what the Duke was like, then I would be happy with this picture. This picture needs to be a typical representation of the Duke, which I do not think has so far been shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.242.165 (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, wonderfully character-ful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone boost the shadows a little bit? It looks pretty dark back there. Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fiddled with it a bit and was unhappy with the results—I don't want to alter the photographer's intended relationship between foreground and background. Chick Bowen 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Milburn. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Artifacts all over. Or are my eyes playing tricks on me? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, given that a fair amount of film grain is to be expected in a low-light photograph like this, it would be pretty hard to distinguish any artifacts from the grain. So, hard to say. Chick Bowen 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. I'm looking at the face in particular. Looks more like artifacting than grain. I'm guessing there's a higher-quality version out there given that Warren was a professional photographer. Even if we can't get it, we should at least ask for some better source info (e.g. date). Makeemlighter (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per concerns above. Just doesn't meet the standards we have for portraits, even old ones. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose crazy artifacted (that's definitely not film grain). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Artefacts and blown highlights. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 06:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 21:55:09 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and extremely detailed picture of Almería City.

Articles in which this image appears

Almería

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Elemaki

• Support as nominator --Elemaki (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is it just me or is the whole thing tilted? Every building seems to be leaning to the left... gazhiley.co.uk 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The picture is not tilted. It´s the orientation of most of the streets in Almeria in relation to the place where I took the picture what makes you have that sensation.Elemaki (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can also find some tilted buildings. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please enlarge this like most panos.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don´t know what you mean. It´s the first time I´m nominaiting a picture in en: Elemaki (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. When nominating a panorama, under 'orientation': specify 'pano'. You probably specified landscape. Jujutacular ^talk 02:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I will do it rigth the next time.Elemaki (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question/comment Is it just me or is the focus a bit off? The close up stuff is sharp, but the far distance seems a bit too blurry. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It´s a 22,491 × 2,699 pixels. I uploaed that size because I didn´t want to lose any details but if you want a picture more sharp you just only have to change the size a 50% down. The image still will meet the criteria for a FP and the image will be much more sharp.Elemaki (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure that this is stitched together straight...looking at the horizon as I scroll across, it seems to shift up and down, instead of being straight or a constant curve. Spencer^T♦C 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can faintly see an island or peninsula behind the city (from this perspective) which is affecting the apparent horizon in that part of the image. So unless you're talking about a different part of the image, this would be expected based on the raised position of the photographer (i.e. the sea horizon he *would* be seeing is behind the island). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what you can see is not an island. Is the Cape of Gata, 50 kms away approx from the place I was taking the picture. Elemaki (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bit he is referring to (or at least the bit that looks the most odd to be horizon-wise) Is the open see above the outgoing ferry... From the tip of the Cape to the right of the picture... Seems a very very sharp "up and down" on the horizon... gazhiley.co.uk 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 21:51:40 (UTC)

Reason

Instructive animation that illustrates a mathematical concept

Articles in which this image appears

Pentagon, Prime number, Compass and straightedge constructions, Constructible polygon

FP category for this image

Diagrams,_drawings,_and_maps/Diagrams

Creator

TokyoJunkie

• Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support fascinating.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After the first two corners are identified, why not simply use the compass to determine the other points? --Elekhh (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the angle between the midpoint of the radius and the point on the vertical diameter of the circle arbitrary? Does the location of that line's endpoint matter? I consider myself to be decently educated in mathematics, but I can't follow this concept nor how the chord is established to form the 5 sides of the pentagon. Where does the chord (in bold) come from exactly? Maybe indicate its origin previously with a distinct color. -- mcshadypl ^TC 04:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm reading you correctly, it looks to me like it's the middle of the angle. Draw vertical diameter, then horizontal radius; draw line from midpoint of radius to top point of diameter; draw line bisecting that angle to diameter; draw line from that point parallel to radius; draw line from that resulting point to top of vertical diameter; voila, you have the first leg of a pentagon! --Golbez (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And based on my analysis, I must support because this is neat and very informative. --Golbez (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry it's not clear enough for my little brain - the first "chapter" is ok (but does require quite a lot of attention), but then the subsequent steps are far too fast - you just have to assume that it's doing the same as the first, "spread out" bit. Would consider supporting if you slowed it down, or maybe even did the whole thing in full, not with the shortcuts. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can this be made larger? Spencer^T♦C 21:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, animated GIF's are limited in in size for bandwidth. So if it was bigger then only the first frame would be shown in thumbnail view.--RDBury (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - when i was at school tho i just drew a straight line and did 108 degree lines going off it, worked just as good without all the hassle lol --Thanks, Hadseys 21:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support awesome! Nergaal (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose: While the animation does illustrate the construction well, though I don't think it's as visually striking as I would expect for an FP, there are a couple issues with the construction itself. First, once a side has been constructed, the remaining sides can be copied from it. But the animation clearly shows the entire construction being repeated, unnecessary and inelegant. Second, the source for the construction is MathWorld, and while that's often a good starting point when writing an article, it does have a reputation for including material that is unencyclopedic by Wikipedia standards. Constructions of a pentagon in a circle have been known since the the ancient Greeks, and while the article gives an additional secondary source, I think additional ones should be found to indicate that this particular construction is of encyclopedic value. Third, though perhaps a minor point, three steps used in the construction, the bisection of a line segment, the bisection of an angle, and the construction of a perpendicular to a line at a given point, actually require several steps to complete with a ruler and compass. So the actual construction is significantly more complex than the animation would suggest at first glance. The animation is encyclopedic but I would suggest that featured content should meet a higher standard than this does.--RDBury (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The whole point of the construction of a figure is that you can only use a straightedge and a pencil - no protractor. WiiWillieWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.223.2 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This construction is possible with a ruler and compass. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I meant. It was an objection who said that the pentagon should just be constructed from the first side, and then have a protractor to copy the angle. WiiWillieWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per RDBury. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 15:14:58 (UTC)

Reason

Is a Commons FP and, as an illustrated collage of members of the group, offers great encyclopaedic value for its article.

Articles in which this image appears

Pulmonata

FP category for this image

Animals/Molluscs

Creator

H. Morin; restoration by Citron

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think it's a bit desaturated, with pale colors. Twilightchill t 07:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I love the picture, and I think it makes a great Commons FP, but I'm not certain about its EV here. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [6] File:Pulmonata legend.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I take your point. Perhaps this would make a good second taxobox image? Or perhaps a better taxobox image than the current one? As a last point, perhaps identify the species in the caption/note where the image came from? A strong caption in the article would add significantly here. I certainly think I could support this, but I'm not so convinced right now. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You do know it's not a photo eh, Twilight? I'm also not sure about the EV, it's not used so well in Pulmonata, and there's another similar painting in the article, but without the distracting background. Also there's a beetle in the bottom right, which isn't pulmonate. And strawberries?! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The more I look at it the less I like it. There are much better ways to illustrate the pulmonates. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great drawing. The mollusks are feeding on strawberries and mushrooms, and the insect is feeding on a slug. Nice semantically dense image. Shroomydan (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Agree with Shroomydan's comments. Regarding the illustration's EV, I've improved its caption in the article and think it's well placed at the beginning of the taxonomy section. Maedin\^talk 13:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where's the original? Looks like some scratches were missed on the restoration. The retouched note needs to be expanded to say what modifications were made. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified Citron. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original Cordialy --Citron (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as restorator--Citron (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per Shroomydan . Nice drawing with very good detail. Nice work on the restoration Citron. – S Masters (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pulmonata.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 11:39:42 (UTC)

Reason

Recent Commons FP that has been used on the English Wikipedia for some time, as a lead image.

Articles in which this image appears

Meulaboh

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

3rd Class Benjamin D. Glass, United States Navy

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Composition looks unbalanced to me --Muhammad(talk) 15:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devil's advocate: how about cropping out the helicopter, and cloning away what remains of the blades? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just the side. IMO some more space at the top would have been good --Muhammad(talk) 09:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Muhammad, and average res, and kind of washed out colours. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as above. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'm leaning towards an oppose. Besides the above comments, that tin roof bit (not quite sure what it is) on the bottom left is distracting. – S Masters (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the easiest thing in the world to clone out though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is cloned or cropped out, I will support it as per Purpy Pupple. S Masters (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Historical EV lies in the helicopter providing aid to the people after the disastrous tsunami that wiped out 1/3 of the population in the region. This also makes the photo unreproducible. Although the image is not very sharp, it is sufficient to make out important details such as the people crowding around the helicopter. Furthermore, it appears to be Wikipedia's only picture that shows the Meulaboh mosque. Regarding composition, it is not stellar but acceptable, especially since there are many ugly things in the area such as various tin-roofed houses etc. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good quality, historical, high EV. Nergaal (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit The resolution, historical and unreproducible aspect, as well as high EV, makes this a good candidate in my opinion. S Masters (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Messy composition. I cannot support this for historical EV either because then why do we need to see the mosque? Surely the other image on the Meulaboh page does a far better job of illustrating the carnage and aid effort of the tsunami. Centy – reply • contribs – 00:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because if it weren't for the mosque, we wouldn't know this is set in Meulaboh. But seriously now, you're asking slightly strange questions. This is to illustrate Meulaboh, where the mosque is a central institution of public life. Something a little different because showing only rackety huts for developing world settlements gets rather old after a while. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 07:06:22 (UTC)

Reason

Another Commons FP that now plays a prominent role in its Wikipedia article.

Articles in which this image appears

Hamerkop

FP category for this image

Animals/Birds

Creator

Quartl

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A tighter crop would probably help. The present composition is great, given what the photographer had to work with, but this is mostly a picture of sand and grass. Shroomydan (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry. It's not blowing me away, seems a little lacking. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not an actionable rationale. To be a valid oppose, it's got to specify what needs improving. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I do not consider the composition compelling, and the environment is uninspiring and unnatural. WIAFP 1.3, 3.2 and, in a way, 6. Stood upon a rock, with a different background, this would be a great candidate. As it is... J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose, the composition and choice of depth-of-field does not sufficiently isolate the subject and present it in a manner that draws one's attention to it. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there is no wow factor here; a bit too mundane. Nergaal (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 18:49:10 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, lighting, composition. Easily the best image in the article

Articles in which this image appears

Ariadne merione

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Noob question. I'm just starting to get interested in photography, so please be nice. This photo's got an incredibly small DOF, right? Does that mean the photographer has done a good job getting most of the butterfly in focus, or that they should have set up the shot more carefully? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on depth of field may be of interest. Spencer^T♦C 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The short answer is yes, the depth of field is thin, but that is almost unavoidable (sometimes you can focus stack) with macro photography like this. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aaadddaaammm, you will notice that most of the butterfly is in focus while the background is out of focus. While short DOF being a limitation, it is also good in this case as it draws the viewers eyes to the butterfly without any distractions in the foreground/background --Muhammad(talk) 00:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note, also, that since the plane of focus is a plane, and this butterfly is mostly planar, it was possible to get most of this butterfly in focus despite the narrow DOF.Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the depth of field is OK. The top of the moth's right wing is a little blurry, but the vast majority of the moth is in crystal clear focus. I object to featured picture status because the specimen is not beautiful. We see here a little brown moth, an LBM. The specimen pictured has chunks missing from both wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a pretty good picture of this butterfly (not moth, you can tell the difference easily by looking at the antennae, amongst other features). This is easily the best picture of this butterfly, and has good encyclopedic value. Although this specimen is not perfect, butterflies are not always perfect in nature, and that fact is in itself encyclopedic value. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes of course, this is not a moth, my mistake. It is a little brown butterfly, with damaged wings.Shroomydan (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The green of the leaf makes a good color contrast and brings out the subtle patterns in the wings. Not a flashy species but the photo has an elegance to it.--RDBury (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I like the composition, but pixels on subject are borderline; there was a question on commons about it being downsampled, which was never answered. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It more than meets the size requirements for en FPC so pixels being borderline is incorrect. Whether it is downsampled or not should not affect the nature of this discussion --Muhammad(talk) 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pixels on subject is what I said, or, "doesn't leave much room for cropping", as some choose to put it. I can crop it to 1184x746 without it looking wrong, so that's definitely closing in on the limit, and giving a hint as to why you chose a framing that is otherwise uncharacteristic of you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You yourself said the composition is nice. If I had cropped it closer to the subject we wouldn't be left with this composition. --Muhammad(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 21:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 03:53:56 (UTC)

Reason

Shows some of the damage caused by the Earthquake. High Ev. Featured on Turkish and Spanish wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

National Palace (Haiti), 2010 Haiti earthquake, Port-au-Prince, Presidential palace

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Logan Abassi

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The image is impressive and the composition fits the theme very well. Though the colors might be faded a bit and the image is tilted the slightest bit though (at least by the road), and the shadow is not ideal, I think it can make a great FP with some minor touchups. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Given the flaws mentioned above how re-producable is this picture? I don't mean in terms of having another earthquake but what state is this building in now? Is it possible that it hasn't yet been repaird and thus can be photographed again? If not then I will consider my support... gazhiley.co.uk 08:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse. Chick Bowen 14:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link - so in theory it should be able to be photographed better? I'll Oppose then... Btw who on earth took the lead picture in th article in your link?! They should be fired... Taking of a picture of how run down the palace is but from behind a fence that obscures the view of it is shocking photography! crazy... gazhiley.co.uk 15:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking of this when I wrote my support, but I noticed that the picture was taken the day after the earthquake. In that sense at least is not reproducible. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In theory though if it hasn't changed since then (which it hasn't by all recent reports), then it must be reproducible... Though of course it does reduce the EV for the "next day" - but does it need to be the next day though? gazhiley.co.uk 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually if you look at that picture link it shows the rotunda demolished. Since the earthquake they demolished the rotunda and they are thinking of demolishing it all as said in the main article. Spongie555 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • My comment was too terse: I would not consider the image reproducible, since the building has continued to degrade; the nominated image shows the damage the earthquake did, whereas in its current state that damage is not distinguishable from the effects of neglect as well as (as Spongie555 says) deliberate demolition. Chick Bowen 22:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; supposed minor compositional woes are vastly outweighed by the sheer EV and historicness (it's a word!) of the picture. --Golbez (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can I suggest that somebody with more skills at this to try to correct the tilt and brighten the colors a bit? Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer edit also, and pointing out that this image is not reproducible because it the bottom part of the image it shows the tents locals used after the earthquake. Nergaal (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit I attempted to correct the tilt and brightened the colors a bit using slight tone mapping. I hope I didn't overdo the contrast! Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 04:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 07:14:36 (UTC)

File:Phallus indusiatus 96871 ed2.jpg

Reason

High resolution; high EV in species article & good EV in genus article as it illustrates the indusium (skirt) present in some species; wow factor. Apparently, the smell of the mushroom gives ladies spontaneous orgasms (no, really).

Articles in which this image appears

Phallus indusiatus, Phallus (genus)

FP category for this image

Fungi

Creator

Christian Schwarz at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit I think the white balance needed a tweak (less green and a little cooler). I also brightened it a little. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tweak looks good, thanks. Sasata (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; very cool species, and a great specimen. Good technicals, obvious EV. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good, prefer Edit --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit a very interesting fungus. Funny name, too. Excellent EV, but although background is quite busy, it is okay and is probably unavoidable. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit Excellent EV. Wonder what it tastes like :) S Masters (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit interesting for a mushroom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit --Avenue (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Phallus indusiatus 96871 ed2.jpg —Maedin\^talk 08:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 03:51:26 (UTC)

Reason

The vast majority of pictures of a pitaya on Wikipedia are not of a high quality, so I thought I would contribute one that is. High resolution, detail and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Pitaya, Hylocereus and Hylocereus undatus

FP category for this image

Plants/Fruits

Creator

S Masters

• Support as nominator --S Masters (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find the shadows to be more distracting than adding value. Jujutacular ^talk 04:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have reduced and softened the shadows so that it's less distracting. - S Masters (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit I love dragonfruit! Used to eat them in Singapore. The striking appearance of the fruit and the fact that it is relatively unknown in non-tropical areas makes this an excellent featured picture in my opinion. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the margin should be the same on both sides. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have fixed this so that they are visually balanced. - S Masters (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 2 Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Saw this fruit for the first time :) Twilightchill t 09:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sup edit Nergaal (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sup edit per above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit A lot less work to get things right in camera re: shadows though! Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Sorry, but I hate the shadows in both. Natural shadows or no shadows, in my book. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, agreed. I think I'd prefer it without the "shadows". J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering how would the image look like with a black background? Nergaal (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the black background and it doesn't work at all. I guess that's why all the current FPs use a white background. – S Masters (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit nice --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pitaya cross section ed2.jpg —Maedin\^talk 08:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 10:58:50 (UTC)

Reason

10 megapixel image of the kiwifruit, the original is an FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Kiwifruit

FP category for this image

Plants/Fruits

Creator

Luc Viatour, Papa Lima Whiskey (exposure edit)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's a shame the back fruit is out of focus (a stack would have been possible) but a solid candidate nonetheless. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While the image is fine, I am not sure it has more EV than the previous FP or other commons pics: File:Hardy-Kiwi-Comparison-3.jpg, or File:Owoce Kiwi.jpg. Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you in favour of overturning the delisting, then? Because there was no consensus in its favour, and I raised the issue and received a number of inappropriate responses - see here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that it has been delisted I am neutral. The one proposed here is more clear and of better quality. Still, I think that the two might be of even higher EV. File:Owoce Kiwi.jpg probably has the highest EV, but I might be wrong. Nergaal (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it were the case that people favoured that, we certainly wouldn't promote it as-is, because it's heavily downsampled, and we've generally felt, I think, that it's better to use {{Multiple image}} to have more layout flexibility. And DOF is really very narrow in the hardy kiwi image. I'm not sure it could be promoted. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as JM said. The use of multiple image template makes sense (though the merged image itself can easily get to 5kx5k by using the sources). Hardy wiki would be a fine candidate by itself as it can be used in subspecies article (not in the main kiwi one). Nergaal (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: quite nice, good resolution. The previous FP is not as good as this one, in terms of resolution and quality, and has similar EV. I also think the back half-kiwi being out of focus is compositionally fine, as it's there only to complete the scene anyway. Maedin\^talk 08:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would be totally unpatriotic of me not to support this photo. Any idea of the cultivar? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could try the photographer, because I'm not an expert. It's probably whatever is the main cultivar sold in Belgium, and that would likely be the one that's happiest with transport. Don't know if that can point you in the right direction. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think there should also be a perpendicular sectioning though the fruit for full EV; like the one in File:Golden kiwifruit.jpg or at: http://en[dot]fotolia[dot]com/id/6777045. Nergaal (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit puzzled now - none of the images you were advocating earlier do this, nor is there any precedent for it in other FPs - see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I realized this while looking at the starfruit (wondering how does it look longitudinally); since kiwis are common, there is no good reason not to "describe" the fruit cut along the other direction also. I think this should be true for all common fruits (though I am not going to go through old FPs and mass nom them for removal). Nergaal (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The back fruit being so badly OOF is a really bad mistake here. It should either be photographed properly (ie in focus) or not in the picture at all. Also I a perpendicular section of the fruit would be more beneficial. I don't see the fact that its 11mp alone being anywhere near worthy of FP status, it's incredibly easy to reproduce a better quality image. JFitch (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High ev and quality. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 4.5 of 5 required supports. Jujutacular ^talk 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 03:54:28 (UTC)

Reason

Truly mpressive to see a cannon actually shoot a nuclear bomb; very high EV; unique

Articles in which this image appears

Nuclear artillery, M65 Atomic Cannon, Upshot-Knothole Grable

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War

Creator

U.S. Department of Energy

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Yes, technically a limited video, but I believe this is the best anyone will get to see a cannon shooting a nuclear device. I am not sure if movies like this can be edited (to remove the pole/band on the right). This is a color picture with a similar perspective of that of the video. Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, high EV, historically significant, nearly impossible to reproduce, etc. I'm fine with it as is. --Golbez (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Golbez wackywace 17:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Hmm, this one seems to be cut off at both ends and there seem to be more complete and higher quality videos of this gun/shot on Youtube for example, unless I'm mistaken. Also, the audio sounds to be right channel only (not mono). --KFP (contact | edits) 23:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: my first instinct was to support, but then KFP raised a good point. There are tons of videos out there of this test shot that are of much better quality; they seem to be either a cleaned-up version of this reel, or shot in close proximity (one shows a cluster of at least four cameras running). Even though the derivative videos may be copywritten, I'm sure that most (if not all) original recordings were done by the US Government and are thus PD; I would happily support if one of these is found and uploaded, or this one has some cleanup work done (try asking WP:GL). bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as above. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per KFP. Jujutacular ^talk 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing this nom per Bahamut. Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. (So I figure it's okay to close as a participant in this case.) Jujutacular ^talk 23:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]