Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2009

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

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

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

Reason

Looks like an ant? Look again. A 4mm katydid mimicking an ant, because ants are of the most feared insects. Good quality and EV. For such a small subject, DOF is also quite good.

Articles this image appears in

Mimicry, Tettigoniidae, Macroxiphus

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 08:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even though there's a little bit of blur on the antennae but I don't think it can be helped at all and it doesn't detract from the EV.Terri G (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting. I recommend you crop a bit off the left, to center the subject. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Man, you have some awesome insect photos. and again, it could do with a crop from the left. still an awesome photo - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Got the wow factor, and good EV. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: All the 6 legs and both antennae are out of focus. I still support because of 'wow' it gives to me. - DSachan (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Noooo, please don't crop it! It's perfect just as it is. What a brilliant capture of bizarre behaviour in the animal kingdom, :-) Maedin\^talk 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV. Lycaon (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Less than a megapixel on the subject. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point... was thinking that myself. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A megapixel is not the min requirement. The environment the insect is captured in has EV as well. --Muhammad(talk) 03:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't, but its still pretty small. You'd still be able to gather that this was a leaf with a tighter image. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A tighter crop I made was around 1000px². --Muhammad(talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose A little too much blur and too little detail for my tastes. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As above. I don't like the angle and composition either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the most encyclopedic angle as it clearly shows how the katydid resembles the ant and how it is also slightly structurally different. --Muhammad(talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per nom. Size is OK by me. DOF issues are a bit distracting, but my main concern is no full species ID. --jjron (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is small in the image, but image is of high quality and while DOF is an issue, head and thorax (and hind legs) are almost entirely in focus. Supports offer good arguments. Consensus is nearly met (depending on how you define "weak" in numbers). Therefore: Promoted Image:Macroxiphus sp cricket.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The young boys' eyes captivated me. And also: encyclopedic picture of a game of horseshoes at a field day in Yuma, Arizona in 1942. And no, the horizon is not straight. I'm assuming that Russell Lee knew what he was doing when he shot this for the FSA. Restoration included dust and scratchs and dealing with a particularly nastily faded original.

Articles this image appears in

Horseshoes, Field day

Creator

Russell Lee, photographer. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice restoration, but not a whole lot of EV for horseshoes or field day (as it is easily reproducible). Also, no wow factor. Kaldari (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't aware that the wow factor was a requirement, sorry. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has to "illustrates the subject in a compelling way". Since nothing is historically unique about this photo (someone could easily recreate it today), why should we settle for a drab, grainy, black and white photo to illustrate the article? Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an illustration of the game of horseshoes in the 1940s. I understand the game went through a number of changes, including the height of the thingamajig sticking out of the ground (can you tell I'm not an expert? :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I like the image and it's historically significant, but at the moment its encyclopaedic use doesn't meet requirements. Its use in horseshoe is barely relevant (they're holding horseshoes, so what? How does this actually illustrate a horseshoe or its use? What are they doing with them?), and I can't immediately see its relevance to field day. Okay, I need to learn to read, scrap that - I just realised the difference between horseshoe and horseshoes. Now that is relevant - it shows the age of the game, and the culture and environment in which it was played. However I still think we can squeeze a bit more EV out of this as an example of Lee's work and the material that the FSA's depression photography program gathered around this time (with reference to Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange etc.) —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The EV for horseshoes is clear to me. (I'm American; this game is well known in the United States). Horizon doesn't bother me either: perhaps they were on an incline (the fenceposts on the left hand side and the posture of the two men are pretty close to vertical.) Spikebrennan (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- not sure I like the tilted angle, and the photo looks a bit fuzzy, but it seems to meet our requirements for a featured picture. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A good restoration effort, but I don't think the EV is strong enough. Fletcher (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Best image for subjects illustrated, but might be better as a valued picture. Ceranthor 13:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Limited EV since it only shows half the game. We really need to see what he's aiming at. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's aiming at a small metal post, similar to the one at his feet. I don't see how you could really take a good photograph that includes the players and the target post-- either you're going to have depth of field issues, or a lot of uninteresting space in the middle. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Fulfils criteria for featured picture; shows high level of detail; is interesting; is aesthetically pleasing

Articles this image appears in

Edinburgh, Scott Monument

Creator

George Gastin

• Support as nominator --Donama (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While it's a striking photograph, it doesn't tell me anything about the monument. I had to go to the page to have any idea what the photograph was representing. In short, it's great picture, a terrible illustration. Also, most of the picture is out of focus, and the HDR looks excessive. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I actually like the composition, but it's the focus that really irks me. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might like it, but you must admit the composition makes it virtually impossible to get any real information from it, which is kinda important! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right; I never said I would have supported, but it is cool nonetheless. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Also, small and noisy --Muhammad(talk) 05:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too small, HDR is excessive (making the monument itself look as if it's been inexpertly cut out and placed on a fake sky), is a confusing way to illustrate the subject in question. Quite nice artistically, but fails on encyclopaedic use. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose awkward composition. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose artistic, not encyclopaedic --Stephen 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Seems a bit out-of focus, also, it is not large and doesn't show the monument very clearly. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit out of focus? Significantly... I really don't think it should even illustrate the article at all.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: I love this photo. Please try and do some work on it, to bring it out more. The EV is low with this one, but its a great image nonetheless. Synergy 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quite encyclopedic image of ethnographer Frances Densmore in the actual process of preserving Native American language and culture. The picture shows Densmore with Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot chief she was recording for the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Articles this image appears in

Blackfoot, Frances Densmore, Bureau of American Ethnology, Ethnomusicology

Creator

Unknown photographer, part of the Library of Congress' National Photo Company Collection. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Very nice restoration, and high EV. I'm curious: did Mountain Chief put on his regalia to make the sound recording because it was a special occasion, or were those the clothes that he was going to wear that day anyway? Spikebrennan (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I remember seeing this image in a National Geographic magazine...does anyone know which? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google to the rescue[1]! I came across the picture completely by accident on the Library of Congress site, but apparently, in the words of National Geographic[2]:

This 1916 image of Frances Densmore and Blackfoot leader Mountain Chief listening to a cylinder recording has become a symbol of the early songcatcher era.

He's most probably not listening, of course: Densmore is recording onto a wax cylinder. The picture was published in Mickey Hart, K.M. Kostyal, Songcatchers: In Search of the World's Music, National Geographic, 2003 (ISBN 079224107X). Weird restoration on the NG site, by the way. :D -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except this now raises an issue with accuracy - see Criterion 6. NatGeo are saying they're listening, the image page description, presumably generated from the LoC notes, are saying they're recording. I've had issues with the accuracy of LoC information before (see the recent Heckler nom below for one example), and would be inclined to believe NatGeo. Is there a way to distinguish whether this is a recording or listening device (and how much does that then verge on OR)? --jjron (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong. But neither LoC nor NatGeo are wrong: Densmore was most probably "recording Mountain Chief", i.e. Mountain Chief was there to be recorded, had been recorded or was about to be recorded (the date of the photo coincides with recordings of Mountain Chief[3]). This picture however is not of a recording: the listening horn is on the device.

This photo, taken in Washington, D.C., reflects the special aims and conditions not of the "oral poetry act" but rather of what might be called the "photography act." For the benefit of the photographer and posterity, Mountain Chief has donned his ceremonial native dress (his own?). At his side are emblems of the vanishing Native American culture that Densmore was doing her best to document. The collector adopts a non-assuming pose, eyes lowered on the machine. Mountain Chief gestures as if declaiming, although any sound that he is uttering at this moment would not be registered, for he is seated before the listening horn of the machine, not the recording horn. [4]

-- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You do realise it's a different picture? Admittedly the device looks to be the same, but accuracy and EV are sliding IMO. And shouldn't captions and image page be changed if it's not a recording? (Not to mention filename, etc). --jjron (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's overstating the case a bit. It's a series of pictures taken on the same day. I found at least one picture in the series (this one) where Densmore has her eyes lowered on the machine, but at least one other (the one in the link above) doesn't. Some have Mountain Chief gesturing (cf. link above), some don't (cf. this image). I can't rename the picture, but I've modified the caption. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not overstating anything. I don't know how you know that these images were taken on the same day - I can see no date associated with the one at [5], certainly the background is completely different, the chair the chief is on is different, and while that image is pretty low res, either his pants are different or he's got something hanging over his knee, and Densmore's hair also looks to be different. Regardless, there seems to be a lot of guessing going on here from all parties. You even accidentally misquoted the image caption from the above link which in fact says "...Mountain Chief has donned ceremonial dress (his own, or someone else's?)..." - so even that caption is guessing at what's going on, and they're unsure whether the ceremonial dress is genuine, i.e., it might not even be his. BTW you can get files renamed I believe, or upload under a new name and request a deletion. --jjron (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Urgh. I really should check things before I reply. I was wrong (again), but the sources can be reconciled, and both the proposed caption and the original reason is correct. You can't be a 100% sure, I agree. But then again, you can't be sure of *anything*. Al you can go by is the sources. Here's a couple of different versions of the images I found:
  1. LoC: "Piegan Indian, Mountain Chief, having his voice recorded by ethnologist Frances Densmore", dated "1916" [6] (scanned photographic print) and "Blackfoot Chief, Mountain Chief making phonographic record at Smithsonian, 2/9/1916" [7] (scanned glass negative)
  2. LoC: "Frances Densmore using wax cylinder phonograph to record Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot Indian", dated "1916" [8]. Location is different: stone wall and stairs in background instead of dark cloth screen. Densmore is dressed the same but looks dark-haired, not gray; Mountain Chief is dressed differently.
  3. Niles, Homo Narrans, 1999: "Frances Densmore, collector, with Mountain Chief of the Blackfoot Tribe, 1906. [...] donned ceremonial dress (his own, or someone else's?)" [9]. Dated 1906 in caption. Probably same session but slightly different from (2): same paraphernalia in front of Mountain Chief but Densmore looks up, not down. (Note that the missing "or someone else's" in my quotation above was not an accidental misquote: I didn't feel like retyping everything and copy-pasted from [10])
  4. NatGeo: "This 1916 image of Frances Densmore and Blackfoot leader Mountain Chief listening to a cylinder recording has become a symbol of the early songcatcher era." [11] = retouched version of (1)
  5. Smithsonian: CD cover, "Healing Songs of the American Indian" [12] = cropped version of (2)
  6. Nettl and Bohlman, Comparative Musicology and Anthropology of Music, 1991: "Frances Densmore, ethnomudicologist, with Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot Indian, who is interpreting in sign language a song being played on a phonograph" [13] = version of (3), but dated 1916
  7. Becker, Selling tradition, 1998: "Ethnomusicologist Frances Densmore and Mountain Chief of the Blackfoot tribe listen to a cylinder recording in 1906. [...] This photograph was taken outside the Smithsonian in Washington." [14] = version of (3)
  8. Adolf Hungry-Wolf, The Blackfoot Papers: "Mountain Chief, having some of his songs recorded on wax cylinders [...] during a visit he made to Washington, D.C. around 1915. He has on his intertribal outfit, with Sioux headdress and fringed backskin suit" [15] dated around 1915 = version of (1)

There are more sources on Google Book Search. With a heavy dose of Occam's razor: there were two photo sessions, one in 1906 (at least once misreported as 1916) and one ca. 1916 (sources say 1914, ca. 1915, 1916). Both were staged. The sources seem to agree that Mountain Chief is not in the process of being recorded but rather listening, in both photos. Mountain Chief was however recorded by Frances Densmore: all sources agree that he was. The more recent photo (1) is dated quite precisely "2/9/1916" at the LoC; there is a recording of Mountain Chief dated quite precisely 2/16/1916 [16].

Conclusions? This picture is beyond any reasonable doubt a picture of Frances Densmore and Mountain Chief. According to the sources, the picture was taken in February 1916; Frances Densmore recorded Mountain Chief; recordings of Mountain Chief in February 1916 survive. "Frances Densmore recording Mountain Chief" is a reasonable image name; "Frances Densmore at the Smithsonian Institution in 1916 where she was recording Blackfoot chief Mountain Chief for the Bureau of American Ethnology. In this picture, Mountain Chief is listening to a recording." is a reasonable image caption. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 04:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice one - conveys an interesting story. Would be interested to know what they were actually recording. One could complain about the awkward arrangement with the subjects against the background screen, but I find it acceptable. --jjron (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per issues raised in above discussion. I do like the photo, but accuracy and EV appear compromised. Perhaps needs to be suspended pending clarification, which may or may not be possible. --jjron (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Excellent restored photo. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. It is kind of an awkward looking composition, but that also helps make it interesting. Fletcher (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. GerardM (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great restoration, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent restoration, and very high EV. Amazing. Synergy 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation about the caption is legitimate, but easily solved by making the caption more vague. I also quoted both captions at the Commons image page. When two very trustworthy sources disagree, might as well just make it vague because Wikipedians can't determine which is right. Otherwise, this is has obvious support. Promoted Image:Frances Densmore recording Mountain Chief2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. There's a fine solution for lack of EV - just make the supposed information in captions etc vaguer! :-) --jjron (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows a RECORDING session. If nothing else, the recording attachment (special arm and horn) clearly visible proves it. The tonearm and horn for listening on this type of machine look very different. We can even determine the exact moment of the photo shoot: Densmore has just started the machine and is lowering the recorder onto the blank wax - during actual recording OR playback her hand would have not been touching the tonearm! - and Mountain Chief is visibly concentrating, ready to launch his song or speech as soon as she gives the sign that the phonograph is running.

Here's a period illustration (from the original user's manual of the Edison machine) showing the _recording_ arm and horn: https://www.technogallerie.com/wp-content/uploads/1a-23.jpg

and here's a photo of Densmore's machine set up for playback. Note how the much larger playback horn sits on top of the back bracket, and there is an angled tonearm with the reproducer hanging vertically over the cylinder, while the recorder is placed at an oblique angle with the horn directly protruding from it. https://scontent.flej1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/307684032_1148534619202358_3479030545063488219_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=ntMGnpdaDr8AX8VQ7EH&_nc_oc=AQknQRQNgEshUbqauJN95IgPwkl8yZq0n_2Zb4tZZKNG9DEYrF4xRp6xucMehMRFYLQ&_nc_ht=scontent.flej1-1.fna&oh=00_AT9GcCAdPiPjj3aGjC36HYm1pn6PkI0xMCSdodUGy4Za-A&oe=6332B7A7

One obvious nonsense in the Smithsonian description is of course that he "interprets a song in Plains Indian sign language". One could record SIGN LANGUAGE on a movie camera I suppose, but we have an AUDIO recording session here so he must be reciting or singing. At any rate, "interpreting" is clearly not used in the sense of "translating" or "explaining", but means "performing" (like a pianist "interprets" a Chopin piece by playing it, and an actor "interprets" a role by speaking the words. 91.65.175.94 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The German Wikimedia chapter made an announcement yesterday that the University of Dresden library has agreed to release 250,000 images from its collection directly to Wikimedia Commons. This restoration is a way of saying thank you: a high resolution view of the city before very extensive damage during World War II. Here's hoping it passes the exacting standards of FPC. Restored version of Image:Dresden photochrom.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Dresden

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be some fairly substantial CCW tilt going on. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All man-made structures seem to be level. I think it's the terrain in the background that give the illusion of tilt. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tabarin (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent restoration and composition. Adam (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dresden photochrom2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High-quality panorama.

Articles this image appears in

Toronto

Creator

Sunshine87

• Support as nominator --♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It has gone around more than once, probably 370 or 380 degrees. The stitching is pretty average, the horizon is wavy and there are clear exposure differences between frames. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Noodle snacks. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too bad, because it's a fascinating picture. Perhaps with better stitching software? -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hftj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.9.125 (65luhtalk) 05:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Um, it's just hilarious.

Articles this imas in

User:Majorly etc

Creator

• Support as nominator --Majorly talk 00:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Majorly iMatthew :  Chat  00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - YES.... X! :  Chat  00:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per high encyclopedic value. Juliancolton :  Chat  00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support Because it is (mostly) yellow. Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop edit conflicting already! Until It Sleeps :  Chat  00:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  00:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sockpuppets are eligible for voting... --ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sorry, that was me D: Anyway, most awesome picture evar ≈ MindstormsKid^{[citation needed]} 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All that and no Pedro?. Synergy 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, copyvio. Q ^{T C} 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose and Speedy Close No, it's not funny. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, cause I was gonna try to nominate Awesome Face just now. ViperSnake151 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• {{db-nowcommons}} Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Has no nose; unrealistic. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. • Comment' His mouth ate it. Q :  Chat  03:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • Even Stronger Oppose He's got a big mouth; blew the secret on my mom's surprise birthday party. Douchebag. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose It has no encyclopedic value at all. --ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, it seems to fit in Smile and Parabolic eyes. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add sillyness into articles. This is just a fun clip art used for User pages and other non-article stuff. If icons were elegible though, half of the ones in Commons would be FP. --ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This guy's got yellow fever. I will support a healthy version --Muhammad(talk) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Refreshingly strong support Let's not be quite so serious here guys. It's a fun image and also there's bound to some articles on smileys, cyber culture, memes etc. to which it could contribute.

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been funnier if you closed as promote. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O

.

Reason

Ultra high quality, really tasty, the composition bests the like of Ansel Adams

Articles this image appears in

Chewing Gum

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in the strongest way possible, no wow. Also, background too noisy, image could do with serious cleanup. I had a stab at it in Edit 1.-- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, I hope you didn't go to too much effort. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A Pedro-strong support the_ed17 :  Chat  02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit2 sharpness is vastly improved in my edit, not to mention page load times. Also can be faxed more accurately. Mfield (Oi!) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Scrambled Porn I mean edit 2. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Kermit does Kansas. Mfield (Oi!) 02:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Comment. Needs size reference. I also suggest inverting, or possibly uploading the back of this photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support if it lacks Miss Piggy. Can anybody identify her? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's there alright, it's a positional (and thus compositional) thing. Maybe it could be reshot from a different angle at which point we could delist and replace. Mfield (Oi!) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Supprt Alt 1 I had the original run through a new algorithm which enhances the picture and reconstructs objects. Sorry about the colour change though. --Muhammad(talk) 04:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice B&W restoration. Think you may have got a bit carried away with the clone tool though. Mfield (Oi!) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The economy's hurting everyone and featuring this image will allow us to remember when it was worth something.

Articles this image appears in

give it time

Creator

Woodrow Wilson's parents (bow-chicka-wow-wow!)

• Support Currently enough for a gallon of BGH milk, a box of easy mac, and a pack of cigarettes (the FDA's three main food groups). Add a few more and you can bail out your own car company! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, maybe... Does not meet the size criteria. But if this is rare, I may make an exception. However, I prefer this nominated at Valued pictures. ZooFari 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unfortunately, a bit too small. Durova^Charge! 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Riveting team working on the cockpit shell of a C-47 transport at the plant of North American Aviation, Inc., Inglewood, California. Office of War Information photo (1942) by Alfred T. Palmer. Encyclopedic and arresting.

Articles this image appears in

Rivet (to ilustrate process needing two people), Rosie the Riveter (as an accent image for the "unequal pay" line), United States Office of War Information, United States home front during World War II

Creator

Alfred T. Palmer, photographer.

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a great photo technically, but it's so obviously staged (note the careful lighting, work clothes and equipment in immaculate condition, etc) I don't see any EV and I don't think that it meets criteria 3 and 5. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I could really see the value of this subject if it were candid. But not as a studio shot. The lighting, as well, gives it distracting "atmosphere". The reality wasn't quite so glamorous, so I don't think this is an accurate enough representation. Maedin\^talk 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I get what you're saying. I removed the image from the Rivet article. I do however think the image is quite encyclopedically valuable for the United States Office of War Information and other articles, and precisely for the reasons it is not a good shot for rivet: this is obviously a staged shot. Through images like this the OWI is deliberately glamorizing women in their war-related roles, as part of its propaganda mission. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (filched the glamorizing bit from Julie Wosk, 'Women and the Machine: Representations from the Spinning Wheel to the Electronic Age, JHU Press, 2003, ISBN 0801873134, ISBN 9780801873133) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

high quality depiction of a common species showing characteristic feature of males

Articles this image appears in

Eupeodes corollae, Eupeodes

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lighting is flat, but its detailed and clear enough. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice image but I notice it is already in a featured picture as part of this poster (File:Syrphidae poster.jpg) also created by Alvesgaspar. Would this preclude it from being an FP itself? I'm not sure. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:32, 27 March 2009 (GMT)
  • That is true but the size of this one is larger and they illustrate different articles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would personally agree. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Maedin\^talk 18:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice, and good caption too. Fletcher (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clear, detailed, sharp, isolated subject

Articles this image appears in

Feijoa

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose [original] Well-composed and fairly large, but a good portion of the flower is blown completely to white. Sorry.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sincerest apologies, but you are wrong, please make some measurements or look at a histogram. http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot221.jpg has the histogram and a sample. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the values are in the low 240s instead of 255, correct? However, they look blown (although perhaps not completely blown) to the eye. Ultimately, people and not machines will look at this image, many of whom who have minimal photographic experience. They won't bother to check the histogram, just be distracted by a blob of (off-)white in the middle of the image. I will, however, keep an open mind and watch this nom closely.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hence the edit... Noodle snacks (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support Edit Much better. Thank you.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Nice flower and photo. Good petal detail can be seen in the edit. |→ Spaully^₪† 15:09, 27 March 2009 (GMT)
• Support Edit per nom. --jjron (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit Good quality but as I mentioned above, I prefer natural backgrounds where possible. --Muhammad(talk) 18:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is dark green, though I know what you mean. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality image of a fairly small flower.

Articles this image appears in

Cotyledon orbiculata, Crassulaceae, Cotyledon (plant)

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't viewed full size yet but DOF seems really small. What was the size of the flowers? --Muhammad(talk) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a vernier with me whilst I went to water some of my seedlings. About 10mm. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to support but currently the image is used in only 1, one line article. I fail to see sufficient EV. --Muhammad(talk) 07:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its in three now, which is at least as much corresponding article as File:Tachysphex specie edit1.jpg, for example. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak support --Muhammad(talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DOF isn't that much of an issue to me. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. DOF is adequate, IMO. Beautiful picture. (Also, glad to see the CC license rather than GFDL 1.2-only). BTW, I've started doing some wildflower photography myself, although most of my pictures are terrible so far. Kaldari (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this is relevant to the nom at all, but I like this one. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I think if the background weren't so distracting, I might nominate that one. I guess I need to learn more about lighting so I can get those dark backgrounds. 98.193.167.252 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually fast shutter speeds with small apertures and flash lighting produce those dark backgrounds. Personally, I don't like them though --Muhammad(talk) 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite right and the iso has an effect too. File:Unknown Pinaceae Cones 3800.jpg for example lets in quite a bit of light. Really Depends on how distracting the background is. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I have to know though: Are the water droplets natural or spray-on? :) 98.193.167.252 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plant is outdoors, and it was rained on. Though I'm not sure how natural H₂O varies from natural H₂O :D Noodle snacks (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cotyledon orbiculata 3.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think it's a beautiful image, meeting the criteria

Articles this image appears in

Little trout bay

Creator

Chzz

• Support as nominator --  Chzz  ►  13:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just so you know, the FP regulars find sunrises and sunsets to be a somewhat controversially encyclopedic subject. Warning you now. Ceranthor 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It's a nice image indeed, but there's little encyclopedic value to speak of. The image as a whole is rather grainy, as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Tells us very little about the subject. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Minimal encyclopedic value (EV). Spikebrennan (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is a good image of araucaria seeds, and I noticed none were present at the Araucaria page. Also, the image quality is good and eye-catching, IMO.

Articles this image appears in

Araucaria

Creator

rodrigomorante

• Support as nominator --Rodrigomorante (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The picture is in a gallery and is not referred to in the article. I can't support an abstract encyclopaedic value. If the article is modified in order to accommodate the picture, we'll se then. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Numerous blown highlights. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - harsh lighting, resulting in blown highlights. Perspective is a little too close for comfort. No great EV at the moment in article. With better lighting it would be good - sharpness isn't bad at full resolution, and focus/noise/compression/resolution/aberration are all at good levels. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution encyclopedic picture of the first Christian church built in Constantinople. More recent pictures have more trees and, erm, stuff around the church and don't give as clear a view of the building.

Articles this image appears in

Constantine I and Christianity, Hagia Eirene

Creator

Sébah & Joaillier, photographers. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke.

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice work! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Yeah there are trees and stuff now, but I'm not convinced that a good, modern photo is impossible. The one in Hagia Irene isn't too bad, and the color really brings this place to life. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, composition and EV. The fly was only 4mm long.

Articles this image appears in

Asilidae, Stichopogon, Dasypogoninae

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 05:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose alt Good pic of something so small.Terri G (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original the Alt has too much brightness. I prefer that composition, though. ZooFari 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Quality not comparable with existing FP's of similar subjects. Poor lighting, detail and sharpness. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out any other FPs of an insect of similar size? --Muhammad(talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not so much the overall size of the insect but the way details are shown (or not shown). See here, here and here. Difficult? Yes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall size of the insect does affect the details shown. With a large organism, you can move further away from the subject and maintain a considerably larger aperture and still get good DOF. For smaller insects, you have to move as close as possible, use a small aperture to get a good DOF resulting in lack of sharpness. This image is of a larger subject, maybe 1.5 inches?, this is a 9mm subject and I believe getting good details of something of this size is not very difficult. File:Mole cricket02.jpg is of a small subject but then again its a studio shot, and these tend to be better due to obvious reasons. FWIW, I think the image nominated does show good details and sharpness. The small bristles on its legs are visible even at thumbnail size! (from my calculations, the size of these bristles is around 0.1mm). --Muhammad(talk) 10:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mole crickets are actually pretty big, 3-5cm. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Somehow I read mm instead of cm. Well, just emphasizes my points. --Muhammad(talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - For a subject this size (in a non-studio environment), it's pretty much impossible to get both perfect sharpness and DOF. I don't think there's any important information missing from the photo due to those limitations, though. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I realise that the size is problematic, but better quality is possible with the right equipment. The alternative almost has the detail required but seems to be severely over exposed. I know how you feel, I've taken tons of bird photos that are not FP quality due to lack of reach. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have recovered the highlights and slightly decreased the exposure of the alternative (shown here as Edit Alt). Comments from everyone will be appreciated. Better? --Muhammad(talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the creature brown or grey? WB needs some work on one of them. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colors of the original seem truer. I have the raw, should I bother to upload another edit? --Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Has enc for both the species and houseplants. This species reproduces by dropping jellybean's which form clones, which is quite interesting.

Articles this image appears in

Sedum rubrotinctum, Houseplant

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this the best lighting possible? I feel like it's either too bright or too dark everywhere on the plant. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Noodle snacks (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More seriously, I lifted the shadows a bit. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality good enough for me. Good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Not a lot to say; good picture. Maedin\^talk 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High EV - so that's where jelly beans come from; never knew that before! :-) --jjron (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sedum rubrotinctum.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Wikipedia ought to feature dozens of scenes from ancient Egypt. Not everything important is available in high resolution format yet; here we have a start: the ruins at Karnac, as recorded in 1838. Very high resolution file; smaller courtesy copy available at File:Karnacs2 couresy copy.jpg. Unrestored version at File:Karnacs.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Karnak

Creator

Louis Hahge (1806-1885)

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 06:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this splendid sketch. It looks much more vivid than the original one! It also gives the viewer an idea about the real dimension and proportion of the buildings. Quite informative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - lovely restoration. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - huge EV, lovely restoration and great quality. I'd like some comment though - looking at the original, this seems a bit too blue. Anyone else agree? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Beautiful picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent all around. I love images with this much complexity. Synergy 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Vanderdecken about the colors on this. The colors in the original look a lot more like what the actual place looks like, so maybe a happy medium would work best here. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Karnacs2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Iconic image, and if it isn't it should be. A worker in a carbon black plant in Sunray, Texas (dated 1942).

Articles this image appears in

Carbon (illustrating "precautions", which talks about working in/with carbon black), Sunray, Texas, Carbon black, John Vachon

Creator

John Vachon

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support de Bivort 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Enormous EV. Ceranthor 13:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support but the harsh light makes it hard to see. Donama (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Really bad lighting. Also not sold on the EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rare color documentation of labor conditions before modern safety regulations were fully implemented. Unusually good textures for a color photo. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been thinking about this one for some time. The EV is unquestionably great, but as mentioned earlier, the lack of lighting significantly reduces its overall value. Too much of the image's detail is simply lacking or not visible at all due to this. -- matt3591 ^TC 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I'm going to have to agree with Ceranthor and Durova on this. While the lighting is not as good as it should be, this is definitely a good picture with extremely high EV. Its showing just how the average work done by these workers take its toll on facial features and coloration. Synergy 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in spite of lighting concerns. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Adam (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yet again I find myself wondering where the (enormous, unquestionably great) EV is. Sunray, Texas: doesn't tell us anything about the town, so no EV. Carbon: it's supposed to illustrate "precautions"; well, that section isn't really about precautions, and this picture doesn't tell me anything the section doesn't or explain anything that the section does say. Carbon black:okay, so this guy works at a carbon black plant...how does that make this picture illustrate carbon black? John Vachon: this is probably where the picture has the most EV. But it's still not a tremendous amount. So, maybe there's a little EV in each of four articles. But it says in the criteria, "An image has more encyclopedic value if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributes weakly to many." Anyone have thoughts on this? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with you, Makeemlighter, this has artistic value but it's not illustrating the articles. The picture hints at possibly harsh working conditions and long-term damage, but that isn't the subject of the articles it is in. Maedin\^talk 17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I like the lighting, but it doesn't really leave much of an image from an encyclopaedia point of view. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 07:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vote number 1b.jpg

Reason

Possibly the most offensive featured content candidate we could run, but highly encyclopedic. Restored version of File:Vote number 1.jpg. Uploaded locally (where admins tend to be draconian about deleting images that aren't used in article space); will supply a smaller courtesy version upon request.

Articles this image appears in

Nazi Party, Early timeline of Nazism, Adolf Hitler's rise to power

Creator

Rehse-Archiv für Zeitgeschichte und Publizistik

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind being more specific as to why this isn't at Commons? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the template ({{Do not move to Commons}}) on the image page says, the image is PD in the US but not in its country of origin, therefore it cannot be hosted on Commons. I would have asked this question had I not seen the template :). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looks a bit faded towards the top. Kaldari (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded new version. The edit isn't much different so it's under the same filename. Durova^Charge! 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-The poster itself is not offensive-there is no distasteful imagery or Nazi symbols.In fact as Nazi posters go,it's a fairly subdued one.Whilst I appreciate the historical background is deeply disturbing,it's necessary(if somewhat difficult) to consider just the picture itself,regardless of our personal views on its subject. Lemon martini (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Nazi symbol - the digit 1 is standing on top of a swastika. File:Nazi Swastika.svg —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's there, but it could be used much more distastefully. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an image is offensive to you personally doesn't make it any less historically important or of any lower quality. We cannot let personal feelings inform our opinions on whether this is a significant, quality image - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wadester doesn't seem to be calling it personally offensive, or opposing it. Fwiw what bothers me more than many other Nazi images is that it actually is a technically meritorious example of graphic design. It puts a public face on a repulsive bit of history and almost makes it palatable. The Nazis were media-savvy (they had to be good at something in order to rise to power), and this is an example of why not to place uncritical trust a well-packaged media appeal. Durova^Charge! 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For EV --Muhammad(talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Support Great EV, good restoration. This isn't really that offensive, but either way we don't censor and this is real history. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - on grounds of reasonable quality but fantastic EV. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is so detailed and the colours are so strong. This is excellent - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Über support (pun intended). However I have a question: the original seems to have some black borders around it, shouldn't they have been kept? Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon a closer look I decided to hold my support for the moment. The top of the "1" and the a few parts of the swastika have some pretty annoying white stripes (see image to the left). Are they the result of the restoration process? If so, I think it would be better if they were removed. Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No white stripes were visible on my monitor at 100% resolution. What resolution did you see stripes? And what orientation did the stripes have? The original artwork did have some uneven patches in black on the number, most of which appeared to have been segments where black ink had been applied slightly unevenly. If that isn't what you're referring to (and it doesn't seem to be) then I'm a little confused; maybe it's a monitor issue? Durova^Charge! 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My resolution is 1280x1024. I don't know if they are more obvious because of my monitor, but I can see them quite clearly. But they're surely from the image, they're not the type of things that could result from a misconfiguration of the monitor. They're more like patches of color that are wither than the rest of the color around them, not stripes. It's most visible in the lower corner of the arm of the swastika from center of the image (the one closest to the viewer). Diego_pmc ^Talk 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean less black? That might be the uneven ink distribution. I'll get to work on that. :) Durova^Charge! 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to be in the original, if not so obvious - they appear to be small wrinkles in the paper combined with some printing artefacts. I'm kind of neutral about this restoration, though: I'd kind of prefer a little more of the original's lightly-aged paper tone, rather than pure white. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending this. MER-C 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great EV. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose adds little to the articles it's present in in terms of illuminating the text, "list 1" mentioned in the caption isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the articles and the the large "1" is the main focus of the poster's design. Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List 1 refers to the placement of the party's candidates on a ballot. Ballot format itself is rarely important enough to discuss in article text, unless it's the Palm Beach County, Florida butterfly ballot of the 2000 elections. What this image demonstrates is part of how the Nazis gained power: by presenting a simple mnemonic in a visually compelling manner to make it as easy as possible for voters to remember and support them. Durova^Charge! 20:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does not appear to be discussed in the articles either, if it was and this poster was shown to be a good example of the phenomenon I would probably support. Sorry for the list 1 confusion I think I misread "at" as "and". Guest9999 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it verges on OR to express that much. With most campaign posters relevance is implied in an article that discusses an election or a political career (two posters from the US presidential election of 1864 are recent examples). At Adolf Hitler's rise to power this replaced a fair use image that had been stable at the article for some time. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very interesting, small issues as seen above, but overall positive Kennedy ^(talk) 09:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have uploaded proposed changes over the existing file. Although it's possible to go even farther, there's a line to be drawn between restoring old graphic art and improving upon the original. It really wouldn't be right to make Nazi propaganda look better than it actually was. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuspended. Returning to nomination list for a quick check that nothing went wrong. :) MER-C 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vote number 1b.jpg MER-C 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Large, lots of important information, useful in multiple important articles. The colors make it look less boring than depictions in black-and-white, if not to say even beautiful.

Articles this image appears in

Cholesterol Dehydroepiandrosterone Estrogen Progesterone Progestogen Aldosterone Pregnenolone Androstenediol 3-beta-HSD 21-Hydroxylase Steroid metabolism Testosterone Estradiol Androgen Steroid hormone

Cortisol Androstenedione Corticosterone Estrone Cytochrome P450 Aromatase 17-Hydroxyprogesterone 17-Hydroxypregnenolone Deoxycorticosterone Aldosterone synthase Steroid hydroxylases CYP17A1

Cholesterol side-chain cleavage enzyme Steroid 11-beta-hydroxylase Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 17Beta Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase Androstanediol Glucocorticoid remediable aldosteronism

Creator

User:Slashme and User:Mikael Häggström

• Support as nominator --Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why isn't the svg version nominated? --Muhammad(talk) 15:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki renders svg-images imperfectly, requiring them to first be converted to a raster format to avoid ugly flaws. Because this version looks better in Wikipedia, I nominated it. Perhaps both versions should be nominated, but I'm not sure that's allowed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I am qualified to vote for the image, so I abstain. --Muhammad(talk) 18:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - For now. Being in so many articles it is certainly useful, but I'm not able to assess if it deserves FP status. For example, the meaning of the labels is not clear. In the box, it refers to cellular location, but in the figure it appears to indicate some kind of transformation (green) or enzime (red). The type of the colored areas (some of them with a border line, other without) isn't clear either. Let's wait for further opinions and enlightment -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enzymes have both a cellular localization (e.g. mitochindria or endoplasmic reticulum) as well as a function. I'm not sure, however, that it needs to be specifically stated. As to borders, there is no strict border between e.g. glucocorticoids (green area) and mineralocorticoids (purple area), since they partly overlap. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - on comparison of the two versions I don't see any encyclopaedic inaccuracies in the SVG render, only a couple of sub-10px-difference text aligment issues. When we actually have a very good SVG already uploaded, not having to find someone to create one, I can't support the PNG. If the SVG was nominated, you'd have my support, as all other criteria are completely satisfied. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the svg version. The small changes made to it can be made to the next png-derivative later, when we now there are no more changes to be made for now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the addition of the SVG version and a few corrections to it, I change my vote to Support SVG. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support, after the improvements -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as original contributor: I created the black-and-white diagram, and I feel that it's greatly improved by the addition of colour: not only does it make the diagram clearer, but it illustrates the overlap between the functions of the illustrated steroids. I'd also like to note that this is a great example of the multiple-authorship model of Wikipedia! --Slashme (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I made a little gallery on the image page, giving a brief flashback of the evolution of the image. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very nice and hugely useful. Another good svg. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:57, 31 March 2009 (GMT)
• Nice. I suggest to rotate the enzyme names 180 degrees so they read in the same orientation as the "Androgens (19 corbons)" and "Estrogens (21 carbons)" labels at the left. Less strain people's necks :-) . --İnfoCan (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing it! I corrected it, but I found it was better to turn the "Androgens" and "Estrogens" instead, avoiding having to read from bottom to top. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Steroidogenesis.svg MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image was taken during a cadet training exercise at a school in Birmingham. I think it is compositionally very unique and pleasing: the featureless expanse of grass counterpoints the helicopter quite dramatically, and the line of trees draws the eye upwards. The bright sky outlines the helicopter well and also makes visible the dirt and grass blown out by the downdraft. On a more practical note, I notice that the Wikipedia page on the Boeing Chinook (which is the the RAF version as opposed to the American CH-47 version) lacks any other similar image or indeed any other image in which the whole aircraft including rotors is composed.

Articles this image appears in

Boeing Chinook (UK variants)

Creator

Azonixmaestro

• Support as nominator --Azonixmaestro (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is a nicely composed image, however it falls on a few points: There are flecks that are either dirt from some form of scan or debris from the wash; the darkness of the image and low light conditions mean it is not very informative about the subject; the low light also means at full size it is fairly unfocussed and noisy. Together these negatives make this an oppose vote, although I do like the photo, sorry. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:51, 31 March 2009 (GMT)
• Oppose Really bad lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The contrast is bad, but good photo for creativity. ZooFari 04:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Azonixmaestro I think "really bad" is a little abrupt. Surely that's a matter of opinion? Also those flecks are indeed from the downdraft; no dodgy scanning involved. It could perhaps be said that they enhance the picture by illustrating the downdraft. Plus with a correctly calibrated monitor, detail can be resolved along pretty much the whole of the left flank so it's not a complete contrejour.
• Oppose I really like many aspects of this photo; it's well framed and the helicopter looks great against the sky. That said, it falls down technically for a number of reasons. Whilst detail can be resolved along its side, it's incredibly noisy there, and being the subject of the photo that's really not great. The photo is at a wide angle too, which means that the trees (and the street lights on the Bristol Road) are not perpendicular to the ground. Both of these aspects detract from the Enc. Value of the photo, which is of great importance to an FPC. At least it settles an argument, I was giving a tutorial to some first year students 300 metres away at the time, a few foolishly claiming that it was landing at The Guild. bad_germ 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Didn't check the edit history to see if it was removed, but right now this isn't in any articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Edmund S. Valtman was a Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist who donated a portion of his work to the public domain. This example is a caricature of Idi Amin, Ugandan military dictator and the president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Restored version of File:Idi Amin caricature.jpg. Scanned from original artist's sketch; pencil lines made by the artist before inking have been retained (most visible at chin and shoulders).

Articles this image appears in

Edmund S. Valtman, Idi Amin

Creator

Edmund S. Valtman

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. I could id the image without reading the caption. --Muhammad(talk) 05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great caricature, excellent value. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I feel the white balance is a little blue. Anyone else, or would that be my laptop? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my system the white balance appears different between Photoshop, Commons, and en:wiki for this image. Have had all three windows open at the same time side by side, and can't explain the discrepancy. That's why I tweaked and reuploaded so many times. Durova^Charge! 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use a pale blue background for non-mainspace pages, in Photoshop it's surrounded by grey and I think Commons is white. The perception of color is dependent on the surrounding colors. MER-C 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to try another edit if you can achieve a better balance. The uncompressed TIFF file is linked from the image hosting page. Durova^Charge! 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Does Valtman have any similar sketches of Robert Mugabe? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Idi Amin caricature2.jpg MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High-quality portraiture of Albert Einstein, a well known historical figure. Image is a rare portrait shot of Einstein at the old age of 68.

Articles this image appears in

Albert Einstein

Creator

Photograph by Oren Jack Turner, Princeton, N.J (File:Albert Einstein 1947.jpg)).
Original image cleaned/leveled by User:Jaakobou.

• Support as nominator --Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. His face seems a bit 'flat' and lacking in contrast, and there is a rather unfortunate line down his nose - a scan artifact? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Terribly sorry but oppose fro the moment. The Library of Congress original isn't terrific to start with, but this image is upsampled from the original tiff, which makes it a little fuzzier still. I would first of all keep the image at its original size, deal with the (scanning?) artifacts on the right hand side of the portrait, and then fiddle with the histogram a bit to increase the contrast. Perhaps do just a leetle sharpening around the eyes (faded to, say, 20% or so), and leave the image otherwise as is. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On quick inspection, there seems to be a significant amount of artifacting on the nose and mustache of the original. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historically valuable and in good quality. Restored version of File:Sadat and Begin.jpg. Egypt was the first Arab country to recognize Israel, and this is the photo of the leaders of both countries when they finalized the agreement that made peace between them.

Articles this image appears in

Anwar El Sadat, Menachem Begin, Camp David Accords, Presidency of Jimmy Carter

Creator

Leffler, Warren K. , image restoration work by User:Jaakobou

• Support as nominator --Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How would you feel about cropping the black border? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'd suggest a tighter crop over Sadat's head and behind Begin's back, so that it's more obvious which people are the subject of the picture. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: including members of the crowd helps provide context. i.e. they just announced the signing of the peace accords. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

My first 'image set' nomination. I've always been fairly happy with these images. Image quality and resolution is very good, allowing you to see all 169 historical composers, architects, poets, painters, and sculptors, probably in greater detail than can be seen by the naked eye, as a fence stops the public from getting too close. The set also shows all four sides of the frieze - something that (by the laws of physics) a single photo cannot. I am open to the idea of combining each of them into a single image, but that might require text within the image to annotate the set properly. An idea, anyway, if 4 separate images isn't to taste. For the record, yes I know the lighting isn't consistent for all four images, but that is to be expected when the sun isn't directly overhead. I've tried to take the same shots on an overcast day but found the relief looked a bit flat as a result.

Articles this image appears in

Frieze of Parnassus

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Before I automatically oppose a 'featured set' (yes, please combine into one image), can you comment on whether these have perspective distortion caused by shooting up, or whether that is the shape of the memorial? If distorted, would you be amenable to correcting for it? Another quibble, but assuming this is a square memorial, shouldn't all images be cropped identically, and thus be identical sizes? There's a fair bit of variation there in both the cropping and sizes. --jjron (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, well the reason why I kept them separate is that others may not want all four images (similar to the reason why we prefer to leave diagrams annotated in a particular language), but I suppose we can also have a combined image in addition to the component images. I'll do that tonight. I don't think it is distorted though. If you look at the full monument, you can see the angle that these images were taken from. It was near enough to impossible to get the exact dimensions identical for each image though, given the distance that these images were taken from (30 metres away or so) and the lack of a way to measure the distance accurately. I could downsample them to match more exactly, but I don't think that's really necessary when they're separate files (would be for the combined image, obviously). I don't think there is that much variation in cropping though. I made sure that each image was cropped in the same way, but it is inevitable that there will be slight differences. The fence rails might have been built to inexact tolerances, the grass that I took the image from may have been slightly higher or lower than the equivalent on other sides, etc. All these could contribute to minor variations, but I'd like to think that we're not so picky as to expect a FP photographer to also be a mathematician and surveyor. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For an FP photographer or standard FPC, no. But for an accursed featured set, yes. They require super-standards :-) --jjron (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have uploaded a collage. What do you think? Wasn't sure how best to do it but tried to keep it as minimalist as possible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if there's a reason for the sequence chosen, it looks odd starting with S, though it does match the table in the article - is that some sort of convention or was that a specific design sequence for the monument or something? Also I don't think the text is required (as you suggested above), I'd just use the image page description and/or the image caption, or at most number (or letter) them on the photo itself so as it's more usable across wikis (and why red text anyway?). Despite that, the collage is better - for example if done individually I'd probably say oppose the blown (or close to) sky in the north image, but that can be excused in the collage version IMO. --jjron (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the choices you mentioned regarding the collage were arbitrary, really. I just thought that red text contrasted better than black, and given that there is really no particular 'order' for compass directions (other than the oft-used clockwise NESW), I left it as it was in the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What if we made it a featured set with the current FP of the entire monument as the lead image? Just an idea.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support de Bivort 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt Edit 1 or other collage versions. I have done an edit removing the text, and with some selective levels and shadow adjustments to try to even out the lighting a bit and bring out a bit more detail in some parts, and adding a far better text description to the image page. I also edited the article to show you how I think this would be better placed, including an improved caption (am happy for you to revert once you've had a look). If you want to edit back off the originals and replace my version would support that too. However oppose the featured set for reasons given above, and also because it only appears in a gallery in the article. --jjron (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It would have looked a lot better if the weather was overcast and the lighting was even on all four faces. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator commented in the original reason "I've tried to take the same shots on an overcast day but found the relief looked a bit flat as a result". Seems you can't have it all ways. --jjron (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't viewed full res due to large size but IMO EV is very good. For the closer, if the nomination does not receive enough supports for promotion, then count this as a support as quality must be good. Prefer alternative, then Alt edit1--Muhammad(talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a composite, preferably Alt Edit 1.--ragesoss (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albert Memorial Friese Collage - May 2008-edit1.jpg MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, DOF, and EV. The image has been in some of the articles for more than 2 months now.

Articles this image appears in

Asteraceae, Sunflower, Inflorescence

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination. MER-C 08:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The most glaring issue mentioned in the previous nomination looks fixed. I would like to know what the grub thingy is in the middle of the picture. Might be some EV in that. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its some kind of a worm. --Muhammad(talk) 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll rephrase: I'd like to know exactly what the grub-like, worm-like thingy in the middle is: a larva of some sort perhaps? To me it's the star of the picture: once you've seen it's there, it's noticeable even in the thumbnail. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am working on getting an expert to id it but it may take some time. --Muhammad(talk) 07:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The worm was identified as a lepidopteran larva. --Muhammad(talk) 07:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That doesn't seem very specific. Is a species ID not possible? Your reference is to an order made up of all moths and butterflies (referenced as "one of the most speciose orders in the class Insecta" in the article). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Species id for the larva is impossible as I did not see the worm before photographing the flower and I do not have any picture with good details. Nonetheless, this image is supposed to show a sunflower and IMO it does that. The worm is a bonus. --Muhammad(talk) 07:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice image - has 'wow' factor! :D - Fastily (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral its pretty interesting, plus its sharp and detailed. The focus stack seems to have been fairly well done. Unfortunately the highlights are severely blown, which isn't really acceptable for a subject that you can shoot again. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per Noodle Snacks good point. ZooFari 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sunflower macro wide.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I find the quality of this photo superb and I think a picture at such a close range and with such good timing must be unusual.

Articles this image appears in

M777 howitzer

Creator

Jonathanmallard

• Support as nominator --— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some mention of the Muzzle brake in the caption wouldn't hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs)
  • Agree - I'll have a think about how to incorporate it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Don't we already have a featured picture that is very similar in subject matter and composition to this one? --Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean File:4-14 Marines in Fallujah.jpg? Yes, it's quite similar and I hadn't seen it when I nominated this picture. Shall I withdraw this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you do, the current FP has higher encyclopaedic value and better composition. I doubt this would pass in contrast, however you can leave it to process if you wish, it's your decision. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well personally I support it, as quality is decent and EV seems great. It is a different howitzer than the above referenced M198, though admittedly of the same caliber. We don't have a "scope" concept here similar to the the Commons version of Valued Pictures, so it's possible to have more than one FP for similar subjects. The nom'd image is in a separate article as well so I'm not sure it's diluted too much by the existence of the other FP. Fletcher (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have a copyright question. This image came from flickr and was licensed there under CC-BY. However, this was changed to PD-USGov-Military-Army. Is this right? There is no evidence that this photo was "made during the course of the person's official duties." The argument goes that I guess any private photos you take while during a tour of duty become PD? Is that correct, or should we revert the copyright tag back to CC-BY?-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have asked User:Terrillja to comment on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::Hi, the question here is was the image taken white the person was on duty. If it was an image of a bunch of soldiers playing football on base, I'd tend to agree that this would belong to the person who took the image. However, this image was taken by a soldier, during deployment, and is of an artillery piece in action, which would indicate to me that they were on duty, and that the image was taken while they were under the employment of the army. Since the image was taken while they were working for the army, the image becomes the property of their employer, similar to how a web designer does not own the copyright to work that they did for a company while they were working for that company. My tagging was based on some other images that I had seen which were also personal flickr images and were imported here: [17] and [18] Apparently the army has an account on flickr too. Go figure. If this was wrong, I will certainly offer my apology. --Terrillja _talk 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC) per Fletcher below[reply]

I would say the question is more like, was the image taken as part of the person's official duties -- in other words, was the photographer employed by the army to take photographs? In contrast to someone taking a personal photo with their own camera during a tour of duty. The photographer's user page User:Jonathanmallard says he is a medic and the EXIF data indicates it was shot with a Canon Point & Shoot, not a professional SLR like you would expect a military photographer to use, so I tend to think this is a personal photo. I doubt soldiers' personal photos are required to be in the public domain. Fletcher (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Perhaps, without further hard evidence, since no one seems to know for sure, we should just defer to the license this user released the image on flickr? I'm not sure which is worse, releasing someones personal photo into the public domain or adding a CC-BY stipulation to an otherwise PD government image (assuming we choose the wrong license here)?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to protect someone's rights that might not exist than to deny someone's rights that might really exist. I changed it back to the CC license. Maybe Jonathan can clarify it for us. Fletcher (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note Someone should also check out this one, since it was taken by the same person and tagged pd-usgov-army by another user on commons. Perhaps this needs to be clarified somewhere what official duties entails. Does an image taken while on patrol count as "on duty" if you are not an army photographer? I mean you aren't employed as a photographer, but you are working on taxpayer time, so what is the deal there?--Terrillja _talk 02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC) per Fletcher below[reply]

This would seem to be the answer:

A "work of the United States Government," referred to in this document as a U.S. Government work, is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. (See 17 USC § 101, Definitions.56) [...]

An officer's or employee's official duties are the duties assigned to the individual as a result of employment. Generally, official duties would be described in a position description and include other incidental duties. Official duties do not include work done at a government officer's or employee's own volition, even if the subject matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as part of the individual's official duty. (S.REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56-57) (1976) "A government official or employee should not be prevented from securing copyright in a work written at his own volition and outside his duties, even though the subject matter involves his government work or his professional field.") For further discussion, see Tresansky, John O. Copyright in Government Employee Authored Works. 57 30 Cath. L. Rev. 605 (1981).

So if his official duties as a medic do not include taking pictures of howitzers then the copyright still belongs to him. If he is taking pictures on taxpayer time that is a discipline issue, not a copyright issue. But I don't think we can assume even that much; maybe he is doing it on whatever free time he is given. And it's not like snapping a pic with a point and shoot is a big waste of time anyway. I could see your point if he was doing a long exposure on a view camera trying to be Ansel Adams of Afghanistan while someone is bleeding out on a gurney in the clinic, but I don't think that's what's happening here! :-) Fletcher (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support assuming copyright can be sorted out. Shame the angle isn't quite as good as the other FP, but I think it's still good enough to illustrate the article it's in. Terri G (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Shouldn't mid-nomination edits be mentioned on this page? An edit was made and I don't see any indication of that here. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I think that new versions are supposed to be uploaded with a different name so that we can compare them? There seems to be a parallel nomination happening at Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list#File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg and the change was due to a comment there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The existing, similar, FP is better in several aspects (such as lighting etc). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since that image illustrates a different gun, I don't think that's an addressable concern. I suggest that all commenters with this rationale reconsider their !votes. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say it's a valid point, even in the sense that it indicates that a better shot of this subject is quite acquirable. It's pretty common to compare noms to existing FPs of similar subjects, e.g., a new butterfly nom to existing butterfly FPs. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got to take this picture because a friend of mine knew people over at the field artillery unit on my FOB. It had been a dream of mine to load and pull the lanyard of a Howitzer. heck im a sucker for big guns! after i got to do that I took this photo on my time. clinic was over we had no traumas to speak of. I really dont care what the copyright is. i just wanted as many people as possible to enjoy my photography. im a medic i work trauma day in and day out. photography is my stress reliever it keeps me from going crazy. I just want people to enjoy my photography and if my name is at the bottom that i took it thats all i care about. heres me about to load the M777: [19]. Jonathanmallard —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Some more input would be nice now that the copyright issue has been resolved by the copyright holder. I'll also point out that the user's Flickr gallery is quite fascinating. Check it out if you have some time (personal opinion, of course). Best of luck to our soldier overseas. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't know if the creator is still watching, but I don't quite get the dimensions on this image. It looks odd at this size when there's no apparent reason for the crop of the height (this camera takes fullsize images at 3648×2736) - in fact if there was more height then the smoke wouldn't have to be cutoff at the top. I'd like to hear an explanation, but the awkward looking crop along with other reasons given above, inclines me towards opposing. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Outstanding image. Opposing on the grounds that we already have an existing FP of a different towed artillery piece is like opposing the next high quality image of an insect on the grounds that we already have a FP of a bug. --Leivick (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2009

Promoted Image:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

• Comment.Jjron i had just bought the camera i was not familiar with all its settings. I had put my camera on the wide screen setting because it looks great on my desktop. thanks Jonathanmallard —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Reason

Good lighting, decent DOF, very high res, sharp, good EV, and really pretty :)

Articles this image appears in

Polemonium reptans

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit I gave the original a sharpen (hope you don't mind), I think you should chop off a bit since it looks a bit off centre atm. I've attached an edit with a mild curves and such a crop. The depth of field is a shallow, but its obviously a pretty small flower. Noodle snacks (talk)
  • Thanks for the edit. I didn't think to sharpen it, good idea. The crop looks better too. Yeah, the DOF isn't amazing, but two of the flowers are completely in focus, and several of the others are mostly in focus, so you aren't loosing any important information at least. Kaldari (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I redid the original with the following edits: cropped to put the flowers in the center, sharpened, saved at a lower compression setting (less jpeg artifacting), plus I got rid of the clarity boost I did on the RAW file since that combined with the sharpening was making the petals look too papery and brittle, when in actuality they appear quite soft. (That's why mine looks a little less contrasty that yours.) Hope I managed to improve it. Let me know if you still like your edit better. Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How big was each flower? --Muhammad(talk) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can get a reasonable idea from the DOF at f11, but the "flowers are 1.3cm long" according to the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then this was probably not shot at 1:1, right? If so, wouldn't it be better to show a close-up view of one flower only? --Muhammad(talk) 07:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can get a good idea of their size from this picture. The flowers always grow in bunches, so it seems more encyclopedic to show a bunch, IMO, even if that means not all of them are in focus. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for lack of better DOF. --Muhammad(talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either: Ticks all of the boxes. Maedin\^talk 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which version? MER-C 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Either for me. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer original --Muhammad(talk) 10:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Per creators comments about what it really looks like. Nice image. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:12, 7 April 2009 (GMT)
• Original - BTW, I should also note that I tweaked the color on the original to be more lavender, as it matches the actual color more closely. I'm not sure how I got pure blue flowers in the first version of the photo, but if you see them in real life, there's definitely a touch of lavender. Kaldari (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Polemonium reptans 2009.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High EV

Articles this image appears in

[20]

Creator

the creator of the image, where possible using the format wikiuser

• Support as nominator --Erwin Eisen (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The force is strong with this one. Tom™_(2¢) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted check the date MER-C 12:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A serious nomination to fit the date. Restored version of File:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Circus clown, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, Clown

Creator

Strobridge Litho. Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Can't oppose, clown will eat me. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A clean example of a poster Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What Spikebrennan said. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This year marks the 20th anniversary of this US Navy incident, and I still think this image has what it takes to be featured. Previous attempts have suffered from one or two technical issues and insufficient support for consensus, but I hope that third time will be lucky. I would like to have this image featured in time for the 20th anniversary of the incident, although that desire is second to ensuring that FPC criteria are upheld.

Articles this image appears in

April 19, USS Iowa (BB-61), Live fire exercise, USS Iowa turret explosion, Fred Moosally, A Glimpse of Hell (book)

Creator

LT. Thomas Jarrell

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Original. Edit is way too grainy! Ceranthor 22:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the past consensus. I don't think renominating a few times will help increase chances of becoming a FP. ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past consensus such as it existed has always been less than five people. The first time garnered only two opposes, the second had only support but not enough for promotion. To say that you oppose per past conesensus implies either opposition to the image on grounds hat it has failed to garner the need support to pass or opposition becuase of tehnical issues which are beleived to have been addressed in the touched up version below the original. Since you are asked to a give a valid reason for opposition that can be addressed, I respectfully seek claification on your opposition so I can better understand why you beleive the image should not be promoted. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. The first one has compression issues (or blurred in thumbnail) and they both obviously are too grainy. If it has value though, this may be eligible for Valued Pictures. ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not clear enough. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - between the technical and the aesthetic, I don't think it's up to FP standards, although it's certainly a valuable image.--ragesoss (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I've never nominated a FP before, but I think that this is just a stunning image, particularly the rather ominous clouds in the background. In my opinion, it has excellent symbolism within the context of Operation Deny Flight and the Bosnian War. The raw power of the F-15C, but also the dark clouds gathering in the background. The picture was taken in 1993, just when it seemed like NATO airpower would make a big difference, but the optimists ignored the dark clouds in the background, which eventually led to Srebenica and the like.

Articles this image appears in

Operation Deny Flight, 36th Wing

Creator

Sergeant Jane Schroeder, USAF

• Support as nominator --Cool3 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To much noise and not very clear . Adam (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry, totally new to picture terminology. What is noise? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Looked it up, for anyone else interested, please see Image noise. Cool3 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too many distracting elements and image noise. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - I'd rather have the uniform film grain noise (it is film grain, as opposed to nasty digital CCD colour noise) than the strange lack of texture and non-uniform correction in the edit. As it is, I don't think the encyclopaedic value or the wow factor are high enough to justify the minor less-than-perfect-ness of the technical execution. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose original, Strong oppose edit. Film grain is much preferable to the results of trying to remove grain digitally.--ragesoss (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I agree that the original is better than the edit. In my opinion, the edit also loses much of the "foreboding" that gives the original its value; however, it appears that no one else is supporting this anyway. Cool3 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An uncommon and enc view of an hoverfly in flight, hovering above the ground. Though not technically excellent, I believe it illustrates the subject better than existing FP's, including Fir's marvellous airborne sex photo.

Articles this image appears in

Insect flight

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. You're right, it certainly does illustrate insect flight better than Fir's shot (although I think we would ideally need a sharp, super slow-mo animation), but given the image quality and the fact that the subject takes up such a small proportion of the frame, I think it is probably more of a VPC than FPC. I'm not saying it isn't a wonderful shot though. I know it is, because I've tried and never managed to lock focus on one of those hoverflies in time to capture it before it flew away. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose per Diliff. Too bad it doesn't have enough resolution to crop and remain a candidate. Good capture. Durova^Charge! 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have many of these which are much better, eg this. --Fir0002 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose though it difficult capturing an image like Fir's, it isn't impossible. ZooFari 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair though, it isn't really about what is possible or impossible, but rather what is realistic. Fir managed to get extremely lucky with that mating fly photo, and I do wonder how many hours he spent shooting before he got that one. Not to say that skill wasn't involved either though! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have better flight pictures, like this one. But neither of them was taken from below. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Eclairage, plate by Maurice Dessertenne for volume IV (E-G) of the Nouveau Larousse illustré (France, 1898-1907). Is there's anyone here who didn't spend countless hours pouring over illustrations like this in encyclopedias when they were young? And who still does?

Illustrates high-quality custom-made engravings for encyclopedias, and of course the various means of making light through the ages (prehistory - ca. 1900).

The way everything is slotted into "Antiquity", "Middle age and modern times", "Contemporary period" and, weirdly, "Japan", just adds to the charm, I feel.

Articles this image appears in

Encyclopedia, Maurice Dessertenne

Creator

Engraving by Maurice Dessertenne; scanned and restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nominator. --Carioca (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Superb resolution. Could you please fix two small things? There is "debris" to be removed to the left of the 1 and at the bottom right corner. Maedin\^talk 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eclairage.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent, high-resolution view not only of the original light tower, but of the station outbuildings as well, providing a nice idea of the station layout. It also shows the effect weathering has had on the structure.

Articles this image appears in

Dry Tortugas Light

Creator

United States Coast Guard, Petty Officer 2nd Class Jennifer Johnson; uploaded by DanMS

• Support as nominator --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for further consideration, and/or editing to deal with the problems pointed out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I've been to the Dry Tortugas in November, and don't believe this is oversaturated. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MER-C. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Relisting this picture was a mild and civilized way of dealing with a gross closing mistake. After this agressive striking action, the question is: shall we continue with the poll or just promote the picture, as it should have been done before? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop the presses per above. Invalid strikethroughs performed without permission or notification of reviewers. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this has been corrected: It was rather arbitrarily done by Wadester some time after the relisting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking objection; thank you for the restorations. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Technical quality on this was always weak, but evidently not detected by first 5 voters. --jjron (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of "do the original votes count yes-no-yes-no" has ruined any chance of this having a fair run anymore in this page. Hence, per talk page, provisionally promoting per original votes, but listing as a delist nom. Promoted Image:Dry Tortugas Lighthouse 2005.jp --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please play fair. wadester16 | Talk→ 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image is an outstanding example of shear warp volume rendering. I was certain that it would be featured when I clicked on the image, but no such tag came up. The image is very informative and it displays the mouse skull in a clear and intuitive fashion.

Articles this image appears in

Volume rendering, Skull (just added by Wadester16)

Creator

User:Lackas

• Support as nominator --Stotan (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I often think looking at skulls and imagining the creature underneath is a rather unintuitive task, this gif makes it really easy. I agree that its amazing this hasn't been featured already. --Tobyw87 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. -- Amazing, I agree. But the caption is not good enough for us to understand what's going on. For example, what are the ghost-like artifacts around the skull? Also, the animation is too fast -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is done from a CT scan. Soft tissues show up on X-rays as that sort of ghostly afterimage - you're pretty much seeing the rat's body as an afterimage, which, if anything, makes it more useful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obvious error in caption: thank you very much for neutralizing the alien invaders. The world is grateful. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why isn't the image in a mouse article? ZooFari 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and agree that this image would fit in in plenty of other articles. Brilliant image. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can this be slowed down a bit? It goes too fast for me to really appreciate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can we get an identification of the species? That would significantly increase the value of the image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would that increase it's value significantly? I don't imagine mouse skulls vary to a huge degree per species. And how often does someone need to look up what a particular species' skull looks like? Kaldari (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost certainly Rattus norvegicus. That's your standard medical lab rat, and the proportions are right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean Mus musculus, right? Narayanese (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image could go in Skull#Other skulls. ZooFari 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added it to skull as the lead image. The article is too human-biased anyway, and this is a great image to introduce someone to the concept. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Informative, clear, and fairly high rez for an animated gif. The only downside is a distracting orbiting speck around the height where the upper and lower teeth/incisors meet.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Synergy 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:VolRenderShearWarp.gif ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Of high artistic merit, and highly encyclopedic for Gilbert, the play, and the history of a theatre that largely came to be a success because of Gilbert's plays.

Articles this image appears in

Haymarket Theatre, W. S. Gilbert, The Wicked World

Creator

David Henry Friston

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For more information on context, see The Wicked World
• Support per nom. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I'm a tad disappointed with the resolution. Otherwise, It's very neat and detailed. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews, please. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: what the nominator said. Maedin\^talk 20:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wicked World - Illustrated London News, Feb 8 1873.PNG ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopedic engraving by Denon of a drawing by David for a costume for peoples' reprensentatives.

Minimal restoration: stains and dust removed, cropped/rotated, contrast enhanced. Chose to keep paper grain, not to bleach paper to white and not to remove all traces of darkening towards the edges.

Articles this image appears in

Jacques-Louis David, Dominique Vivant

Creator

drawing: Jacques-Louis David; engraving: Dominique Vivant, Baron de Denon / restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - It's very good, but the crop's a bit tight at the bottom. Recrop it so there's some space between the bottom of the f and the bottom of the image, and you have my vote. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Atcher service, Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's all the problems sorted =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. Highly encyclopedic. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews, please. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good resolution and nice restoration. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Le représentant du peuple François en fonction2.jpg MER-C 12:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A stunning illustration: You can see the carapace cracking.

Articles this image appears in

Traumatic insemination, bedbug

Creator

Rickard Ignell of Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Note

Please notify Raul654 of the result of this, as uploader.

• Support as nominator (Edit1 is best) --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (As the one who get permission for the image) Support Raul654 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I wish the focus were on the point of insertion. de Bivort 17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the difficulty of the image - the bedbugs are not going to stay still for you - I think that it's surprisingly good. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good heavens, we've sunk from bug porn to bug rape. Highly encyclopedic though. May I step on them? Durova^Charge! 21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. ZooFari 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive stuff. Adds great value. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:58, 2 April 2009 (GMT)
• Comment You know, I've just been looking closer, and noticed there's some JPEG artefacting. It seems to be almost entirely in the background, but be aware. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support educational value is much more important to me that some background jpeg artifacts. -- m:drini 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. Too bad about the focus, but there's not much that can be done about that. There is however a dust particle on the sensor or the mirror, just under the thorax of the male. Full support with bells if you remove that. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for good EV and hard to capture. --Muhammad(talk) 18:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- the important part is in focus. I wonder if she's in pain? J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not -- In the majority of examples of invertebrate nociception noted above, there seems to be little, if any, evidence that the animals' responses persist in anything akin to the manner described for mammals. As Eisemann et al. (1984) have described in a review of the "biological evidence" concerning pain in insects, "No example is known to us of an insect showing protective behavior towards injured parts, such as by limping after leg injury or declining to feed or mate because of general abdominal injuries. On the contrary, our experience has been that insects will continue with normal activities even after severe injury or removal of body parts." Raul654 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1: Definitely worthy. Maedin\^talk 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you prefer? Original or edit? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Traumatic insemination 1 edit1.jpg MER-C 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of the conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Restored version of File:George Atzerodt.jpg

Articles this image appears in

George Atzerodt

Creator

Alexander Gardner

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very high encylopedic value, a compelling image. Shortcomings in quality are more than made up for by these. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I agree with Mostlyharmless. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good image, I particularly like the expression on his face. High EV. Cool3 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For EV. Why are all the conspirators faces and poses alike? --Muhammad(talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They wore heavy manacles that spaced their wrists at a certain distance. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Atzerodt2.jpg MER-C 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Although a little busy as a thumbnail, the larger version is captivating. It adds to the article because it's the only image in the article that shows the visual effect of a mass deployment of sky lanterns during a festival. the other images are of single lanterns. There is a blurry gentleman in the foreground but i think it enhances the image by providing some perspective. the lanterns themselves are in focus and the lighting is good for such a scene. note:There is an alternative version of this without the left side cropped off. I think the crop is tasteful, but if the other version is preferable, I'd be happy with either.

File:LK loy krathong yi peng san sai HR2 Edit.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Sky lantern

Creator

Takeaway

• Support as nominator -- - Lambajan 04:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the image, but the low resolution is really pushing it. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Really like the shot, but it's been overly downsampled (not just in size). It looks a bit noisy, but how noisy is hard to tell with the extensive artifacting. Would like to see a better quality version of this if the uploader is willing to provide one; a D80 produces better quality images than this. --jjron (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the uploader and he provided a higher resolution version. His comments on it: "The photo is a bit grainy as the Nikon D80 doesn't really perform very well in dark situations when using settings above 800 ISO. The smoke of all the lanterns going up in the air also contributes to what might look like grain." - Lambajan 14:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, had a look at the bigger version and a quick play to see what I could do, but sadly the quality is just not there for mine, just too noisy; looks like the camera can't really handle the ISO 1250. Doubt my camera wouldn't do any better I must say. Maybe worth a try at VPC? --jjron (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly aggressive noise reduction and a black point adjustment worked pretty well imo, there isn't much fine detail to loose. Unfortunately cameras are at their weakest with dark areas and high isos though.

• Support Edit Not really a shot that could be made without high iso, the edit takes care of most of it. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Best med house gecko quality available, shows morning basking techniques (despite being nocturnal)

Articles this image appears in

Mediterranean house gecko, House gecko

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator --ZooFari 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Sharpness and EV is good but DOF is very shallow. --Muhammad(talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice, but should really have been taken from an angle that shows the entire animal more completely and in focus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A useful photographic illustration of many flower parts. The numbers allow it to be readable at thumbnail size.

Articles this image appears in

Lilium, Flower

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. Focus is good where required. --Muhammad(talk) 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, brilliantly encyclopedic and very attractive. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs NR on the background --Fir0002 08:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did it, though it was extremely minor. I had to zoom to a 3-400% to see it clearly. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were you looking in the right place? It's not visible in the OOF lily, but (its still) quite strong in the shadow area. But I must say it shows up much more strongly on my new (Dell) monitor than my old one... I'll try do an edit later today unless you beat me to it --Fir0002 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did it in the darker shadow sections, you may have to do the control-shift-R thing. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm still a fair bit there - ran it through another NR pass. Though to be honest I wouldn't have picked up on it but for this new Dell which I hadn't had a chance to calibrate properly - the gamma setting was bringing out too much shadow detail (I've done some rough calibration on it now which is better and I'll probably give it a Spyder calibration in a week or two)...--Fir0002 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can't see anything A/Bing them. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Outstanding image.--ragesoss (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very good! A shame that a whole petal isn't shown in full focus but we can't have everything -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great photo and very good encyclopaedic value. I bet this will turn up in homework round the world... |→ Spaully^₪† 12:50, 8 April 2009 (GMT)
• Support - Educational and visually appealing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful image. Synergy 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lillium Stamens.jpg MER-C 12:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. Focus is where required.

Articles this image appears in

Tephritoidea, Picture-winged fly

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 04:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Could I have a size reference, please? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure, but I think around 4-5mm long. --Muhammad(talk) 05:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Great quality macro as always, but the DOF/angle is unfortunate. It shows the feeding very well but not the fly's entire body. Sometimes I think a tighter aperture is needed even if it does mean that there is some diffraction and softness. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Diliff. Shame to subject oneself to this and wind up with DoF problems. Durova^Charge! 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The encyclopedic value of this picture can not possibly be understated. It is one of the few images that shows all of the Big 3 together, and nearly every history textbook in existence includes some variant of it. The picture may have some technical imperfections, but it is of high resolution, and it is clear. In any case, the encyclopedic value of it is so high as to more than compensate for any minor deficiencies. There is also a color version of this image (File:Yalta summit 1945 with Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin.jpg), but it is of much lower resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Yalta Conference

Creator

US Government photographer

• Support as nominator --Cool3 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm conflicted. The color alternative is actually a different shot, but I like it better (aside from the resolution). The interactions are much more significant in the color one, with Churchill looking and Roosevelt facing each other and turned away from Stalin, who looks off to his left. This one is still quite good, and the encyclopedic value is very high of course, but the scratches are distracting. Have you searched the Library of Congress site to see if there are lossless scans from which a restoration would be done?--ragesoss (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the color shot is a bit more significant. As are some other versions of the shot, such as this one, but that picture doesn't appear to be PD, according to the information it comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica archives. The version displayed here is originally from the Department of Defense, and it's the only one in their archives. Obviously, it would be ideal to find a high resolution version of the color one, but I don't think such an image exists (digitally). Personally, though, I think that this shot is better than some of the more formal ones, as it's a "candid" of the three leaders. Cool3 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The forest is a key habitat of rare and threatened species and sadly is under the control of Forestry Tasmania, with logging being allowed. I'm pretty sure that the area pictured was logged around 100 years ago. There was a settlement nearby at one stage too. I still need to find a decent ref though.

Articles this image appears in

Wielangta forest, Temperate rainforest

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Little motion blur (I think) in some leaves, but overall a good picture. If only it were safe to move around with equipment in TZ :( --Muhammad(talk) 04:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice composition. Mfield (Oi!) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Pretty severe sharpness drop off at the edges (particularly at the bottom) and the HDR (?) has left the treetops with a fair bit of CA --Fir0002 08:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The foreground is about a foot away, and the background is 50-100m, so naturally you can't get everything in focus without cheating with that 17mm tilt/shift lens and a full frame camera or focus stacking. UWAs also have a habit of being a tad soft at the edges at 10mm. Its a two shot exposure blend in photoshop. I adjusted the masks and stuff to treat the bleeding a bit. Thanks to the wind a bit was unavoidable though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah I see the problem - image description says it's at 20mm so I assumed you had the ability to zoom out and crop soft edges. I still would have liked the bottom focus-stacked into sharpness...
      • Description was wrong, fixed it. At 20mm the whole frame is dead sharp anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -download | sign! 00:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not usually a fan of these sort of vertical landscapes as they tend to look a bit peculiar (massive change in vertical AOV is usually unnecessary) and cramped (not enough width). The photo is pretty good but I can't help but think you could have got a better photo with a slightly more conventional composition taken from a metre or two back (if practical). Also, there is a strange patch of sky in the trees that doesn't match the tone of the rest of the blue sky - it's a bit lighter and greyer. Not sure if that is just the way the HDR turned out or not, but it doesn't look right. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Love it!!! ISmashed TALK! 15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Though really it's a weak oppose, if I were one to do that. I don't find the composition attractive, and I can't help being put off by the blurriness of the upper foliage. I'm in agreement with Diliff that this could have been done a little more "traditionally" for a better result. Maedin\^talk 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. The nymph had just shed its exoskeleton and thus has the pink coloured appearance.

Articles this image appears in

Pentatomidae, Pentatomoidea, Pseudatelus

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 04:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Noodle snacks (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Difficult shot because of size, but have to oppose on EV grounds. Position of the nymph is not the best for ID and ID itself is very coarse. Also, the picture doesn't appear very useful inthe articles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ID was provided by one of the foremost experts in Pentatomoids who admitted that identifying nymphs was very difficult. I don't see how the position affects the id for this picture though. --Muhammad(talk) 11:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genus is identified as Pseudatelus. The image is now added to that article as well; I think that fixes the coarse id part. --Muhammad(talk) 06:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't it an idea to turn the picture 180 degrees around? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could rotate the picture but I found the bug upside down having just come out of its previous skeleton and thus thought this would carry more value. Preference for a rotated version? --Muhammad(talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some insects which live on trees live only on the underside of branches, or in other ultra-specific niches. If this bug eats sap it may live on the underside of small branches as it uses gravity as part of its eating system. Nymphs are often not possible to allocate to the species level from a single photograph, in fact, in some insect species the only way to put the nymph in a species is to use DNA. So, are we sure this nymph doesn't live upside down? If it does, rotating the image reduces the EV to 0. --KP Botany (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen the bug living on the upside as well. The moulting however took place when it was hanging upside down --Muhammad(talk) 12:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good detail and quality. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

B'nai B'rith is the oldest Jewish service organization in the world. Nineteenth century membership certificate, tinted lithograph. Restored version of File:B'nai B'rith.jpg. Happy Pesach.

Articles this image appears in

B'nai B'rith

Creator

Louis Kurz

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Colours seem over-edited and unnatural. The original image's paper was light grey, so why has the ink's colour been radically changed? I mean, there were several popular types of brown ink, so there's no reason to think brown ink is wrong. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality image of a reasonably rare subject matter.

Articles this image appears in

Galápagos Dove

Creator

The Rambling Man

• Support as nominator --The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support could use some more light. ZooFari 05:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support; it's a little small, but that's made up for by the fact that it's not the kind of bird you'd see in your back garden. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose From what I understand photographing birds on Galapagos is dead easy in many cases, so I don't think this quality level is acceptable. flickr has quite a number of superior CC-BY-SA images available. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I didn't say it was hard to take a photograph of the subject, it is rare to go to the Galapagos Islands though. But thank you for not holding back. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd love to go myself someday. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Darkness detracts from image quality, otherwise a nice shot. tempodivalse [☎] 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Valued Picture No techinal issues

Articles this image appears in

Gharara,Begum Ra'ana Liaquat Ali Khan

Creator

US Department of State

• Support as nominator --yousaf465 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator forgot to transclude this nomination. Listing it now. MER-C 12:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Only Begum is framed in the photo, I don't like how it cuts off both men on either side of the group. I imagine there must be a better photo of her somewhere. Due to the lack of colour it isn't a great illustration of Gharara and is poor quality for this purpose. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:58, 8 April 2009 (GMT)
• Reluctant oppose a figure cut off at the shoulder might be okay with enough ev, but another cut off at the head is a bit too much to support. Would love an alternate image of this or a similar subject, if it can be found under free license. Durova^Charge! 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible!), this doesn't meet the 1000 pixel minimum. Is this sufficiently historical or unique to be exempt? Not convinced. Maedin\^talk 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not convinced either. Significantly low res and not notable enough to be exempt. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Rather blurry image and small size detract from image value. tempodivalse [☎] 13:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quality?

Articles this image appears in

Southern_Crowned_Pigeon

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV, aesthetics --Muhammad(talk) 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - what a chubby little fellow --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fantastic capture and detail! Bizarre looking bird, though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. EV is great, and its a wonderful image. Synergy 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 00:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wonder if it can fly... :) ZooFari 05:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw it fly ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the most perfect encyclopedic images I've ever seen. mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, brilliant. What a lovely looking bird. J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very cute. Your images are well framed, almost like stuffed museum poses, but it doesn't detract, because of the detail in the birds. --KP Botany (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice photo, great detail, high encyclopedic value. tempodivalse [☎] 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportEpiphyllumlover (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Goura scheepmakeri sclaterii 1 Luc Viatour.jpg MER-C 02:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not missing a petal. Good quality, clear illustration

Articles this image appears in

Gaura lindheimeri

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice image. One question though - is it correctly rotated? As in the images from one of the references [21] the anthers (?) are always pointed down. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:45, 8 April 2009 (GMT)
  • Each flower on the plant took on a different orientation. Down is down in this picture. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful image. I'm also curious about the orientation. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. — Jake Wartenberg 01:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, interesting looking flower, very high quality photo. J Milburn (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice botanically, also. --KP Botany (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good quality. Maedin\^talk 08:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportEpiphyllumlover (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gaura lindheimeri Whirling Butterflies.jpg MER-C 02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good illustration for prickles which are technically distinct from both spines and thorns.

Articles this image appears in

Rose, Prickle (currently a stub, it needn't be)

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good Ev, illustrates subject in a compelling way --Muhammad(talk) 12:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per good encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Julian. Synergy 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Masking looks a bit pixelated at full resolution. Maybe it should be downsampled or remasked. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you looking? If anything it'd just be a focus stack artefact that I missed. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the image at left. The thorns that overlap the background are consistently pixely at the edges, while the thorns that overlap the stalk have smooth edges. Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was trying a new focus stack algorithm when I updated a bit of software, evidently it wasn't worth its salt. I did it again the old fashioned way and its fixed now. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, much better! Support 100%. Kaldari (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Rather than appearing on prickle (a diambiguation page- images should be avoided) would this not fit better on Thorn (botany)? I've never heard them called "prickles" on a rose. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or not- seems there is a difference, as explained in the thorn article. An article for prickles should really be written, then. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always heard them be called prickles. As stated above prickles are technically distinct from both thorns and spines. The disambig page could easily be more detailed. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rose Prickles.jpg MER-C 02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very high resolution scan of an A3 engraving. Plus, you know, Shakespeare =) It's a very big, detailed image, and so may not thumbnail at 250px ideally, but it has the quality and detail there.

Anyway, I think this is a great image, and I think it probably meets the desired resolution.

Articles this image appears in

King John. Could probably go into others.

Creator

Let's call it The Illustrated London News: It's otherwise completely uncredited, with no artist mentioned in the description, nor any obvious signature (from past experience, I've learned that they can be surprisingly well hidden sometimes, so I'm not going to say no signature until some other people have looked).

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Very nice but jesus it's big. The real thing is making my 10MB connection reminiscent of dialup and is too large to be useful to view. The .png gives this "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or image file with more than 12.5 million pixels". I think we really need a smaller version if someone is able to make one satisfactorily.

Support - despite the size issues I like the image, it would be good in other articles also - looking to put in Theatre Royal, Drury Lane - due to its' historical illustration.

Question also- do large images such as this knacker the server in processing thumbnails? |→ Spaully^₪† 21:37, 8 April 2009 (GMT)

I've implemented a couple solutions: I lowered the quality slider on the JPEG slightly, shaving off 18 meg, and also uploaded a slightly smaller alternative version (linked from the image description page). This engraving just doesn't compress very well under JPEG, but I've done what I could. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it easier to view, and I see what you mean about compression as there is a slight difference at full zoom. This ties in with the FP size discussion on the talk page, it would be an ideal picture for there to be several size options. Thanks for the consideration. |→ Spaully^₪† 14:27, 10 April 2009 (GMT)

I'd love to have an automated viewer added to all such pages for different sizes. It would make things a lot easier. As for the Drury Lane Theatre - I was eyeing that article, but the layout's a bit messy already, and I didn't want to risk making things worse or overruling the regulars by swapping images around. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~75 megapixels is pretty massive! Noodle snacks (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Shakespeare's King John at Drury Lane Theatre.jpg MER-C 02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is a bit of a risky nomination for me as the wow-factor is admittedly low and it isn't an oversized panorama ;-). It isn't a large scale, visually-impressive memorial like the Tribute in Light but IMO it documents a wide variety of individuals' and communities' emotional responses to the attacks well and I think it is a photo that does it in a more personal and intimate way. While the individual tiles are undeniably non-NPOV, I don't think this is an issue as the image itself simply documents these views and doesn't attempt to push them on the viewer. I know it looks fairly soft in the thumbnail, but the detail is there at 100%. Also, FYI, this image shows the full extent of the memorial (it extends all the way around the fence), and while I think both images complement each other and are linked to each other on the image pages, I feel this nominated image has the better composition and more intimate feel.

Articles this image appears in

Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous !votes that are no longer valid. Please Re!vote below if you voted before!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support POV is not an issue here; this is an image of historical value and it offers a lot of interesting objects to look at. It's technically sound and kept me reading for a little while. Nice shot. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Support Very moving. — Jake Wartenberg 19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Seems to be a copyright issue here. This photo is essentially just a photo of many copyrighted works. I don't think de minimis applies where the works are the subject of the photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Really? Where is the line drawn? What is the difference between shooting a photo of a building that has a copyrighted design, and shooting a fence of copyrighted tiles? Surely fair use would apply when the photo is intended simply to document the display of the work, as opposed to copying the design exactly? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] See commons:FOP. There is an explicit exception for photographs of buildings in the United States. There is no similar exception for artworks (though there is in England and I believe Australia). Fair use means non-free, and must meet the non-free criteria and be low-res and ineligible for featured picture. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure what that link was supposed to refer to, but it doesn't seem to exist. No wait, I found it, you meant Commons:Freedom of panorama, right? So in your opinion, this is a clear-cut case and should not be on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, except as a low-res fair use image? Would it be the case that each of the copyrighted designs on the tiles are low-res, but combine to form a collage which is not restricted to low-res? It does seem like there are a lot of ways to be legally creative, at least in my non-legally-trained mind. :-) It is frustrating, as I am sure the creators of the work intended it to be visible to as many people as possible and had no mind to restrict use or reproductions of it, but I suppose you can never tell. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think David is right. It would be difficult to assign the copyright of the overall design to anyone, so it's valid to consider each tile separately, and they're depicted at a resolution consistent with other fair use images on WP. I think the Foundation is extremely unlikely to get sued for this, and the press would jump on any such suit, given the message of peace that the memorial seems to be intended to convey. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid I have to agree. One that I would consider completely free, however, is the lower-quality alt pic, File:Image-Sept 11 monument in NYC 2 - August 2004.jpg, that you made. SpencerT♦C 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Just to clarify, do you agree with PLW or with Calliopejen1? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm leaning towards Calliopejen1. Sorry for being confusing. SpencerT♦C 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Just to confirm my opinion, per Diliff's request: I think this is ineligible. Non-free works are (absolutely) ineligible, and this is a photo of many non-free works. The fact that the arrangement of these non-free works may not itself be eligible for copyright is immaterial. I also think this should probably be deleted, because we already have plenty of free photos of memorials in the article. (photos of piles of roses and mourners and such that don't highlight copyrighted works.) this is essentially the same as using ~50 nonfree images in the article because you've photographed so many little artworks in one frame. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reluctant oppose per Calliopejen. The United States has freedom of panorama only for buildings. Sorry, but this doesn't qualify for FPC. DurovaCharge! 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Still Supporting Arrest me if you will, but I'm still giving my support to this image on the basis that images like this, this, this, this, and this clearly depict officially copyrighted and trademarked logos (officially meaning they actually filed something with a government for the rights to their design). Where does it say that that's legal? (That last sentence isn't meant to sound pompous, I actually want to know). ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 02:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Good question. My guess is that the legal justification for disallowing images like this nomination while allowing others which show copyrighted logos is that the latter are incidental to the composition and not the focus of it... Then again, I'd like to think that the law has a bit more common sense and could reach the conclusion that nobody is likely enforce the copyright on this image, but I suppose they have to cover their asses on 100% of the images to make that a single one of them doesn't result in a lawsuit? :-( Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] How about we call this an out-of-focus image of a truck and a van behind a "graffitied" fence and that the tiles are necessary evils (incidentals)! ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] </humor> Then the image looses enc. because it isn't in a relevant article, and the subject is out of foucs and completely obscured. SpencerT♦C 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Conditional Support for the photographic merits and enc. This is also assuming the image is free, even though I personally feel that it is non-free. Do we want to ask someone over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions about it...someone there may know. SpencerT♦C 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] A note: I left a query about this image at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Sept_11_monument_in_NYC_-_August_2004.jpg. SpencerT♦Nominate! 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kept on Commons --> full support. SpencerT♦Nominate! 16:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Support ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Support, because I think a common sense interpretation of this situation is that this is a free image with no substantial encumbrances from the individual copyrights of the tiles. The continuum of fair use is fuzzy, but lots of fair use is free enough that it doesn't trigger our non-free content policy. The subject here is the memorial itself; any particular tile is incidentally, even though the tiles as an ensemble are not. Furthermore, there is an implicit understanding by those who contributed tiles that this is a public, collective work.--ragesoss (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Support per Ragesoss. Fletcher (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Striking my questionable, perhaps too biased, perhaps "having-a-really-bad-week" oppose. Choose instead to not comment on the image, :-). Maedin\talk 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose: I feel that the content is inappropriate and should not be featured. I have nothing against 9/11 memorials per se, but this in particular shows a narrow, almost political pov which absolutely does not correspond with the reach of 9/11. As the article says, more than 90 countries lost citizens as a result of the attack, and spurred hate crime and war, which has embroiled much more than just the US. In light of that, I think that "featuring" so many US-only sentiments is unsupportable. Maedin\talk 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mainly off-topic discussion re whether image POV is disqualifying The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Sorry, I know I've disagreed with you a couple of times lately. No disrepect intended. :-) But it clearly is a POV memorial and that is the point of the image. We don't have any obligation to ensure that the photo itself is non-POV. It almost sounds like you're falling foul to NPOV with your oposition. A FP can illustrate one aspect of a subject - it doesn't have to be a multinational memorial to have enc significance. If anything, it is a historical snapshot of jingoism too. ;-) Maybe it should be added to that article... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I realised while I opposed that my own pov was pushing in, but the crux of my oppose is not so much that the content is pov, but that it would be insensitive to feature it. I think that, when the event is a couple of decades old, this sort of image won't grate so much. And I apologise for however this comes out sounding, but I think it would be a disservice to Americans to feature their nationalism in such a context. And your disagreements are posed in a friendly way; no need to apologise, :-) Maedin\talk 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I know we have at least one FP with obvious POV: File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG, showing people in Tanzania protesting the Israel/Gaza conflict. SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] We also have a FP of a political cartoon (which naturally showcase some form of POV) at File:The Gerry-Mander Edit.png. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] You find sentiments like "freedom", "peace" or "bless America" to be controversial and embarrassing expressions of patriotism? That says more about you than it does about the people who made these tiles. There was jingoism after 9/11, but it is not captured in this photo. Fletcher (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] For the record, I do find the whole "God Bless the USA" thing a bit irritating... As if America is the last bastion of freedom or something. The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with American freedom, but the country felt the need to declare they were 'still free' despite the terrorist attempts to take it away somehow. Par for the course when it comes to American Patriotism though. :-) But that is a completely different topic. Other than that, I don't find the tiles particularly controversial. NPOV, sure, but nothing that would stop it being appropriate for the article or FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I was just going to point out that the photographer is not American, so inherent POV is minimal. But he kind of covered that with this last comment. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lol. Well, everyone has a POV. I just don't express mine on tiles. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fletcher, you have misunderstood my comments and somehow have taken away the impression that I find peace and freedom controversial. That, of course, is not true, and in fact, is what the minority of those tiles depict (at least the ones in this photo). That is my issue. I merely think it too insensitive to be featured, and the fact that we have other featured content which I may also have that opinion about isn't really relevant. I probably would have opposed them, too. I never put forward an opinion thinking it should be "right", I expect people to disagree. But please, don't make it personal. Maedin\talk 07:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] But Maedin, it isn't really our place to be sensitive or make judgments on the sensitivity of others. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to be as objective and truthful as possible, not tip-toe around issues for the sake of how the content might offend people in some way. Wikipedia is not censored, and we have an obligation to uphold that, even if it against our personal sensibilities. Of course there is some room for opinion in this process, but really you should be voting based on our existing criteria, not your criteria. :-) And besides, even if sensitivity was a significant criteria, I think a greater number of people would likely take comfort from the content of the image (as the central tile suggests) than be upset by it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not many arguments there, I uphold that Wikipedia should not be censored. But that creed isn't quite the same as content that is featured. I would draw the line at a particularly gruesome picture, or a bit-too explicit sex illustration. Where they are appropriate, however, they are welcome. I agree with you, though, that my oppose is far from objective and is based on tip-toeing around an issue that I think needs a more sensitive approach. If you think I've gone much too far into this territory and my oppose bears no weight, I will strike it. Eeeep, sorry for the drama! /me hides . . . Maedin\talk 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Haha no worries, but you have gone and contradicted yourself again by saying Wikipedia should not be censored, then saying you draw the line at featuring gruesome/explicit images... Nevermind, I think the greater issue with this may be the licensing anyway, so it might end up being moot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Excuse me. Would fellow reviewers please move editorializing to a different location? My nearest relative survived this attack from a high floor. He was one of the very last people out of the building and most of his coworkers weren't as lucky. I joined the Navy and went to war because of this day. When I come to FPC, I'd rather review candidates than see this sort of off-topic debate. DurovaCharge! 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'd be the first to admit we got a little off-topic but I'm not entirely sure what your relative's survival and your decision to go to war adds to the discussion either...? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'm just going to nominate this photo for deletion bc I believe it fails NFCC8 and NFCC1. This may end this nomination, so interested parties should comment at IFD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg. MER-C 09:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oppose as copyright violation. Additionally, the image tends to fail WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] As was discussed (in this nom, and others), I don't think it does fail that. If a subject has an inherent bias, we cannot counter that. We can only ensure that a balanced viewpoint is achieved in the article. A single image (which by definition cannot encapsulate the content an entire article) should not be subject to the same requirements as an article for that very reason. Anyway, it doesn't really matter as the image is due for deletion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - this is important to have in Wikipedia, that doesn't make it Feature worthy. It is just not compelling enough on its own. If you need a story to understand an image, it's not fulfilling its role as an image. The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Weak oppose - Background is distracting, would look better with a shallower DOF, IMO. Also copyright issues seem to be unresolved (unresolvable?). Kaldari(talk) 16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept on Commons. Unsuspending so we can appraise this on photographic quality. MER-C 07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How should we go about this, then? The majority of the opposition was based on the assumption that it was non-free, but striking them out seems a bit drastic... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens. Relisting should give the opposers an opportunity to update their reviews, but if they don't they won't be considered. MER-C 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's not valid to call photographs of other people's artwork completely your own work. I would support deletion of the image, but I do not think it is feature worthy for that reason. Further, I don't consider it particularly striking. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not claiming the artwork as my own work. I'm only claiming that I took the photo of the collage, which is completely different. It's pretty clear this is a collaboration and not something I created myself. I'd have been more than happy to give credit to the individuals who created the tiles, but there were no credits on the fence. You seem to be taking a moral line of reasoning rather than a legal one when you say you'd support deletion of it (you missed the boat there, anyway). If you were to take a moral standpoint on photographing works of art, then does that mean you'd like to see all our photos of artwork deleted too? I have certainly don't intend to break the law in taking documenting the world around us, but this isn't about crediting me - it's about showcasing important objects/scenes on the encyclopaedia... Deleting the image won't help us out there at all. But okay, if you don't find it striking... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, that was actually a typing error. I meant I wouldn't. Basically, from a legal standpoint, I'm sure we're alright (hence not deleting) but, from a philosophical standpoint, I don't think this is a reflection of our best work in terms of freedom. No offence was meant- it's an excellent documentary photograph, but I don't think it's really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per my original vote(s) on the matter. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I've informed all previous voters to come back and !vote again. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my original vote. It's an attractive and useful image.--ragesoss (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support also per original !vote. Encyclopedic illustration of how people reacted during that time. Fletcher (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose my old rationale still stands, but I don't fully agree with it any more. I'll posit this new one: this is an important image to have on Wikipedia. It holds personal significance to many people. The problem is that it doesn't hold that significance for a lot of people. We could find a photo like this for every disaster occurring in the US. It is a very ordinary photo. PS, why was it re-nominated? thank you to ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» for letting me know i needed to vote again. ~ The Talking Sock talk contribs 13:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was renominated because the main reasons for opposition at the time were related to the licensing. This issue was resolved after the nomination had expired, so the nomination was re-started. I don't think it matters that it doesn't represent or hold significance a lot of people. Wikipedia isn't here to please everyone. I mean, do all of our FPs hold significance for most people? Probably not. Not everyone is particularly interested in birds, insects, or architecture for example. That doesn't mean we shouldn't feature pictures of them if they illustrate an article well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that theory would limit us only to images of UNESCO World Heritage Sites... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Same as before. Background is distracting, would look better with a shallower DOF, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More of an issue in the thumbnail than when viewed at 100%, but fair enough. It was taken with the widest aperture available to me (f/4) at the time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per my orginal vote. — Jake Wartenberg 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as before. Even if Commons didn't remove it as a copyvio, it still is one. It also retains systemic bias issues. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It being a copyvio is only your opinion but it seems a pretty poor reason to oppose given it has already been discussed and resolved. The licensing/legal aspect is completely separate to this nomination. If you still have a problem with it, you should re-raise it on Commons. Also, it doesn't have systematic bias issues any more than the majority of our FPs are by virtue of the contributors being from western countries.. This was covered above. It documents an interesting and historic scene. If the scene is biased, so be it. Many scenes are. The solution to systematic bias is to encourage alternative POVs, not to reject the 'mainstream' POV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for its EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg MER-C 02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Scan of an original illustration by Jessie Willcox Smith for the children's book The Water-Babies.

Articles this image appears in

Water Babies

Creator

Jessie Willcox Smith

• Support as nominator --ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Isn't this a touch too bright and saturated, maybe? Seems a little much for 1916, before some of the modern dyes. Also, need the crop be that tight on the right? It's removing details of the second waterbaby. if you must crop - a reasonable choice for the Wikipedia-version - I'd suggest favouring cropping on the left, and upload an uncropped version - most people will be happy if something exists with an alternate compromise to the problems, even if the crop is better for Wikipedia, which it might well be. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's too saturated. I've seen some well-preserved older painting that look about as bright as this. As for the crop, I believe it's fine. All that's missing on the right side is a bit of space before the baby's head. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Neutral - though I'd suggest uploading an uncropped version: It really is best practice to offer an alternative when doing the more extreme crops. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think this is an excellent image, and if the subject is significant enough to warrent an article, that's enough for me - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Where's the EV on this one? We already have an FP for Water Babies. Is this picture somehow more illustrative of the book than the other one? Does it show something unique that I'm missing? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shows another illustration of the book. The book is over a three hundred pages long, so I don't see the problem with having two pictures, which illustrate different parts of the book, featured. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm just not sure about the EV here. I'm not saying it doesn't have any; I just don't know how much it has and if that's enough to feature it. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moar reviews plz. MER-C 07:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jessie Willcox Smith - The Water Babies - p236 (Restored).jpg MER-C 02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The map is high-quality, high-resolution, and has good detail and enc. The first nomination (of the PNG version) is here.

Articles this image appears in

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge (PNG version used)

Creator

Alexrk

• Support as nominator --Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Andrewmc123 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

As good a visual capture of heckling as we're likely to get. Happened during an encyclopedic crisis. Restored version of File:Heckler.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Heckler, Iran_hostage_crisis#In_America

Creator

Warren K. Leffler, for US News and World Report (public domain by donation)

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An excellent representation of heckling. Synergy 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, high technical quality and a great composition, but I'm not convinced of the encyclopedic value. The chap could be doing lots of things- it's not particularly obvious he's heckling. It's a hard subject to illustrate- this is probably about as good as it is going to get. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliographic notes state that he is heckling. Since that is fundamentally a verbal activity, the still shot of a man leaning across a police line with an extended arm, open mouth, and angry expression while protesters behind him hold a placard is probably the most visually representative depiction we could get in a single frame. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low EV. This isn't really a subject that can be illustrated by a picture. A video would probably be the way to go. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A fine picture that illustrates heckling well. If you're going to heckle, it's usually at an official event or public meeting, so this is fine. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on EV alone. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As good an illustration of the subject as is possible to get in a still image. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Dude looks like trouble. Unfortunate the "Go back to your land" (?) sign is cut off... would it help to crop that guy out altogether? Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would lose part of a policeman's shirt to take out the sign entirely. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Before this closes, will someone please explain how this picture satisfies FP criterion 5? Since heckling is, as the nominator herself states, "fundamentally a verbal activity," how can this picture possibly have the exceptional EV that we demand of featured pictures? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this has little to no EV for heckling. The opening line from Heckling: "A heckler is a person who shouts a disparaging comment at a performance or event, or interrupting set-piece speeches, for example at a political meeting." This looks like one protester shouting abuse at an opposing group of protesters. This is taking a very loose, and quite inaccurate IMO, definition of the term which is unsupported by the article. I haven't looked at its use in the other article. --jjron (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bibliographic notes at the Library of Congress specifically state that he is heckling. The photographer was an experienced photojournalist for a major news source, and qualifies as an expert speaking within his expertise in distinguishing heckling from other forms of antisocial behavior at public events (recordkeeping documents are the responsibility of the photographer). So unless there is a reliable source to challenge what we already have, this line of questioning strays toward original research. Durova^Charge! 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter what the bibliographic notes say if the picture doesn't do a good job of illustrating the topic of the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I don't really care what the notes say. If a photo of a frog is labelled as a cow, that doesn't give it EV for the cow article, it just means it's wrong. --jjron (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a fair objection. Durova^Charge! 06:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while it illustrates the heckling article. If it finds a more appropriate home, I don't know, protestor or something, you can strike my 'vote'. --jjron (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more feedback on enc would be appreciated. MER-C 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment. I've thought a bit more about this. A number of voters - dare I say almost all - claim this is as good a photo of heckling as you could get, or that it's something a still image couldn't really illustrate at all or any better. Even disregarding the discussion just above about whether or not this guy is really a heckler, I still disagree with this point of view. IMO, a high EV shot of heckling would show both the heckler and the person being heckled. This is both quite possible and realistic to expect, but obviously this particular image doesn't do so, which is why I don't think it is a good illustration of heckling. Other thoughts on this? --jjron (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as far as it is for Heckling. I agree with Jjron that an image will never particularly well illustrate this, and that in this case it is not clear that he is heckling rather than just shouting abuse - my opinion of heckling is that the abuse or comment is when another person is making a speech, not illustrated here. For example, someone in a crowd at a stand-up comedy with both comedian and heckler in view would better illustrate this. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:17, 7 April 2009 (GMT)

No consensus MER-C 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Tunis, the capital city of Tunisia, as the skyline appeared in the 1890s. Restored version of File:Tunisia view 1890s.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Tunis#Development_under_the_Protectorate

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 04:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There seems to be something of a color shift from the bottom to the top of the photograph. This makes it look a bit unrealistic. Any thoughts on this? Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See photochrom. Yes, it's artificial: colorization, nineteenth century style. Durova^Charge! 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, well since the color isn't real anyway it seems like it would hardly be a sin to correct it further. What do you think? Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've uploaded an edited version to give an example. I basically just removed the blue tint from the upper buildings and warmed the yellow tint of the lower buildings. I think I lost some of the green on the plants in the process though. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I know absolutely nothing about restoring photochroms, so please take my suggestion with a grain of salt ;) Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your edit looks fine. The limitation of the medium is that they only had at most 16 colors to work with. Durova^Charge! 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Excellent composition of a part of the world featured on here. However I do have some concerns about the color and hue of the image. I know its artificial but I do agree with Kaldari on it making it looks more like a model and than a realistic shot. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer colors in edit.--ragesoss (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews, please. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Looks better - great pic.ISmashed TALK! 15:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough full supports in an extended period of time. The caveats proposed by one user do have weight and the fact that this user's !vote was note full does not allow me to promote the image. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Old, original, being an example of a Japanese sampan-type boat as well as being a presumed photograph taken by Adolfo Farsari. It was previously declined (see Featured picture candidates/Japanese river boat) because of licensing issues, which have now been settled.

Articles this image appears in

Sampan and the gallery of Adolfo Farsari

Creator

Presumably Adolfo Farsari

• Support as nominator. Unique and beautiful. What was thought to be a scribbled "A" at bottom is actually a stick sticking out of the water. Color constitution may not be perfect, but regarding being 125 years old, it's surprisingly good quality. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why use a historic photograph to illustrate the article? Are such boats no longer used? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think this kind of floating-house kind of river boat is rare, at least in Japan. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we suspend this? The image badly needs some cleaning, and I'm willing to try, though it may take a bit, as I'm kind of busy this week. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok for me to suspend it for a while. Or we make a new nomination once we have the cleaned version.Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an update: I may be a little bit longer getting to this. Lot of things going on, and the things I normally work with use slightly different skillsets to photos, so it's going to be a little slow once I do start. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this has had a fair bit of time...would you prefer the nomination to be closed and then renominate again? --Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I think it can just as well be placed in "nominations older than 7 days", since there is (yet) no change in the picture since the beginning of this nomination. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going once... MER-C 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fug. Just close it or unsuspend it. It's in my to do list, and will get done when it gets done. I hate working with photos, so it's very for me to procrastinate on them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended for another user to restore the image. Has yet to be done after good length of time. Now requests closure until said work can be completed, at which point a new nomination will take place ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The Suez Canal during a partially completed phase, c. 1860, at Ismailia, Egypt adjacent to the northern bank of Lake Timsah. Restored version of File:Suez Canal Ismailia.jpg. Smaller courtesy copy available for users with slow connection speeds at File:Suez Canal Ismailia2 courtesy copy.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Suez Canal, Lake Timsah, Francis Frith

Creator

Francis Frith

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a picture from the early days of the most important water ways of the world GerardM (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A bit grainy, but that's probably due to the photograph's age. Other than that, excellent picture, high encyclopedic value. tempodivalse [☎] 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum->Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Over 3600 homes were destroyed in Galveston, Texas during the 1900 Galveston hurricane. Approximately 8000 people died from the storm, making it the deadliest storm ever to strike the United States. Striking photograph of the damage. Restored version of File:A big tip in Galveston.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

1900 Galveston hurricane

Creator

Griffith & Griffith

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 01:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Highly encyclopedic, and quite interesting as well! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It lacks the Wicked Witch of the East. Tisk, tisk. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dorothy took the darn shoes and my sister's feet shrank away. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC) The Wiki Witch of the West[reply]
• Support How did it not break O_o??? Cyclonebiskit 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's dreadful, it is, to have a house fall on you... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I mean, who steals a dead woman's shoes? Must've been raised in a barn![reply]
• Support --Yue ^{of the North} 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets the criteria Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - left edge of house is missing, otherwise fine. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, unless it is cut off because of a crop, not the original image. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That was in the original. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great encyclopedic value, of a good quality as well. tempodivalse [☎] 00:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:A_big_tip_in_Galveston2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopedic portrait of the man.

Articles this image appears in

Italian unification, Mount Garibaldi, Giuseppe Garibaldi

Creator

Unknown photopgrapher. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Seems a bit low-contrast: Can't it be selectively tweaked a little more, particularly on the face? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How's this? -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks great! I presume you've played with sharpening the face and tweaking it - if not, you might want to try that a little more and see if you get any improvements, but it looks quite good to me already. Although the original is not Matthew Brady quality, it's still quite good for the age, and the encyclopedic value cannot be doubted. Change to Full Support. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GerardM (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great portrait of The Christian Gentleman, one of the original five inductees in the baseball Hall of Fame, in 1910.

Articles this image appears in

Christy Mathewson

Creator

Photo: Paul Thompson. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a blob on the corner of his mouth that almost certainly cannot be from the original shot. Otherwise, it looks quite good. If you can fix that, I'll support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't sure about the speck myself, but hey: it's gone! -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, it's nice, but Christy Mathewson was a baseball player. He'd need to be on the field or at least in uniform for this to have enough EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that he has to be in uniform. To comply with that sort of restriction, singers should only be performing or in the studio and actors should only be in character and surgeons should only be in white coats with bloody gloves. Christy was also a soldier, and a bit of a "celebrity" in his time. Maedin\^talk 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Although the blur on his nose is very distracting, I think this is excellent. Good quality and striking portrait. As a side note, when I was an adolescent, my dad had a book of old "baseball greats" and I remember this picture printed next to Christy's biography. He was the player I "liked most"—I thought he was so cute! Maedin\^talk 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopedic image of a scalped man who lived to tell the tale!

Articles this image appears in

American Indian Wars Scalping

Creator

Photo by E.E. Henry. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest alternative, and [Old votes edited out] Support original: I think that this minor levels adjustment helps bring out the detail. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give you that it's not a very high-contrast image, but I'm not in favour of adjusting the levels that drastically: you're blowing out the white in the necktie. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, check the histogram: It's a lot whiter, but not blown =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. :)

I've adjusted the levels in the original (but not so much on the hanky around his neck). OK for you? I'd rather do it like this, starting from the original lossless version, than work from a second-generation jpeg. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Support original =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either - *shudder* It hurts just thinking about it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either per AlbertHerring. Durova^Charge! 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. No brainer really, dripping with enc and a brilliant restoration job.  GARDEN  10:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original no comment needed. The Talking Sock talk contribs 13:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good encyclopaediac picture which certainly draws attention to its subject and makes you want to investigate further. Just one query-in the caption it says he was 'scalped as a child' and in the articles the caption for the picture reads he was 'scalped as a teenager'.Is there a reason for the difference? Lemon martini (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The "teenager" caption was there before I replaced the image with a restored version. I changed it to "child": there is no mention at all of McGee being anything other than that. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per high encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose EV really hurt by lack of detail on the scalp. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was thinking the same thing. You can't really tell what is left there. Is it skin? Is it exposed skull? I mean obviously it would have to be skin, but you can't prove it from the photo. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Robert McGee, scalped as a child by Sioux Chief Little Turtle in 1864-2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality etc

Articles this image appears in

Banksia marginata

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn See my talk page. --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

detailed and high quality panorama of a well-known monument. The best vailable, I believe.

Articles this image appears in

Tower of Belém, Manueline

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good composition and detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why are there two identical people on the bridge? Looks like one face has been cloned to another body. Katalysator (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info - That is the joy of doing panoramas with moving subjects: it is the same guy in two different positions (with the head cloned, you are right). Maybe be it could be removed by cloning but I didn't find it necessary and the quality of the result is uncertain. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a tip for this sort of photography... If you take panoramas with enough overlap, one of the frames will likely be empty of a person, so if stitch the panorama with layers, you can simply remove the person from that layer, revealing the background behind him. I sometimes use this technique if there is duplication of people. However, if you wait too long between frames or you don't provide enough overlap, this will not be possible. In this panorama though, it definitely isn't the same person twice. He has different clothes/shoes in the second instance (and is carrying a bag, I think). Only his head and collar is cloned. Bizarre. :-) I think that it would be worth trying to re-stitch to fix it, but I won't oppose on that basis. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is all new for me. I just knew from you that the stitch could be adjusted by manipulating the layers, and that is what I'm trying to learn now. But it will take some time. I don't even know how to work with Gimp ... or layers. Thanks for the hint. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not know much about photography, but it was exactly Diliffs last point that bugged me. But it is only a small detail, so I won't stand in the way on this one. Katalysator (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're certainly within your rights to oppose though, as accuracy is paramount for any image on Wikipedia, but especially FPs. That person is secondary to the actual subject though, which is why I let it be. But if it can be fixed, it really should be fixed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though don't forget artistic freedom. Note that George Washington appears here more than 7 times. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff. Katalysator (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What is the story with the variation in colour across the building? Seems to me that the camera was left on auto white balance and it wasn't corrected prior to stitching. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to the warm cast on the bottom left and cooler cast on the top right? I didn't notice this until you mentioned it. It is fairly subtle, but worth questioning. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, the images at Commons:Torre de Belém suggest that it isn't meant to be there. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose Stitching/cloneing error and colour "fade" is offputting... Lovely picture otherwise... Gazhiley (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Very nice picture. Therefore I've nominated it at german FPC. But there seem to be some retouching work that is very curious. What is the reason for this manipulation? Wladyslaw (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw the nomination and promise to come back with a re-stitched version, as soon as possible. Yes, besides the problem of the identical twins, there seems to be some temperature differences across the pano. Hope it can all be fixed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Albumen print of a traditional circumcision being performed in central Asia. Restored version of File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Circumcision, History of male circumcision, Khitan (circumcision)

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though it's not perfect, it's historical value trumps that. - The Talking Sock talk contribs 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per talking sock -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Notareal Oppose per it gives me the willies just thinking about it. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, high quality encyclopedic portrait of an influential politician, Andrew Gregg Curtin. Not the most straightforward of restorations either. Low-resolution courtesy copy available.

Articles this image appears in

United States presidential election, 1872, Andrew Gregg Curtin, Pennsylvania in the American Civil War, War Governors' Conference

Creator

unknown photographer, restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Excellent restoration. Durova^Charge! 22:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good restoration. tempodivalse [☎] 00:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There seems to be more of his left hand in the restoration than in the original. Huh?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, see the description on he image page. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks so much like Julian Sark ;) --Muhammad(talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Andrew Curtin2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Mary Anne Clarke was mistress to Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, who was second son to George III of the United Kingdom. She liked the good life and the expense of pleasing her was a bit pricey even for the son of a king, which led to sales of army commissions and other corruption that caused a scandal in 1809 and resulted in his resignation from his position as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army. Tsk, tsk. They didn't have supermarket tabloids yet, but this captures a similar spirit. Restored version of File:Mary Anne Clarke.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Mary Anne Clarke, Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany

Creator

Isaac Cruikshank

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great macro, and a type of insect form that gets neglected. For that matter, how about some isopod FPCs? You know, pillbugs?

Articles this image appears in

Cochineal

Creator

Frank Vincentz

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are the feeding on an Opuntia? --KP Botany (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the only genus they feed on, so yes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about put it in the Cochineal section of Opuntia. I'm no good at formatting images in articles. Thx. After which I support purely for its EV. Not the greatest picture, but it tells a huge story we're not telling here otherwise. --KP Botany (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. An interesting subject but not one that is described at all well by the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum Not promoted --~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I don't think there's any doubt Handel is an important composer, nor that this is a very good painting of him.

Articles this image appears in

Used in Template:Handel, and thus the lead image for pretty much all Handel-related works, which is maybe 70 articles. (The list on the image page may take a little time to populate, as the template formerly used a lower-res copy of the same image, which I just switched over)

Creator

Balthasar Denner

• Support as nominator By the way, I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest a couple works collected, prepared, or created by others today - we have a lot of fantastic work that is as yet uncelebrated, and a lot of important subjects with a strong candidate for an FP that just need nominated. --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The face looks very cracked- is that not something that would normally be fixed in a restoration, or does that "cross the line" with regards to changing the original image? J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that does cross the line, and further, I'm not even sure that it'd be possible to fix the crazing with good effect at this resolution since brush strokes and changing paint colours are really quite subtle, so you need a lot more pixels to work with to get it right. I also suspect that it wouldn't work very well even then, and would change too many things with clear artistic intent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. Nothing amazing, but a decent image that adds a lot to the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral "Cracked" face detracts somewhat from image quality, otherwise a very nice image. tempodivalse [☎] 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum Not promoted --~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quality?

Articles this image appears in

White-fronted Bee-eater

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, wonderful picture. J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Lovely. Durova^Charge! 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gorgeous. --KP Botany (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though that broken bit of twig is a little unfortunately positioned, it would have been cleaner without that, but not enough to oppose. --jjron (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Noodle snacks (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Merops bullockoides 1 Luc Viatour.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Gustave Doré is pretty much universally considered one of the masters of engraving. So I thought I'd try to do at least some of his Easter-related engravings this weekend. I'm afraid I may end up with several noms, but they'll all be seasonally appropriate. =) ...Until Monday. Oh, well. Better to do it now than to not do it at all.

Articles this image appears in

Mark 14, The kiss of Judas, Good Friday, Judas Iscariot

Creator

Gustave Doré

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good work!  GARDEN  09:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gustave_Doré_-_The_Holy_Bible_-_Plate_CXLI,_The_Judas_Kiss.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

information aesthetics

Articles this image appears in

Miomantis paykullii

+ List of mantis genera and species & Mantis ZooFari 01:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is the bug that bright in real life, or is this just really saturated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.114.74 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a young subject. It is very colorful --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Good DoF, great resolution, has wow. Durova^Charge! 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Very nice picture. - Fastily (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose Comment I hate to oppose such "WOW!" imageI changed to a comment (I don't want to oppose an image for something that may not be true). The fact that the nominator claims it is naturally bright leaves me doubts. As an image editor myself, I can tell if the image is over saturated or not. I may be wrong, but the color in this image seems exaggerated when looking very close at the detail in full size. Speaking of size, this image is way too large. It took me approximately 1:55 min. to fully display the image at full size. The blown highlights at the end of the abdomen hurt too. I'm not a big fan of this composition either, but I don't want to get into that with mantis pics. Perhaps you can prove me wrong and find sources that show the same color factor. I may support if so for its wow factor. By the way, I added it into two more articles. ZooFari 01:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to more images and other lighting [22] and [23] --Luc Viatour (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good to me, size is not an issue, only minor blown out highlights at the edges of the animal. -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This doesn't affect, but why does the file name have "Luc Viatour" in it? ZooFari 02:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not visible on Wikipedia. But many of my images are used elsewhere without the respect of licenses, it is a discreet way to keep track of my images outside of Wikipedia. --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this useful for keeping track of your images --Muhammad(talk) 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image does seem to be a bit over-saturated, but that said, the consensus is definitely in favor of the image. And while the size is a bit large, we are only limited here by the WP and Commons limitations of 100MB. Promoted File:Miomantis_paykullii_Luc_Viatour.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:Epcot Scenery.jhgl

• Support as nominator --Miramar93 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Excessive blown highlights (40%+ of Spaceship Earth is blown). On a compositional note, a monorail train would have been nice. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - would be great except for the blown highlights. Kaldari (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blown whites. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't it a condition of entry that photographs taken in these theme parks are to be used for non-commercial purposes only? (I know HK Disneyland imposes this restriction, I see no reason why this shouldn't be different). Nominated for deletion. MER-C 04:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that. And morally speaking, is that right? I'd like to see a source first. What makes this commercial? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 08:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an adhesion contract, which you'll find on the back of the ticket or a noticeboard near the entrance (in other words, you're not likely to notice it if you aren't looking for it). Example: [24]. A public domain work can be used for commercial purposes, so it's not allowed. What else would you expect from the mafiaa? MER-C 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer broke their contract with the theme park, but that does not in any way affect the licensing or legal status of the image. Kaldari (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral blown highlights, too much contrast. tempodivalse [☎] 00:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A little seasonal reference. This is an image of a lilium longiflorum, also known as an Easter lily. It's a crisp, high rez image of the trumpet-shaped white flower. I took many photos, but decided that this composition was best to show the petals, stamina, and the long trumpet shape.

Articles this image appears in

Lilium longiflorum, Lilium, Template:Liliales-stub

Creator

Yours truly

• Support as nominator --~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Technically, it's fine. It's sharp and the DOF is tolerable, but I find that 'looking down at' angle makes it seem a bit throwaway snapshotty. That might come across as photographer-snobbery, so I apologise if that's how it sounds, as it is isn't my intention! Getting down at the level of the subject generally helps the composition, though. Also, I think that while a straight-on angle might not show all the features as well as from the side, I this one is too side on which exacerbates the DOF limitations. This one is probably more of a VPC IMO. The bar has been set fairly high for flower macros. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak opposesupport per Dillif. Lighting lacks as well. ZooFari 20:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I saw these at Walmart today and it appears that it is normally tilted like that. I'd still like to see a brighter image for my full support. ZooFari 01:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It's clear, visually appealing, and you can tell it's a flower; that's all that matters to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Juliancolton--Yue ^{of the North} 21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The background is distracting, stand further away and zoom in more. It is underexposed. The lighting is fairly harsh and uneven, the shutter speed suggests sunlight. I'd shade the flower to get a more even light and consequently allow a brighter exposure since the specular highlights would be gone. I'd also suggest taking the photograph from a lower angle per Diliff. There is also some mild, treatable CA in places. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but how is the background distracting? You have to see the plant in its natural environment in order to retain the encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the background is out of focus anyway, it would look a lot better if it was far more blurred, drawing attention to the lily. Furthermore, the background is fairly obviously grass, and as such probably not representative of the flower's true natural environment on the Ryukyu Islands. Compare it to the background of File:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg for example. Incidentally, if ωαdεstεr16 followed Diliff's suggestion, the background would also be far more blurred. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still getting over the jet lag from my trip to Japan. ;) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Good photo, nice focus, but the blur on the top petal is really offputting. Good work though.  GARDEN  10:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Blur on the top petal doesn't look good, the angle at which the shot was taken doesn't illustrate the image very well. tempodivalse [☎] 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but compared with NS images this is just a snapshot. DOF, background and lighting are all below standards - which are very high for such easily repeatable subjects --Fir0002 12:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, technicals seem good.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Hobart

Creator

Flying_Freddy

• Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Undeniable EV, more than enough detail. Too big, if anything. I re-saved it with Photoshop level 10 compression and reduced it from 23mb to 7mb without any noticeable loss of image quality. I saw you had set it to 12 - the absolute highest - which is a bit unnecessary. I'd recommend you re-upload it with a smaller file size, but that's up to you. Other than that, very nice image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your feedback, re-uploaded per your suggestion - Flying Freddy (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Whoa. Excellent stitching, great resolution, splendid picture. tempodivalse [☎] 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff --Muhammad(talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Perhaps a slight quibble on the top of Mt Wellington being veiled in cloud, though on the other hand that also demonstrates an interesting feature... --jjron (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely quality and i certainly can't see any issues with it... Nicely done... Gazhiley (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Greater Hobart Panorama.jpg MER-C 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, would eventually suit a more specialised article at some point.

Articles this image appears in

Anemone

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Excellent sharpness and use of depth of field. Durova^Charge! 17:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport Excellent sharpness and detail. tempodivalse [☎] 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good DOF, Bokeh. --Muhammad(talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful light and great detail --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anemone hupehensis var. japonica 1.jpg MER-C 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Unique picture of Charles Pomeroy Stone (1824–1887) with his daughter Hettie. Stone taught geography, history and ethics at West Point, then fought in the Mexican War, left the army because he felt it didn't pay enough to support his family, became a banker in San Francisco, then surveyed Sonora where he briefly was the acting consul, moved to Washington D.C., was reputedly the first volunteer officer in the Union Army, was Abraham Lincoln's security chief at his inauguration, lost a thousand men to the Confederates at Ball's Bluff, was disgraced and imprisoned (but never convicted), subsequently cleared, went back briefly to the Army of the Potomac, after the war worked for a mining company in Virginia, then went to Egypt where he was --for thirteen years-- the chief of staff for Ismail the Magnificent and his successor; then came back to the States and was engineer for the Florida Ship Canal Company. And then he was the Chief Engineer for the construction of the Statue of Liberty's pedestal and concrete foundation. Imagine the stories Hettie could tell.

Articles this image appears in

Charles Pomeroy Stone

Creator

unknown photographer; restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Lovely work. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support tempodivalse [☎] 00:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Charles P. Stone2b.jpg MER-C 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I love Le Cid. It's a fantastic opera, combining a strong plot with wonderful music.

So... when I saw a chance to get a copy of the 5 Décembre 1885 copy of L'Illustration - the edition that covered the première - I snapped it up. This is the second of four illustrations printed therein - expect the rest to follow. The 19th century had some spectacular set design, and this image shows it off wonderfully. The original scan contains two images, so, if you'll pardon me, I'll upload it with the second, as Commons has been a little awkward for me of late.

Articles this image appears in

Le Cid, Le Cid (opera)

Creator

Auguste Tilly

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Suggest uploading a lower resolution courtesy copy for people who have slow connections. In some parts of the world it could take half an hour to see the current version. Quite good, though. Durova^Charge! 17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons has been a bit erratic for me the last two days. I'll see about doing that once it resolves to behave a bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a.) we need more operatic featured pictures, so I approve; b.) this is of fine quality; and c.) I'm a sucker for Massenet generally, and Le Cid especially (not to brag, but I saw Domingo in the part in Washington some years back, and it remains one of the highlights of my local opera-going experience). Glad to see there are other Massenet fans out there. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arr, you lucky bugger =) I've neevr actually got to see it performed =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the only reason we got it is because Domingo's general director of Washington National Opera, so he gets to pick what he wants to show. Still, you know how it is these days; if it ain't Top 40, why bother with it in the first place? --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet I've been unfortunate enough to see Tippet's The Knot Garden. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
• Support (you missed a small scratch just above the blade, and perhaps another one slightly above and to the left of that) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out - it's easy to miss stuff like that with these big 'uns. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Durova. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jules Massenet - Le Cid 2e Acte, 3e Tableau - L'Illustration.jpg MER-C 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Cornelius Vanderbilt was the patriarch of the Vanderbilt family. There are a couple of engravings and paintings of him floating around on Wikipedia/Commons, but this is a relatively high-quality, relatively high-resolution photographic image. The original was a daguerrotype by Mathew Brady (or at least his studio), somewhere between 150 and 165 years old. This restoration has some scratches removed, global and local histogram changes for contrast, and is cropped.

Articles this image appears in

Cornelius Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt University, List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients, Wealthy historical figures 2007, Wealthy historical figures 2006, Wealthy historical figures 2008

Creator

Produced by Mathew Brady's studio; restored by Mchel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice work, and I love Brady's work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support tempodivalse [☎] 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration --Muhammad(talk) 20:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cornelius Vanderbilt Daguerrotype2.jpg MER-C 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution encyclopedic lithograph. Low resolution courtesy copy available, but it's all in the details for this one.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Antietam, Pepper-box, History of Maryland, Maryland in the American Civil War

Creator

unknown lithographer; restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I prefer the original colour balance - it seems more appropriate to a dusty battlefield, whereas the adjusted one seems a bit cartoony and a lot less subtle. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the original color balance better also. I like it, though, but.... --KP Botany (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a problem. I've dialed down the colours. Better like this? -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd keep going. It just seems to have lost something with the current colour balance: the original seems to have the left half of the image seen through smoke, but yours has the left half restored to full contrast. The lower right, which was much brighter in the original, thus becomes rather lurid. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh. I see. I though it was a fading issue to the left and to the right of the print, but it may indeed have been intentional smokiness. I have no strong feelings either way; put up an alternative version. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• However: do take a look at a different scan at the LoC. Lots of contrast everywhere there. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GerardM (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original — Jake Wartenberg 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not completely open, but by the time the top has opened the bottom is decaying.

Articles this image appears in

Hedychium gardnerianum

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the wow. It has minor blown issues though. ZooFari 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice. tempodivalse [☎] 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really nice. — Jake Wartenberg 21:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. WIN. Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hedychium gardnerianum.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Another holiday restoration: the Easter Monday article had no lead image. One of the highest profile Easter Monday events is the annual Easter egg roll at the White House lawn, which has been a staple of holiday news coverage in the United States for over a century. A good photographic representation of how children enjoy the holiday. What I like is its candor and timelessness: the White House is visible enough, but it takes a moment to notice the adult women in the background and realize how old this is. Restored version of File:Easter egg roll boys.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Easter Monday

Creator

Harris & Ewing

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 17:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very well restored. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration. tempodivalse [☎] 00:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shouldn't the picture show eggs being rolled, like this, this or this? Except for the White House in the background, two boys eating a snack on the White House lawn doesn't have much EV to me. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were used at the Easter egg roll article that would be a higher priority. This is used at the article about the holiday; the holiday event at this location is more a social festivity than a competition. Durova^Charge! 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. However, the event itself is an Easter egg roll, so my vote is a weak oppose. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Easter egg roll boys2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An attractive piece of World War I graphic art, encyclopedic at the article where it appears. Restored version of File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

War savings stamps

Creator

Haskell Coffin

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 07:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture, high EV JovanCormac (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent poster that satisfies all of the criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV --Muhammad(talk) 20:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per high encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Paris 16 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A featured picure to go with a featured article (Ironclad warship): one of the most famous ships in US Naval history. Unrestored version of File:Monitor officers2.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

USS Monitor, Monitor (warship), Battle of Hampton Roads, Ironclad warship

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The ship's interesting, but to me you see far too little of it in this photo. And there's not enough else there to compensate - the composition is average, the lighting is pretty bad, and we get a lineup of fifteen unidentified officers (partially obscured) in lieu of a good view of the ship. Sorry, doesn't make it for mine. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support GerardM (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Jjon that the image lacks 'wow' factor, but it has bucketloads of EV and meets the other criteria. The cannon placed on the deck of the ship for the purposes of the photo (it would have been certain death to use it in combat and it would have gotten swept off the ship in any kind of seas) is fascinating - do you know why it's there? Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, visually appealing, good depiction of Argentines in their native habitat

Articles this image appears in

Belgrano, Buenos Aires, River Plate Stadium, Argentina

Creator

China

• Support as nominator --Ultimaking (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate oppose. Unfortunate because we could do with some FPs from this part of the world, but there's a bit too much about this that doesn't quite make it IMO. Overexposed to blown sky, perspective distortions and the entire bottom corner of the field being cutoff - I may be willing to overlook some issues, but that's a bit too much. It's understandable that parts of the stand would be lost, but for a view like this you really want the whole playing field at least. On a more general point, even though you're too far away to really see much action, I kind of feel I would rather have it taken during the game rather than as what looks to be just the first team (though admittedly the home team) runs onto the field. --jjron (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jjron. This is a bad choice for a panorama. The image also features people that should be blurred off to prevent problematic complains. ZooFari 00:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says they should be blurred? We don't censor Wikipedia... The photo was taken in a public place. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jjron. A good effort but lacking in a few key areas (blown sky and incomplete view of the ground). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I find myself agreeing with Jjron. It is indeed a nice panorama, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clearly shows all the important details of a bizarre-looking earthstar fungus, eg. the central pore surrounded by the circular "mouth", recurved rays (can even see the thickness of the rays); plus, the surrounding vegetation helps to give a size perspective. FP on French wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Geastrum saccatum, Geastrum

Creator

Mike Young

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Standard disclaimer: Not an expert on photography. But I like this and think it quite good. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't meet the quality requirements imo. The composition is also very cluttered with all of the stuff growing over it. Noodle snacks (talk)
• Oppose per NS. In addition, there are some minor sharpness issues on the subject itself. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

EV is high; clear and technically fine image

Articles this image appears in

Florence, Michelangelo, David and Piazza della Signoria

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Statue is darker than the background, and the background is too distracting. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be defensive but....this still is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. The walls of the Palazzo Vecchio should be the background of this picture and the only way to get a frontal shot of the statue is by including the building in the background. You shouldn't twist and bent reality, just to get a prettier picture. I could easily make the background black, but that isn't real. As fore the shadow. It isn't overtly distraction and doesn't obscure details. A collage of the friezes of the Albert Memorial by Diliff just got promoted (nice picture btw) and two of those friezes are also in the shade. Despite this it still got promoted. I more and more get the feeling that there is a huge bias on Wikipedia FPC towards some photographers. If a image belongs to Diliff or Noodle Snacks (both great photographers btw!) for example, they instantly get promoted. I've seen enough great encyclopedic images over the time by other photographers, which got rejected by the most ridiculous of reasons. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've contributed fine, quality work, which gets recognized. Reasonable people can differ about a particular image. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remark wasn't specifically about this picture or me for that matter, but it is just a feeling I get at FPC lately. I meant no disrespect toward anyones opinion and I made the remark to get people to think. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as can be seen here, at approximately midday (judged by the high sun almost directly South), the statue is mostly in shade. Could another photo not be taken at a different time of day, or on a day with less direct sunlight, to get the necessary lighting effect? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. First, this is a photo of a copy of the statue, not a photo of the famous statue itself, so EV is lacking. Second, the lighting makes it look like this is an illustration of the wall behind the statue, rather than of the statue itself. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the background should have the dim lighting with the subject well lit. A much smaller DOF would also be preferable. Highly reproducible shots like this should be better technically. Cacophony (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As this is a copy of the statue, in the original location, my view on this is that it should be showing the location itself . . . the square, the nearby buildings, etc. I would happily support a quality photograph which didn't necessarily have the focus on the statue but on its surroundings. Otherwise, I'm afraid, this is just a picture of the copy, and photographs of the original are not yet impossible to obtain. Maedin\^talk 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A major enlightenment literary and historical figure deserves a featured picture. This Victorian steel engraving is stunningly detailed - would you believe the original is no bigger than an index card? - and serves as an attractive introduction to her. Would you believe I found this book in the bargain bin at a charity shop for £2?

Articles this image appears in

Marguerite of Navarre, Heptaméron

Creator

"Hinchliff". I can find no further information on him (probably not her, given the date)

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just £2? Wow. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What a find.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: There are several unfortunate brown spots at the upper left of the engraving, like a spill from coffee or similar. Can anything be done about that? Maedin\^talk 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I did poke at them a bit, but completely removing them would involve patching in pattern from elsewhere, which seemed less than ideal over larger areas. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hinchliff - Marguerite Queen of Navarre crop.jpg MER-C 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

quality difficult to do with the optical distortion of water

Articles this image appears in

Psetta_maxima

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing detail for an underwater creature. ZooFari 00:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Your recent bird nominations have been simply excellent. This image has CA right across it and too much noise in my opinion. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noise or sand? It is hard to tell whether the image has noise due to the usual roughness of this species. It shows some in certain areas, but it doesn't seem like a big deal at full size. ZooFari 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not much noise for an picture of animal living in water. Watch other aquatic featured. The high resolution shows a very fine noise for a large picture ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support detail is very good, and the CA doesn't detract from the fish, only the gravel. de Bivort 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Considering the environment, I think this has been very well done. Maedin\^talk 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, brilliant encyclopedic image. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Psetta maxima Luc Viatour.jpg MER-C 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality and great value to the encyclopedia

Articles this image appears in

Hand

Creator

Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Libertad0 ॐ (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support assuming nobody finds anything glaringly wrong about the diagram. Certainly of good quality and fairly easy to understand. Caption is a big unwieldly though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Legend in the image, or the caption, should indicate whether the palm is up or down-- it's not immediately obvious. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - pending resolution of spike's concerns and confirmation of accuracy, this is an incredible image - a brilliant use of SVG and one of the finest diagrams on Wikipedia. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice diagram, very educational—Chris! _ct 22:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support, if accuracy is confirmed by participants from WP:Medicine (who have been informed). An excellent image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message at WP:Med. I have added a comment below. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments this is an outstanding image, but I have some concerns:

• Why is the fascia that overlies the adductor pollicis so opaque? It obscures the fact that the underlying structure, a muscle, is like the other muscles, and that its fibers are almost perpendicular to the others (hence its functional importance for our opposable thumb).
• Linked to my previous comment - the path of the probe, which is supposedly deep to the adductor pollicis muscle, is unclear - is that probe more than a distraction?
• Shouldn't "anular" be "annular"?
• Is this an opportunity to indicate the stuctures passing through the carpal tunnel?
• My Strong support for this beautiful and technically outstanding image is mitigated by these concerns. --Scray (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Overly medical diagram of limited use to most Wikipedia users. This is basically showing a dissection, complete with a probe, when we would be better served by a more common usage illustration of the hand (who below university level medical students would be using 90% of this terminology?). The general description in the caption doesn't gel with the medical terminology included on the diagram itself. Also completely lacking in sources, which I thought we had agreed was required for diagrams due to concerns about WP:OR. While the diagram itself seems well enough done, I don't think it's serving the target audience well. --jjron (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It think the author is potentially a talented illustrator, but I think that the hand image is little use to an anatomist and might confuse a general reader. I do not know why the radial artery is not labelled. I think that too many of the connecting nerves and arteries have been cut out; see File:Gray817.png. I do not know why the anastomosis between the radial artery and the ulnar artery is not shown, which is one of the most important things that needs to be shown here; see File:Gray815.png. The insertion of flexor digitonum superficialis tendon does not show its mechanical arrangement, which is another one of the key features that needs to be shown. I think the common flexor sheath extends further down the hand than illustrated; see File:Gray423.png. Just to show it is there, I might have put in the radial nerve as it innervates the web between the thumb and index finger and also parts of the back of the hand and wrist (with some variability). I think that is would be better to do separate diagrams of the arteries, nerves, muscles with tendons and bones. The diagram should say that it is the anterior aspect (palm up) of a right hand, and I think that all of the structures passing through the carpel tunnel need labelling. I think that the omissions make this image potentially misleading, and, in my opinion, should definitely not be a featured image. I think the caption needs rewriting too. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the strongly negative tone of this comment, for the following reasons: it's a judgment call regarding the balance between satisfying an audience that sits somewhere between but far from the extremes of anatomist versus completely uneducated reader (I'll admit that I'm closer to the former than the latter); this is a deep dissection, and one simply has to make choices about the structures retained (e.g. loss of the palmar arterial arcades); Gray's 1901 edition is not a gold standard against which to measure other illustrations - it's useful and available, but has its limits; I agree with the suggestions regarding labeling and the caption. Separate illustrations of types of structures would be useful, but this sort of combined image helps integrate concepts, too. --Scray (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the omission of the anastomosis in itself would fail this in becoming a featured image with the current caption. It might be better, if all the smaller nerves and arteries were removed and it became an illustration of the muscles, tendons, and tendon sheaths. It would be more understandable, if the caption was helpful and said that important sections of arteries and nerves have been removed. Please list any faults that you have found on the Gray's illustrations that I have linked. Snowman (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Several comments have been on about the caption, so I have rewritten it and I am sure that it could be improved further. I would pass the image as a featured image with a suitable caption which says that arteries and nerves have been "cut away", which I think the new modified caption does. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think that it would be worth a dedicated label for one or more of the lumbrical muscles. Snowman (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Firstly, I am amazed at the detail and skill of this SVG, really well done. Secondly I notice that the numbered version is featured on commons (added on right). This potentially could be a more useful image for article space where the text on the text version is likely to be too small unless viewed in full, this would also allow a better caption and variable labelling perhaps with links and medical and lay terms where appropriate.

This would be a strong support if some clear indication is made of it being palm up; I would prefer the radial artery to also be labelled and perhaps the anastomosis to be present but appreciate this is a great image without this. |→ Spaully^₪† 14:14, 31 March 2009 (GMT)

I have notified the author on commons and perhaps he can attend to any labelling minor fixes. Snowman (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I have been reading all your comments, and I am ready to correct these errors. I have problems to identify radial artery. I am not a doctor and my source, Dr. Who has decided to help is not anonymous. Thank's --Libertad0 ॐ (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 18 points to the ulnar artery. The radial artery is the red one on the other side of the wrist about the same diameter. There is only a small bit visible before it is cut off. Next to the radial artery are two tendons and in the middle of the wrist there is the median nerve, the large yellow one, which could be labelled median nerve. There are two more tendons to the right and another red tube the ulnar artery, also worth labelling. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point (and it may be variable) but it is the ulnar artery - with an 'r'. It would be good to label the median nerve as you say. |→ Spaully^₪† 21:22, 31 March 2009 (GMT)

Whoops, "ulnar" is the correct spelling. Ulna is a bone. I have corrected the typing above to reduce confusion. Snowman (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent vector image. Even if I don't feel like rehearsing hand anatomy at this point, it is still a pleasure just to look at the composition. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lacks references. Narayanese (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference me please. MER-C 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, DOF and EV. Almost an FP at commons as well, where it raised some pretty hilarious ethical issues

Articles this image appears in

Acalyptratae, Lauxaniidae, Homoneura

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Stalking more sexing insects, eh? I think some of the users at Commons were reminiscing a certain high-pitched, cinematic quote: "Heeelllppp meeee!" ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His camera is probably like "Oh my, not again!". If not, maybe like "YES!". :-) ZooFari 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ZooFari 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Because "FP" stands for "Featured Porn" =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the size I'd probably consider supporting per Shoemaker. However I am a little concerned about the white balance, which seems to have a very yellow tint to it. What is the story there? Noodle snacks (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded edit 1 with colors adjusted. If there is pref for this version then I should upload this edit over the original. --Muhammad(talk) 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • New edit looks a bit cold to me, though that's just a gut feeling - could be just because of its juxtaposition to the original. Is there somewhere in between you can go? --jjron (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uploaded Edit 2. Better? --Muhammad(talk) 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks close enough to me. Second question though. What is with the "pools" of focus around the legs? Is this a focus stack? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The original image had good DOF but a small part of the legs was OOF and since I had another version with the legs slightly sharper, I cloned them over. --Muhammad(talk) 17:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 The cloning isn't really ethically distinct from a focus stack or panorama. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 per above. --jjron (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 colours much improved in the edit. Maedin\^talk 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Homoneura sp wb2.jpg MER-C 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, nice colours

Articles this image appears in

Spotted Dove

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. That thing in the background hanging down above it's beak is a bit distracting. Would it be inappropriate to clone that out? --jjron (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so, Its out of focus anyway. I'll post an edit a bit later. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the edit. I didn't go all the way because it gets a bit difficult to do convincingly over the change from green to yellow. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either with preference for the edit. No problems that I can see, good focus. I like the variety of colours as well. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad you mentioned the focus. The dove is focused, but the foreground looks out-of-focus to me. Personally speaking, I think the blurred foreground is a serious flaw. Snowman (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1: Ever so slightly improved by having the leaf out of the way, but the original is ok, too. Maedin\^talk 18:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I'd be inclined to crop the blurred foreground a bit higher jimfbleak (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Streptopelia chinensis Tas Edit.jpg MER-C 09:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good sharpness, lighting, DOF and EV, appearing in two articles as the lead image. The size is a bit smaller than what I usually upload because the image had to be taken form a distance and cropped. It is however still above the requirement. The pictures is not downsampled. The bee is also well identified which is quite rare of African insects.

Articles this image appears in

Meliponula, Meliponini

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good DOF considering the angle. Unfortunate background contrast, but enough that we can still see the bee clearly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this is warrants a reshoot - nice subject but lack of overall sharpness (presumably because this is a 1:1 crop) and borderline pixel count. Also noisy background. --Fir0002 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I see what Fir0002 means, but personally don't find it to be an issue in this instance. Maedin\^talk 17:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per fir. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 09:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A useful set of images, providing good encyclopedic value to the pages of various protestant martyrs. Featured Set Candidate. The set is complete, including all illustrations by Kronheim, or at least the ones that were printed in this book. The originals are abut 3" x 5". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

All: Foxe's Book of Martyrs

• I: Saint Paul, List of Christian martyrs
• II: Gaspard de Coligny
• III: Pierre de la Place
• IV: Robert Barnes (martyr)
• V: Hugh Latimer, Oxford Martyrs
• VI: John Bradford, St. Paul's Cross
• VII: Thomas Cranmer, Oxford Martyrs, List of Christian martyrs
• VIII: Prest's Wife, Exeter Cathedral

Creator

Joseph Martin Kronheim

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• N.B. For the main page, we could probably make a single image out of these, say, 4x2, though I doubt that would be particularly useful in article space.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A brilliant set of images there.  GARDEN  09:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Impossible to judge and comment on the EV of so many images at once, but I'm guessing the EV is limited. These diagrams were done for an edition of the book 300 years after it was published, and the accuracy of any individual image has to be in serious doubt in any case. It's kind of like putting up a portrait of Jesus as a good illustration of the man, when we have no idea what he actually looked like. Also looks like sloppy editing, for one example in the caption "Barnes and his Fellow-Prisoners Seeking Forgiveness" - what's with all the capitalisation? (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). --jjron (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kronheim was a reasonably notable illustrator, even if we don't have an article on him yet. Also, those are the titles of the works: You capitalise each important word of titles. Admittedly, they're in all small-caps in the original, so some ambiguity might exist, but I did follow standard rules for capitalising titles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Historic in their own right and of great value to the articles they have been added to. -- Secisek (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportEpiphyllumlover (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm unsure of the EV this has as a set...in the Foxe's book of Martyrs article, they come from a specific edition of the book, and personally, I don't think it adds a lot as a gallery on the bottom. Individually, however, there's good EV, so I would support the individuals. If there was an article on the illustrator, I would then support as a set. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think by giving some specific examples of martyrs and the events in their lives that were chosen for special emphasis by Kronheim, you get a much better idea of the book as a whole. The book covers hundreds of martyrs, transitioning rapidly between them, which makes it hard to get an idea of the book from mere description. The images help show the sort of things it emphasises and portrays, and I think it does so reasonably well.

As for an article on Kronheim - we probably should have one; I just don't feel up to creating it just now. Not been sleeping very well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Weak, weak support of a set (would probably be changed if an article on Kronheim was created). Full support individually. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If MER-C wants to promote them individually, he may feel free, but I suspect that a set may be slightly easier. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on EV grounds. The set really only has value for the article on the book, which I think would benefit better from more (and better scanned) woodcuts from the original edition. If I remember correctly, the Victorian editions of the text were fairly heavily edited--in a scholarly sense, these illustrations are later interpretations more than directly representative of the book itself. Chick Bowen 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does the edition being abridged have to do with whether the illustrations are indicative of the book's content? There's literally hundreds of martyrs in the book; no edition would have an illustration for every single one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the illustrations are from a substantially different book from the one written about in the article! Chick Bowen 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, mainly because of the way the nominator has gone around plonking these, let's face it, rather crap Victorian pictures into articles, shoving aside historic images (see Gaspard de Coligny where a Vasari has been booted to the references) and often placing them opposite existing images. I had already removed one from St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, where we already had 3 contemporary images of the assassination of Coligny, & now there are protests from others at Thomas Cranmer, I see. The more obscure ones might be of use, though woodcuts from the early editions are always likely to be preferable, but for example we have many better illustrations for the martyrdom of St Paul. The article Pierre de la Place has been created by the nom for the picture, but though he was supposedly a duke, it is sourced only from Foxe! In fact the long French article [25] makes it clear he was a bourgeois lawyer and writer - not a duke, so forget Kronheim's fancy court dress - with a long career. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Vasari wasn't only available at 150 × 506 pixels, with Gaspard himself taking up maybe 50 by 50 of said pixels, I'd have left it where it was. As it is, it's a very, very bad reproduction of what would be a notable artwork. I thought the new one had the advantage of actually making it clear which person Gaspard is meant to be.

I feel no need to defend myself for making stubs. This is a collaborative project, and you are, of course, welcome to improve the articles, however, I lacked better sources to hand, so decided to simply start the work, and maybe come back to it later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really good enough - it took 20 seconds to find out that "Prest's Wife", a similar stub, was called Agnes Prest etc. I've now moved it. Mixing this sort of thing with featured content doesn't work. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently have better sources than I: I spent 30 minutes checking online, with no luck. Anyway, featured pictures are completely separate from featured articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google search on "Prest Exeter"! [26] Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, I didn't stumble on that combination: I tried the hometown Foxe gives, no luck, I tried Prest's wife, etc, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 09:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good lighting, particularly clear illustration of mouth parts. The flower it was feeding from has a fairly unpleasant odour, but I haven't identified that yet.

Articles this image appears in

Blue bottle fly

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Would prefer a cropped version, a bit of the right cropped out. --Muhammad(talk) 09:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though I must admit that the right awfully distracts. ZooFari 00:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fine details --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exobyte (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support per Muhammad. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crop me please. MER-C 09:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cropped, ugly as hell too :P Noodle snacks (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cropped version. The detail is exquisite, and this version really makes the fly stand out (less distractions). hmwithτ 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Much better detail. Synergy 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calliphora_vomitoria_crop.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High res, detailed, appropriate angle and composition, lighting at night allows the architecture to stand out.

Articles this image appears in

Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I must admit, this is a very beautiful and breathtaking building/picture but its just not significant enough. Still I believe it has some aspects for a FP. Madadude^{My Talk Page} 20:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who determines what is significant and insignificant, though? In terms of architectural significance, it is actually quite significant IMO. It's a major work by architect Santiago Calatrava who is known as one of the great modern architects among peers such as IM Pei... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What an amazing looking building... Brilliant quality picture, even showing a clear view of the grand piano in the bottom left window... There is a blurred person towards the bottom right about to go under the curved bridge, but other than that minor point a pretty flawless pic IMO... Gazhiley (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Amazing architecture and high quality photograph -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Breathtaking. High quality, great angle, and EV value. hmwithτ 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meets criteria, great EV tempodivalse [☎] 17:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Just an excellent image. Synergy 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great architecture picture. Question: what focal length was used here? Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure now actually. I could check the originals but for now I'll guess at about 50-70mm. But given that this is a 3x5 segment stitched panorama, the focal length alone isn't enough info. You'd need the horizontal and vertical angle of view too. :-) Given the angles of the walkway and bridge, I'd say there's a horizonal AOV from edge to edge of the frame of about 90 degrees (roughly equivalent to a 28mm lens), but the subject itself has probably an AOV of about 50-60 degrees and is roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens (all assuming on a full frame camera). Of course, the projection and distortion is different to a rectilinear single frame photo. It is very hard to judge distortion on architecture like this, but I don't think it's extreme. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Impressive! Kennedy ^(talk) 08:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But I get the strong impression that this is looking at the back of the building. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressions can be deceiving? On the article page, the image below says it's the front. In any case, this is the more aesthetic end of it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía, Valencia - Jan 2007.jpg MER-C 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Detailed and high quality panorama, shows the lighting of the building very well

Articles this image appears in

BMW Welt, Coop Himmelb(l)au

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely colours of a very attractive building... Cannot see any technical issues, apart from one person appearing blurred to the left of the building as we look at it - however not going to oppose on that point as not an important part of the picture... Gazhiley (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It might be worth mentioning the English translation of 'BMW Welt' in the caption - 'BMW World' instantly gives an impression of what the place is but 'Welt' isn't very meaningful to non-German speakers. Time3000 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it is! User:Wadester16/Smile ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice vantage point. I can't help but think the white balance could have been adjusted, which would give the sky a nicer blue colour too.. It seems a bit warmer than needs to be. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brilliant picture. Definitely FA quality. hmwithτ 13:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great picture! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:BMW Welt Night.jpg MER-C 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and lighting. Nominating as a set. All three have enc, showing different stages of growth.

Articles this image appears in

Amanita muscaria

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, I think. I appreciate the difficulty of getting a good shot of these due to numerous distracting elements and the inevitable 'looking down at' angle of view, but, although the technical quality of them is very good as always, I don't find the composition is particularly great in any of them. That said, I'm not entirely sure how it could be improved either given the distracting elements mentioned above are also pretty fundamental given the environment that they grow in... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, how was it? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently they are non-toxic after "parboiling in plentiful water". Magic mushrooms actually look quite different. Anyway, the distracting elements are principally pine needles and per the article in the southern hemisphere they are "symbiont with pine plantations". The buttons are obviously looking down a bit. I had the pleasure of lying in the mud for the other two though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think we're ever likely to get much better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- these are as high a quality as you are going to get while they are natural. Technically very good, the composition shows off the mushroom in its natural environment. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per JMilburn. Sasata (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose three-piece, support either earlier stage with the mature mushroom. My feeling is that I don't get different EV with the two earlier stage pictures. I'd prefer to drop the first one, it has the worse composition. I would also support either of the other two (2 or 3) on their own (they should be promoted either as a pair or a singleton, not both). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The buttons in image 1 are about the same size as the one just visible on the left of image 2. Casliber, who did a lot of work on the article, was asking around for a picture of a button before this image was taken. I think that the first image has definite EV. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Those things are tiny, and it's a quality image that illustrates well what they actually look like. Unless you dig them up (which obviously wouldn't fit with this set) that's all you're going to really get. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 3-piece I agree with Papa Lima Whiskey. I do not like the first image, as it doesn't look like FA quality, but the second two are great pictures of the mushrooms in their natural environment, and I would definitely support those 2 on their own. hmwithτ 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original 2 / 3., Weak oppose Original 1. late vote - change of heart. Individually, 2 and 3 are of sufficient quality and EV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No prejudice to individual nomination. MER-C 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Translation: CBF, my bot can't do it. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets it now rather than later. Promoted Image:Amanita muscaria Marriott Falls 1.jpg and File:Amanita muscaria After Rain.jpg. MER-C 12:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The combination of excellent resolution, color and texture warrants a FP for this outstanding work. It grabs your attention looking at it, and it does a good job on the Battleship article as a "hook". Even the other Iowa picture (the FP one) would not work in the same context. It is in the Public Domain as a work of the US Navy.

Articles this image appears in

Battleship, USS Iowa (BB-61)

Creator

PH1 Jeff Hilton (Photographer's Mate 1st class)

• Support as nominator --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 22:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previously considered at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg, and not promoted. Opposed because of tight crop, and considered inferior to current FP File:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg. Nominator, would you consider withdrawing, or updating your rationale to account for these earlier objections? Chick Bowen 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This is not cropped The original is exactly from the US Navy site. And the crop is actually quite minimal. If you look at the FP, you see where the shot ends. If you look at the top set of guns, you can see the balloon of the gun where the shot ends. The whole set of flame is in the top of the picture. What tight crop? Yes, the bottom set is cut off a little, but that is a minimal crop. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect what they were meaning to say is that the framing is a little too tight. Crop does imply that it was edited from an original, which I don't think was the intended meaning. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not as good as the other FP inn terms of composition and I don't think more than one FP of this is necessary. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I am aware that this picture has been nominated before and there is also currently a similar FP. However, I strongly support this nomination because this particular picture is magnificent and brilliant enough to be a FP and I am surprised it is not an FP yet.Madadude^{My Talk Page} 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While there has been another picture made FP, this is undeniably a fantastic, striking, powerful (no pun intended) photograph. I strongly support this photo. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Diliff that the (as he reworded it) framing is too tight. It doesn't look balanced, and just doesn't appear to be FA quality, in terms of general layout. hmwithτ 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The map is high-quality, high-resolution, and has good detail and enc. The first nomination (of the PNG version) is here and the second nomination is here.

Articles this image appears in

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge (PNG version used)

Creator

Alexrk

• Support as nominator --Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this being re-nominated? The PNG version failed three weeks ago and the SVG failed yesterday, what has changed since? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the voters. The 1st nom had issues with the image that were fixed (such as the creation of an SVG version), and old votes opposing earlier editions were not amended. The 2nd nom only had 2 votes besides the nominator, both of which were supports. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's a nicely made graphic, sure... but I'm not at all excited about much when I see it. Don't see this as being worthy of being a FP. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, good quality image, which shows caterpillars both inside and outsite the tent

Articles this image appears in

Tent caterpillar

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tent caterpillar no artifacts.JPG

• Oppose Situation resolved There are visible jpeg compression artifacts at full size. ZooFari 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me, where you see them? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everywhere. If you zoom in, they are very bad compared to normal grainness. This was probably caused by inappropriate edits. If you still have the original, then there is a chance of fixing it with more caution about artifacts. ZooFari 23:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot see CA, but I uploaded what seems to be my original File:Tent caterpillar original.jpg. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... they are definitely CA. The original doesn't have none. It must have been an edit that caused the manipulation. Try nominating the original... ZooFari 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well,I did, but I am still not sure about CA. Do you see them on Caterpillars or on the bush? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here... I have posted a comparison guide to show the difference between the original and bad CA. ZooFari 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Well. I believed it was some noise, and I believed it was not such a big problem. The resolution of the image is much higher than required. It could have been down sampled, but I simply withdraw the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? That original seems pretty good. Don't get discouraged. If you can edit the white balance (seems cloudy) without causing CA, I think it has some good chances for either FP or VP. I think the CA was caused by over sharpening. ZooFari 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is compression artifacts at all - it doesn't look like what I know jpeg artifacting to be. It looks more like patterns of noise exacerbated by strong sharpening. The sharpening is a bit strong and unnecessary if you ask me though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diliff, for taking your time to look and to comment on the withdrawn nomination! I uploaded a new version over the first file. I hope it is better. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is unecessary confusion here as ZooFari is using the acronym CA to refer to compression artifacts, but the abbreviation CA is commonly used in photography to refer to Chromatic Abberation which is a unwanted color shift created in poorly designed/corrected or just plain cheap lenses , and that may be what Mkz1 expected you meant by CA? I can't see any Chromatic Abberation for sure, and agree with Diliff that it looks like overcooked sharpening of inherent noise. Mfield (Oi!) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it is oversharpened. It seems like this because the resolution is higher than necessary, thus zoomed too close that they seem like compression artifacts (by the way, CA in my comments ment compression artifacts). The grain gets sharpened as well creating these unwanted patterns, as Diliff mentioned. This creates a problem in thumbnails, so perhaps the version that's not oversharpened is better. ZooFari 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this CA whatever it was is gone now in both the edit of the original and the original no edit, so may I please ask you, ZooFari to change the oppose reason? Just for me to learn my mistakes for the feature. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm going to commit to this one. The image quality at 100% isn't ideal, but it's a fascinating scene and the detail is enough to get an idea of the overall subject, even if not the individual caterpillars. In this case I think the enc gets it over the line. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is much better now. ZooFari 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems alright. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you went back to the original when you prepared the second version (i.e. the one uploaded over the original edited "original" - yes, your naming could be better, or your upload strategy, whichever). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edit was made out of the original not of the edit. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The picture is very encyclopedic, and the color and artifacts look fine now. hmwithτ 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Western tent caterpillars Malacosoma californicum in Joshua Tree NP.jpg MER-C 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

While I disagreed with Durova's colour choices, I think the underlying work has merit, and is important for countering systemic bias. Luckily, Durova believes in making her work accessible to other restorationists, thus I was able to go to a partially-finished restoration, and rework from there. I believe this is a more accurate colour scheme - brown ink was a common ink colour, for instance, squid ink or sepia, so there's no reason to presume brown is wrong - and I also left in some clear signs of paper grain, which I think makes it look better.

Articles this image appears in

B'nai B'rith

Creator

Louis Kurz

• Support as co-nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as co-nominator Durova^Charge! 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination of alt version from last week for those who don't know what the heck the reason is on about :-). --jjron (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... I didn't really get to this in good time, but, oh, well. That an important subject gets an FP in the end through collaborative restoration is probably more important than the timing =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agreed-- this version is a far more realistic restoration. Have you contacted WP:JEW yet?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifying the WikiProject during the nomination might give the appearance of canvassing. Of course, should it pass, I'm sure one of us will tell them =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice image with lots of detail visible. Not really qualified to talk about the colour, but will assume you are. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The other version does look over-edited. This version is high quality and still retains its antique feel. hmwithτ 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.jpg MER-C 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Image is from an open access journal publication, showing how transmission electron microscopy can be used in conjunction with tomography to create 3D images of nanoscale objects, essential to sciences such as virology for the understanding of disease vectors.

Articles this image appears in

Transmission electron microscopy

Creator

Jan Mast and Lien Demeestere, EM-unit, CODA-CERVA; Published in [27].

• Support as nominator --User A1 (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - A neat graphic, but I think a standard thin slice image would be more illustrative of TEM uses, and as an illustration of a parapoxvirus, the geometry looks a little dubious to me. de Bivort 19:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support, though it's a somewhat odd presentation, I think it could be useful. Could use more explanation in the caption, for instance, mentioning the debris around it is not part of the virus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

3D tomographical reconstruction of a Parapoxvirus by TEM, as obtained from a sheep's oral mucosa. The virus sample was dispersed onto a support film and stained with uranyl acetate, in order to selectively bind to the viral protein; the rectangular background is excess stain from the cropped 3D section.

Works! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support GerardM (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus=>Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

While not quite as good as the Act 2, Scene 3 image a bit further down this page, I still think this is an excellent image of the premiere production of the opera, and the encyclopedic value makes up for some minor, but not really fixable, streaking in the sky.

Articles this image appears in

Le Cid (opera)

Creator

Auguste Tilly

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suuport - always happy to provide more Massenet love. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Synergy 01:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Shame about some of the discolouration and the streaking, but this is still good. I think it's worthy. Maedin\^talk 06:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed as much as I could, but, well, there's some things that just cannot be readily fixed if they're in the original. I could make it a bit less yellow if that's desirable - the final colour adjustment is a bit of a compromise between several aspects. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's ok, the yellow is fine. Do you think it would make sense to put the date in the caption, though? Maedin\^talk 14:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that can safely be left to Howcheng's judgement, when this is ready to mainpage =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okey dokey, :-) Maedin\^talk 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs further input from established reviewers. Please don't close this in the meantime without asking me. MER-C 13:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jules Massenet - Le Cid 3e Acte, 6e Tableau - L'Illustration.jpg MER-C 10:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Portrait of Siegmund Breitbart, showing a close-up of a classic strongman routine.

Articles this image appears in

Zishe Breitbart

Creator

unknown photographer, restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even in historical terms, this looks too much like a snapshot --Muhammad(talk) 07:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Articles like this have a need for their own illustrations ...[reply]
• Support Great EV for this dude. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Jake Wartenberg 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Muhammad. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illustrates well Breitbart in a compelling way. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Siegmund Breitbart2.jpg MER-C 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Byron. Really, what more needs said?

Articles this image appears in

Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron

Creator

I. H. Jones

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Childe Harold's Pilgrimage must be one of Byron's best known works. This makes a very nice and appropriate illustration for the article. Maedin\^talk 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very high resolution image illustrating part of a well-known contemporary masterpiece. The size, number of figures and detail of the monument justifies IMO partial illustrations like this one. The picture is a panorama of three photos

Articles this image appears in

Pedro Nunes, Padrão dos Descobrimentos

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's a bit tightly cropped: Is there a reason for that? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no ideal solution to the crop. See the whole thing here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any reason you picked these six? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the need to illustrate the article on Pedro Nunes, which had no picture. But the image would be unbalanced with a single figure, so I joined some other which are related with the subject (navigation and cartography) Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Mostly, it's quite striking, but there is an interesting historical aside. This photo was from a concert in East Berlin that fell right between Reagan's "tear down this wall" and the destruction of the wall. The resolution may not be the best, but there's an amazing amount of clarity in what pixels it does have. No regions are too black, no too white, and the depth of field is great.

Articles this image appears in

Bruce Springsteen, Number-one albums of 1985 (U.S.), Tunnel of Love Express Tour, List of baritones in non-classical music

Creator

Thomas Uhlemann

• Support as nominator --Exobyte (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but it's simply too small, especially once you crop out the text to the bottom right. There are scratches/dust/whatever and the head of the guitar is cut off.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose fails the size criteria. ZooFari 19:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To me, the words on the right side ruin it. Madadude^{My Talk Page} 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sadly. Size is too small, and the image is of poor quality, especially the specks. Also, the text at the right detracts from quality as well. tempodivalse [☎] 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

detailed and high quality panorama of a well-known monument. The issues of last nomination (twin tourists and stichting errors) have been addressed with a brand new panorama

Articles this image appears in

Tower of Belém, Manueline

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Previous version had much better lighting and more pleasing sky. The doubled face really didn't bother me. Call it your signature... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's add the former picture as an alternative. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Yeah, I agree that the previous one has better lighting, but I prefer the composition of this one with a bit more space at the bottom. I don't think that lighting makes or breaks the EV of the building though, so I'll support this one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original much better composition. I think I see a slight perspective distortion. --Muhammad(talk) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Alternate has the previously discussed stitching problems. I prefer the width of the alt, but the foreground in the new version helps too. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Original has added EV as it allows us to see the base surrounded by sand. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Much better colouring... Good re-touch... Gazhiley (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose original, weak support alternative I'd have to go with the better colors on this one. The perspective in the "original" seems just a bit too slanted. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original The coloring is much better in general, although the sky looks nicer in the bottom image. hmwithτ 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg MER-C 10:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I listed this at PPR first. It only got one comment but that said to attempt a nom, so here I am. Anyway, like I said there, I think this picture is of good quality considering its age, has high EV, and a definate "wow factor".

Articles this image appears in

Meuse-Argonne Offensive, Aviation in World War I, Hannover CL.III

Creator

Pvt. J. E. Gibbon (Uploaded by Cobatfor)

• Support as nominator --Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Reasonably high resolution image of Thomas Edison. I was surprised there was no high resolution portrait of him on Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Thomas Edison

Creator

Unknown photographer, restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support His face is in focus, which is probably all we need. Right side of his face is lacking in color depth, which is hard to overcome given the overexposure of the original jpeg. The other half of his face blends into blurriness. But his eyes, mouth, and brow are impeccable, and his nose nearly so. It would be good to have an FP of him. Maybe we can sort out the troubling of dark specs on his left trapezius before we promote this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Did you also upload the original tiff ?[reply]

• Erm no, I didn't. My upload speed is abominably low I'm afraid. It's available at the Library of Congress if anyone should need it. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though note that the statement that no other images exist at high res isn't true: a very young Edison can be found in this FP: File:Edison and phonograph edit1.jpg Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot to link to it rather than display it (in all it's high res glory on the page!). I've fixed it now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - lovely portrait, despite its age --Thanks, Hadseys 20:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thomas Edison2.jpg MER-C 10:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Out of respect for users, this image is not presented here since it is a clear representation of the head of a human male penis. While Wikipedia is not censored, this is done as a courtesy. To see the image, please see File:Hirsuties papillaris coronae glandis.jpg.

Caption

Hirsuties papillaris genitalis on a circumcised human penis.

Reason

Beautiful image quality, perfect example of the article material. Extremely helpful.

Articles this image appears in

Pearly_penile_papules

Creator

de:User:Ernesto Che Guevara

• Support as nominator --Communist47 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I fixed the formatting on this page and, as a courtesy, removed the image, but included its link. Penises are not the thing I expect (or hope) to see when I come to FPC, so you will have to follow the link to see the image. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, Wade. ZooFari 00:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Remember this is a featured picture candidate!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs)
• Support I've seen this article in its use on the article, and I was surprised with the very high quality. Great FA candidate. hmwithτ 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh lighting, blown whites, and I don't like seeing the shadow on the background wall. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I fail to see anything exceptional in terms of technical quality, beauty or EV rather than the subject itself. Also, I wouldn't like to see a diseased penis (or a liver or a anus) in the main page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to point out that the penis in question is definetly NOT diseased, as you would know if you had read the article, but more importantly, an FP doesn't need to be on the main page. Some FA's, like on porn-stars or overly technical subjects, are never on the main page, for example. Communist47 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if the word is not accurate. I did read the article, which talks about lesions and clinical skin condition which I can only interpret as an abnormal or non-desired situation. Anyway, the exact definiton of disease is not the main point here. The way I see it (and I may be wrong, of course) the nomination would lose most of its interest if the subject were a carrot or a turnip and would only pass if its quality, beauty or EV were absolutely exceptional. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Except I think it's worth noting that unlike a carrot or turnip, getting a high-res photo of a papuled penis isn't exactly the easiest task. Communist47 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Many thanks to Wadester16 for hiding the image from this page. Considering I first came aross this nomination while at work, I owe him one! As to the image itself, I agree with Wadester16 that it's a little harsh and the shadow is offputting. Personally though, what kills it for me is that I would prefer the subject itself to be a little cleaner. To avoid any lengthy discussions about whether or not it's appropriate to make it "artificially" clean, I will point out now that I have considered this point already, and have concluded that, as most people bathe regularly, having a cleaner specimen is neither abnormal nor unexpected. I get the impression that this was a snapshot without any "preparation", as it were, which I think would have been appropriate in this case. I agree that it's an interesting subject, though, and not one you would normally find illustrated, so I might support another try. Maedin\^talk 06:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How would preperation be appropriate? It's a high-res zoom shot of a penis. It's going to have smegma on it. It would lose its encyclopedic value if the penis was completely clean. Communist47 (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I happen to disagree. As I explained, I don't think it's unusual or abnormal for a penis to be regularly washed. I don't see how it's unencyclopaedic for the subject to have been photographed after a shower, instead of before. Maedin\^talk 06:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just trying to be practical. Tho I am getting yelled at a bit about it. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I hope this one appeals to the photo gurus: it's high-resolution, attractive, and clearly shows details of the cap, and (unlike most other available pics of this species) the stem as well. Personally, it's the coolest photo I've seen of this species (compare others at Commons), and free for us to use!

Articles this image appears in

Polyporus squamosus

Creator

Dan Molter, over at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great composition and lighting, fungi itself is clear and well presented. Accurate illustration, very attractive. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I'm glad the photographer used fill flash in the sunlight. Quality isn't perfect, but its good enough. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Agree with J Milburn. Well done. Maedin\^talk 10:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Polyporus squamosus Molter.jpg MER-C 10:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and high resolution image of a rare Albino Alligator with great EV

Articles this image appears in

Albinism;Alligator

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is he full grown? I can't really gauge his size. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe he is. By the way it was really hard to capture him with the eyes open. He keeps them closed almost all the time. All albinos with albinism in the eyes have problems looking at light.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Fascinating. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice background and interesting subject. --Spotty11222 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, although that is not a very catchy caption, it is a great picture. --Pstanton (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a small amount of discussion about this image at Talk:Albinism#Alligator_pic. The question asked is "Are we sure that the alligator in the picture actually suffers from albinism and not leucism?". Until that has been resolved this shouldn't be promoted. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment,Noodle snacks. Yes, we are sure that the alligator is albino. Here's the quote from leucism
"A further difference between albinism and leucism is in eye colour. Due to the lack of melanin production in both the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE) and iris, albinos typically have red eyes due to the underlying blood vessels showing through. In contrast, leucistic animals have normally coloured eyes."
The color of the eyes of this alligator is anything, but normal. Besides you could take a look at official California Academy site.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albino Alligator 2008.jpg MER-C 10:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV and wow. Already featured on commons and german wiki.

Articles this image appears in

Tachinidae, List of Tachinidae genera and species, Proboscis, Insect mouthparts

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great picture, waow effect! --Luc Viatour (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is a gorgeous picture with no adequate article to house it. The best one (Proboscis) is only a stub where the subject of the picture (this specisl type of proboscis) is not referred to. Will support if (and when) a proper article can be found or made. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I believe it illustrates proboscis well enough to be featured. I would love to see it on more articles, though. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Disgusting. Also, highly illustrative of proboscis, good headshot of this species. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Wow!" sums it up for me... Kennedy ^(talk) 13:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - ugly creature but an amazing photo --Thanks, Hadseys 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. That's amazing. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I'll support it as soon as I stop hurling from the close-up. --KP Botany (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: But ewwww. Maedin\^talk 11:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perfect moment, excellent macro work. Maxis ftw (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tachina fly Gonia capitata feeding honey.jpg MER-C 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Striking, high resolution picture, also very encyclopedic subject.

Articles this image appears in

Sakurajima, Aira Caldera

Creator

Space Shuttle Endeavour's Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)

• Support as nominator --Ceranllama chat post 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Well, it isn't excellent, and I considered abstaining or opposing. But then I read more about this volcano's recent activity and that scientists consider it a potential threat to the population, one of only 15 volcanoes identified as such. So, I decided that the EV here tips the balance for me. Maedin\^talk 11:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Image is only moderately eye-catching, but very illustrative of the article and high resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Diet Coke and Mentos eruption

Creator

K.Shimada

• Support as nominator --Vicarious (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Whilst being quite interesting, the background is distracting. IMO, would do better at VPC --Muhammad(talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Exactly what Muhammad said. The picture is fascinating, but technically not great because the garage door is too intrusive in the picture. I'd suggest nominating as a Valued Picture. --Pstanton (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not ready to oppose quite yet, but it's also tilted. Good luck finding a vertical element to compare it with ... ;) --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, but would gladly support at VPC b/c it has great EV.—Chris! _ct 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not aware that the (newly created) VPC existed. I don't disagree that this would be suited for it. I suppose this means I need to go list it there... Vicarious (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cool idea, backgound and perhaps lighting needs work. Having tried this trick myself I wonder how the photographer triggered all four simultaneously. Is it a composite image? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the photographer had helpers that put the mentos in and then ran out of the frame. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose Lighting and tilt issues. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - would support with tilt correction, bright/level adjustment, and cyan (maybe some green) adjustment. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some edits, if you're interested. Dunno how to go about that in a nom. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add it below the original, calling it edit one, and stating what changes have been made. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV, well identified.

Articles this image appears in

Muscidae, Mydaeinae, Graphomya

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Dislike the composition - too much is devoted to empty space (which comes across as somewhat forced attempt to conform with the rule of thirds). Also would have liked the fly angled towards the camera as opposed to looking away. Finally (and this should be correctable) there is a lot of noise in the fly's shadow - it looks as if it was lifted excessively(?) --Fir0002 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit 1 Uploaded, cropped out empty space and NR on fly's shadow. Regarding the angle, I got just this one picture of the fly before it flew away. --Muhammad(talk) 03:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Nice work! — Jake Wartenberg 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Illustrative and attractive. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 - Very nice shot -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1: Really good. Maedin\^talk 11:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Graphomya eustolia crop.jpg MER-C 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, quality image of 17th century painting by Frans Hals showing a double portrait of a newly wed couple from Haarlem, Holland.

Articles this image appears in

Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Frans Hals, Isaac Massa

Creator

Frans Hals

• Support as nominator --Rubenescio (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have half a feeling that if we're going to feature paintings that illustrate artists or museums, we should pick examples where the paint is less cracked than in this one. I'm not aware of this being a particular problem with Hals' paints, so I'm hopeful, given that he was reasonably prolific, that better examples can be found. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree: We shouldn't be insisting that paintings be better than they are in real life. Every work of a major painter is usually considered notable, with maybe a few exceptions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - I'm cautious about Yorck project works - they can have really quite significant problems. But this one looks to be one of their best. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Well, it all looks ok to me. And the cracking isn't particularly noticeable or abnormal. Though I am curious as to what Shoemaker's Holiday thinks is sometimes wrong with Yorck project works? I know nothing about them, so I'm curious. Maedin\^talk 11:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99% of the Yorck Project works I've seen on Wikipedia are either blurry, have strange colours, or other such problems. I appreciate what they tried to do, it's just they seem to have done much of it with low-end or early-generation digital cameras. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Shoemaker's Holiday. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Frans Hals - Wedding portrait of Isaac Abrahamsz Massa and Beatrix van der Laan.jpg MER-C 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Working one step closer to an FP for each of Shakespeare's plays. Very high resolution. Restored version of File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli.jpg. Downsampled courtesy copy at File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2 courtesy copy.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Titania

Creator

Henry Fuseli, artist. J. P. Simon, engraver.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 02:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd prefer a bit more of the original yellowing: I just think it adds interest to these black and white engravings to show how they've aged. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC) The provenance of the image is important. Yellowing is not really what we are looking for, imho it only detracts from the image itself.[reply]

To some extent, yes, but it always seems a little weird to turn a colour image into black and white, unless you're going to go another step further and lose the paper grain. You lose a bit of wow and make the original look like a reproduction. (Of course, this doesn't apply to images with actual coloured ink and the like, where going to white helps bring out the original intended colours.) I don't think Durova's actual restoration is in doubt. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you print, the original colour of the paper is white. Paper does have a grain so these two things are not connected. When we restore pictures, we do not lose information like paper grain but we should lose what was not there in the first place. GerardM (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've taken the liberty of upping the image size - at 250px, it's just too darn small. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There's just a couple of issues that perhaps could be fixed: a rust spot on the floating fairy's hand, and some weird blueish discoloration here and there left over from the original stains in the paper I guess (most noticeable in the top left hand corner over the vines, and on the leaf to the right of the leaf in the left bottom corner). Oh, and as long as I'm picking nits: about a third of the left hand white border is much brighter than the rest of the border -- also left-over from the original discoloration I guess. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk)
• Support The issues mentioned by Michel V. should probably be fixed if its easy enough.Noodle snacks (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice restoration. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2.jpg MER-C 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A fine image of the outside of the theatre. Greatly adds to the (admittedly as yet not fully developed) article.

Articles this image appears in

Teatro Giuseppe Verdi, Busseto

Creator

Commons:User:Zapping

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pincushion and perspective distortions. Mfield (Oi!) 22:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can it be fixed? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • see Edit1 Mfield (Oi!) 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks too wide at the top now. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Edit2? Perspective distortion bothers me less than "corrected" perspective distiortion. :) [at these extreme angles almost any perspective correction is bound to look "wrong" somehow, and since this isn't Cthulhupedia we can't really have that] -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either of the edits. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is not an image of the Teatro Giuseppe Verdi, in Busseto, Italy. It is an image of the Teatro Lirico Giuseppe Verdi in Trieste and is already used there. (See also [28]) I've been to the Teatro Verdi in Busseto. It's a tiny theatre seating 300 people with a flat facade. Here's an image of part of it.[29]. I'm going remove this image from the articles where it is mislabled. Having said that, it is a nice photo and greatly adds to the Teatro Lirico Giuseppe Verdi in Trieste. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I made the mistake of presuming the image's category was the correct name of the theatre. Was trying to see if we had good opera house images. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This gif displays the lockstitch method, a form of stiching used to sew. It was invented in 1833 by Walter Hunt, and is used by most household and factory sewing machines.

Articles this image appears in

Sewing machine and Lockstitch

Creator

NikolayS

• Support as nominator --Synergy 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - another frame or two might be nice at the point where the yellow thread is being pulled taught to smooth out the rapid motion, but the gif is educational and of high quality. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: It's a little fast for me, but I personally found it quite useful. I've actually pondered about that before, but never enough to bother looking it up. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is very informative but fast. Would support a slower version. --Muhammad(talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree. It should be made somewhat slower. I can't support this nomination as it is. -- mcshadypl ^TC 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can anyone recommend me an editor who can slow it down? I am, admittedly, unfamiliar with this process. Synergy 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's slowed down, it'll need more frames to still flow smoothly. I think the original contributor is inactive, so this could be difficult. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I suppose I won't be touching it. I don't believe its running very fast to begin with, and tampering with it might cause problems so I'll stick it out for now. Synergy 01:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that more frames would be necessary. Slowing it would really improve it.-- mcshadypl ^TC 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was told that, depending on which browser you are using, it may look faster. On mine, its not very fast. This might be the discrepancy some of you are noticing (maybe). Synergy 09:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Good EV but it's too fast. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - A clear depiction of the process, not too fast IMO. But it lacks some sophistication in the drawing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. Informative, speed seems OK to me. Conditional because image page needs a (decent) English description for enWiki. --jjron (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had both translated; the de was mechanism of a sewing machine and fr was Animation showing how a sewing machine works. So combined with mine I wrote An animated representation of the inter workings of a sewing machine, using the lockstitch method. If someone had something better in mind, go for it. :) Synergy 22:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about the subject so can't help out - and I know this goes beyond the original foreign captions - but it'd be nice if someone that did actually know about it named/described the key parts & actions illustrated.--jjron (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only part I don't know is the thing in the middle spinning, but it should be named on the article (if it isn't I'll add it in). The other parts are: cloth, thread, and a needle (I thought it would have been redundant to add that into the caption though, maybe I'm wrong?) And I went a bit further than the de and fr caption, because they were way too basic. Synergy 20:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, I don't think a lot of that 'basic' information is redundant for an image page. People make a lot assumptions about what is apparently obvious for other people just because they're familiar with a topic themself. And as I said describing the action (not just naming the parts) would be really helpful. For example, with my basic knowledge I can work out that the needle is feeding in the yellow thread, but why does it have that split in it and how is the thread fed into it - some/all of that may be in the article, but I personally think a simple summary on a diagram image page is very useful. Let me put it this way: say you look in a textbook and see a nice looking diagram - do you expect that diagram to have a nice simple caption summarising it, or do you expect to have to hunt through the chapter to find bits of pieces of information and cobble together your own description? Obviously you'd be thinking the book was pretty shonky if you had to do the latter, yet people seem to think the equivalent is perfectly fine, not just for Wikipedia, but for our FPs which are supposedly the best of the best. Hmmm, worth thinking about... --jjron (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose What's missing here is a clear demonstration of how the loop of yellow can go all the way around the ball of green thread, in spite of gravity. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a schematic of a sewing machine ;-) Both elements (the green spool and the yellow catching thing (I don't sew)) are held in place. Obviously, if they weren't, they'd fall to Earth... or whatever is at the bottom of a gif :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure you understood. The topology cannot work as shown. The illustration is not rational. It is incomplete. Two pieces of string, one of which is an unbroken loop, can only cross once and only once if the loop goes around one of the end pieces of the second piece of string. Exactly how it goes around the end piece of the other piece of string is not shown here. This illustration does not satisfy the criterion of completeness, which is a serious flaw. I would guess that it won't be easy to show the entire process in anything less than a 3D illustration, but that's probably irrelevant to this particular nomination. It's possible that this is the same problem that KP Botany is describing below. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This editor is correct that something is missing. This is an illustration of a design that requires the bobbin (the spool upon which the green thread is wound) to be free spinning inside a stationary case that holds it, and is not attached to the machine, and the whole bobbin case with bobbin is inserted into a spinning mechanism in the machine, the part the hook is on. Without the information that the bobbin case is free from the machine but stationary while the bobbin is free spinning and the hook is spinning around this, a mechanically inclined reader will look at the illustration and say, WTF? --KP Botany (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am not familiar with the subject but the demonstration and the caption are both pretty clear to me. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Xavexgoem (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very informative. Matt Deres (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support Oppose for now if the weird shape of the fabric thread when it is picked up by the bobbin hook is changed, it should just be linear, it doesn't hook around one of the forks of the hook, but is carried in the center of the hook around the entire bobbin mechanism. This illustration is of the mechanism used on domestic sewing machines or home sewing machines to create lockstiches, the most common type of joining stitch in the most common type of home sewing machines. The yellow thread is the upper thread that is carried by the sewing machine needle from a spool usually on top of the machine and through the top of the fabric to give a little loop beneath the fabric and the green thread is held on a bobbin which is held in a casing in the machine just underneath the point where the needle thread enters the fabric and the bobbin integrates with the hook in the entire bobbin mechanism that carries the fabric thread around the bobbin allowing the lockstitch to be created. It was invented in the middle of the nineteenth century, and if you look at old and modern home sewing machines they are pretty much the same. If the tension of the fabric thread and the tension of the bobbin thread are both adjusted correctly and the feed dogs (grippers that run up in plates that separate the bobbin mechanism from the needle and which feed the fabric evenly through the machine are feeding properly for the fabric the lockstich will appear the same on the top of the fabric and the bottom of the fabric (assuming a single piece or two similar pieces of fabric). I don't know the correct names of anything, but I could probably find them out. Don't we have a diagram of a sewing machine on Wikipedia? Anyway, that's how it works. --KP Botany (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone going to edit this one? MER-C 08:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Going once... MER-C 06:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Seems kind of fast, hard to see everything. If you could slow the animation down some way, though, I would certainly support. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ... twice... MER-C 07:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sorry. I can't fix the issues presented here. The only thing I can say, is that this giff was created to show the lockstitch method only. Not the complete process of a sowing machine. Best.Synergy 15:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll have a look at it if someone points me at some software that can extract the images from the sequence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As soon as I can locate this, I will be more than happy to drop by your talk page. And thank you. Synergy 18:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Irfan view is a free software that will allow you to extract the frames --Muhammad(talk) 10:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and for the third and final time! MER-C 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, it's a bit hard to figure out how to make the animation work and fit in with the other images. I'll probably know in a few more days if I can manage to make something that will fit in, or if it would have to be redone from scratch. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Yeah, it'd need redone to get a really good match, I think. I can't get this to work, not with my level of skill. Maybe if I had access to the originals, since it appears this has been downsampled. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The Jaffa–Jerusalem railway was inaugurated in Ottoman Palestine in 1892. It is considered to be the first Middle Eastern railway. The man principally responsible for actually construction the railroad was Joseph Navon, a Jewish entrepreneur from Jerusalem. This image illustrates rolling stock brought from France, rails from Belgium, and the first railway station in Jerusalem in the background.

Articles this image appears in

Jaffa-Jerusalem railway

Creator

American Colony Jerusalem, restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – not sure I should !vote here, because I requested the restoration (and thank Michel very much for fulfilling the request!), but will do so anyway, along with a further clarification of the significance of this picture:

Basically, this is one of the very few high-quality freely-availabe pictures clearly showing coaches and a loco in pre-WWI Palestine. Certainly the only one such picture I have encountered in digital format. Even more important because most railway enthusiasts seem to take more interest in rolling stock than railway infrastructure, and because railway documentation from that period is practically non-existent (noted in: Cotterell, Paul (1986): The Railways of Palestine and Israel). If I may quote Anthony Travis (PhD in history and faculty member at the HUJI), who wrote a book about this railway, from an e-mail he sent me a few days ago: Probably the best picture for detail of the coaches. In short, the picture is unique and very detailed. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GerardM (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rare, detailed photograph. EV is high, & it looks good quality-wise. hmwithτ 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV, and very well don restoration. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The restoration is excellent.

Promoted File:Jerusalem Railway Station2.jpg MER-C 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is an attractive image of an important figure in the history of the Americas.

Articles this image appears in

Cuauhtémoc, Monarchies in the Americas

Creator

pacomexico

• Support as nominator --SamWinslow (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way too small => Not promoted MER-C 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I nominated the left hand side a day or two ago, but I was alerted to the fact that the flower hadn't actually opened yet. I went back and got a second photo and this composite is the result.

Articles this image appears in

Banksia marginata

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Would prefer this as two separate images, and maybe less tightly-cropped, but the quality is there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pair of images do exist. File:Banksia marginata tas.jpg, File:Banksia marginata tas 2.jpg. The composite was easier to place in the taxobox and the article is fairly short at this stage. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I like that the two are side by side, for comparison. Almost makes it more interesting for viewers than if they were each on their own. And, of course, quality is excellent. Maedin\^talk 06:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Banksia marginata immature and mature.jpg MER-C 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, Ev and aesthetics. Bee caught carrying pollen which is what most people associate bees with, after honey. No other pictures of the genus on wiki.

Articles this image appears in

Halictidae, Sweat bee, Lipotriches, Pollinator

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Remarkably detailed for so small a subject. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Head is out of focus - this should be in focus at the expense of other features (unless those features are the subject of the illustration. In this case the shot is front focused (legs are in focus instead of head). --Fir0002 00:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the head is in focus. For something this small, getting a perfect focus from the tiny viewfinder is very difficult as it is, without the pesky mosquitoes desperately searching for dinner. In this picture however, the yellow bands across the abdomen are distinctive to this genus and very informative in differentiating males from females. I think this addresses your concerns as the bands are more important to be shown than the head. --Muhammad(talk) 03:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I think this is excellently-caught, Muhammad. The beads of pollen are fascinating, as well as the bee itself. Maedin\^talk 11:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid prejudice against this image, I think it should actually say "no consensus" above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, Ev and aesthetics. The previous lead image was much smaller and watermarked.

Articles this image appears in

Ropalidiini, Ropalidia

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It's a shame about some of the focus and that part of the plant is obscuring the wasp. However, I do think this is an excellent illustration of the subject and will do very well. Maedin\^talk 11:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image is high resolution, good quality and has big EV.

Articles this image appears in

McWay Falls; Cove; Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice shot, great colors Wladyslaw (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow! When can i go visit?!! I would so love to be there right now! Oh, and yeah great pic, lovely colours, can't see any issues... Gazhiley (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The waterfall is too small in the frame to have much enc for it. The McWay cove is cut off. The dappled sunlight on the waterfall isn't doing it any favours either. There seems to be something a bit wierd going on with the colour/contrast too. Is this a film scan? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you vote, Noodle snacks. I do agree that the fall is small, yet the image shows that the falls cascades to the beach, and this is where EV is. It shows how close the falls and the ocean are and why the falls is tidefalls. The falls by itself is not so strong and not so special, the place is. Besides I do have the close up of the falls in the other versions.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Passes the criteria, in my opinion

Articles this image appears in

eye colour

Creator

8thstar

* Support as nominator --Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Gah, I wasn't aware of the previous nom. I'd like to withdraw this thing (although it doesn't reflect very well on me, but what the hell); anyone know how I can do that? Ironholds (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous nomination --Muhammad(talk) 13:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I must say the glares really bother me. But nice quality and all that :) ZooFari 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As addressed several times before regarding this image, the glare is very distracting and the photo can very easily be retaken to eliminate this. -- matt3591 ^TC 05:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

No other images of this species, quality, high resolution

Articles this image appears in

Rhombodera_basalis

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry but looks like the light caught the creatures face. Also the back leg is blurred, partly --Thanks, Hadseys 20:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Nice quality (and hoping this one is not oversaturated), but I don't like the composition. The camera is "looking up". I'd like to see a photograph showing more body than this. ZooFari 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I see what Hadseys and ZooFari mean about this one, but I think they are minor issues. To me this is an interesting view and I like the "habitat" provided by the leaves, while at the same time not being distracting. Maedin\^talk 11:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great detail and pleasing composition. I disagree that 'looking up' at it is a problem. I find it better than the equivalent 'looking down' view, although more side on would have been helpful. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per ZooFari. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very high quality map which imo is one of the best metro maps on Wikipedia. Even better than FP File:Madrid-metro-map.png I think.

Articles this image appears in

Bay Area Rapid Transit, List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations

Creator

CountZ

• Support as nominator --—Chris! _ct 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - highly illustrative --Thanks, Hadseys 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Why is the coast-line so "jigsaw puzzle" like? Apparently this is a version of this map, which I think is superior in terms of the actual geography of the place. Plus, the original has more detail in the lines of the metro. Compare, for example, the yellow line branching to the upper right. I'm sorry, but I think too much has been lost between these two versions. Just pointing out another example, the line shown to Richmond and the Richmond destination look very different on the original. Which is more accurate? Maedin\^talk 11:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this map is showing the simplified version of the metro system, which of course does not necessarily follow the actual geography. I personally think that a high quality metro map is supposed to illustrate the system clearly, not the geography. If you like to see the actual geography from a simple metro map, you are asking too much IMO.—Chris! _ct 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Illustrates the system clearly and attractively. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is clearer than some of the actual BART maps I've run across! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As the creator, how can I not support my creation? With that said, I prefer my map of the entire Bay Area transit network. CountZ (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that File:Sf-new-map-present1.gif exists. That is a great one showing the entire transit system in SF Bay Area.—Chris! _ct 01:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a map of the VTA system that I uploaded that's smaller size, if you're looking for something stylish. CountZ (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Much prefer the map of the entire area that's linked above. The one Maedin links to is better as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not the best, given the image pointed by Countz. Would support that one instead.Ksempac (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Both: Based on the current FP criteria, the map of the entire area will fail for sure because of criteria 5 "Adds value to an article". Its enormous size prevents it from being used in articles. I think this image already fulfilled the criteria nicely.

    To Makeemlighter: I am not convince that the one Maedin linked is better.—Chris! _ct 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Disagree. I'd rather nominate File:Sf-new-map-present1.gif (or any of my other maps, for that matter), if for no other reason than the regional map is clearer and provides more useful information. I've already cropped and shrunk the regional map to a more reasonable size. CountZ (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose File:Bart-map.svg communicates more clearly. BTW, there are at least two things screwy with the sourcing info. The page with sourcing info seems to have been blanket deleted by Majorly without checking what links to it (but possibly there was never any info there in the first place; regardless, fixing and/or commenting on links would seem to be a no-brainer). Furthermore, the image description was copy-pasted from that other image, File:Bart-map.svg. It's difficult to see how the nominated image is "based on" File:Caltrain map.svg. In conclusion, neither image provides any sources, but at least File:Bart-map.svg and File:Caltrain map.svg comprise a matching set, whereas this image stands out as a low-contrast, tiny-icons ugly duckling in a case where, in contrast to more complex metro and tram systems elsewhere, showing a proportional map actually adds value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly why you think File:Bart-map.svg is more clear. To me, it isn't. Also I am quite surprised to see that you oppose base entirely on the incorrect info on the image page. New user may not necessarily know how to upload images and will certainly make mistakes. In any case, I fix it up. And I stand by my opinion that this is better and this is not a "low-contrast, tiny-icons ugly duckling" as you have described.—Chris! _ct 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am likewise quite surprised to see that you comment on my evaluation without apparently having read it, since I believe I commented extensively on the reasons for opposing. To make things easier for you in future, I've now put the relevant passages in bold. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I believe this meets all the criteria, including no technical errors, no image manipulation, is well over 1,000 px, and demonstrates the topic in an encyclopedic but interesting way.

Articles this image appears in

11th century, Liao Dynasty, Shanxi, Pagoda, Chinese architecture, Emperor Daozong of Liao, Chinese pagoda, 1050s in architecture, Architecture of the Song Dynasty, Pagoda of Fogong Temple, Khitan people

Creator

Gisling

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though is it just me, or could this be rotated ~.5 counterclockwise? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Perhaps it could, but I don't think that should detract much from its quality.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if a minor edit can make a very good image even better, it should be made: FPC is the best of the best, so as long as the edits don't cause harm, there's no reason not to do it. I'd do it myself, but photographs are not my speciality, so I don't like to meddle where others can do it better =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is all under the assumption that rotating it ~.5 counterclockwise will in fact make the picture look better. However, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea, just to see what it looks like.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rotation. Looks tilted. Renata (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since every other picture of it in the Pagoda of Fogong Temple also shows it tilted, isn't there a chance that this - near 1000 year old - structure actually is tilted? Guest9999 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC) But maybe not to the degree in this image... Guest9999 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. All the sources I used to create this article did not mention it being tilted This is probably because it is only slightly tilted and hence not very significant or worth mentioning (unlike the article for Huqiu Tower, where that pagoda is famous for being tilted).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So...who's up for the challenge of rotating the pic a bit? I am no expert in manipulating images; could someone help out?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to correct the rotation but found it difficult due to the lack of symmetry on either side. It is hard to make any assumptions about what 'straight' is. Even the foundations don't appear to be consistent and flat. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Stunning, high resolution, encyclopedic as heck =)

Articles this image appears in

Ulysses S. Grant, Twelve-pound cannon [Replaced an older, unrestored version]. It, or details taken from the PNG version, could reasonably be added to the various other articles on the battles, I have not done this at present.

Creator

Thure de Thulstrup (1848-1930) for L. Prang & Co., Boston

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High Enc. Value, very interesting. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sorry but it looks like it's trying to accomplish too much. In other words, I think it looks cluttered. Also I can see JPEG artefacts and/or blown highlights (can never remember whats what) --Thanks, Hadseys 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure there are no blown highlights; There may be some JPEG artefacts - A little JPEG compression is necessary to get this to a reasonable size - but I saved at 95% quality so there shouldn't be very much, and also uploaded a PNG. More likely you're confusing the graininess of the lithograph for artefacts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent piece, looks great and satisfies all of the criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hadseys - i.e. way too busy. This sort of image particularly bothers me. Yes, maybe it looks nice at FPC but in the article I think it's somewhat silly looking. At thumbnail size it is not very useful to the reader; to the extent that the secondary images are important they should be cropped and individually inserted. We have another FP like this of a sculptor and it's always bothered me for the same reason. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the most common arrangements in Victorian art for mass consumption. What am I supposed to do? Not provide contemporary views of Grant? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any shortage of non-montage (?) images of Grant in commons:Category:Ulysses S. Grant - in fact, this seems to be the only one. I note that currently the image has been blown up to 450px in Ulysses S. Grant, making the article look silly even on my uber-widescreen monitor. I can't imagine what it looks like on normal monitors. The problem with this image is that it is not useful at ordinary thumbnail size. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - GerardM (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Historic material in its original setting.. In many ways, the way people were portrayed in their time reflects how people were perceived. When this is different from our current vision, it is all the more reason to understand this difference.[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Calliopejen1. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, and EV. Though in only one stub article, there are no other high res images of the species available and the info in the stub is the sum of all the info I could get on it from the web.

Articles this image appears in

Eumerus

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good detail and composition. It looks like a baby with big eyes like that :-). Only 6mm? How are you able to capture it with such resolution? Are you using extension tubes? Just wondering.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, I haven't got tubes yet. Most are just shot at 1:1 and are cropped with very little downsampling, viewed at almost 100% zoom. --Muhammad(talk) 17:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's really amazing that you can get such high quality shots of such tiny subjects. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice for such a tiny subject. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice shot - there's some easily correctable noise in the background which should be fixed in an edit --Fir0002 05:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hopfully i will undergo the change when you drop your flash away. It would be much nicer with a more softer light - bringing the animal'a plasticity come to light. Focus is good. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dar es Salaam is way too windy just now for natural light shots, I am forced to use flash to get a good shutter speed. --Muhammad(talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The max for a flash is 1/200 on your cam but your shutter speed could be much higher - I can reach 1/320 with 400 ISO and f/10 and on that day it was very windy, too. Anyway if you love your photongun maybe try less powerful flashing, through a diffuser and sideways. --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Emerus feae.jpg MER-C 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Compliments the other images in the article, showing it with closed wings (quite a common resting position). The image has good lighting and is very detailed thanks to a focus stack. I don't think that the decayed wingtips are a major issue, it is quite common as butterflies age.

Articles this image appears in

Meadow Argus

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Assuming you didn't clip the wing ;) it's entirely natural, and eminently featurable. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - crop is too tight at the top. Renata (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't crop it beyond the actual shot. I might have a bit more background that I could stitch in since I took quite a number to ensure a successful handheld stack. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is now a 3 image composite with a bit more space at the top. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV, sharpness and lighting. Damaged wings are probably one of the reasons we could have this picture ;) --Muhammad(talk) 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, I didn't touch it. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant, the damaged wings was probably one of the reasons why the butterfly was photographed so well since its flight would have been affected and it would thus sit around --Muhammad(talk) 04:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I see. It was definitely able to fly, but I think it'd expend more energy to do so. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Not sure the EV is the best with the wings closed but quality is there. 180mm seems to be pretty good? --Fir0002 05:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snot bad. Working distance is the main benefit. The bokeh is pretty nice too. The autofocus is bad, but I don't use it for non macro so no big deal. This and the Teatree image above are proof that handheld focus stacks are quite possible if you keep it to a low number of shots. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Junonia villida tas.jpg MER-C 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great Scott! The Bride of Lammermoor is one of Scott's major works, and Charles Robert Leslie is a noted artist, so the combination makes for great encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

The Bride of Lammermoor, Tales of My Landlord.

Creator

Charles Robert Leslie and J. Cooper.

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I had to go and read the article and so on to do so. What is the "great scott" about? Noodle snacks (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a rather weak pun. Sorry, I thought that everyone knew about Sir Walter Scott, but then, I live in Edinburgh... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've heard of the saying "Great Scott", but I haven't heard of Sir Walter Scott. Incidentally, I discovered that WP has an article on the matter: Great ScottNoodle snacks (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really?! Not even Waverley, Ivanhoe, or Rob Roy? Heh. Cutlure shock. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. I'm not a huge fiction reader on my own, though I was when I was younger. Sadly my pre-tertiary English course involved making up feelings and relating them to the texts in such a way that would appease the biases of the examiners. I wish I had done English studies, at least that had a basis in reality. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, mind, I live in Edinburgh. We have this big monument to him right in the middle of town, so it may well be a cultural bias - he's not exactly avoidable here =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have a big monument to Burke and Wills in Melbourne - (very much part of Australian folklore in the same way that Lewis and Clark are in the US) but I'm sure most non-Aussies would never have heard of them. Such is the nature of the world we live in. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality and restoration. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Charles Robert Leslie - Sir Walter Scott - Ravenswood and Lucy at the Mermaiden's Well - Bride of Lammermoor.jpg MER-C 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I'm not sure if this diagram is fancy enough to be a FP, but I stumbled upon it and thought it an elegant way of explaining this cinematographic rule.

Articles this image appears in

180 degree rule

Creator

User:Grm wnr

• Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Actually not a very easy to understand diagram without the detailed caption. In fact, practically the same information could be conveyed without the diagram. I'm not sure it aids the article significantly (not to say it's pointless though). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A former capital of the Confederate States of America. Image demonstrates extensive damage at the end of the American Civil War; human figures provide proportions. Restored version of Image:Richmond Virginia damage.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Richmond, Virginia, Richmond in the American Civil War

Creator

Andrew J. Russell

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I am no judge of criterion 1, but this appears to be a great restoration of a sobering image. Never realized how much Reconstruction was needed until now. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - GerardM (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Richmond Virginia damage2.jpg MER-C 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]