Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2011

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

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 05:51:35 (UTC)

Reason

Walter Lantz in 1990 Just after Wood Woodpecker was awarded a Star on the Hollywood Bvld "Walk of Fame"

Articles in which this image appears

Walter Lantz Woody Woodpecker

FP category for this image

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#People

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 05:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I appreciate that this photo cannot be retaken, but I'm not sure if that justifies the quality. Also, the depictions of the woodpecker might not be small enough to be considered a de minimis use. Jujutacular ^talk 11:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion there isn't a copyright issue, the picture is clearly of Walter Lantz and hes the focus of the photo not the painting on the wall. For portrait shots of artists with their work in the background it seems fairly run-of-the-mill and due to the size and quality of the photograph you couldn't isolate a high quality version of the painting anyway. But irregardless of that, I too agree it's not good enough for a FP, so Oppose on those grounds. — raekyt 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Juju. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 11:58:16 (UTC)

Reason

Colour is a bit warm as it was relatively early in the morning (you can see the sunlight and my flash reflected in it's eye).

Articles in which this image appears

Pacific Swallow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's a shame the tail is so out of focus. What's that (s)he's stood on? J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is just near File:Salt Farmers - Pak Thale.jpg. My guess is a dowel with salt on it's surface, but I don't remember exactly. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support due to the tail focus. Nergaal (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 11:41:15 (UTC)

Reason

Meets the criteria imo. Only commons image of species.

Articles in which this image appears

Himalayan Bluetail

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very much so. I think I'll take a stab at expanding the article later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but please give it a light denoise --Muhammad(talk) 14:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice work. --Elekhh (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely. The moss gives it a extra-nice mood IMO. --99of9 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:37pm • 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice indeed, and good EV. – SMasters (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. --Avenue (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tarsiger rufilatus - Doi Inthanon.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 11:43:20 (UTC)

Reason

Good background separation and lighting.

Articles in which this image appears

Chestnut-headed Bee-eater

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful composition and colors --Muhammad(talk) 14:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well composed, nice posture and detail of plumage. --Elekhh (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:37pm • 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great composition, colours and detail. Very nice! SMasters (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Merops leschenaulti - Kaeng Krachan.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2011 at 15:57:32 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful, detailed, encyclopedic.

Articles in which this image appears

Port Isaac

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Jfitch

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 15:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I like it, I'd like to visit this place. But there's something funky going on in the water in front of the left most boat. Also up the top, quite far to the left some power lines seem to disappear into some blown sky or something. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are too insignificant for me to reconsider (particularly the power lines), but I'll understand if that keeps you from supporting. I'll leave a note on Jfitch's talk page, but they have mostly been inactive as of late. Jujutacular ^talk 23:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to many things combined, not very sharp focus, overcast sky, strange blurry spot in the water as pointed out above, and the very distracting out of focus plant in the bottom right foreground. — raekyt 20:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, and because the crop at left seems unsatisfying. --Avenue (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as far as I can tell it meets criteria 1-8 of being a featured picture. It captures the bay and pier as only a panoramic shot could do, and is instantly recognisable to a fan of Doc Martin.TehGrauniad (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I like this picture. It is huge, and if it had been reduced slightly before nomination, a lot of the complaints here would not have come up as any minor flaws would probably disappear with a slight reduction. – SMasters (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I think the lighting is not adequate. But above all, I that element on the foreground (right, bottom corner) is very distracting. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Maedin\^talk 18:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 00:55:22 (UTC)

Reason

high quality, good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Azure Damselfly

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How big is it? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe it meets the criteria. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice and good EV. Some indication of size would be useful. SMasters (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. I agree some size indication would be good. --Avenue (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice. --99of9 (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Coenagrionidae2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 01:00:06 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Carniolan honey bee

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yup, definitely. I like the placement of the bee in the photo, too (i.e., don't crop this). upstateNYer 12:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and angle from which the photo was taken. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:50pm • 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've added the appropriate category. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the composition and the good EV. SMasters (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Apis mellifera carnica worker hive entrance 3.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 20:20:54 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Phyllobius glaucus, Phyllobius

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Poor framing, quality so-so. Not the best from Richard. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 19:40:31 (UTC)

Reason

Well, I think that it goes well with the featured image criteria. It also it very nice.

Articles in which this image appears

Eastern Gray Squirrel

FP category for this image

Animals, Mammals

Creator

ebe123

• Support as nominator --~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does not meet quality criteria (lighting, focus, background, too cropped.. etc), and we already have a FP for the species (File:Eastern Grey Squirrel in St James's Park, London - Nov 2006 edit.jpg). Also note that there are too many pictures in the linked article, quite a few need removed to bring that back to WP:MOS guidelines as well I think. — raekyt 20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Raeky. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does not show enough of the animal for EV. SMasters (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Bonnet macaque, Bangalore.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 13:45:14 (UTC)

Reason

This is not only an extremely good image but I feel the best image we have of the guts of a hard drive.

Articles in which this image appears

Hard disk

FP category for this image

Electronics

Creator

Sting

• Support as nominator --©Geni 13:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very nice quality, focus stacking turned out very well, but does this seem distorted? Appears to be wider than it should be. Jujutacular ^talk 14:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats foreshortening due to the angle. What might be thought of as a more conventional angle like File:MPC310AThard drive.JPG doesn't show the multiple read heads though.©Geni 14:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nicely done. upstateNYer 12:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very high quality picture. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:46pm • 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: High-quality, professional-level photography. I just worry that it is not currently used to its full potential, buried half way down the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I feel like it'd be better rotated clockwise a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice and crisp, but what is the writing with the marker supposed to mean? It is a bit distracting without an explanation. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those writings made with a marker were made in the Seagate manufacture as I discovered them when I opened the HD. I don't know their meaning. Because they are “original” markings, I decided to leave them. Sting-fr (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice and good EV. SMasters (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Seagate ST33232A hard disk inner view.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 17:43:57 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Branchiopoda, Triops longicaudatus

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans

Creator

Micha L. Rieser

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the execution of this. upstateNYer 12:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I agree, though I am a little surprised it is used in neither Triops nor Triops longicaudatus. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per J Milburn. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cowtowner (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, and bless your heart for including the size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely done and good EV. SMasters (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SAaadddaaammm (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Triops-longicaudatus-dorsal-ventral-edit2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 20:52:48 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Cercopis vulnerata, Cercopidae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose bad depth of field and the dark parts are noisy. Jó Kritika (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IMO, the depth of field is satisfactory. I don't think that the dark parts are noisy, that looks like the texture of the insect's carapace. Cowtowner (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the composition is special enough to balance out the limited DOF. --99of9 (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. --Cekli829 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 02:40:40 (UTC)

Reason

A 2.7 MP high quality image of Sulfur. Current image used in the infobox as well.

Articles in which this image appears

Sulfur, Petroleum product

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Ben Mills

• Support as nominator --— raekyt 02:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition is good. But the white balance is green, it has too much noise (imo), and there isn't a good reason not to do a focus stack with something like this. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since Sulfur has been proposed, I've added two high quality alts of native sulfur. I think one of them could be come an FP. Nergaal (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For minerals it should be one that could be usable within the infobox of the article for that mineral, for natural sulfur it wouldn't be used in the infobox since it contains far more elements than just S. As for the focus stacking, not EVERYTHING needs to be focused stacked and color balance can be corrected. — raekyt 02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all First and second are not much sharp and the third is too noisy. Jó Kritika (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How about the two new ones? Nergaal (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still has the same issue in that they're not pure sulfur and would never be used in the infobox so it would be buried down on the page, if used at all, so ultimately they'd be useless for the goal of having featured pictures for every element. — raekyt 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But would be useful in something like Native element minerals. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Good quality and high encyclopedic value Razum2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose at all the main is simple, poor: low DOF, the other are minerals, not the real element sample. Missing also DOF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 14:46:59 (UTC)

Reason

Seems to be a systemic bias against mountain guides at FPC; in particular against female mountain guides from the early 1900s. Actually, this is possibly the only such photo on Wikipedia. And, to be serious, there's a lack of FPs of females in general, especially outside of 'traditional' female roles. Great insight to not just this individual, but the type of equipment, etc, of the time (she had to custom design her own clothes because none were available). High-res, and well restored (the original 50MB tiff can be found here if anyone's interested; given it only got to the SLV in 2003, the glass slide was a bit battered). I believe quality is easily on par with other FPs from the time, especially given the size (the exact date is unknown, but I estimate 1900–10).

Articles in which this image appears

Alice Manfield, Mountain guide, Knickerbockers (clothing), Trekking pole

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Unknown. Original is held at the State Library of Victoria. Restored by jjron.

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm getting an internal server error when I try to look at the original. Do you have it? Can you upload it to Commons, or convert it without the restorations to a jpg and upload that? Chick Bowen 17:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It works for me. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. Weird. I tried it in both Firefox and Chrome and got the same result, and Chrome crashed. Chick Bowen 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The clothes and what I presume are effectively gaiters are most interesting. I don't have the same error as Chick Bowen. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good EV and high quality. Jujutacular ^talk 02:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Superb. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Shame about the overexposure on the left side of her face and her hand. Otherwise good and great EV. Maedin\^talk 19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The EV is good, quality not so good. Stilted pose, and overexposed on the face and hand. The side of her face that isn't overexposed has an peculiar bumpy texture. Compare e.g. this photo (low res, not FP quality) from a similar era to see what could be achieved then. --Avenue (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Alice Manfield - Guide Alice, Mt Buffalo, c1900-30, SLV.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 21:44:43 (UTC)

Reason

Unusual photo of a Standard Poodle. Hard to get definition, as dog is dark brown, but nice eye definition, as well as mouth.

Articles in which this image appears

Poodle

FP category for this image

Animals

Creator

Myosotis Scorpioides

• Support as nominator --Scabbersdrat (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice, bright picture of a beautiful dog, but it doesn't meet the size requirements. I'd recommend you give the featured picture criteria a read, as well as some of the discussions on this page, to get a sense of the kinds of things we look for. Chick Bowen 00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately it is too small. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. Really too small. J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 23:11:07 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV as expected from Alchemist

Articles in which this image appears

Strontium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No voters really? Might not be that eye-catching as the other element pictures, but this element is difficult to picture since it oxidizes fast. Considering that, the quality with regards to the sample is really good. Nergaal (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nergaal. Decent picture of Strontium, not lacking in clarity.--Nanoman657 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Poor framing and quality (lots of CA), far from FP status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's CA? Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatic aberration. --Avenue (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This was taken through a vial, which explains the CA and might be unavoidable given the fast oxidation, but the poor framing is still enough reason to oppose. Useful, but not Alchemist-hp's best work. --Avenue (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 00:56:35 (UTC)

Reason

Picture depicts squirrel resting in natural environment. Also shows squirrel using claws to grip tree branch. It is high quality, well over 1000 pixels in height and width.

Articles in which this image appears

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

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Nanoman657

• Support as nominator --Nanoman657 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sharp, fur and paw is overexposed, not so good lighting (light emphasizes on body rather than face). Jó Kritika (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see what you mean.... I think I can fix the lighting and overexposure with some photo editing. I'll put up an edited version soon.----Nanoman657 (talk) 1:26:36 Monday March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think I fixed the problem with Edit 1, is it satisfactory? Viewers can still see that there's a shadow, but it is much more pleasing to the eye.----Nanoman657 (talk)9:12, Tuesday March 29, 2011(UTC)

• Oppose. There's already a (IMO better) FP image of an Eastern Grey Squirrel and I'm not really sure that showing it gripping the tree is a unique enough characteristic to justify it being a FP. Also, image page information is a bit lacking... No description, no license. It'll likely be deleted unless you fix the license at the very least. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was refering to Edit 1 when I said no description or license. The original image page description is still not very detailed or encyclopaedic though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put in copyright status of the picture. I didn't see the 'upload new version' link to the original and was slightly confused.----Nanoman657 (talk) 9:12, Tuesday March 29, 2011(UTC)

• Oppose -- As above. The picture is superfluous in the article. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 06:11:14 (UTC)

Reason

This is a fairly representative photo of what is essentially a narrow alley with a number of bars (as a front for prostitution).

Articles in which this image appears

Soi Cowboy, Red-light district

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't get the EV. Especially with regards to the prostitution part. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean you don't get the visual association of the photo with prostitution (ie there aren't any prostitutes visible in the photo so EV is low), or do you mean you don't see why there is EV in the subject of prostitution? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Technically good, although it seems to be missing something that would identify it or separate it from many other Thai sois. A bit more of the reputed nightlife would give it more EV, even if it did have the potential to offend. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak supportper Diliff. It would be a better shot if taken at night with the neon signs and people everywhere. --WPPilot 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose with regret, nice framing, but the people appear unnatural (two staring into the camera, one obviously avoiding it). Also slightly CW rotated. --Elekhh (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, this seems more like a tourist snapshot than an FP to me. --Avenue (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Capturing more of the district would do a better job. Brandmeister t 02:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 06:14:35 (UTC)

Reason

Its a good picture of this very long legged bird.

Articles in which this image appears

Black-winged Stilt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice! Nergaal (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good capture, the leg action is almost perfect. It's a creepy looking thing. Like an anorexic seagull on stilts. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By coincidence, Anorexic Seagull on Stilts is the name of my new band. Also support, per above and illustration of animal behavior. Chick Bowen 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as above. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good posture, nice quality. --Elekhh (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Himantopus himantopus - Pak Thale.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 06:18:10 (UTC)

Reason

I had to a hide down when I spotted this, then wait about 45 minutes to get this photo. There is a (not great) video at File:Rhyacornis fuliginosus.ogv

Articles in which this image appears

Plumbeous Water-redstart

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very pretty and tranquil. The tail and feet are not shown perfectly, but it's such a lovely picture. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Tail.... Nergaal (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depth of field is always going to be shallow with a 125mm aperture... JJ Harrison (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, and Milburn. Cowtowner (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 09:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and enc. Spencer^T♦C 16:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lots of chats and thrushes at the moment! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rhyacornis fuliginosus - Doi Inthanon.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 02:07:26 (UTC)

Reason

High quality animation, surprisingly informative about the internal setup of a now-mundane object

Articles in which this image appears

Webcam, Industrial CT scanning

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry

Creator

SecretDisc

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pity we can't get an h264 at a much lower bit rate for the same quality. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really cool, great EV. Cowtowner (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality example of a commercial/engineering CT scan. Are the original images available anywhere? I might have a go at making the 3D reconstruction... - Zephyris _Talk 16:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• S Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support video version only. Jujutacular ^talk 00:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Webcam CT transmissions.OGG --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 05:43:55 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, beautiful color and clear image

Articles in which this image appears

Macro photography

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Craig ONeal

• Support as nominator --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The composition is weak and it is technically lacking. Furthermore, it's used only in a gallery. Really not the best example of macro photography- many of our current flower or insect FPs would serve a much better job. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like it's gone through quite a bit of image editing. Any chance of uploading an unedited version? But I also have to agree with J. Is it of use on the article for whatever plant it is? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As above. Please take a look at our FP collection of flowers. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 19:59:36 (UTC)

Reason

X 15 Test Pilot Scott Crossfield at the launch of Space Ship One. Not long after I took this photo, I recieved a e mail from a woman whom was a friend of Mr. Crossfield, and she said that Scott personally said he felt this photo was the best photo he had seen, in recient years, of himself, and asked if he could use the photo. This is a really intresting photo, it show one of the worlds first super sonic pilots ever watching the worlds first private space shot.

Articles in which this image appears

Albert Scott Crossfield

FP category for this image

[[1]]

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 19:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fingers chopped off is a little annoying, but the lighting etc is pretty good. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, as per JJ Harrison, plus there is a considerable amount of noise in the background. Still, the subject is very well depicted and lighting conditions are excellent. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support It's a long time since a photo on FP has contained some emotion. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The chap in the background is a little distracting, and the crop is a little tight, but it's a very nice portrait. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Like everyone I'm sensitive to the special circumstances of this photo and the nice expression. But they don't fully mitigate, in my opinion, the poor background and tight framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Additionally, the photo has little encyclopedic value. It isn't as if the photo shows him inside of an airplane or wearing flight gear, but rather an elderly former pilot. Not to be condescending in any way to Mr. Crossfield, but a photo of him in his later years doesn't have as much value.Razum2010 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• He would disagree with you, if he was here to do so, I am sure. He personally send a e mail to me that in his own words said this photo was the BEST representation of HIM he had seen in years. Those were his own thoughts and words. --WPPilot 12:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I feel compelled to respond to this. I love portraits and I wish we had more of them as featured pictures. This is a wonderful one--it has a lot of personality, great lighting, and, as you say, really captures the subject very well. But a really good portrait also depends on the way the subject is placed in a context. Look at this one, for example, or this one; in both cases, the subject is placed in surroundings that seem natural to them, that are sufficiently unlighted and out of focus (what is often called bokeh) not to distract, and that have a visual or geometrical logic that supports the composition of the photograph. Your picture is an excellent capture of a person, but the background is part of the photograph, and the picture suffers accordingly. Chick Bowen 15:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The background is fantastic. The mood of the people in the background contrasts so strongly with the subject's mood, as he reminisces about his past with tears in his eyes. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has always been a challenge for photographers to capture real pictures of real people. Many factors have to be considered. The shots of "Life Epic Moments" are in fact ones like this. It was a monumental moment for mankind, as a whole and here was a man that was in it from the start, WOW, one could only imagine what he was thinking about in this photograph. I really have to agree with aaadddaaammm in that the mood of the people behind Scotty is such a wonderful contrast, it "frames" him well-those people are in fact - his admirers..--WPPilot 00:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support. Lovely portrait of the main subject, but the guys in the background on the right are distracting. --Avenue (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Razum2010 - the EV seems rather weak Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 01:13:45 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

St. Michael's Cathedral (Izhevsk)

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer alt. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent quality, excellent EV, very eye-catching.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wish it had higher resolution, but this is acceptable. Jujutacular ^talk 17:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Slightly fuzzy near the entrances to the cathedral, but otherwise a nice picture. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:48pm • 12:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems quite underexposed... JJ Harrison (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The colours does seem a tad washed out, and not as vibrant as it could be. Also, it doesn't look straight to me (Slight clockwise rotation needed?). Can you provide an alternative edit with these fixes? SMasters (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree, I guess the light conditions were not ideal, hence part of the subject is in the shadows. Could you improve it by propping up the shadow areas? Maybe playing with the curves could also help. Otherwise, great composition and razor-sharp. Would support if exposure is corrected. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • To be honest, I simply found the pic. I have no real experience in actual editing like "propping up the shadow areas". Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2

Tried some post-processing to increase exposure on dark areas. Let me know what you think.--Murdockcrc (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks really nice to me, and much more eye catching with those bright colors. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on the edit, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the edit is preferable. --99of9 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer the edit as well. Jujutacular ^talk 00:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Svyato Mihailovsky Cathedral Izhevsk Russia Richard Bartz Alt.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2011 at 19:43:57 (UTC)

Reason

Good technical quality and very illustrative of the town of Zaanse Schans.

Articles in which this image appears

Zaanse Schans

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Murdockcrc

• Support as nominator --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the bikes, and they show that this land of windmills is also a land of bicyclists. Keep the bikes. TigerCherry 00:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs)
• Oppose -- Not the best depiction of the main subject: the windmills. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Just chop off the bikes and it will be a lot better. Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2
I decided to add the bikes as an interesting element of the foreground, since these bikes are so Dutch, so much as the mills. I'm adding this second alternative without them for you to decide.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdockcrc (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support I really think the bicycles add information here. I know the article doesn't say it now, but the photo suggests that bicycle touring is common in the region. Googling reveals that a number of companies appear to operate bicycle tours in the area. Its just a little annoying that they are out of focus. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle touring is common all over the Netherlands. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's an interesting marriage of two different technologies - windmills which harness the wind, and bicycles, which harness human energy. Of all the photographs on this page, my eyes went to this one first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I like the idea, but not the bikes cut off at the bottom. I would support it if the bikes were complete. --Avenue (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The bicycles add a certain dimension that makes this a nice photo per se, but reduce the EV. The second one just looks like it has way too much sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 19:48:29 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV. This image was made available through Project Phoebus

Articles in which this image appears

Venezuelan red howler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Didier Descouens

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's kind of cute, in a morbid way. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Creepy, good quality and high EV. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• would File:Alouatta seniculus Global.jpg be preferred? Nergaal (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice to have, but imo the simple perspective image is best in the article. The composite does not give as much detail in thumbnail view. As it is, readers can take in the article with the nice perspective image there, and then click through to see the other angles if they so desire. Jujutacular ^talk 12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Good image quality, just a shame so many teeth are missing. --Avenue (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: I find the perspective rather misleading. The jaw seems significantly larger, broader, and overall more significant than in this alternative view. The front-on view is a more traditional, appropriate perspective on a skull, imo, giving a better overall impression of the creature. This one also serves the EV better: . Failing either of those alternatives, the composite could be more cleanly composed with fewer images. Maedin\^talk 22:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about putting all three of them into one image? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the composite, the nominated image is really the odd one out and somewhat superfluous with the full profile and the front-on views. I suggest the two I linked above and this one, rotated 180°. Maedin\^talk 20:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly wouldn't stand in the way if we decide to do something like that, but I do still prefer the nominated image. I personally don't find it misleading (just simply what it looks like from this angle for me). I also like the simplicity of the perspective angle in the article, with other angles linked from the description page. Jujutacular ^talk 02:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 4.5 supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 02:57:51 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV of a highly reactive metal

Articles in which this image appears

Caesium

FP category for this image

Science

Creator

Dnn87

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you explain what we are looking at in the alt? Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar ampoule as the one on to, except that caesium crystallized instead of just solidifying. Caesium melts around room temperature; so you can melt it by hlding the ampoule in your hand, and then let it cool to crystallize like in the pic on the bottom. Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's really cool, but as you say, there's some chromatic aberration. Both of these look like they were shot with a close-up lens instead of macro. I like the principle, but I feel like we can do better. Weak oppose for now. Chick Bowen 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice image, bud not featured. It is noisy, dirty background, overexposed in some areas. Also Oppose for the Alt because it needs more DOF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 03:16:00 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Indium

FP category for this image

Science/Materials

Creator

Nerdtalker

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good samples and composition. Brandmeister t 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Poor lighting and boring composition, nothing special here justifying the status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose noisy, the Free-form select work isn't also good and per Alvesgaspar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose although I'm not sure about your free-form claim, the image quality is not sufficient. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Fairly noisy, which makes the quality not so great. —mc10 (t/c) 05:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 06:27:31 (UTC)

Reason

Good lighting and perspective

Articles in which this image appears

De Zoeker, Zaandam

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Murdockcrc

• Support as nominator --Murdockcrc (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is very good image of a single windmill in my view. The elevation gives good context. I assume it was taken from another windmill? I think it could really replace the lead image in Windmill. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you support JJ. Indeed this was taken from a nearby mill called De Kat. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't like the framing. I wouldn't have left this much room on the right. I'm not too keen on the dull lighting either. Oversharpened as well. - Blieusong (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as JJ --Muhammad(talk) 09:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I like the composition but the chromatic aberration kills it for me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please indicate where the CA is and I will remove it. Thanks. --Murdockcrc (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly around the windmill edges, including the sails, green on the left and magenta on the right. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CA has been removed. Please take a look at it again. Thanks. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, after the improvement. Would full support if the image quality and lighting were better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. --Cekli829 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support A good photo but low on wow factor. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The bright red car spoiled it for me. --99of9 (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – A nice picture of the mill. —mc10 (t/c) 05:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Aaadddaaammm. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 14:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:De Zoeker LCD.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 17:59:42 (UTC)

Reason

Great shot with some perspective;

Articles in which this image appears:Santa Barbara

FP category for this image

[[2]]

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 17:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The pier has its own article at Stearns Wharf, so the picture might be suitable there. But the subject of this photo seems to be a flag, rather than the pier itself. Low EV. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting composition, but I have to agree with Spike, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the location of the picture, in the Santa Barbara page. I feel it is truly fitting, of the place in that article, flags/WWII, but ya just never know...--WPPilot 01:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The wharf doesn't fill enough of the frame. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Focus is placed onto the flag, not the pier itself. —mc10 (t/c) 05:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 18:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 19:00:24 (UTC)

Reason

Some of the most powerful people in Aviation and business today. While the light was hard to deal with this photo is clearly a one of a kind photo featuring (L to R) Marion Blakely (FAA), Mike Melvill; Richard Branson, Burt Rutan, Brian Binnie, and Paul Allen reflect on a mission accomplished (October 4, 2004)

Articles in which this image appears

SpaceShipOne

FP category for this image

featuredpictures/people

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Holy blown highlights, Batman. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I do not see the EV as large enough to overcome the technical shortcomings. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (god, this is just an oppose all WPPilot photos spree!) but, yea, per both above. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – No, just no. Per J Milburn as well. —mc10 (t/c) 05:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2011 at 07:29:53 (UTC)

Reason

I find this to be an interesting picture of the 16 in 45 caliber guns used aboard the South Dakota-class battleships of World War II. The depiction of the guns in multiple positions demonstrates the principle of a "three gun" turret in which each gun can be independently raised or lowered as opposed to a "triple turret" where every gun is raised and lowered without the option for individual control.

Articles in which this image appears

South Dakota class battleship (1939), 16"/45 caliber Mark 6 gun

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry

Creator

United States Navy

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Eye-catching, but needs some spots cleaning I think. Brandmeister t 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• JPEG artefacts? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I don't think this can be cleaned up from this version. It's been overcompressed. Can someone find a .tif file out there somewhere? Chick Bowen 21:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until then, oppose. While looking for a better quality image, I found lots of "similar" images (taken of the same ship at the same time, probably by the same person), and I'm not sure if this particular picture is really so outstanding. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I had the same experience as you. I oppose this as well for now. Chick Bowen 19:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Chick Bowen; the quality suffers from being too compressed. —mc10 (t/c) 05:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 06:38:34 (UTC)

Reason

It reminds me of the Bassian Thrush. Not particularly colourful, but the feature patterns are intricate on closer inspection. Taken from a hide, and as usual geocoded with a gps.

Articles in which this image appears

White's Thrush

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Focus correct at the eye, but the depth of field is so small that most of the rest of the bird is slightly out of focus. Otherwise great. --99of9 (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 06:41:55 (UTC)

Reason

A valuable, geocoded image of the female.

Articles in which this image appears

Oriental Magpie Robin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I find the strong white vertical in the background too distracting, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – It's a nice picture, but 99of9 does make a good point—the line is fairly distracting. —mc10 (t/c) 05:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 06:44:31 (UTC)

Reason

Only image we have of this species.

Articles in which this image appears

White-throated Rock-thrush

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice one. --99of9 (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good and rare --Muhammad(talk) 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice species, good shot. Brandmeister t 09:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Gorgeous bird, good image. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. --Cekli829 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Very nice picture. —mc10 (t/c) 05:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: That's one cool-looking bird. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice picture. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Monticola gularis male non-breeding - Khao Yai.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 12:22:48 (UTC)

Reason

Wonderful photo of something few people will ever see, inside of the inner grounds of Edo Castle

Articles in which this image appears

Tokyo Imperial Palace

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/places

Creator

--WPPilot 12:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC) WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 12:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Not the best angle for encyclopaedic purposes, quality on the poor side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Good photo, a few technical shortfalls such as perspective and sharpness of greenery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. A great addition to WP, as you say, as it's something that few people see, but the quality just isn't up to FP standards. I feel WP should donate you a camera with better res so you can take more of these photos! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shot this with a D 70, and I am now shooting D 90 @12mp. ALL of my lenses are F 1.8 or 2.8, so often the weather plays a roll in the quality. I would LOVE a nice new camera body, perhaps a D3X or even a D700. I am rather lucky to visit such wonderful places at times, let me know when you get the camera and I will forward my address right over to you! Gee thanks --WPPilot 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 12:17:28 (UTC)

Reason

It is in this moat each year that the Emperior of Japan, personally plants his own crop of rice

Articles in which this image appears

Tokyo Imperial Palace

FP category for this image

featured pictures/places

Creator

--WPPilot 12:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 12:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Poor image quality and little enc value. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Distracting composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Avesgaspar and King of Hearts, and me above :P. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Suffers from quality issues. —mc10 (t/c) 05:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per King of Hearts. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 12:13:01 (UTC)

Reason

Wonderful panoramic shot of the East Garden inside Edo Castle

Articles in which this image appears

Tokyo Imperial Palace

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)

Creator

--WPPilot 12:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 12:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Poor quality, blown sky, image tilted. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (again, sorry!) per Alvesgaspar... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some suggested fixes: there's a serious stitching error just over halfway across, and that thickish black border down the right and thinner black border at bottom right could be removed. Except for the blown sky, perhaps the other identified flaws could be improved with a reprocessing? --jjron (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2011 at 02:05:04 (UTC)

Reason

A beautiful painting of the Brazilian monarch that also faithfully represents the archetypal monarch

Articles in which this image appears

Consolidation of Pedro II of Brazil

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty

Creator

Lecen

• Support as nominator --Lecen (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like a poor scan (very noisy upon magnification). Brandmeister t 20:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV and colors are nice, but for an image that is just above size requirements, I would expect higher quality. Jujutacular ^talk 14:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Please remove this nomination. I won't be working on Wikipedia anymore and thus, I won't be here to answer any comments made by other editors. Thank you very much and sorry for the trouble, --Lecen (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 21:01:47 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Rings of Saturn

FP category for this image

Space

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set 1 Both images are great, but I find the first more visually striking. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stupid question maybe, but is this a set nomination? JJ Harrison (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think both deserve to be nominated so yes, I was thinking of having them as a set. Still, I have no idea how sets work. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both as set Nice and lots of EV. Brandmeister t 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both as a set Cowtowner (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the set —mc10 (t/c) 05:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both good quality and very interesting; makes me want to learn more. Spencer^T♦C 03:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Saturn's rings in visible light and radio.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Promoted File:Saturn's rings dark side mosaic.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2011 at 20:18:05 (UTC)

Reason

Eye-catching and EV (shows the guts of Soyuz, together with the transport vehicle).

Articles in which this image appears

Soyuz TMA-01M

FP category for this image

Space/Getting there

Creator

NASA/Carla Cioffi

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The crop is a little tight, but overall good composition and colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It is striking but at the cost of EV. The fish-eye distortion is so large that it's difficult to tell what you're even looking at a rocket, much less what the rocket actually looks like. You can see the distortion in the background buildings, they're all leading to the left 20 degrees.--RDBury (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a fisheye lens; it's an ultrawide (there's no curving of straight lines). Also, such distortion is inevitable with large objects, like rockets. Cowtowner (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Distortion is only inevitable if you're taking a picture from this close up. Jujutacular ^talk 14:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, oppose, kind of suffers from the same problems as the centipede above - a striking photo, but you can't really tell that you're looking at a rocket from this perspective. Are there other similar photos? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very visually striking, to the point where I want to read more of the article, and conveys the immensity of the rocket well (and I think it's very clear that you are looking at a rocket). Also gives good EV on how it is transported (note the railway tracks). Maybe a smidge underexposed. Cowtowner (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't see the need for the exaggerated perspective and very wide lens. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per JJ. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can't grasp exactly how large this is due to the obscure perspective. Razum2010 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose tight crop, distorted --kaʁstn 14:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 23:42:21 (UTC)

Reason

High res, good composition and lighting, good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Nataraja, Shiva

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, brilliant. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice... everything. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The image page should mention the size dimensions of the statue. A call to the museum should resolve this. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dimensions added. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom. We often get nominations of sculpture, art objects and artifacts that are on display at a museum. This image could be suitable as a reference image showing the kind of quality that we're looking for (no lighting glare, no glass in the way, well-composed). Spikebrennan (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Nergaal, except for the baby she's stomping on! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a question: Is the background real? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note two things: First, it is not 'she' but 'he'. Lord Shiva is generally male. Second, he is not stomping a baby but a dwarf who represents a demon or ignorance etc... Ahirwav (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh ok consider this ignorance stomped out. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Indeed very nice image, thanks LACMA. --Elekhh (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. A nice image when viewed at smaller sizes. My support is weak because there are several dust spots, hairs, etc visible at full size, along with heavy noise in darker parts of the background (and also in a few darker parts of the statue itself, although these do not seem too obtrusive). --Avenue (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. The noise especially is much improved. There are still a few dust spots, but the worst flaws seem to be fixed. --Avenue (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Not special enough for reaching FP status. I don't like the lighting and the tight framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar Razum2010 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like both the lighting and the framing :-) , I think the background lighting is in good contrast to the statue and brings out the details very well. 99of9 (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 added: The original does have noise, dirt, and fibres, as Avenue pointed out. I've cleaned up the image and selectively denoised only the background. Maedin\^talk 22:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1: Edit addresses issues raised by Avenue, and I don't think the crop is too tight. Maedin\^talk 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is the background real? (Sorry to repeat, but it seemed to get lost up there...) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me. The iconography is well illustrated. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the edit okay with everyone? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• looks ok to me, but I have no idea what does the sRGB thing means. Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a colour space and is standard for the internet. The usage section of the sRGB article might help. Though it is better to use sRGB, it's not necessarily a critical change as far as FPC goes and I needn't have mentioned it at all. Maedin\^talk 10:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone clarify whether the background is artificial or not? Brandmeister t 19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess we don't know... The Los Angeles County Museum of Art probably knows, and it would be nice to know, but I'm not so worried about it any more. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been open long enough for anyone that doesn't like the edit to say so. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2011 at 07:27:54 (UTC)

Reason

This is a very striking image of a centipede, and has great EV for both the species article (illustrating this widespread and common species) and the whole class Myriapoda (illustrating the anatomy of the head region). The image is detailed and visually appealing. If successful, this would be the first myriapod FP.

Articles in which this image appears

Scutigera coleoptrata, Myriapoda

FP category for this image

animals/others

Creator

Kevincollins123

• Support as nominator --Stemonitis (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Nice at thumbnail but revealing the lack of quality in full size: chromatic aberration, flash reflections, difraction softness. I don't see the need for such a close shooting distace, making the depth-of-field near to zero. Using a very small aperture only brings aditional unsharpness due to difraction. The flash lighting is not the best either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry I have to agree with Alvesgaspar here (Oppose), it's a cool looking shot, but not so encyclopedic - just looking at it, you have no idea that it's actually a centipede... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe you haven't met enough centipedes face-to-face? However, apart from the stylistic DOF, I agree with Alvesgaspar on the other quality markers. --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Stemonitis, and what about the rest of the body? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stemonitis? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2011 at 22:42:51 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkabout12 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Picture is of sound technical quality, rare moment of a nocturnal species captured in an urban setting.

Articles in which this image appears

Christinus marmoratus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

User:Walkabout12

• Support as nominator --Walkabout12 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WB seems a bit reddish --Muhammad(talk) 15:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Muhammad may be right, but I'm going to support this fantastic gecko porn. If you feel like it, I'd appreciate trying to clone out the prominent hair, but it won't change my support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Too poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask you to elaborate on how exactly the quality of the image is too poor? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure: very little in the subject is sharp and detailed; the lighting is too harsh and flat (camera flash?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly confused at your comment... this is a nocturnal species that only feeds/mates at night, so it was a very dimly lit, medium exposure shot (no flash), and the subjects are almost entirely in focus and (IMO) of good detail... User:Walkabout12 (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2011 (AUS WST)
    • I can surely understand that conditions were difficult. But the result falls clearly short of FP standards. Please compare the level of detail/sharpness with this FP or even with this one. The Reptile gallery has plenty of other examples. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alves. No flash you say? There was definitely some sort of harsh light above and to the left. Jujutacular ^talk 18:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2011 at 15:29:36 (UTC)

Reason

;Articles in which this image appears:Gyeongbokgung

FP category for this image

???

Creator

WPPilot --WPPilot 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 15:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support! Thank god, I couldn't oppose another photo of yours! The composition is great, the quality isn't fantastic, but good enough! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Could it be possible to see an alt with the left bottom corner chopped off? Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather see the stones cloned out, shouldn't be that hard, instead of cropping, also I think the white-balance needs edited it a bit, colors seem a bit warm. — raekyt 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Good photo. The exposure is a little dark, but I definitely do not think the white balance is too warm (a bit cool and green, actually). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'm not liking the darkness on the right side. A small part of the picture is completely black. Still, the eye is drawn toward the center of the picture, so I suppose it's not overbearing.--Nanoman657 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a featured and excellent photograph? No! Poor white balance, very bad lighting (at the right it's heavily underexposed, and in the middle the white parts of the image are overexposed and blown out), dust spots as far as the eye can see and the picture is distorted. Image quality is otherwise ok (some CA and it's a bit grainy, but shaprness is good) and against the composition I can't say something bad, too. But sorry, that's really not a featured shot. --kaʁstn 14:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2011 at 05:45:45 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates a key aspect of the grasshopper (the yellow wings) that is otherwise only visible in flight (or dead). I like the elegant composition of a very inelegant pose. I also think the surroundings and backdrop add classic Australian colours to the scene. The slight motion blur at 1/500th of a second (on the left foot) demonstrates the frantic nature of the situation. Limited DOF is the only drawback that I know of, but the head is sharp, and I think it's more than compensated for by the rarity of this event.

Articles in which this image appears

Gastrimargus musicus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think I get what I'm looking at here, but it's hardly the best way to display the grasshopper in an encyclopedia article, even if it does show the wings. I'd be inclined to call this a lovely shot, but not FP material. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's why I put my other image in the taxobox. But the FP criteria say: "among the best examples of subject" - tick, "illustrates the subject in a compelling way" - tick, and "adds value to the article, helps understanding" - the wings are crucial to understanding something called Yellow-winged. 99of9 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is here purely to show the wings, then I am not convinced, I'm afraid. There are surely better ways to display them. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a think on this, and I'm going to have to oppose. As I say, it's a very nice image, but it really isn't FP material. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A striking image, maybe not so classically encyclopedic, but it shows the wing colours excellently, and absolutely love the composition. Did you take more images at the same time? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did take a few before it got away, but this is the only one I've released so far (I think it's the best). 99of9 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It is a good shot but not great. The off-center composition is distracting and not as encyclopedic as a centered composition. Very little of the grasshopper is in focus (there was no need to shoot this fast on a stationary object with good light). Cacophony (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review. Actually it was not stationary, it was desperately trying to escape. You can actually see motion blur on the left foot, even at 1/500th of a second. The composition is chosen to obey the Rule of thirds, but it can always be cropped if central is desired for a particular use.--99of9 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment don't know if it's relevant but the only article the image appears in is a completely unsourced, one line stub. Additionally, the article states "It only displays its yellow back wings in flight", if this can indeed be verified wouldn't that suggest that the wings being displayed in this setting (with the insect "temporarily" not in flight) is quite atypical? Guest9999 (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a reference. Feel free to edit or expand. Obviously you're right that getting stuck in a fence is atypical! --99of9 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2011 at 16:06:14 (UTC)

Reason

Composition, focus (I hope), subject, color - part of general effort to contribute nice hi-res photos of native California flora. Trying also to draw out inherent beauty of native plants that are not always so obviously vibrant, colorful, etc., which I hope I have done via this angle.

Articles in which this image appears

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

FP category for this image

Category:Onagraceae

Creator

wintertanager

• Support as nominator --Wintertanager (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Many parts of it have a blown-out red channel. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. King of Hearts makes a valid point; the light's perhaps a bit strong and sharpness is slightly lacking, but I find something striking about it, I think the use of DOF and colour contrast. Given the metadata's gone, any info on the camera equipment? And welcome to FPC! --jjron (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- DOF is just not enough as most of the subject is out of focus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Thanks for the comment regarding the blown-out red channel - very helpful to me as I am still learning. And thanks for welcoming me - much appreciated! The DOF comment above, however, I can't agree with because in this case it is used intentionally as an aesthetic choice. This is a close-up of two flowers; compositionally the depth of field and angle reinforces the attention I intend to draw to them. I understand the general principles of DOF but rules were meant to be broken, in this case effectively (I opine)... In any case thanks for feedback.(Wintertanager (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2011 at 23:13:30 (UTC)

Reason

A renomination since the first nomination didn't receive much attention. A noticably more modern painting than many other recent painting noms (though again by a very notable artist) of a rather curious looking nobleman who is known for his political service and academic writings.

Articles in which this image appears

George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll, Secretary of State for India

FP category for this image

People/Political

Creator

George Frederic Watts

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I find the composition slightly awkward, what we'd now call a bad crop (a bit too much headroom), and he's a bit of a pasty fellow (so I hope colour balance is right), but overall it's probably up to the grade. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. <showoff>Pastiness doesn't bother me - the colors are very much in line with what I know of Watts' other work.</showoff>_{Gotta put that art history degree to use somehow...} --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 11:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Historic portrait. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Douglas Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll by George Frederic Watts.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 03:41:36 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev as lead image. It is has been restored very good

Articles in which this image appears

John Philip Sousa, Music of Washington, D.C., List of Sinfonians

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment?

Creator

E. Chickering

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The 'restoration' has removed some type of studs from his hat and replaced them with 'bulletholes'. I'm 50/50 about the removal of the author's sig & date at the bottom, but removing those studs is definitely both a negative and a no-no. Could possibly do with some further scratch removal too. --jjron (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I consider this an irresponsible retouching, and I'm tempted to revert it--an edit this major should be in a new file, not uploaded over the existing file. As jjron says, the studs have simply been removed, and I can't imagine why. Also, instead of repairing the background, the editor has simply blurred the whole thing, which creates a bokeh-style look that is not appropriate for the period. I see no particular reason to remove the signature. Chick Bowen 21:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've restored the original file and have uploaded the edit separately. I've changed the nominated image name so that it links to the edit. Maedin\^talk 19:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 14:22:21 (UTC)

Reason

Historic value, EV and sufficient quality for the early 20th century imho (the original crop is in the source)

Articles in which this image appears

Bladesmith, Damascus steel

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology/Weaponry

Creator

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I find myself preferring the caption cropped off, and the spare letter in the left cloned out. I'm not sure what anyone else thinks about that. Comments? Spencer^T♦C 03:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel it could do with a clean up. Also, the sword just to the left of the poster on the wall has something funky going on (bad cloning???). Definitely against the upper left letter, I wouldn't be upset if we lost the caption, and the image could be cropped a bit more tidily. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Made the relevant edit. It looks like jigsaw blade to me on the sword near the poster (I didn't touch it while removing scratch-like stuff). Brandmeister t 10:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's on the back of the blade in the middle...I'd hedge my bets that its some kind of error, not a jagged blade, but I'm still not 100% sure. Spencer^T♦C 19:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a water stain to me. Chick Bowen 03:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Lot's of value and the quality is OK.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not feeling it, I'm not really seeing what the image is adding. The fact it is old does not mean that it is valuable. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 12:06:25 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of a police motorcycle in action; while it's the Victoria (Australia) Police, these BMW motorbikes are widely used by police around the world. Pretty clearly shows all the special features of a police bike and rider (lights, sirens, antennas, things that go 'wooop') in a clean, unobstructed scene at the preferred angle for vehicles.

Articles in which this image appears

Police, Victoria Police, Types of motorcycles

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land (?)

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yaay you're back :) Good EV and quality. Slight motion blur on face but IMO it's not a big deal. Nice to see he's not wearing jeans ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 13:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hah. What a memory! (Or did you just happen to check the old motorbike nom?). :) --jjron (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Muhammad. Jujutacular ^talk 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Support Background is far too blurred. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too blurred? I would say it is not blurred enough! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to motion blur, I think this is desirable to show that the subject is moving. Jujutacular ^talk 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want a sharp background? Why? What good would that do? How about this- is the background too blurred there? Though I am undecided on this image, I can see that that is a really strange oppose; I hope that you will reconsider. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is my first activity in FPC, and you can probably realise that I'm not too knowledgable about imagery. :-) The foreground is sufficiently sharp, so I suppose I'll support it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well welcome to FPC! I suppose I've seen you around the wiki so much I assumed you've been here. You may find the FPC glossary helpful to get up to speed on the terms used here and qualities that we expect. Jujutacular ^talk 04:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support background separation is a good thing. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Nice shot. I agree with Alvesgaspar ("it is not blurred enough"); it only appears as a blur, and the panning is not obvious, hence the weak. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Victorian Police Motorcycle, Geelong, Aust, jjron, 30.9.2010.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2011 at 13:58:44 (UTC)

Reason

Good composition, dramatic lights, good situation

Articles in which this image appears

Lina Rafn, Infernal (band), Infernal discography

FP category for this image

entertainment, people

Creator

Jepsen Jepsen

• Support as nominator --Jepsen (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a good photo, but the resolution is too low to qualify for FP. Do you have a bigger version, by any chance? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have to agree- I love good portraits, but this is just too small at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too small, and I don't like the cut off hand. A nice shot otherwise though. --Avenue (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Consider commons:COM:VIC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 11:08:15 (UTC)

Reason

I guess this isn't the typical FPC. Although it's not very large, it meets the size requirements, and I think it's extremely encyclopedic and illustrative of a fleeting and small subject in the wild. (I'm a contributor at Commons-FP, and saw the talk page request for more participation here, so here I am!)

Articles in which this image appears

Nictitating membrane, Bird vision, Bird, Blink, Masked Lapwing

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (to be clear, I now prefer edit 1) --99of9 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Final frame is noticeably blurry. Would it be possible to sharpen it or replace it with a less blurry frame? Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll have a go. There is only one alternative capture, and the head had a slightly different tilt, so that one will require perspective correction. This one could be digitally sharpened of course. 99of9 (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think edit 1 improves this (and a couple of other things I noticed). 99of9 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A picture of a bird yea, but not JAFP of a bird! Really cool, we need more pictures like this. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. This is a very valuable sequence; the timing is impressive, and the result is a world of difference from the other images in commons:Category:Nictitating membrane. Obviously cropping this tightly results in a considerable sacrifice of resolution and there may be other tiny (but understandable) technical issues, but on balance those things are outweighed. Chick Bowen 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but if you removed the reflection from the third, why not remove it from the first also? Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good point. Mainly because I didn't notice it. Done. --99of9 (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly. Thanks for nom'ing here. upstateNYer 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit 1. Excellent EV. --Avenue (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I prefer the original (as it is at Nictitating membrane) it seems livelier: both the skin and reflection of sun in eye.TehGrauniad (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 only. Glare is undesirable. Jujutacular ^talk 14:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I prefer the original as the edit makes the rich yellow look washed out, however the glare is not acceptable. I wonder if the glare could be removed with the rich colours retained. – SMasters (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The third frame of the original had a redder hue than the other two frames. I presume this is what you mean by "rich yellow". I diminished the magenta component in that frame, so that it was equal to that of the other frames. In this case I think consistency is the most important factor. --99of9 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a few more comments on the edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nudge At the moment it stands at 4:2 in favour of the edit (amongst those who've made their preference explicit). 99of9 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bird blink-edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 02:51:10 (UTC)

Reason

Hi, the image quality is very high, it is of a historic landmark of New Hampshire, Alumni Hall at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. It was built in 1889 and the ivy on the facade is resemblance of typical "college" imagery. The image adds a lot of substance to the GA ranked Saint Anselm College article and serves as the infobox image.

Also, after viewing the other Featured Pictures, I cannot help but notice some severe lacking in the academic institutions department. I found only three other FP that were relating to academic institutions - Keble College Chapel, Military College of Chapultepec, and NYU library.

Articles in which this image appears

Saint Anselm College,United States, New England, college, liberal arts colleges in the United States,

FP category for this image

Saint Anselm College, Education

Creator

User:Ericci8996

• Support as nominator --Ericci8996 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A few changes that I think would improve this image: reduce the contrast - it's too saturated, and maybe increase the brightness a bit. It would also be great if you could fix the lens distortion (things on the left lean to the right, and things on the right lean to the left). If you have cropped the image at all, also feel like the building could do with a bit more "breathing room". Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hey Aaadddaaammm! I could reduce the contrast; however I like it this way - yet if that is holding this image up from Featured, then I would definetly alter it and I do agree with you on the brightness, I'll bring it up assuming it doesn't pass this time. I am unsure on what you mean with the distortion, I don't see the leaning left / right stuff... I also have no idea how to edit that! And No, the image is not cropped at all, It's a big building to fit in there haha --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contrast and saturation needs to be realistic. You might want to have a look at perspective distortion. A panorama and vertical/horizontal control points would be the best way to get it perfect. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overprocessed, perspective issues. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with you guys voting no, I'll tone color and sat down... But I don't see the perspective issues and since I don't see them have no idea how to fix them. Where do I find these panorama and vertical/horizontal control points

• • Have a look at this: this. Hugin is free. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much JJ... I'll tone contrast down and edit using hugin... Then renominate... Anything else you guys would suggest while I'm editing?--Ericci8996 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a film guy, I feel obligated to point out that, though my digitally-minded friends have pointed out a workable solution to the perspective problem using software, you could also use a shift lens to take the picture with correct perspective in the first place. Chick Bowen 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or even a ladder! JJ Harrison (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 15:34:07 (UTC)

Reason

Photograph is of a good resolution, the subject is in focus and is of a good contrast. The combination of sunlight and shadows also bring out the texture of the wood.

Articles in which this image appears

Bridle path

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Places

Creator

Harrison49

• Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a svg version of this image. Nergaal (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this comment on the wrong nomination? Because svg is not appropriate at all for this image. Jujutacular ^talk 03:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a joke on the fact that the image shows almost nothing, and somebody with more knowledge of inkscape could create a close copy of this, a CG one. Nergaal (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh :) I'm way too literal sometimes Jujutacular ^talk 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low enc. The image should show a picture of the bridleway itself, not a sign indicating its existence. Unless there's significance of bridleway signs that I am not aware of...? Spencer^T♦C 19:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not in the UK, but my understanding is that there is a significance in that a bridleway has to be indicated as such in order for the legal distinction to apply. So I guess there's an argument that the sign is actually more significant than the path (public bridleways look no different, after all, from private ones). So I think there's a little EV here; too bad the photo is underexposed. Chick Bowen 00:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Poor photograph, no enc value. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. (Looking back, it seems to me that Alvesgaspar and I frequently vote the opposite way on nominations, but he's correct with this one.) Spikebrennan (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I can't remember. But I've been away for quite some time and my memory fails me often... Anyway, thanks mother Nature for that, it means we are all diferent! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too dark and would be better if the photo was taken with the sign pointing at a pathway to demonstrate what a Bridleway looks like... gazhiley.co.uk 12:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 19:12:13 (UTC)

Reason

high quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Zirconium, Group 4 element

FP category for this image

Material science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh my god it's lighter than air! But seriously, do you have the original photo without the fake shadows? Does it really look that bad? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't a fake shadow, it is simply real :-) This photo of this sample was taken at a white glass plate. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm... I guess I have to support it then, because it is technically superb, but to be honest I'm still not crazy about the fact that it appears to be fake! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This is simply my new design (= the wow effect?) to take photos at a glass (I have a black, white and a mirror) plate. Please take a look also for one of my other photos of an element at a white glass plate: . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I kind of like the shadows. Perhaps it would be worth mentioning the plate in the image description, though. --Avenue (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Done description added. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good quality. --Avenue (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Aaadddaaammm. It does look a bit fake, but zooming in you can see a bit of reflection. Like Avenue said, I think it would be a good idea to note the plate in the description.--Nanoman657 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Your standard good chemical element specimen. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zirconium crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 03:51:41 (UTC)

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg

Reason

High Ev as lead image in main article. It is featured in Turkish Wiki also.

Articles in which this image appears

Muhammad, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Muhammad (name), etc..

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Religion and mythology or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others?

Creator

Khattat Aziz Efendi

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In what order is this read? Seems like to many letters for just Muhammed. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is read from the right. It reads Muhammad alayhissalaam, Muhammad peace be upon him --Muhammad(talk) 09:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we expand the caption showing the Arabic letters in order that they are read and the complete translation? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, although if it has the "alayhissalaam", doesn't that make the encyclopedic value a bit doubtful for "Muhammad (name)"? Spikebrennan (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, could this image have EV for Peace be upon him (Islam)? Spikebrennan (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support obvious EV and good design --Muhammad(talk) 03:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to EV and aesthetics; but mostly EV. I wonder if it would be prohibitively difficult to convert this to SVG, however... Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Purpy Pupple. And a question - might it not also be of some use in Thuluth? I know that's a hair over-illustrated at the moment, but it might be more of a draw there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/suggest suspending The copyright status of this image isn't entirely clear. Though it is PD in Turkey (based on the author's date of death), the US doesn't follow the rule of the shorter term. (And it wouldn't have been PD in 1996, the key URAA date.) The uploader supplied no information about the date of publication of this image. If it was published 1923 or after, it would still be copyrighted in the United States. The book that it comes from is not available online. Does anyone who lives near one of the libraries where the book is held (see OCLC 51718704) want to go see if the book contains any additional information? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Turkish Copyright act, section 29 "The protection period for handicrafts, minor works of art, photographic and cinema works is 70 years from their date of becoming publicized." - so it MAY, arguably, be out of copyright in America if published in 1925 or before as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as long as the copyright issue is solved. Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if copyright issue is resolved successfully, but oppose until that happens. --Avenue (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending copyright discussion. I will be raising this at WT:FPC. Jujutacular ^talk 06:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg. Jujutacular ^talk 14:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More help at the deletion request Juju links above would be good. I've done what I could to get to the bottom of this, which wasn't much. Chick Bowen 00:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons request resulted in the file being deleted, but it was restored locally. That said, it seems that we do not have enough evidence to be sure that this is PD, which would be required here for FP. I will be listing the restored local copy at WP:PUF. Jujutacular ^talk 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 18:21:51 (UTC)

Reason

High quality SVG image coming from a reliable source. It shows relevant peaks, parks and political boundaries as well as the trail itself. Adds greatly to the text description of the route.

Articles in which this image appears

Appalachian Trail

FP category for this image

Maps

Creator

U.S. National Park Service

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the default size should be bigger- the text should be readable at "full" size. J Milburn (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By default size do you mean in the article or the size that the .svg opens at when clicked. If it's the second you're after, I'm not sure how to do that. 2000px (in .png) seems to be a good size for readability though. Cowtowner (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is possible to change the nominal image size. I thought I knew how to do this and attempted to do so, but it didn't work, so I've reverted. Chick Bowen 20:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For me what it opens as when clicked on. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm, well hopefully that gets resolved by someone with the technical know how. But it's more or less a moot point as holding Ctrl and scrolling lets us take advantage of the rescalable beauty of .svgs and courtesy .png copies are provided. 02:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowtowner (talk • contribs)
            • You say that like my scroll wheel isn't broken. :P JJ Harrison (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Haha, still not a problem. Ctrl and + or - will do just the same. Stop your excuses ;-) Cowtowner (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not readable at full size? It is for me, and I don't see a change in the file history. If it really is too small, name a better size, and I'll make the change. There's some broken text that needs fixing anyway. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The large PNG size (2000px) makes the text readable, but the "nominal" size of the svg (viewed when you just click on the image on the file description page in Firefox) is 710px wide, where most of the text is unreadable. There is a lot of broken text in there, it would be nice if you could fix it. You may try reimporting from the original PDF (I tried this, but I got the same issue because I lacked some fonts). While you're in there editing =) –remove/leave out the blank space around the map. Jujutacular ^talk 07:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The words are all path (i.e. un-editable), which is only a problem because it makes it harder to fix. Will you suspend this while I work on it? Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Needs the change above. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending edits by Makeemlighter. Jujutacular ^talk 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This map needs more work than I thought to bring it up to our FP standard. It'll be a few more days. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing nomination as stale. Edit will be uploaded in the near future and a new nomination will be created. Jujutacular ^talk 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 14:55:54 (UTC)

Reason

Featured on Commons, good EV, used in other national Wiki

Articles in which this image appears

ChS8

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Welcome back! But unfortunately this pic's not up to your usual standards, I'm just not feeling it's interesting enough nor technically stellar. Sorry, oppose. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I beg to differ. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with JJ Harrison - I like this... gazhiley.co.uk 10:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not subject matter that would normally interest me, but it certainly draws my eye. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Good use of line, though I suppose these kind of images are a bit clichéd... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow - what do you mean? What line and how clichéd? gazhiley.co.uk 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How cliched?? See how every photo of a train on google is taken from this angle? [3] I think that's what he means by cliched. And by line, he's referring to the composition. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... Was just curious as I tend to accociate cliches with words rather than images... Also wasn't sure if he meant line as in train line as in that this train was a good use of the train line - seemed an odd comments hence my question... Thanks tho... gazhiley.co.uk 09:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That said though looking in our archive there's not one single train picture at this angle, so is it that much of a cliche? Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Land gazhiley.co.uk 09:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, cliche or convention? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Images states that images are preferred to be taken from "the front ¾ view". Yes, that's more specifically about cars, but presumably the same standards would generally be applied to other vehicles? Showing both front and side views together simply gives the best EV. --jjron (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks nice. J Milburn (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good, solid image, adds value to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Locomotive ChS8-075 2011 G1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2011 at 09:49:45 (UTC)

Reason

Scenic beauty, rare sight

Articles in which this image appears

FP category for this image

Creator

Hariya1234

• Support as nominator --Hariya1234 (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark, horizon tilted (right higher than left), and photographed can be repeated. nice try though... gazhiley.co.uk 10:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Welcome to featured pictures! I recommend you have a read of the guidelines for assessing pictures here (Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria)). Unfortunately this image falls short of a few of the guidelines, particularly points 4 and 5 ("Has a free license", and "Adds value to an article"). If you update the licensing information, and incorporate the image into an article, you would have, at least, made wikipedia a better place. :) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This image does not appear in any articles. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest speedy close? On the basis of the above? gazhiley.co.uk 09:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image no longer exists. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2011 at 23:25:14 (UTC)

Reason

The Breakers is an historically significant mansion originally used as a summer home by the Vanderbilt family; it is currently a tourist attraction in Newport and the most famous mansion along its cliff walk. This building is the quintessential American gilded age home. This photo shows some of the great architecture in the 'summer home' while minimizing intrusion of people. This is the rear façade of the building; the Atlantic Ocean is to my 4 or 5 o'clock.

Articles in which this image appears

The Breakers, Rhode Island, Mansion, Vanderbilt family, Vanderbilt houses, Newport, Rhode Island, National Register of Historic Places listings in Newport County, Rhode Island, List of National Historic Landmarks in Rhode Island, Gilded Age, Template:Newport Mansions

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

UpstateNYer (talk · contribs) (self nom)

• Support as nominator --upstateNYer 23:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be quite oversaturated. Jujutacular ^talk 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? I never played with the saturation. And if you start desaturating, you lose the great color of the stone. Propose an edit, maybe? upstateNYer 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stone seems to be a different color in this other image of yours, and here the grass seems ridiculously green. Jujutacular ^talk 00:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other photo is in shadow; the sun shines on the back façade (shown here). As for the grass, agree to disagree? upstateNYer 00:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It meets all the criteria in my opinion. Illustrates the subject about as well as could be done, good lighting, sufficiently sharp. I don't find it to be over-saturated. Cacophony (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. There are sharpening halos in a lot of places. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per King of - I don't like the light halos around the entire roof... gazhiley.co.uk 10:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way over processed. Completely over saturated. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. I don't find it particularly oversaturated, but does seem somewhat oversharpened. Certainly nice at smaller sizes. To me, this is classic example of why bigger isn't always better... --jjron (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Not over saturated in my view (on a calibrated display). Per jjron. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much contrast then? I'm no expert, but the colours don't look realistic. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are realistic. I made no post-processing efforts other than correcting distortion. upstateNYer 18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that the contrast on your camera was set on "hard" for this photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit much contrast, and the white balance is a bit blue I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I have to agree that it's too contrasty, and the white balance seems a bit blue as well. Time3000 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2011 at 12:18:44 (UTC)

Reason

very large and detailed file of what many consider to be Michaelangelo's crowning achievement

Articles in which this image appears

The Last Judgment (Michelangelo) Culture in Rome

FP category for this image

Artwork

Creator

w:de:Jüngstes Gericht

• Support as nominator --Thanks, Hadseys 12:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I saw the file some time ago. The church utensils around the fresco reveal a considerable noise, also I'd prefer some crop to make a focus. Maybe some denoisement would help. Brandmeister t 12:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Poor image quality. Lots of artifacts in the darker areas, as if the picture were scanned from a printed reproduction. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose. Oh man, I really want to support this, but the artefacts in every dark region are a killer. Any chance we can get the original or something??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How much confidence can we have that this is public domain? The painting is, but the photograph includes the altar in front of it, and thus does not fall under Bridgeman v Corel. Chick Bowen 16:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Chick. Unless I'm missing something, this should really be nominated for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2011 at 13:01:10 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image giving a pretty good feel for the Mt Buffalo plateau and its highest peak, The Horn, at the end of summer. Good colours, good clarity. Beyond the ridges is a sheer drop down to the valley, which was unfortunately filled with clouds on the day, visible coming up behind the rocks, so I was basically above the cloud level (not that it alters what you'd see here).

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Buffalo National Park
The Horn (Mount Buffalo)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me... No flaws I can see, clarity is great, and ev is about as spot on as you need to be... gazhiley.co.uk 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Technically flawless. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Maybe the trees have been sharpened too much though. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What a good image of a great place!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice colours too. 99of9 (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral per JJ Harrison --kaʁstn 10:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Horn Pano, Mt Buffalo Nat Pk, jjron, 1.4.2011.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 09:32:41 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, good detail, nice composition. I don't normally do this sort of photography, so any feedback will be gratefully received.

Articles in which this image appears

Common Gull

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

NotFromUtrecht (talk)

• Support as nominator --NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In comparison to the other image on the page File:Larus canus1.jpg, this image is very bland and "common." Sadly the linked image can't be a FP due to the very blown highlights. For such a common bird we can definitely get better, sorry. — raekyt 05:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Got to agree with Raeky. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I assume this isn't going to make it as a FP now, but any feedback about improving the image would be welcomed: the bird is fairly common, so I will have a go at reshooting it. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much my only complaint would be the blown highlights. Other than that quality is pretty nice: smooth bokeh, subject is sharp, bird is completely in the frame and shot from a good angle. Jujutacular ^talk 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty good, but while there's a number of exceptions, it's usually preferred to get the full bird - this one completely loses the feet. --jjron (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 12:58:52 (UTC)

Reason

Best image we have of this species.

Articles in which this image appears

Wood Sandpiper

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would prefer a 'contrastier' background (maybe a bit of tweak to the levels?), but not a deal breaker, and other than that it's good. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –– very nice, I like the composition. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, the composition is nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mbz1 -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This one is particularly good. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. I usually prefer natural environments for image value, but I think this one adds to the composition. --99of9 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tringa glareola - Laem Phak Bia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 22:04:02 (UTC)

Reason

high quality, adds value to the article

Articles in which this image appears

Sanderling

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful image, nicely shows the behavior of a group of the birds, nice quality. Jujutacular ^talk 15:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jujutacular -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the lowest white/black spot in the water (4 o'clock)? Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it looks like a reflection of a bird that caught the water at just the right angle. Jujutacular ^talk 23:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be a piece of Sand dollar.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My only experience with Sanderlings has been a mixed flock with Great Knot, but I'd assume this is normal. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Halos around the birds; looks a bit artificial for some reason. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calidris alba at Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California - 20101116.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 13:01:22 (UTC)

Reason

This image addresses the concerns of the previous female image (though it is a bit lower in resolution)

Articles in which this image appears

Bar-backed Partridge

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 15:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both photos provides good EV and has nice quality -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support almost identical pose with the male offers good comparison --Muhammad(talk) 04:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion Crop this one so that the composition and aspect ratio of the two pics match even more? --99of9 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I uploaded a crop over the top for the same aspect ratio since I don't think there would be any objections. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and I agree with 99. Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as set, crop to match male. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose disturbing overexposed fore- and background --kaʁstn 10:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Arborophila brunneopectus female - Kaeng Krachan.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 13:03:54 (UTC)

Reason

A good image of the male (red throat)

Articles in which this image appears

Bar-backed Partridge

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The male and the female look exactly the same to me. Is there a point in having both as FPs if they are that similar? Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider them a set really (in particular they'd go better together on POTD etc). The difference is the throat - the female's is black, whilst the male throat is red and cream coloured. Illustrating that small difference adds a lot of value over one image in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and EV. Difference between the sexes was obvious when I looked at the article and saw them displayed adjacently. Jujutacular ^talk 15:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both photos provides good EV and has nice quality -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support almost identical pose with the female = offers good comparison --Muhammad(talk) 04:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as set. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor and much too shallow DOF --kaʁstn 10:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – very nice. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Arborophila brunneopectus male - Kaeng Krachan.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2011 at 15:59:32 (UTC)

Reason

Hi-res, good EV, nice picture

Articles in which this image appears

Curve (theatre), Leicester

FP category for this image

Architecture

Creator

NotFromUtrecht

• Support as nominator --NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not a huge fan of cloning out the clouds. Other people's thoughts on this? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry, the clouds weren't cloned out, it's just stitched from images with no clouds, yea? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I didn't clone out the clouds (the version with clouds in the file history was shot about six weeks previously). NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey, support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The crop would normally be considered too tight, but I think it is quite effective for this particular building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think a wider crop would improve the image, especially because there are buildings on both sides which would intrude (as illustrated in this image). NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fine looking building that... gazhiley.co.uk 09:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Avenue (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Curve Leicester full panorama.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2011 at 10:47:21 (UTC)

Reason

Better quality than my previous image of the subject. Getting a better quality shot than this one would be very difficult. Good composition of a rarely photographed event. Adds to the few cultural FPs. See wikimedia version for an annotated version

Articles in which this image appears

Mourning of Muharram, Hussainia, Majlis, Muharram

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support either as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A definite improvement on the last nom [4]. I really like the ceiling in this actually, but not sure about the rest. At the moment, neutral, while I think about it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Agree with Aaadddaammm. The white balance is a little blue and could do with correcting in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I manually adjusted the balance to get this as I thought this was how the lighting in the hall was. --Muhammad(talk) 04:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Muhammad, is there significance to the hand gesture, which seems to match the hand image on either side of the speaker (and which appears elsewhere in the room as well)? Regardless, support as a valuable and dynamic 'journalistic' image, even if aesthetically it's not the best. Chick Bowen 04:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lecturer's hand gesture is purely coincidental. The other hand like objects represent the five members of the Ahl al-Kisa --Muhammad(talk) 04:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. It still makes for an interesting parallel within the image. Chick Bowen 04:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preference to Edit1. I've uploaded an edit with a tilt (?) correction, as well as a tweak to the colour balance, per JJ's comment. If it seems to be an improvement, then go for that (or you could re-edit from your original), otherwise, support nommed version. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the edit --Muhammad(talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Honestly, not particularly eye-catching and low EV. Ehud (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support maybe not aprticularly eye-catching, but good EV. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't find very much EV in this picture. It's hard to figure out precisely what is going on. Razum2010 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see little EV or interest here, sorry. Cowtowner (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting image, good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's too cluttered. The apparent object of their attention, the speaker, is far away, blurred and expressionless; the video screen is distracting and jarring against the richly-ornamented background. There's nothing remotely interesting about the audience, which occupies a full half of the picture. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I kindly request the closer to weigh the authenticity and credibility of the votes as there are many users here who I have not seen before at FPC --Muhammad(talk) 13:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubt that closers audit for sockpuppeting and other sort of manipulation in all nominations. I see no reason to expect this nomination to be different; no need to pander. Cowtowner (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 6 support / 4 oppose = 60%. Looking into users who are not very active here, I didn't see enough (if any) evidence that they are sock puppets. I didn't see any evidence of canvassing. Jujutacular ^talk 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2011 at 01:25:55 (UTC)

Reason

Lead image of a featured article. A fine reproduction of a fine portrait in the style of the time.

Articles in which this image appears

Thomas Cranmer, others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Gerlach Flicke

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Looks quite soft, the brush strokes are hardly discernable. Brandmeister t 07:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, despite the slight jpeging in the dark areas. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice detail and colouring, and full of fascinating little puzzles to keep the viewer guessing. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Probably worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2011 at 22:51:12 (UTC)

Reason

high resolution, good EV, nice picture

Articles in which this image appears

Oakland City Hall, List of tallest buildings in Oakland, California

FP category for this image

Architecture

Creator

flickr user Daniel Ramirez

• Support as nominator --—Chris!_c/t 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Sharpness and composition aren't quite up to FP quality, IMVHO. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. (both). Sorry, gotta oppose this one. The light's all wrong - taken at the wrong time of day. The front of the building is in shadow, with the light coming from the side. Looking at Google maps it seems that the front of this building basically faces east, which means it should catch good light at the right time of day (which would not be mid-afternoon in November, when the exif says this was taken). In fact I would say Alt1 is better in terms of both lighting and quality (not up to FP though) and probably should be used in the articles, but proving my point about the angle of the light. (Note: put Alt1 up for viewing). --jjron (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The alt image does look better. I didn't even realize it exists. Anyway, I know very little about photography, so if people here says this is not good enough, then it probably is.—Chris!_c/t 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both perspective distorted, tight crop. --kaʁstn 08:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both - Perspective, not examples of our best work. However, I recommend Alt1 for VIC on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2011 at 17:26:10 (UTC)

Reason

This image features spectacular colors of nature and is of a very high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Ertholmene

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Ville Miettinen

• Support as nominator --MoRsE (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an HDR image, or otherwise stitched from multiple exposures? It looks like the boat on the left was in motion between exposures, and as a result there's a line of purple pixels extending along the bow. The sky is certainly dramatic! Chick Bowen 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose HDR seems overdone --Muhammad(talk) 07:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Overdone HDR I'm afraid.©Geni 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't really know a lot about HDR but the left side of the picture spoils this for me - the purple bit, but mainly the sudden drop in the perspective - the pier is almost 45 degrees off straight... I understand there will be a little angle to it given the perspective, but not that steep - spoils the picture for me... gazhiley.co.uk 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks too HDR. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2011 at 22:55:37 (UTC)

Reason

High quality version of the presidential painting of Lincoln. I've edited the original version significantly to remove a large number of the distracting defects. The portrait, used extensively in multiple articles, is an excellent example of the official U.s. presidential paintings.

Articles in which this image appears

Abraham Lincoln, Presidential portrait (United States), List of Presidents of the United States, Reconstruction Era of the United States, English American, White American, Frémont Emancipation, Curse of Tippecanoe, Bixby letter, Sidney Breese

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

George Peter Alexander Healy

• Support as nominator --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would otherwise agree with the nomination, but the scan has huge areas of clipped shadows. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool view. Can you show that for the original image? Are the clipped shadows seen by the naked eye when viewing the image normally at full size? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 14:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could, you can generate the same image with gimp or photoshop though. It is - I noticed that there didn't seem to be any discernible detail there - that is why I checked. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this version. Yes, I agree with JJ; this is simply too dark a reproduction of the painting. Even in this indistinct picture, you can see that there's more of separation between L's knee and the background than there is in our scan. Also: I know this is an issue that people at FPC disagree about, but personally I'm not a fan of retouching paintings (assuming the original photograph of the painting is accurate, which this one seems not to be). It's not like a photograph, in which there's an idealized original of which any print is effectively a representation. A painting is an object, and to me it makes sense to present that object as it exists; we wouldn't clone out the chipped paint on the bust of Nefertiti. Chick Bowen 02:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The retouching of the painting is solely to remove the dust artifacts that riddle the scan and obscure the subject and provide distractions for readers. I left in the regular colorations and cracks that form over the aging of the oil painting. The image easily could be modified to remove every single blemish but that would detract from the original version as well as the history of its longevity. As we have the resources to remove the dust that appears from the scans, there's no reason to have a version that provides a close representation of the original painting. Concerning the scan, I don't know how we would get a better scan that what is currently available, as the original painting is not available in a museum. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's kind of a moot point, since it's not a good reproduction. It's hard for me to gauge whether the state of the painting is altered. Chick Bowen 20:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If this is an accurate reproduction, then it's a very mediocre painting to start with. There's no detail in his suit or shoes, and the background is the same colour. His attitude is strange; the right hand is supporting his face suggesting that he's deep in thought, his legs are crossed suggesting he's not planning on going anywhere, but the left arm is bracing his body ready to rise up from the chair, and the left arm has strange proportions as well. Not right at all. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears the scan is the issue here, but I would argue that the painting itself is historical. It's the official portrait of the president, so I'm assuming that was the position Lincoln decided on. If you view the other presidents' portraits, they are a wide variety of stances, some quite interesting. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  He probably didn't choose the pose if it was painted in 1869. . . :) Chick Bowen 20:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, that's right! Maybe he wrote down his intentions for his portrait... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2011 at 22:15:54 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, List of MBTA Subway stations

FP category for this image

maps

Creator

Dream out loud

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Traditional niggling: we always do this with maps, it seems: the Hynes station is no longer called Hynes/ICA, since the ICA is now in Southie. Also, it seems like there should be some way of representing the Mattapan extension as a noncontinuous line. (I mean, I assume that's why Ashmont is an unfilled circle, to indicate that it's a changing point, but no one who didn't know the system would know that.) I suspect others may want this as an svg, but I don't care so much about that. Chick Bowen 00:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support presuming you make changes to the liking of Chick Bowen, who obviously knows the system better than me. It's a very pleasing map, though. upstateNYer 04:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Maps such as this one should be converted to .SVG format.--RDBury (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for two issues. One is that it's not an .svg. The one great advantage of having the map as an svg is that if a station or line is renamed, closed, opened, added, etc, it's just so much easier to fix on an svg rather than a png that has to be, in essence, redrawn (the map is dated 2007, are we sure it's up to date?). The second is, how do we know this map is geographically correct? What was used to plot the lines and stations? GPS? Trace of OpenStreetMap? The file description page needs way more information. The source URL is a website that doesn't give any details.. Also, who exactly is the creator? It was uploaded by User:Dream_out_loud, the template says the author is User:Citynoise, and the "source url" says it is by Bill Rankin and Louis Hyman. Further, how reliable is the site? I see it accepts contributions from absolutely anybody. If this site were being looked at at FAC or FLC as a RS, it wouldn't pass muster, and it shouldn't here either. Finally, the CONTACT page says all maps and images are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share-Alike License 3.0. The image needs a Fair use rationale and makes it ineligible for FPC. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Citynoise is Bill Rankin so he could always be contacted directly to straighten out licensing, I'd Oppose anyway though due to the map being out of date without the Silver Line. Kmusser (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should the Silver Line be included on the map? It's on the subway map on the MBTA website here (though it's identified separately from the subway lines in the map's legend) and I recall seeing it in the maps in the stations and trains when I was in Boston (though I could easily be wrong). It would be nice if the area of downtown Boston which is expanded in the bottom left of the map was marked on the main map. Nick-D (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the outline of the expanded area is shown but it's difficult to see unless you view the map at full resolution.--RDBury (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the silver line should either be included or not; what's weird here is that Washington St line is included but not the airport line (presumably because the map is a few years old). Chick Bowen 02:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I like the composition of the stylized version on the MBTA website more than the "geographically accurate" version here. This version has a lot of information that has nothing to do with the subway (e.g. park & cemetery locations) and is consequently a lot busier than it needs to be. Of course the MBTA's file format is all wrong as well.--RDBury (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An original map, to be featured, should (in my opinion) follow the Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps conventions. Also, this map features purple dashed lines for the "Minuteman Bikeway" and another, unnamed one circumnavigating part of the Charles River. Are these both bike paths? There is no legend to tell us what they are. Are they part of the transit system? If so, are they the only bike paths that merit inclusion on this map, or are there others? If they're not part of the transit system, why are they on the map at all. Are all of the green areas parks? Are they all of the parks that are in the area covered by the map? If not, why were these included, and why are others omitted? No border is shown between Braintree and Winthrop. The grey Washington Street line (or whatever it's actually called) kind of blends into other map symbols and is difficult to see-- particularly on the inset map, where it is a color that is similar to other colors that are used. This map needs a legend. The scale should include metric. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a clinical map of a railway system, nothing technically wrong with it I'm sure, and I can't comment on the content since I don't know the area, but it has nothing that makes it stand out as an FP. And of course, as has already been mentioned, it should be SVG and with no doubt about the licence. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2011 at 23:00:52 (UTC)

Reason

The photo is very clear and informative, exposing a great degree of detail; excellent technical quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Rust, Redox

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena

Creator

WikipedianMarlith

• Support as nominator --Iamthedeus (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very interesting! Is it possible to crop the white portion on the top left corner without compromising the image? Perhaps using Photoshop to blend it in would suffice. I find it to be a little distracting. Razum2010 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1. Looks great now Razum2010 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's just rust......but the composition is so good, I feel compelled to Support it! Good image resolution, and the description is very informative. It just goes to show that anything can be a superb picture with the right composition.--Nanoman657 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1--Nanoman657 (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I like the image, but the background isn't doing it for me - it doesn't add anything to the image, and is reasonably distracting. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The texture is fantastic, with nice soft lighting. The dull blurred background is sympathetic, suggesting a misty atmosphere causing the rust. I don't mind the white corner; it probably reinforces the line of the chain, but it could be cropped out (or maybe airbrushed) without compromising the picture. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I added an edit with the white corner airbrushed over. I tried cropping, but in each case the quality of the composition seemed to be hurt. Iamthedeus (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Veery pretty, yes; EV, .... hmm. Nergaal (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose I think the low depth of field is far too limiting in terms of the EV. Very little actual rust is shown. Cowtowner (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very little rust? The whole thing is rust. How much more could be shown? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Poor phrasing on my part. Very little rust is shown effectively. Most of it is out of focus and therefore not really useful. Cowtowner (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit Long used in a very generic article is good sign of EV. In my opinion, higher DOF wouldn't really help this image, as it would simply show more of the very same thing we see here. Raising the DOF would also decrease the aesthetic qualities IMO. Jujutacular ^talk 23:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:RustyChainEdit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 05:59:43 (UTC)

Reason

This is the oldest and most prominent building of the University of Sydney. The jacaranda tree in the corner of the quadrangle (a very important tree to the community) is in full bloom - associated with examination season. Thus I think this has crucial EV in the article about the university. The photograph meets all the technical criteria, at high resolution, and I think it is a pleasing overall composition. Some cylindrical distortion is obviously neccessary to represent the inside of a quadrangle, but here it serves to enhance the prominence of the bell tower, so I think it's good in a way. Also, I got lucky with fantastic cloud patterns.

Articles in which this image appears

University of Sydney

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful image! I don't foresee any problems with low image resolution.....What camera did you use to take the picture?--Nanoman657 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Canon EOS 400D with lots of stitching. 99of9 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The perspective can be corrected reasonably easily, can't it? I'm no expert, but I can't see a fundamental reason why a 360 degree shot must be distorted. Also, the sky seems blown on the left. But of course, awesome resolution! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fundamental reason for the curved horizontal lines. Excluding fisheye lenses, the images you get from a camera normally are a rectilinear projection. This is fine, but such a projection has a practical limit of about 120 degrees field of view. The theoretical maximum is 180 degrees, but the display surface would have to be infinitely wide to display the scene again correctly. The way around it is cylindrical and spherical projections. This is very much not ideal for display on flat computer monitors etc. Cylindrical projections will result in bent horizontal lines. Spherical projections will result in both bent horizontal and bent vertical lines. The way around it is a panorama viewer - or sitting in the right spot w.r.t. a cylindrical display! JJ Harrison (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, in many ways I'd prefer a restitch with the right and center parts of the courtyard in a rectilinear projection I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I should have mentioned the EV of the left hand side. At the far left is the vice-chancellor's office, and then the last building in shade is the Great Hall (the most significant room of all). These are annotated on the commons file page - does en-wiki do image annotations too? --99of9 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding blown out clouds, that end of the histogram looks perfect to me - in all three channels. --99of9 (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't tell everything from a histogram. You could take blown highlights and then reduce the brightness of the highlights in the image. The histogram would appear to have no blown highlights but your eye would still detect that something wasn't quite right as there would be a light grey patch of the sky without any texture. Here's a good/extreme example (Apologies to Muhammad for using his image to demonstrate ;-) ). I haven't had a good look at your image yet but just wanted to mention that. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please go ahead and inspect the clouds. All I've done is blend exposure brackets, and I'm pretty sure all the cloud structure is all there. --99of9 (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose heavy shadows at the left, bad quality. --kaʁstn 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify your "bad quality" comment - or are you still talking about the shadow? --99of9 (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not talking about the shadow, I mean the image quality. I made some image annotations on Commons. I hope then you will understand what I wanted to say. --kaʁstn 12:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Original. Lighting isn't great, but I know the difficulties of lighting in a 360. Could benefit from shadow lifting, perhaps. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1. Edit has improved the lighting quite a bit. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While the photo has technical merit, the heavy horizontal distortion (even if this is unavoidable) greatly limits its EV Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Regarding the shadow at the left, we have two portions of the building directly opposing each other. Something has to be in shadow unless it's noon which provides horrible lighting for photography. Regarding the clouds, this is hardly avoidable if a >180-degree panorama is to have reasonable exposure throughout. The perspective is acceptable IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per King.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per King and nom. Cowtowner (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For those interested in lifting the shadows, here's an edit, I also the highlights to convince you that the detail is still available in the clouds. 99of9 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Edit 1per King. The shadow lift is misrepresenting and unauthentic. Also makes the leftmost part of the building look a bit grey on the thumbnail.--Nanoman657 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Preference original. per Nanoman657, The edit just doesn't look authentic. Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry, it's a nice picture but the distortion created by the 360 panorama stitching is very misleading; for a reader, it gives the initial impression that the buildings are round like the Radcliffe Camera or something, which devalues its encyclopedic use. Bob talk 11:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting issues and the projection makes it look to strange for me. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit only --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is obviously a great image, but I disagree with the reason given for it’s nomination “The photograph meets all the technical criteria.” I think it falls short of two of them (5 & 8) for the same reason: it creates the false impression that one of the sides of the quad is curved, which it is not. TehGrauniad (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG, I lived in a few of those rooms. The pic is horribly distorted. Tony (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 12:14:08 (UTC)

Reason

It's a very compelling photo, well composed, nice colours.

Articles in which this image appears

Steampunk

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Culture_and_lifestyle

Creator

KyleCassidy

• Support as nominator --Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd seen this image before, and thought it was already featured, actually. Professional image showing a culture I had no idea existed. No complaining about the resolution - there are no details that require higher resolution. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose At 732 pixels too small, I wish it were larger. Brandmeister t 19:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this vote doesn't count, when the voter didn't read the rules. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to WP:WIAFP, "Still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; larger sizes are generally preferred". This one is 732 x 1100, so it qualifies. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I love this picture, and I have been close to nominating it before. I'm actually in contact with the author- he sends me photographs for Wikipedia from time to time. I could contact him and ask if he has a higher res shot, but this is the sort of size at which he normally releases images (see other FPs- File:Ego Likeness high res (Kyle Cassidy).jpg is a similar size, though File:Hera-photo-by-kyle-cassidy.jpg is a little larger). I'd imagine I'd give a full support if it was a little larger. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The resolution of the image is insufficient to display the details available (so yes, Adam, Meister's oppose is valid. Clearing the 1000px bar doesn't give immunity for quality criticisms). Areas where detail might be gained include the ornate outfits, the faces and to a lesser extent the boiler behind them. Cowtowner (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't give a full-blown oppose for lack of resolution, when it's above the minimum! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. Just because something happens to be above our (very low) minimum, does not mean that it is big enough to be suitable as a featured picture. A satellite photograph, a map, a reproduction of a large painting, a photo of a skyscraper... All of these could be above our minimum, but still far too small. I'm not saying that I believe this picture is far too small, I'm just saying that it's a potentially legitimate reason to oppose. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it just me who thinks that a higher res would turn this image into borderline-erotica? Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so, but I'd say this is even desirable :) Brandmeister t 19:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I could care less about the resolution as this is a fine image. ceranthor 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"couldn't", maybe? . Totally agree with you. I know higher resolution is better, but this image, IMOutspokenO it still reaches the FP level. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may appreciate what David Mitchell has to say on the matter of "could care less"... J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to occur to him that "I could care less" is meant to be ironic. —Angr (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for insufficient EV. I don't see what two models posing in front of a steam locomotive have to do with a genre of fiction. Are they portraying specific characters from a specific work in the steampunk genre? Our article says "steampunk involves an era or world where steam power is still widely used—usually the 19th century and often Victorian era Britain—that incorporates prominent elements of either science fiction or fantasy". In this image I see the steam power - but even so, represented by a locomotive from 1920s America, not Victorian-era Britain - but I don't see the prominent elements of science fiction or fantasy. I'm not even convinced the photo belongs in the article, let alone being a featured picture on the basis of its inclusion there. It's a bit as if someone used File:Saluzzo-Castello della Manta-mago.jpg to illustrate the article on the Harry Potter franchise. —Angr (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must say I had much the same thoughts, and was left rather confused about steampunk. Then, after reading further into the article, it seemed to maybe fit with the Steampunk#Culture section (maybe). But I'm still not entirely sure about this, so withheld from voting. --jjron (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but that section already has a featured picture illustrating it, and one that's more clearly relevant to the topic as the man depicted is a steampunk writer. —Angr (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2011 at 02:41:42 (UTC)

Reason

Great resolution, good composition, and it's a gorgeous statue.

Articles in which this image appears

George Robert White

FP category for this image

Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Cryptic C62

• Support as nominator --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the specific feedback that ya'll have given. I figured there would be little chance of this being promoted, but I wanted to see what it would take to make it happen—this is my first submission to FP, and I figured the fastest way to learn would be to simply dive in headfirst. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too much interference from the buildings, especially around the statue's legs. What's that between her feet, a lamppost? The plinth is tilted. Also, it may be just my monitor, but the statue seems very dark, lacking detail; I'd prefer to see more of her face too. Or maybe I'm just talking through my **** :-). Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Poor lighting, distracting background, wrong framing, subject tilted. In my opinion 'artsy' attempts here only have chances of promotion when the encyclopaedic value and image quality aren't affected, which is not the case. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The scavenger hunt is an awesome idea. I hope they take off in other cities! This photo isn't fantastic though, for the reasons Rwx mentioned. The killer is the lack of lighting on the statue, and s/he's right that the background is distracting. If you could retake the photo at a different time of day so it's face is not so dark, and perhaps try some different perspectives to get a cleaner background, then you'd have a much better chance at achieving FP status. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Isn't the Peer Picture Review the place for this? Just curious... gazhiley.co.uk 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame people for coming here for a review, peer review is not exactly boiling with activity... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough gazhiley.co.uk 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – lighting and composition are probably the two biggest problems. A nicer composition might have been achieved if you had stood in front, or only slightly to the side, of the statue. I probably would have stood further away and zoomed in, and taken the picture in portrait orientation. Also, it would be nice if the picture had a geotag (although this isn't a requirement for featured pictures). NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Flickr shows that the statue looks quite nice at night. If you stood a bit to the right of where this photograph was taken, and zoomed in on the statue, you'd get a nice shot. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 00:01:55 (UTC)

Reason

high quality and EV and a rare sample

Articles in which this image appears

Vanadium, Crystal bar process

FP category for this image

Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator and creator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but even though this is highly dependent on humidity, and temperature, how long were the leftmost two bars kept in air? Or how were they oxidized? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • a few years ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Same as the Zirconium nomination. --Nanoman657 (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, not that you need another support vote at this point, but here you go. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per above. Would this have value in redox? The pictures there aren't very good, other than the rust image discussed below. Chick Bowen 03:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellently presented and well photographed. I can see it in great detail. --Ephemeronium (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support Good quality and enc. Well done. Spencer^T♦C 02:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vanadium crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 21:39:18 (UTC)

Reason

Good, detailed scan (finally) and EV, probably the best image of her currently in the web

Articles in which this image appears

Portrait of Eleanor of Toledo, Eleanor of Toledo, 1500–1550 in fashion etc.

FP category for this image

People/Royalty

Creator

Bronzino

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely painting, (looks like a) great reproduction. I do not feel qualified to comment on whether the colours are accurate, but it absolutely gets my support in the mean time. I am inclined to say that the higher EV may be for the article on the painting, meaning that it belongs in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings, but, either way, I love it. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful picture, crisp detail, rich vibrant colours. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the picture. Oppose Bronzino, on principle. :-) (Not a big fan of Mannerism; I find it too...er, mannered.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per J Milburn--Nanoman657 (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the description page notes are in Afrikaans and German. No requirement for an English translation before promoted? Tony (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Angelo Bronzino 038.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The image File:Angelo Bronzino 038.jpg was improperly overwritten with a higher-quality image prior to this nomination. The nominated image is now available at File:Bronzino - Eleonora di Toledo col figlio Giovanni - Google Art Project.jpg. Dcoetzee 05:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2011 at 19:54:04 (UTC)

Reason

High quality panorama of a volcanic lake located in a national monument. Illustrates that panoramas can distort the perception of a feature -- island versus lake in this image.

Articles in which this image appears

Paulina Lake

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Gabe Guss

• Support as nominator --Gabeguss (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A lovely scene, well lit, symmetrically balanced between sky and water and by the bridge. However, there are some niggles: The bridge provides a focus, leading the eye to ... a car park, which is kind of jarring; the symmetry of the tree reflections and the lakebed detail is disturbed by the ripples on the left side; it looks like some of the stitched panels are brighter than others (there's a bright band in the middle of the left-hand side, for example); and there's quite a bit of stuff floating on the water in the foreground, which could possibly be airbrushed out if that's not cheating. On balance, a very nice picture, but I don't think it makes FP grade. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The panorama is technically well executed and pretty. But I think your reason is actually working against you - for EV purposes the viewer shouldn't be asking the island vs lake question. As far as EV goes it would have been more profitable to turn around in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]