Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/December-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 9 Oct 2011 at 23:43:00 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, high quality image of a National Treasure of Japan

Articles in which this image appears

List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

FP category for this image

artwork

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --bamse (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High detail, interesting. Might be worth putting in Guanyin as well; my main reason for suggesting it is so the image can be featured on the MP (needs context for that). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I left a note at Talk:Guanyin. bamse (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Pine^talk 07:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Bad scan work: the image need a curve correction! Please take a look at the image histogram. The original artwork can be featured, but not the scan. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "The original artwork can be featured, but not the scan."? There are many scanned images of artwork among featured pictures. As for the curve correction, I am not good at image manipulation, so if something needs to be done to the image, I'd be happy if somebody could do that. If I understand you correctly, the black point needs to be moved to the right. If I do this, the colors become more intensive. However since this is an old (12th century) artwork, it likely has faded a bit, and the present look is probably closer to what it looks today. I would not want to restore it to its original state (which can only be guessed). bamse (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist means to say that they would support a better scan of this piece for FP (I think). Jujutacular ^talk 02:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which way "better"? bamse (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a scan from the "original"? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think so, yes. Why? bamse (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Very good quality picture, either it is a scan or a photograph. I don't see any lighting problems. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt (vote after the technical end of the voting period, but if this helps determine consensus...) Good detail, better coloration with the alt. Spencer^T♦C 22:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer original, but ALT is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt looks like an improvement. I'm not sure how conservative it is, but it's preferable over the original. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So what's happening here? Been a month already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eleven-faced Goddess of Mercy edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2011 at 19:03:55 (UTC)

Reason

High quality reproduction of an work of art, which is both useful to illustrate the subject and the style/technique. Very few Chinese reverse glass paintings with identifiable subjects exist, and this one is unusual in that it depicts a westerner and is relatively large.

Articles in which this image appears

Joseph Huddart, Reverse glass painting.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art

Creator

Anonymous. Traditionally attributed to Guan Zuolin of Macao. Photograph by an employee of Bonhams.

• Support as nominator --Xijky (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Stricken because user blocked as sock puppet, per MuZemike below. Pine^talk 08:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is littered with spots and I'm not convinced all of them are actually part of the painting. Also, somewhere along the line it suffered fairly high jpg compression. It's a nice image to be sure, but the quality seems not that high. Is there possibly an original image down the line that can be had that doesn't have these problems? JBarta (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The white spots you can see are places where there is damage to the paint. Black spots are essentially dirt. I could photoshop them out, but it would be a less accurate reproduction of the surface of the painting. What makes you think it has been compressed ? I can't see any compression artifacts at full resolution. The unsharpness of the image is a reflection of the way it was painted. --Xijky (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom in a little and the telltale jpg squares are very pronounced. Excessive jpg compression is needless and permanent destruction of fine image detail. As I think about it, it may also account for some of those spots seeming so pronounced. JBarta (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - there is some compression. I'm not sure how much it deprecates the original picture at normal viewing resolution (as opposed to 200-400%). --Xijky (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose per JBarta. Pine^talk 09:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Dirt is original to picture; there is no jpeg artifacting at 100%. 99 out of 100 people will never zoom in farther, making visible artifacting at 200% irrelevant. Clegs (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet of banned user User:Claritas; suggest fail and speedy close of this FPC. –MuZemike 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would go ahead with the speedy fail if this had no support, but with the one supporting vote I see no harm in letting the clock run out as normal. However, I will invalidate the nom's vote. Pine^talk 08:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While JPEG quality is indeed lower than our usual, and a slight green cast present, the image scores high on EV and does not seem easily replaceable. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2011 at 16:37:52 (UTC)

Reason

Gives impressive view of the whole building which is among the landmarks of the Bulgarian Capital city.

Articles in which this image appears

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MrPanyGoff

• Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nice picture of one of Sofia, Bulgaria's landmarks. It wouldn't look bad on the Main Page, and is an attractive, eyecatching pic. DCI2026 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per DCI2026. --Xijky (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a very good image, and choice to picture it on the weekend probably reduced the nr of obscuring vehicles, but there is almost nothing in the article about the building. --Elekhh (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is historical data about the completion of the building and its location in the city. So the importance of the image is doubled because, psychologically, the presence of good photos stimulates the development of the articles.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically yes, in practice I haven't seen much of it in the last years. --Elekhh (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Meets the criteria nicely. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question why is there information on the photo page about purchasing the image? The copyright and purchasing information seem out of place for a photo that is supposedly freely licensed. Pine^talk 08:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? One can specify how an image is to be attributed with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. Are you referring to "If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me to negotiate terms."? JJ Harrison (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, this is something like additional reminder for attribution because few people recognize this part of the game.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What most worries me is the word "purchase." Pine^talk 23:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a problem: Commons:Commons:User-specific_galleries,_templates_and_categories_policy#Acceptable. It is there to allow people that want to use the image outside of the licence conditions to contact MrPanyGoff in order to do so, it doesn't preclude free use in any way. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after discussion above. Pine^talk 08:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added this image to the article on the City of Sofia. Pine^talk 08:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in the past it was often required to have more substantial material relating to the image in the article, but I guess we also need to ease the expectations from time to time. --Elekhh (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, another impeccably taken and visually impressive image of a Bulgarian landmark. I added a couple of sentences on the building in the article. — Toдor Boжinov — 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bulgarian-Academy-of-Sciences 4.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2011 at 06:57:33 (UTC)

Reason

This is an interesting subject depicted, it's of high quality and it is in the public domain

Articles in which this image appears

Cryobot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Turn685 (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image doesn't tell us squat. Looking at this photo, I have no idea how this thing works, what it does, who uses it, where it's used, or how big it is. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Though I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, I agree with Adam above that this oblique, shallow-focus presentation of an unfamiliar object isn't ideal. Chick Bowen 20:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have to agree with Adam here. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. My first thought was that it was a .45 cartridge in dry ice. Clegs (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2011 at 15:13:37 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, assumingly one of the few surviving illustrations of this particular historic event.

Articles in which this image appears

Blackbeard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Not certain, possibly Charles Ellms

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not really seeing the encyclopedic value of this, since it's from over 100 years after the event. The 18th-century illustrations in the article would seem to have more value. Chick Bowen 20:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The ones of him himself have good EV for the man. The event (Blackbeard's head swinging in the wind after his capture) may not have any contemporary illustrations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but, as a picture from years after the event, the EV of this isn't quite the same. Combine this with the fact that it's pretty unremarkable as artwork and you have a rather underwhelming nom. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose low EV, not from a notable artist. Clegs (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just NN Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 14:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 04:47:59 (UTC)

Reason

This amazing (and very high resolution) image displays a visually appealing, intriguing scene. This picture shows the aqueduct in a fascinating way, drawing readers to learn more. On the technical side, it's in the PD, has a large resolution, and has excellent composition and no signs of compression.

Articles in which this image appears

Pontcysyllte Aqueduct, canal, 5 others (see image page)

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology

Creator

The Wikipedia user Arpingstone

• Support as nominator --Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 04:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose very interesting photo, but it has blown highlights. Pine^talk 08:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Beautifully composed, but it seems it was taken with a rather weak camera. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pine. Blown highlights on the yellow rails and white parts of the boat roof. Clegs (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 16:06:41 (UTC)

Reason

Image is of a high resolution and well focused.

Articles in which this image appears

Kitten

FP category for this image

Animals

Creator

Mathias Erhart (Flickr) — uploaded by Kaldari

• Support as nominator --HurricaneFan25 16:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Just another kitten pic- I'd want to see something really special to feature a picture of a kitten. J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice art, low EV. Pine^talk 01:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support cute cat. good photo. Broccolo (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor lighting (backlit) and the chair is distracting. Image quality is OK, though back focussed. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per JJ --Cj.samson (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose makes me go aww and it is a really cute kitten but it just doesnt show enough; shame though because its a nicely done image --Hadseys (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 16:19:23 (UTC)

Reason

I think the picture is of high quality and resolution and meets the criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

Rambhadracharya

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

"Shri Tulsi Peeth Seva Nyas". Uploaded by Vibhijain

• Support as nominator --♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; busy and crowded composition (microphone, some other guy's head, out-of-focus foreground plant). Nowhere near the standards of our other featured portraits. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per J Milburn. JFitch (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Clegs (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 19:44:12 (UTC)

Reason

Rather impressive picture of the Golden Gate Bridge. Good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Golden Gate Bridge

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice picture, but note this thematically similar shot, which is already featured. Chick Bowen 20:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The picture you provided is not a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge, it just happened to be in the picture while the photographer was taking pictures of the suns rays (according to the description of the photo). If you will also note, the picture does not appear on Golden Gate Bridge.

The two pictures are not on the same theme as one is a picture of fog in San Francisco while the other, is a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge through fog. Dusty777 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it better than this in that regard ? --Elekhh (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and with the nominator permission I hope I added the image you asked about as alt1. I believe this image might be even better because both towers of the bridge are in the image. The caption is still the same. I only took off mention of Belt of Venus.--GXK147 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Alt you provided is a little more appealing. Since it is a picture of the the entire bridge, it provides more EV then the original. Thanks for providing the alt. Dusty777 (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose nice art, low EV. Pine^talk 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Broccolo (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both. Broccolo (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't add much EV to the article in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe the image has EV. As I explained in the caption fog played a role in the construction of the Bridge. This image shows the color of the bridge, the current FP does not.76.126.32.88 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful picture, caption has plenty of EV tying into the picture. Clegs (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: Support either, preference to alt 1. Clegs (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment reply The caption here may explain the EV, but it's not explained in the article. If you make the EV in the article be higher then I'll reconsider my vote. However, there also appears to be compression noise in this photo and even a better EV in the article wouldn't overcome that problem. Pine^talk 09:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It is actually explained in the article."Experts said that ferocious winds and blinding fogs would prevent construction and operation." and "The color was selected by consulting architect Irving Morrow because it complements the natural surroundings and enhances the bridge's visibility in fog." --GXK147 (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Contrary to claims made here, I don't feel the image is educational about advection fog, therefore the addition to the caption does nothing to lift the image above earlier criticism. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot understand why this image File:Ggb by night.jpg http://en.wikipedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/December-2011&sq=Qlik&lang=&file=File:Ggb_by_night.jpg has EV, but the nominated images especially alternative do not. Alternative image shows the Bridge the city and the Bay. Opposing because of the lack of EV does not seem to be fair.--GXK147 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both and prefer original. Nice colors, look mystical -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2011 at 02:19:28 (UTC)

Reason

Encyclopedic, high quality, a rare occurrence.

Articles in which this image appears

Ships lost in San Francisco and King Philip shipwreck

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

mbz1

• Support as nominator --Broccolo (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note that the wreck is seen only in an extremely low tide, which means that time window of taking this image is very small, and occurs not every day. That's why it was impossible to take this image during sunset/sunrise time for a better lighting.
• Support I think the lighting is nice anyway. It has good EV for the article and good technical quality. The person and the birds (sanderlings?) add a sense of scale. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The image isn't even used in the article on the wreck. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. I replaced the top image of the article about the wreck with the nominated image. The nominated image shows more of the wreck than the old image does, and they both were taken by Mbz1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GXK147 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 November 2011

• Question Why did you choose this one and not http://en.wikipedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/December-2011&sq=Qlik&lang=&file=File:King_Philip_stern_at_Ocena_Beach.jpg? Pine^talk 09:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure why the nominator decided to nominate this particular image, but I personally like it better too. I believe it has a better composition. Maybe both images should be renominated as a set? GXK147 (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original per JJ Harrison. Clegs (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support alt 1. Alt shows the outline of the ship better so it has better EV. Pine^talk 09:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Alts of edits is messy enough... but an alt that is a completely different picture? As a "set"?? Let's keep things simple and orderly. One picture per nomination please. I could simply remove the additional picture and the vote it got, but I would rather the posters did it themselves. JBarta (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We consider alternate pictures of the same subject routinely. I see no problem with that. And it would have been inappropriate for you to remove someone else's comment. Chick Bowen 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is precedent for alts here, particularly if they might address some reviewer concern or other. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with you, Chick Bowen. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Seems goofy to me, but if that's an accepted way of doing things around here and everyone's good with it, then carry on... JBarta (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm inclined to agree with JBarta, for what it's worth, that slinging lots of pics into a nom and hoping one sticks is most certainly not a good way forward. These two images show slightly different things and may well have EV for slightly different reasons. (As an aside, strong oppose promotion as a set- these aren't a set, they're two pictures of the same thing. A "set" would be a picture of it from all four sides, or three pictures of three related wrecks, or something akin.) J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          I am new here, and I was not sure what is allowed and not allowed for a set nominations, and thank you very much for explaining it to me so nicely.GXK147 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • Also, that's a really clumsy way to display the two images in the article on the ship itself- that needs sorting out. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed. The second (blue) image was shoehorned in a few days ago above the first. I removed the addition. Quite possibly the image has a place in the article, but not as it was. JBarta (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • For the record, the two pictures are of different things. One's the front and one's the back of the wreck. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • However, having both in the same picture is possible. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both - The second is by far the better angle, and is the one i was looking to support. However the depth of focus is too shallow, the lighting is horrible, and there are many distractions in the image that i would prefer not to be there. We have to be able to do better for this in my opinion. JFitch (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment F8 was used to take the image, and there is expression "f/8 And Be There". So F8 is not too shallow, and not shallow at all. This view of the wreck lasted for an hour or so, and then it was gone for good, buried by the sand once again maybe for another 20 years? So the lighting could not have been chosen, and as you see the day was foggy. Distractions? Do you mean birds, or people or waves? "We have to be able to do better"? Sure, there is no limit for taking better images.--GXK147 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 14:00:20 (UTC)

File:Plaque, winged creatures approaching stylized trees, Iran.jpg

Reason

valuable for Wikipedia (ancient history) and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Commemorative plaque, gold

FP category for this image

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image deleted as a copyvio. --J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 10:26:59 (UTC)

Reason

high quality, valuable for Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Glass art, Fars province, Swan

FP category for this image

Artwork

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Image deleted from Commons.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  15:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted for obvious reasons. --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2011 at 11:58:48 (UTC)

Reason

large clear photo, good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Skink, Squamata, Scincomorpha, Lizard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Benjamint444

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 11:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nice and sharp, but I'm a little iffy about the brightness. The light comes across as unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps a separate file with slightly cooler lighting? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Surely featurable EV would include being able to see the blue tongue? --99of9 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it would definitely be better with the tongue. I thought I'd go ahead with the nom and see what others thought about the other good qualities of this photo perhaps overcoming that limitation. Pine^talk
• Oppose. Lacks the edge, and the lack of blue tongue is a shame. A decent and useful picture, but not really FP material, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Insufficient voting interest. --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2011 at 23:05:13 (UTC)

Reason

Insanely high EV, professional drawing, nice and clear. Featured at commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Superman (animated short)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Fleischer Studios

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - since this video is available on numerous commercial DVDs (including a high quality remastered version) and on iTunes, shouldn't we expect at least DVD resolution (720 x 576 pixels)? Or at least something closer to our upload limit (if full DVD resolution makes the file too large)? Kaldari (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is currently a deletion discussion on commons concerning our interpretation of authorised derivative works that have fallen into the public domain, with potential implications for the Max Fleisher superman cartoons. Ajbpearce (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't Featured at Commons, but it was selected as "media of the day" a few weeks ago. MOTD doesn't have to be featured. Also per Kaldari, if better quality versions are available, we should look into getting those. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's my goof, sorry. As for the better quality, anyone have the DVDs? They sort of aren't available where I live. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading Superman#Copyright issues and some of the articles it cites, I am not at all comfortable with the idea that this film is in the public domain. Two years ago Judge Larson seems to have reaffirmed that the character of Superman is under copyright and that new films using the character need to be individually renegotiated with the family that owns that copyright (the only reason their most recent claim was denied was that they had previously negotiated the rights). Some aspects of the case are still pending but there seems no basic doubt of ownership of the character. So I see no reason why a preexisting movie would not be subject to the same standard: the copyright for the film as such and for the character are two separate things, the latter still held by the family. Chick Bowen 04:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Chick Bowen Dusty777 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2011 at 23:32:14 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality image, with good lighting conditions and nice blue skies, which significantly adds to the articles of Capri island (previously missing high-quality images), and give a clear view from the very much frequented by tourists belvedere in Capri centre.

Articles in which this image appears

http://es.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Isla_de_Capri, http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Capri, http://it.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Capri_(isola)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Paolo Costa

• Support as nominator --Paolo Costa 23:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful picture with reasonably high EV. I could even spot the luxury yacht A (Project Sigma) to the far right. The photo could however be moved higher up in the Capri article. Ottojula (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, you noticed about the famous "little" yacht! ;) --Paolo Costa 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice image, I moved it into the article from the gallery. --Elekhh (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Would have benefited from a wider view, but seems to illustrate the landscape quite well. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I share Diliff's sentiment, but the inclusion of the famous yacht imo adds sufficiently to deserve extra support. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share his feeling too: the actual image is larger on the right: but there's a column on the way (like the ones visible on the left) which messes up the composition. Sadly, there is an intern handrail and an extern column: I couldn't avoid its appearing on the panoramic, so I had to crop it away. --Paolo Costa 12:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Support The exposure seems a bit dull however (needs a curves adjustment to brighten things) JJ Harrison (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked at the histogram, I disagree - the histogram is quite well-balanced, with plenty of brights, and it would be a shame to mess with the spread of contrast and colours. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Great quality. Shame the view doesn't include more of the harbour, but still several good elements to the image. Julia\^talk 07:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Capri Centre Belvedere.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 14:10:28 (UTC)

Reason

Highly complex emblem with good trace. High EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Surakarta Sunanate, Susuhunan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Gunkarta

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. TCO (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TCO. Looks rather bright and internet-y for an emblem from many decades (centuries?) ago. We have thousands of images like this; I'm not convinced they're great FP candidates. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sunanate still exists, despite being essentially powerless. If I have a chance to go to the palace, I'll take a picture of the crest. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Brightness isn't as much of an issue as you might expect. Remember we are used to seeing such things after they have been faded by time. Historically though many things were tastelessly colorful.©Geni 07:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The image was redrawed from the painting of the emblem placed in Pagelaran Keraton Surakarta (so I consider it as official version), traditionally the color of Surakarta is blue, and yes it is that bright. References are also from "Karaton Surakarta" book. The city of Surakarta gates have this emblem placed upon them, but most of the colors are faded away and made from older period, mostly from Pakubuwono X reign (1893-1939).Gunkarta (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If you compare to this recent nom ([1]), I would argue with the "highly complex" claim. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll have to agree to disagree on this, as I am comparing to the bare minimum. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not featured, so it doesn't really refute my logic. As an aside, the line in the left-most part of the ribbon should be grey, not red, shouldn't it? I can't find another version of this image to check, but it would be consistent with the rest of the ribbon in this image. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Naturally it's not. I'm saying "as compared to (random image which is clearly not complex)". Regarding the ribbon, I have contacted the creator. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you check the summary description, you will see the explanation of the ribbon. The initial ribbon was white, but in 1945 the red and white ribbon was introduced by Susuhunan Pakubuwono XII to symbolize Sunanate support for Indonesian Republic. Here's the description:

"Radyalaksana, the emblem of Kasunanan Surakarta Hadiningrat (Kingdom of Surakarta). The emblem was designed by King Pakubuwono X (reign 1893-1939) through his edict: "Kuncara ruming bangsa dumunung aneng luhuring budaya" which means: The fame and glory of a nation is placed upon the refinement of its culture". The emblem featuring Javanese crown as the crest and an elliptic shield with the image of the star, the shining sun, the moon, and the earth. The earth is drawn with nail upon it to symbolize Paku Buwono (The Nail of the Earth), which means the Javanese king as the center of Javanese universe. The shield is surrounded by flower and rice plants to symbolize cultural refinement, wealth of the kingdom and the wellfare of its people. The red and white ribbon tied the plants together, red and white color adopted after the Independence of Indonesia in 1945, originally the ribbon's color is white."

• The decision to change the ribbon has something to do with politics, by supporting new Republic of Indonesia, the Sunan (King) of Surakarta expect that their traditional realm would be granted special region status, autonomous region within Indonesian republic similar to today Special Region of Yogyakarta, but it was revoked in 1946 and Surakarta and Mangkunegara were merged with Central Java province.

  "After the declaration of independence of Republic of Indonesian in 17 August 1945, followed by Indonesian National Revolution, Surakarta Sunanate with Mangkunegaran Princedom send the letter of confidence to Sukarno to demonstrate their support for Indonesian Republic. As the reward the Republic awarded the status of Daerah Istimewa (Special Region, similar to today Yogyakarta Sultanate) within the Republic of Indonesia. However because the political agitation and opposition from Indonesian communists that led to anti-monarchy movement and rebellion in early 1946, later in 16 June 1946 Indonesian Republic aborted the special region status; both Surakarta's and Mangkunegara's status were reduced as merely a residence, later merged into Central Java province. In contrast, the Yogyakarta Sultanate successfully maintained their special status up until today. Highly possible because of historical Yogyakarta's support and their political deal with founding fathers of Indonesian Republic during the war of independence and Indonesian national revolution. Today the Surakarta Sunanate holds no actual political power and authority on governing their realms. Its power were limited in royal prestiges and its special position as the patron, preserver and the protector of Javanese culture. Nevertheless the royal prestiges were still remains that led many regional leaders and political figures in Indonesia to sought affiliations with."

  Gunkarta (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 14:48:54 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, beautiful picture. High EV with an article on the bridge. Last time it failed because it was missing half a vote.

Articles in which this image appears

Three Countries Bridge, Huningue, Dietmar Feichtinger

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Taxiarchos228

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Simple composition and low wow factor, but nice aesthetics and it shows enough of the bridge to have good EV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very impressive. Dusty777 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since last time it was I who withheld the half vote in question, and now feel rather bad about that because this is a very good picture, I am happy to support. Chick Bowen 18:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IMO, the left end of the bridge is not necessary to make this an FP. Beautiful, good EV for it's article. Preceding vote added by Clegs with this edit at 13:28 UTC, 2 December 2011
• Support - jes' pilin' on. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per myself last time (the LHS of the bridge is cut off) JJ Harrison (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cut off left side, tight crop on right and unfortunate overlap with high-rise. --Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per David. Richard Bartz (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I'd support on Commons because of its quality and attractiveness. But here, with the left of the bridge cut off and the right crop so tight, it's just too poorly composed to have the EV I'd expect for this sort of subject. Julia\^talk 19:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request that bridge picture have always to show both watersides is flim-flam. The EV does not depend on this point. Even Diliffs Tower Bridge File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg does not show this and we have a perfect view of the architectural structure. Maybe Julia can profess why this picture should have less EV because of it's composition. Moreover: there is no picture that can bring out all structural aspects of a complex building. You will always have a compromise between complaisant picture and documentary value. --194.209.146.84 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't state that both sides must always be shown, because I don't believe it's always necessary. In this instance, it is more the tight right crop, in combination with the missing left. Julia\^talk 18:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very nice photo; I think the "unfortunate overlap with high-rise" actually looks pretty neat. CityOfSilver 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly that "neat"ness makes it messy IMO. Would have been so much better detached, to emphasise the shape of the bridge. --Elekhh (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support compelling illustration of the subject, though the highlights are a bit bright. Pine^talk 08:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My major complaint is with the horrid composition. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke10.jpg 11S, 4O --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 20:18:15 (UTC)

Reason

After routine edits (the original is here) I think the portrait deserves a go. The image itself was shot in the year she became the Olympic champion.

Articles in which this image appears

Tatiana Navka

FP category for this image

People/Sport

Creator

Fyodor Markushevich

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The image is jpeg compressed to death. O.J. (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Will try do decompress. Suspended for now. Brandmeister t 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per O.J. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn I've contacted the author, he didn't find the uncompressed version. Artifact removal didn't help either. Brandmeister t 08:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 16:29:17 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality. High EV as it is part of a notable series by a notable artist. Visually appealing.

Articles in which this image appears

Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji, Rice, Rice broker

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art

Creator

Hokusai

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. And make them a set when promoted - even if not all 36 works are available as high-res scans. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My only real concern is that I'm not sure how much has been chopped off at the edges. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My look at Google suggests that if anything has been cropped, it is extremely minor. For example, here, here, and here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question: (more of a general question on featuring ukiyo-e prints) AFAIK, ukiyo-e aficionados value early prints that are made during the lifetime of the artist. Differences between early prints and later reprints can be substantial (see for instance this Hiroshige) Now, the image description says that this print here was made about 100 years after first publication. (perhaps from a new woodblock?) The quality (sharpness, colors) looks very good, and better than I remember from lifetime Hokusai prints I saw (but I don't have a direct comparison for this particular scene). So my question is, when nominating ukiyo-e prints should we aim for images of old/original prints, that are likely more faded or rough but where the print is of higher value for collectors/art experts? Or should we aim for a recent reprint/reproduction which probably has stronger colors and looks generally more fresh but is of low value for collectors/art experts? bamse (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC) What does "painstakingly" in the caption mean? bamse (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would not be able to speak for everyone, but personally I think an accurate representation (even via a newer print) would be acceptable. Regarding "painstakingly", that was my attempt to summarize this:

Woodblock made ca. 1930 exactly the same way as they were made by artisans ca. 1830. The skill and the care are the same. There is a drawing or a copy of it coming from the artist. Then the woodcutter and the printer take over. Their skill varies. Hokusai once wrote to one of his editors that he was not happy with one of the woodcutters. In the case of the new cuts of the 36 views of the Fuji, only experts can distinguish the many versions - mainly by differences of the frame around the script.

Which is written at another featured picture from the series. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I get a feeling that it is not of great EV, since it does not have its own article and hence if his could be promoted, the other 35 should also be. Given that that is not an very important part of the series --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Being one in a notable series gives it enough notability / EV; how would one describe a series of paintings without showing each and every one? As noted above by PLW2, there is no issue with having everything in a set featured. For example, all images at Extermination of Evil are featured (of course, they are a bit higher resolution than this one). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 16:42:58 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, high EV, notable artist.

Articles in which this image appears

Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji (Hiroshige), Suruga Bay, Mount Fuji, Hiroshige

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art

Creator

Hiroshige

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. And make them a set when promoted - even if not all 36 works are available as high-res scans. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I could certainly get behind this in principle, but are the colours right? I'm no expert, but they look a little muted. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Google's image search suggests that they may be. There is a fairly high resolution version below the current one, here, but I can't do anything with it until later as my connection is terrible ATM. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, looks like a bad scan to me. Willing to support if a better one is uploaded. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Needs a level adjustment at the very least - it is too dark at the moment. Removing the crease and dust would be desirable in my view too. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per King --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 03:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 16:13:12 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, nice colours, in very good shape for a poster from 1939. Notable film, although not a classic like The Wizard of Oz

Articles in which this image appears

Island of Lost Men

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others or
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Employee(s) of Paramount or a distributor; restored by Centpacrr

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. Unambiguously public domain, excellent scan of a very well-preserved poster. Clear EV, and something different to boot. I'd recommend that this is categorised under Entertainment; it is significant because of the film, not as artwork in its own right. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like an idea. I've added it above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - very nice. Jujutacular ^talk 04:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV for its article, high quality scan. Pine^talk 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice to have a free movie poster this good. Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the photo is nice and perfect. Great work! Katarighe (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 13:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 23:16:14 (UTC)

Reason

I believe that Hurricane Igor meets the criteria of a Featured Picture because it captures a monster hurricane that proved to be the most destructive hurricane to hit Newfoundland on record at peak intensity.

Articles in which this image appears

List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes, Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, Hurricane Igor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

Cyclonebiskit

• Support as nominator ---- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- An impressive picture, but the scanning artifacts (near the top left corner) kill the nomination imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anyway to fix these these lines? -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, AFAIK, unfortunately. HurricaneFan25 14:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Banding is not all that impressive. HurricaneFan25 14:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just not true at all, Igor has some of the best banding features seen in a strong Category 4 hurricane in this image. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The banding on the east is brilliant, the banding on the west is dull. HurricaneFan25 15:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The hurricane cannot help that. :P -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't think it adds much to the featured pictures we already have of TC's. That view is most like Rick and Gafilo, and I think both of those are more impressive. Therefore I feel it fails criteria 3. Of the images in Igor's article, I believe this is the most striking. Since the storm was the strongest of the season, I suppose you could argue that the image chosen is the most important, but I feel that its impact in Newfoundland negates that (since it was just an ordinary strong hurricane). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 00:37:07 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image with nice lighting of this very strange duck

Articles in which this image appears

Musk Duck

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - captures the oddness of this species very well! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is this a crop? I'd prefer to see a little lower and include all of the reflection if possible. JFitch (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is about it in this case. Symmetric crops about a reflection often tend to look odd in my experience. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good. Richard Bartz (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good image, meets FP criteria. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice work. Pine^talk 08:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The cropping is suboptimal, but good shot overall. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can someone tell me how this is possible http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Musk_Duck&action=history check the dates for the last edit, weird.Hariya1234 (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific? Pine^talk 09:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support -- Very sharp, as always. However, I'm a little iffy on the overexposure on the duck's front end (tip of beak and chest) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wonderful image --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 03:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- This photo is very sharp, nothing can happen. --Katarighe (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Biziura lobata - Sandford.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 00:09:38 (UTC)

Reason

This bit of behaviour was used for the hook when a WP:DYK was written for Yellow-throated Honeyeater and is apparently well documented. The hook was: "Did you know that the Yellow-throated Honeyeater is known for collecting hair from live animals such as horses, dogs and humans for lining its nest?". I was very lucky to be in the right place at the right time in order to capture this bit of behaviour.

Articles in which this image appears

Yellow-throated Honeyeater

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent (and unusual) photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is great. A photograph illustrating behavior that's documented and significant (as opposed to something silly as we've sometimes seen on this page) seems ideal for an FP to me. Chick Bowen 01:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice behavioral shot --Cj.samson (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, as per Chick Bowen. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Amazing shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent --Z 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice behavior shot, great clarity. Pine^talk 08:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 03:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture. --Katarighe (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lichenostomus flavicollis stealing hair from Thylogale billardierii for nest - Melaleuca.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 00:34:04 (UTC)

Reason

This is a good image of this often hard to photograph Tasmanian endemic.

Articles in which this image appears

Tasmanian Scrubwren

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Something about the background near the top of the picture is distracting, it makes it hard for my eyes to focus on the bird. Maybe its just me...... Otherwise, an excellent picture! Dusty777 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good enough for FP IMO. Nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'll work on the article later today as well. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Shame that illustrations of living species of animals are often ignored at FP, otherwise we could try and have a twofer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice work. Pine^talk 08:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good shot --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 03:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work Katarighe (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sericornis humilis - Melaleuca.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 03:37:43 (UTC)

Reason

I believe that this image meets the criteria for FP because it captures an intense cyclone approaching its peak.

Articles in which this image appears

World weather in 2005, Timeline of the 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season, 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season, Cyclone Ingrid

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

NASA; uploaded by Good kitty

• Support as nominator ---- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some of the western portion of this image needs to be cropped out; Ingrid is elongated towards the east in this pic. HurricaneFan25 14:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (and response to HFan) - I've nominated this picture before and my stance on it meeting FP criteria stands. In response to HurricaneFan's reasoning for opposing, the suggestion to crop a part of the image out would actually hurt the image in my opinion. By having a defined peninsula next to it, there is a distinct reference to land and improves the visual appeal. As for the storm being elongated, that's entirely bogus to be honest. The core of the storm is almost perfectly symmetrical. What's being mistaken as the storm being elongated is the southern feeder band which is fairly large in comparison to the storm itself but in no way makes the storm elongated. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image is pretty much as good as it gets all around. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a little blurry at the top, otherwise good for its article. Pine^talk 07:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 4 supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 04:45:19 (UTC)

Reason

I believe that it satisfies all of the criteria for Featured picture because it is highly informative and give scattered information in one easily-readable source. It is verifiable, has a good caption, and adds significantly to the article on the subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Great Wall of China

FP category for this image

Geography and places

Creator

Maximilian Dörrbecker

• Support as nominator --Michael miceli (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a svg available? JJ Harrison (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the author of the image used all jpegs and the only svg was the small inlay map of China. Michael miceli (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need an svg for? In my opinion for maps that are final (=are not being used as base for creating other maps), there is no need to have an svg version. A blank map is provided for translation/internationalization purposes. Furthermore there are serious issues with rendering svg on wikipedia which would make the text look ugly if it was an svg map. Also, transforming the background into svg would unnecessarily bloat the image size. bamse (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those things are true, but at the very least I think a svg should be available for someone to render the image as a jpg or png after modification, in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "modification" do you have in mind? bamse (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? Perhaps there could be an error to correct, or some missing bit of information. Wikipedia articles are built on the principle that anyone can edit them, and that should be reflected in diagrams when it is possible to do so. Allowing it to be editable also allows people that want to use the content beyond Wikipedia to make edits to suit without difficulty. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. On the other hand, if somebody nominates a panorama stitched from N frames, we don't require the contributor to upload all of these N frames (in case somebody later discovers a stitching error), do we? bamse (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• conditional Support for this very informative and well done map. In the image description, the Nasa World Wind map is not a topological background, it is not a topographic map either, but a satellite image. bamse (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It really should be an svg... Even though many of the maps are bitmaps the overlays and text mean it should really be svg for translatability. - Zephyris _Talk 18:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Therer is a blank map for translatability. bamse (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 23:29:44 (UTC)

Reason

We have precious little from this period. Lead image in articles on both of the subjects, and an art style that makes us look twice.

Articles in which this image appears

Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, Ruthard of Mainz

FP category for this image

Royalty (not technically accurate- other ideas?)

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Equalisation is a very strange choice for trying to do something about faded colours. Sort of like throwing a grenade into your living room because you can't find the keys to your tank car. How is it justified in this case over something more conservative? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The colors of the original look superior to me. I'm also concerned of the rather harsh compression. O.J. (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this one. A few reasons: Prefer the original colours; something weird happened to cause a 2.5 mb file to balloon into 8 mb, and compression. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crisco 1492:do you know a histogram? Please take a look to the image histogram, from the original image, version 2th Dez. 2011! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Katarighe (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nominated edit Crazy colour manipulation is not justified (criterion #8). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per PLW Clegs (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 03:14:41 (UTC)

Reason

an interesting view of a natural phenomenon

Articles in which this image appears

Crepuscular rays

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While a beautiful shot, we already have two FPs and one former FP of this phenomenon. O.J. (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Inspiring. Penyulap _talk 10:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Lugged into a gallery on an over-illustrated article. As per O.J., this category is somewhat overrepresented. Improve the placement in the article (with consensus) and nominate for D&R with one of the earlier FPs and then we'll talk. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  @J Milburn: it isn't my job to nominate images for delisting. "I" take only "some" new images. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While both are stunning, ALT is a superior visual statement. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 2 much foreground. Image doesn't work as thumbnail. Richard Bartz (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt-1 Good picture, Good EV, and meets all FP criteria. Dusty777 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does every image in that gallery meet the EV requirement? Do we really need a third FP of this subject? J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt-1, beautiful. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1 per above. Clegs (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pretty, but per J Milburn. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Info the two current FPs: FP 1 und FP 2. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image, meets FP criteria. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose per lack of EV. It's a beautiful image though, and I would support a Commons nomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how it can lack EV if there are two existing FP of the same topic and this image is a superior to both of those. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  They are not the same images. There is a difference between crepuscular rays that are shadows of clouds and that are shadows of trees.--GXK147 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Come to think of it, I actually like this image very much, it's just that it doesn't quite meet the enwiki FP criteria. Changing to neutral. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt 1. Optionally replace both previous FPs, as the new one illustrates both crepuscular and anticrepuscular rays (slightly sceptical of the terminology, but that's what the article says...) Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "Anticrepuscular rays are similar to crepuscular rays, but seen opposite the sun in the sky." http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Anticrepuscular_rays There are no anticrepuscular rays at the nominated image.Anticrepuscular and crepuscular rays could be seen at the same image only, if this image is 360 degrees panorama. --GXK147 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I created delist/replace nomination for FP1 http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Crepuscular_rays_in_ggp_2.jpg I believe that the nominated image could be replaced with FP2. I believe the nominated image should be smaller because it will be easier to see the rays, if it is. Besides some quality problems would not be so noticeable. --GXK147 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau edit.jpg --Julia\^talk 22:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 08:35:30 (UTC)

Reason

Featured pictures

Articles in which this image appears

Honey bee

FP category for this image

Animals/Insects

Creator

Louise Docker

• Support as nominator --PERSIA ♠ 08:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The bee is a small part of the image, but otherwise it meets my standards and is encyclopedic. upstateNYer 21:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- A little on the red side for me, and our current featured picture of a bee during pollination is much better. The EV could also be improved; note how the caption just says "a bee". Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent shot. Clegs (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support a little blurry, but good behavioral shot. Pine^talk 08:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great macro shot of a bee in its natural setting. Don't get yourself stung! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would prefer a tighter crop. Kaldari (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per UpstateNYer. --Paolo Costa 18:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until plant is identified. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent. O.J. (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not that good of a shot, particularly in comparison to our other insect FPs. What species is this anyway? Makeemlighter (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted . Close, but 3 opposes to 5.5 support. --Julia\^talk 22:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 11:24:50 (UTC)

Reason

Very high resolution, is verifiable, adds value to the Gallium article.

Articles in which this image appears

Gallium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Greatpatton

• Support as nominator --~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry, does not compare to other images in this category. Low depth of field, distracting background. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with J Milburn about shallow DOF. Pine^talk 08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to shallow DOF. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, but we don't have any better pic for gallium, this one is not up to the mark --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 03:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the photo is not better. Sorry --Katarighe (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 22:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 14:57:04 (UTC)

Reason

Gives good illustration of the GE Dash 9-44CW diesel locomotive, and is impressive and eyecatching

Articles in which this image appears

GE C44-9W, Train

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Kabelleger

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture! Good EV. Dusty777 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image! -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent photo of a train in action. Pine^talk 08:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I added this to the article Train. Pine^talk 09:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. There's something about the light/colors that looks unnatural. But great composition and IQ overall. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is mostly just underexposed, that and the clouds are shading the hills towards the rear left. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Very nice and sharp. Although I also consider the colours odd, the description says that the sun peeked out at just that moment. I'm assuming the rest of the train is in shadows. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can give me a better description of what exactly you don't like about the colors (Saturation? White balance? Brightness? ...?), I will try to fix it. But keep in mind that there is (and will always be) a strong contrast between the sun-lit foreground and the shady background. --Kabelleger (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's mainly the shade of yellow which seems odd to my (Canadian) eyes; I've never seen a locomotive that particular shade. However, you still have full support from me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have uploaded a new version with a little more subtle colors and adjusted white balance, maybe it's better now? (I'm not sure, maybe you have to press shift+reload in your browser to see the new version) Also note that the yellow stripes are reflective, which may make them look a bit odd when the sun is low. --Kabelleger (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, I'm fine with the old one. As a note, generally when you edit an FP candidate you should upload the edit separately so both can be considered. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, sorry. I fixed that. --Kabelleger (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wonderful shot of great EV --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer alt 1 the lighting seems more natural. I already voted above so don't count this as a second support vote, just a preference. Pine^talk 07:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original The colors on the original are closer to what I am used to seeing from BNSF. The alt looks a little washed out. Clegs (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Still supporting original I see BNSF locomotives nearly every day, and the original still has the best color. Dusty777 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Katarighe (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good train image, if a little underexposed. --jjron (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on colors For those of you who are not native to the Western US, BNSF locomotives are a very unique shade of orange; the original picture captures this shade perfectly. That's probably what is making the picture look funny--on anything else, that shade of orange would be due to oversaturation. However, here, it is correct. Clegs (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:BNSF GE Dash-9 C44-9W Kennewick - Wishram WA.jpg --Julia\^talk 22:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 14:56:00 (UTC)

Reason

A clear, recent, high quality front view of the biggest church in Canada. Image has good lighting, and good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Saint Joseph's Oratory

Saint Joseph

FP category for this image

Churches

Creator

Paolo Costa

• Support as nominator --Paolo Costa 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV for its article. Quality is not perfect but good enough. Pine^talk 09:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done. The crop feels a little tight, but I'm not sure what is on either side. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You had a right intuition: something was disturbing on the right side: a brick building if I remember well. It is just right of the crop. --Paolo Costa 03:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice frame! --Cj.samson (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice picture--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice shot! O.J. (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal - Montreal.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 20:47:27 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, excellent resolution, informative caption.

Articles in which this image appears

Mt. St. Helens

FP category for this image

Places/Panorama

Creator

Farwestern

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: do we know the creator? Clegs (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon completion of some research, I was able to verify that, Farwestern is a guy named Gregg M. Erickson, and it appears that he took the picture. Link for verification (Picture is second from the top). That is about the best proof i could find besides his account here on Wikipedia or on Commons. Hope that answers your question. Dusty777 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great; I was a little confused because the first time I saw this it still had the template text under 'creator' Clegs (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing picture all round. Clegs (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets all the criteria... wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support fantastic!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per my vote on Commons FPC. It's a great picture, which is only spoiled by unproper stitching (non straight horizon). - Blieusong (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is the horizon not straight? Dusty777 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say about everywhere. It looks both slightly leaning to the left, and wavy with two noticeable "bosses" (hope I got the english word right) in the middle and in the right, and I don't think it's due to the relief. It's not that it is this annoying, but author could have taken a few minutes to fix it (easy stuff as far a I know). - Blieusong (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your saying, and taking a closer look, i can see it does appear to lean to the left a little bit. I don't thinks its too noticeable, unless you're looking for it. Dusty777 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Nice and sharp, with striking colours. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hell yeah! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful panorama. - Darwinek (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A crisp image that also has nice details in it (cloud formations, snow drifts, climbers). While it is slightly offset (leaning to the left), it is still worthy of featured picture status. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Awesome. Nikthestoned 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mount St Helens Summit Pano II.jpg --Julia\^talk 20:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 14:27:12 (UTC)

Reason

Very impressive, of the best of our works imho.

Articles in which this image appears

Snowplow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Kabelleger

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cool picture-- Someone35  18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Agreed, very cool... and cold. Reminds me why I moved to Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does nothing to explain operation of a snowplow - the plow is not even visible. Dragged here from the bottom of the article's gallery. Now, this is a more educational illustration. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support . JFitch (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose. It's only in a gallery now, and it's hard to know where it could have high EV. It's a good photo though, just not a FP. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Nik. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a cool image, but I have to agree with PLW. JJ Harrison (talk)
• Oppose Agree, very low EV on the article. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Awesome image indeed - unfortunately does not illustrate anything useful... Nikthestoned 14:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2011 at 04:22:03 (UTC)

Reason

A beautiful, accurate fractal of the inverse secant function.

Articles in which this image appears

Inverse trigonometric functions

FP category for this image

Category:Mathematics

Creator

Jan Homann

• Support as nominator --Yortzec (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close -- Not up to the minimum resolution, with no mitigating factors. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Axes labels are too small. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Per Crisco 1492 Dusty777 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the idea, this concept as a higher quality image would be a great FP, but it needs to be higher resolution. Should it be svg too? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A complex mapping can be thought of as taking two dimensional points in a plane (a,b), to different pairs (c,d). The brightness and colour of each pixel probably gives you what each point maps to. The problem is that this isn't explicitly stated anywhere, and really, I'd expect some sort of key to be provided. I don't think that this image demonstrates any fractal like behaviour fwiw either. I really encourage anyone uploading pictures generated with computer software to provide the source for however it was generated too, just to make it possible to make changes or generate a higher resolution version. JJ Harrison (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Fully agree. No hint is given to the meaning of the colors neither in the picture nor in the article. And, of course, no relation witth fractals exist here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Low EV in the article, very low resolution too --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - maybe it should be part of a featured set with other complex trig functions. See the category on Commons for similar pictures. I think that the axes labels should be larger, and it should ideally not be a jpeg. --Ephemeronium (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2011 at 20:15:23 (UTC)

Reason

A beautiful, well composed image that is certainly intriguing to readers.

Articles in which this image appears

Shosanbetsu, Hokkaidō

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

A modification by Sven Manguard of a work by the Commons user, 100yen.

• Support as nominator --Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 20:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that this is not of great importance, or low EV. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice art, but low EV as it's used presently. Try to find some higher value places for this image. Pine^talk 07:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pine for now; Suggest using the picture in torii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Beautiful image, and would do well on commons, but doesn't quite have the encyclopedic value to be featured here. --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much doubt it would do well on Commons! Do you want to bet? ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 04:44:42 (UTC)

Reason

Striking image illustrating the huge size difference between nuclei and electron clouds. Top image for four articles, including Atom

Articles in which this image appears

Helium, atom, Atomic nucleus, Atomic radius, 2 others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

Yzmo

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The red box around the insert seems unnecessary. Kaldari (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is nearly infinite magnification, then I don't think there should be any red cloud visible at the centre of the atom. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've requested someone at the lab to give it a go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No debate on the EV; it's just not visually interesting to me. Clegs (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Both I actually don't think it does have much EV. There is a wealth of information you could convey in a picture of an atom. This image only illustrates one fact, and it does it poorly. Since you can't see the nucleus at all in the zoomed-out image, having an insert magnification doesn't do much to illustrate the relative scales of the cloud and nucleus; that information is only conveyed by the labels on the scales.

The graphical elements of the picture are confusing. The gradient of the electron shell is supposed to represent the probability density of the two electrons, but in this picture it was probably just made using the radial gradient tool in a paint program. It would be more informative if there were some contours showing e.g. 'The electrons have a 90% likelihood of being located within this circle'. Also, if that gradient represents the cloud, then what do the gradients on the proton and neutron represent? They certainly aren't probability densities; rather, they seem to be simple graphical decorations. Also, nowhere in the picture or the caption is there any indication that the electron shell contains 2 electrons... this is a pretty basic fact. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, after reading the caption on the image page, I have to revise my comments. It appears the color of the electron cloud does accurately depict the actual probability density at that point. However, there is a more serious problem. By the author's own admission, the depiction of the nucleus is completely wrong; in reality the four nuclear particles are superimposed and create a spherical cloud similar to the electrons. I think this factual inaccuracy should disqualify the image from FP status. Fallingmasonry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1 by User:Fred the Oyster added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both I don't understand the purpose of this image. You cannot even see the sizes of the protons/neutrons relative to the electron cloud because they are not even shown on the picture for obvious reasons. So what exactly are you trying to convey with this image? I feel like I'd get just as effective of an understanding of their relative sizes just by looking at the scales themselves. 75.31.230.46 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but if you want your vote to be considered, I would recommend signing in. Fallingmasonry (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 15:02:08 (UTC)

Reason

I've had this waiting on my user page for a while, so I might as well get this out of the way. Before I get sacrificed to the lions, please listen to me. First, a bit of history about the image. It was uploaded on 4 November 2007 by Kasuga, the creator of Wikipe-Tan (he seems to be retired now) after a request by Nihonjoe two days earlier. The image was inserted into the lolicon article and replaced a now-deleted image considered of inferior quality. Since then, it has continued to be used as the main image in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, continuing to serve as one of the best images Wikimedia has to describe the genre. In the hentai article, the image was inserted on 3 April 2010 by Atomaton to illustrate one of the kinds of hentai available. It does not seem to have been removed since.
The image itself reflects several qualities of lolicon (an abbreviation of lolita complex) images, notably that it portrays female models with childish features in a cute (kawaii) and possibly sexually suggestive manner. Although Kasuga himself noted that he would not produce pornography, he noted that "[he] drew [this picture] noting to not become too indecent"; I agree that it is a fairly tasteful way of expressing basic characteristics of lolicon. Its use of colours also seems to promote an understanding of the basic characteristics of lolicon, with white representing innocence.
In short, I think this should qualify as a featured picture as it is of high quality (resolution, art style) and encyclopedic value, as indicated by its consistent use and representation of the subject. I understand that it will probably not be able to be used on the main page, but that is not the main goal of FP. Also, it should be noted that we have previously promoted user-created original drawings like this.

Articles in which this image appears

Lolicon, Hentai

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings

Creator

Kasuga

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lots of aliasing at full magnification. (See, for instance, their eyes and the outline of their hair). Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Is this really a can of worms you want to open? Ignoring the obvious controversial aspects- Yes, we have promoted user-made drawings in the past, but that pirate picture would not pass today, and to promote something like this, I think I would want to see something from a notable artist or a reputable source. Equally, I would not support featuring "some Wikipedian's" interpretation of surrealist art or death metal or beauty. I'd want to see things that reputed sources pointed to. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The girls look too young even for lolicon and the image has a lesbian undertone. If we are about to promote lolicon, I'd support the images like this one or this. Brandmeister t 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From an objective viewpoint, I think the first (pink hair) is a little overly sexualized and the second (brown hair) has poor backlighting. Of course, if it isn't free we can't use it anyways LOL. From my understanding, Lolicon includes those who appear much younger as well, not just 13+. I mean, Nagi in the harem show Hayate the Combat Butler doesn't look more than 10 at times. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose very bad aliasing at full size. Clegs (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 17:37:15 (UTC)

Reason

This was nominated in 2010, and appears to have gotten sidetracked by editing and failed to get enough support. To me, it's a large, high quality, well used file, which as with all my nominations, I stumbled upon accidentally and said "this is a large, high quality, well used file, why isn't an FP?". Well here we are.

Articles in which this image appears

Dozens, including Liberty Leading the People, Eugène Delacroix, July Revolution, Nationalism, Revolution (and its topic box), Commoner, Culture of France, History of political thinking, History of painting, and People. In most of them it's a lead image or lead section image.

FP category for this image

Paintings is the most straightforward choice, but History (others) is also an option.

Creator

Eugène Delacroix

• Support as nominator --Sven Manguard Wha? 17:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There appears to be some scanning artifacts here and there, and there are white specks all over the picture. Dusty777 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that those were brushstrokes, not scanning artifiacts, although you might just be seeing some I missed. As for the white flecks, the only one I saw that I thought wasn't a refection or shiny object painted into the painting was the one white speck in the red portion of the flag, which I just wrote off as damage to the painting itself. Anyone else have thoughts on these things? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing, very high EV, painting of importance, --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV. Pine^talk 07:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice EV. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For what it's worth, those sure look like artifacts to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eugène Delacroix - La liberté guidant le peuple.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 22:43:03 (UTC)

Reason

Strong EV, high quality and good composition

Articles in which this image appears

Bratislava Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Its an excellent picture, but it has a very weak caption. If someone will fix the caption so it is more informative, i will give full support. Dusty777 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the lead image for the article. I don't think that a stronger caption is needed in this case because the entire article is about this subject. Pine^talk 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Great image! – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strong EV for its article, decent quality. Pine^talk 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The colouring strikes me as pretty dull as though it was taken in relatively poor light (lighting on the vegetation seems to confirm this), but I'm not entirely clear on the colour of this building. Images seem to range from a pretty murky dirty yellow, to quite dazzling white; apparently the castle has undergone a recent restoration, so what is the correct colour these days? Also not a fan of the sky, as it doesn't give much contrast with the colour of the building in this image. Image size is a bit stingy, given the size of the building. --jjron (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per jjron. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I love the composition, but per jjron, distracting lighting. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my reasoning above (as no explanation has been forthcoming). White buildings come up better with good lighting and blue skies. --jjron (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per jjron; colours look a little dull. Nikthestoned 16:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 21:57:17 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent EV, very well known and recognizable picture, high resolution/quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Attack on Pearl Harbor, Pacific War, Equipment losses in World War II, Infamy Speech, USS Arizona Memorial.

FP category for this image

History/World War II

Creator

U.S. Navy

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Really good photo relevant to WWII. --Katarighe (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support relevant to several articles, has historic value. Pine^talk 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Why didn't we feature this years ago? Clegs (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there were two attempts to feature Arizona media before this one. I originally nominated this in 2005, but the image at the time was judged to be too small for FP status, and thus it failed. An unrelated attempt to feature a similar image was made by Durova's in 2008, but in that case the image failed to gain consensus. Just thought you all would like to know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:USSArizona PearlHarbor 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2011 at 13:59:48 (UTC)

Reason

Featured pictures & Quality picture

Articles in which this image appears

Grape

FP category for this image

Fruity

Creator

eflon

• Support as nominator --PERSIA ♠ 13:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original, Weak Support Edit 1. The original's colour balance seems way off. I've uploaded an edit that seems more natural. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to support the Edit 1, but there is a strange line in the upper right corner. O.J. (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original, Weak Support Edit 1 -- As said above, there is a strange line in the upper right corner of Edit 1's image...Take care of that and I will fully Support. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 if that line gets removed. upstateNYer 04:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Not sure why the line appeared as it wasn't in the version on my PC. Something happened during the upload I guess. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, weak oppose edit - I'm not seeing the EV here (I prefer this and that, for example...) and I don't especially like the composition - it seems a bit needlessly arty and the grapes don't draw my attention in the thumbnail. Nikthestoned 14:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support edit Miles ahead of the two images linked by Nik. Beautiful image, and strong EV. (Of course pending removal of line in top right). Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Request? Take a look to the exif data. The camera, a "canon eos 40D" have a resolution of 3.888 x 2.592 px and the image: 4.378 × 2.484 px. The DOF can't be also at f/2 and 50mm so large. The DOF calculator say me max. 0.7cm, we see here 3-6cm! Why it is so? Is it a stitching, a focus stack? The info isn't available. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, something strange with the exif data as Canon 40Ds do not have this resolution. But the DOF width depends on distance to the object (which we can't know from the exif data), so I'm not sure that we can be sure that it is wrong too. Using a DOF calculator, at a distance of 2 metres, the DOF would be 12cm. At a distance of 1 metre, it would be 3cm. I'm guessing that there is a distance to subject of between 1-2 metres so I don't see any problem. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The info from the exif data: a 50mm lens. Take a shot from a similar object with a 50mm lens and you see then the distance can be only about ~50cm = DOF 0,7cm. Either the exif info is a totaly fake (why anyway?) or ???. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we judge the image on it's own merits (or lack thereof) rather than a dodgy exif? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Edit 2 You are right. Now I uploaded my version without the false EXIF datas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• now for me oppose for both. We needn't fakes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both Per above. JFitch (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit. I don't think the Exif data is that much of an issue. There are numerous FPs without any Exif information. How can we be sure about them? As for the photo itself, it does show grapes in a natural environment and the quality and composition are sufficient. O.J. (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel that it should be cropped a bit from the right side --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 17:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While I'm not wild on Fir's pictures, we do already have a FP of a bunch of grapes growing. While this is a nice picture, I'm not blown away by the EV. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this really the case? I count 5 support + nominator support and 4 oppose. O.J. (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Consensus is not in the image's favor. ("Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support") Makeemlighter (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2011 at 23:22:56 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality, high resolution, image of a technically challenging subject central to modern life.

Articles in which this image appears

Integrated circuit

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Richard Wheeler Zephyris

• Support as nominator --- Zephyris _Talk 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurry when viewed full size. Try to get a clearer image. Pine^talk 04:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Underexposed and poor image sharpness. Much better is possible with the right equipment (eg a canon MP-E lens) JJ Harrison (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per two above. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 09:41:43 (UTC)

Reason

high quality,featured picture on Wikimedia Commons, Turkish and Vietnamese language Wikipedias

Articles in which this image appears

Charlie Chaplin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose dont really see an EV in this one Hariya1234 (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean to say that a photograph of a young Chaplin is not of high value to the encyclopedia (and the article in particular)? NauticaShades 21:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Definitely has EV, but the quality of the original image is awful at full size. Clegs (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per quality. JFitch (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not being a regular at FPC, I have no idea how significant a factor this is, but the caption is almost impossible to understand. Oh, and "Sir" is never abbreviated to "Sr."...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 23:58:03 (UTC)

Reason

Its unusual to find a gif this big in an article, but despite the size of the gif it does do a good job of illustrating the attack against Germany's dams carried out on 16–17 May 1943 by Royal Air Force No. 617 Squadron using a specially developed "bouncing bomb" invented and developed by Barnes Wallis. The Möhne and Edersee Dams were breached, causing catastrophic flooding of the Ruhr valley and of villages in the Eder valley, while the Sorpe dam sustained only minor damage.

Articles in which this image appears

Operation Chastise

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II

Creator

Commons User:Anynobody

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I like the EV with this, maybe if the animation could be a little smoother and the barrels a little more visible Hariya1234 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. First of all, I love the idea of this, as it is a needed illustration. But how it's done just seems excessive:
  • What we don't need: Stars in the sky. The ghost image of the plane as it flies by. Explosions and flak. Gun fire. Detailed dam explosions.
  • What we may not need: Are those gun placements actually real, or just there for show? Unless they were placed there based on actual weapon placement, they shouldn't be there.
  • What we do need: A smoother animation. And a shorter one - a good third of the time is just the plane approaching doing nothing.
  • What I would like to see - The plane come in for a few frames (no more than 10% of the total) to show it and the spotlights, drop the bomb which smoothly hops (Not talking 60 fps here but motion instead of one frame per second would be nice), then falls to the bottom and explodes. We don't need the AA fire, we don't really need the dam breaking, as the main purpose of this is to show what was so fancy about them dropping the bomb. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Actually this animation illustrates the article much better. O.J. (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does, though that one is not featured quality either. It'd be nice to get a single featured animation out of all of this. (Also, to clarify or reword an above comment: I don't expect the torpedo nets to be historically accurate, as we're mainly demonstrating the mechanism by which the bomb hit the dam. However, since the gun emplacements seemed purely extraneous to the subject, that's why I only wanted them there if they were historically accurate. Otherwise they're just graphical fluff, which isn't necessary.) --Golbez (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, its not exactly the world's greatest animation; its choppy, and the bomb's trajectory is a little funny in the illustration. That said, you never know until you try, right, so that's why its here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2011 at 20:05:43 (UTC)

Reason

High-res, quality image offering the scale and beauty of this major attraction and piece of history.

Articles in which this image appears

Antalya Province, Temple of Apollo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Saffron Blaze

• Support as nominator --Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose because the base of the building seems to continue beyond the left side of the image. I'd like to see the full base. Pine^talk 21:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is nothing there but one pillar base as shown in this [[2]]. The shadows are from objects such as large bolders outside the site area. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like this one better. Tomer T (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's mine too. The photographer in me likes it but the encyclopedian in me thinks it is a bit contrived as it took considerable post processing to get that result. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice image. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I had been considering nominating your sunrise version, but this one is sharper and the person gives it scale, which I actually found helpful. I've viewed other images of this site to convince myself that there really isn't much more of relevance outside the frame here. (By the way, if the sunrise image required a lot of post-processing, it would be helpful to say on the image page what modifications were made, with the retouch template on Commons: {{Retouched picture}}). Julia\^talk 18:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2011 at 03:22:16 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, a good picture of a fairly difficult picture to take. Already featured at Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Giraffe, Etosha National Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Biopics

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The colours appear to be pretty dull and the angle-of-the-shot could be a whole lot better; from a glance at the thumbnail I didn't immediately know what the image was depicting... I'm sure it is indeed a very tricky shot but still feel it should be better than this... Nikthestoned 16:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Above. Poor image. JFitch (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose per NicktheStoned. Clegs (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 23:15:18 (UTC)

Reason

A really engaging photo. High quality and high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Sveti Stefan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

-donald-

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful image. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In terms of composition and EV, I think I prefer the lead image in the article. The height gives a better view of the place and its context. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too shadowy, and per Milburn, the article's lead image is indeed better composed and more informative. FWIW, it's also only been in the article for a day or so, not the rule-of-thumb one week, but let's not split hairs. (Having said which, if it had been in the article longer, perhaps someone would already have fixed the caption so that it doesn't call the place "Stevi Stefen"). --jjron (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice subject but as a photo, it doesn't stand out sufficiently for me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 23:33:03 (UTC)

Reason

I believe that this image meets the featured picture criteria and should be listed as such because this image depicts the strongest Atlantic hurricane in recorded history impacting the Yucatan, which it did before making landfall in the U.S. state of Florida as a Category 3 hurricane, the most recent storm to do so.

Articles in which this image appears

Hurricane Wilma

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

Good kitty

• Support as nominator --– TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too many bands on east, eye is too far southwest (though "the hurricane can not help it :P") HurricaneFan25 — 00:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The resolution is incredible! Good EV Dusty777 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 17:38:42 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Veliko Tarnovo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

MrPanyGoff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image-- Someone35  18:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Crisp, clean and illustrative. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice but rather arbitrarily cut off. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I find it a bit soft at 100%, but seems to capture the look of the neighbourhood pretty well. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Captures the nature of the neighborhood pretty well, sky is pretty clean, and it's nice to have a decent Bulgarian FP now that this has been delisted. Daniel Case (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful composition --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not quite sharp, only about 1/3 of the picture actually shows the town, arbitrarily cut off on left and ride ends. All together makes it feel just a little snap-shot-ish. Clegs (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it very much. Could've had a little less sky imo. But colors are very nice. I think it is illustrative. --Paolo Costa 18:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Clegs. There's nothing particularly bad about it, but conversely I see nothing to really recommend it as an FP; as Clegs says, it has a snapshotty feel. (While obviously not FP standard, this other shot from the article for example gives me a far better feel for the place.) --jjron (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't see where it is "arbitrarily cut off". The picture has a nice feel to it, it has EV, its a good picture. Dusty777 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, perhaps all those buildings arbitrarily cut asunder on both sides of the image would be the place to start looking? --jjron (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't close it because I'm the nominator, but to my understanding, it should be promoted, isn't it? Tomer T (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Veliko Tarnovo - Varosha quarter.jpg --JJ Harrison (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:14:15 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality, the branches etc behind are quite typical of habitat. It is delivering food to a nest deep in a bush in my garden. I used a hide to take this photo. Thornbills are easy to spot, but often difficult to photograph since they often dart from branch to branch, and enjoy dense foliage.

Articles in which this image appears

Brown Thornbill

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice presentation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Somewhat iffy on the foot being out of focus, but not enough to bring me down to a weak support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 15:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Always nice to see fauna in the act of hunting/foraging, adds another dimension. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful image --Cj.samson (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perfect, meets the 8 criteria. TehGrauniad (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Acanthiza pusilla - Austin's Ferry.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unanimous Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:18:43 (UTC)

Reason

Easily the best available image, terrestrial or at sea, of this species, famous for having the longest wingspan of any living bird.

Articles in which this image appears

Wandering Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 16:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- Would have higher EV if he had his wings open. As usual, great technical quality... Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- It's a nice image, but since you mention that it is famous for having the longest wingspan for any living bird, an image showing its wings open probably would get my full support. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sort of image lets someone identify the bird on the water or on land not flying. I think there is ultimately room for both eventually. Field guides have both. I've only got a few shots of the rump in the air, which doesn't show much from an identification point of view, though it is a cool angle in the sense that you can see how aerodynamic they are. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support works OK for identifying the bird. Pine^talk 05:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Technically solid image, good (but not amazing) EV per above. Spencer^T♦C 16:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diomedea_exulans_-_SE_Tasmania.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:24:36 (UTC)

Reason

Despite being in the same genus as the Australian Golden Whistler and having a somewhat similar call, the behaviour of this species is quite different. The Olive Whistler seems to prefer thick vegetation and often feeds near the ground. The Golden Whistler seems to prefer feeding higher up in dryer Eucalypt forests. I think this image captures the usual habitat quite nicely.

Articles in which this image appears

Olive Whistler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets all the criteria. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Somewhat narrow DOF, but otherwise excellent. --jjron (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- I have to agree about the DOF; the tail and feet are blurry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 08:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice! O.J. (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pachycephala olivacea - Melaleuca.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 22:11:58 (UTC)

Reason

Very high EV, good scan

Articles in which this image appears

Assumption of the Virgin (Botticini), Francesco Botticini, Christian angelic hierarchy, Matteo Palmieri

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Francesco Botticini

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- For a 2.28 by 3.77 metres (7.5 by 12.4 ft) painting, this is fairly low resolution. Sharp, yes, but... Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I get the impression that this is cut off in some way, but can't seem to spot a reproduction that is any less so. Any comment or link to a version which shows the edges? JJ Harrison (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 23:08:53 (UTC)

Reason

A photo of Southampton container docks showing them lit up for 24 hour operation. Since there are no ships in port (not that common) you can clearly see the full extent of the cranes and other dockside equipment. It also shows the entire dock in a single image. Decent size, decent clarity. It hasn't been in the article for a week but it replaced one of my own images.

Articles in which this image appears

Port of Southampton

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Geni

• Support as nominator --©Geni 23:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Overly dark; a day time shot would have been even better. Admittedly rare, but not exactly FP quality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've got a daytime photo File:Southampton container port daylight.JPG but I find it rather boring.©Geni 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Kinda like the lights and stuff. Pictures at night are always pretty cool, I don't see where it has much encyclopedic value though. Dusty777 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support My opinion is a mixture of the above – It is a really nice photo, but a daytime shot may fit this scene better. Additionally, it doesn't have much Encyclopedia value, per Dusty777. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Don't really see the value of an empty dock, particularly when it's difficult to see much detail at night. Composition isn't really outstanding either, there's a lot of empty space at the top and bottom of the frame and it would probably benefit from a more panoramic aspect ratio. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hardly see how this meets any of the criteria. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 11:57:41 (UTC)

Reason

It's a nice image of this Tasmanian Endemic. FWIW it has already been featured on commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Green Rosella

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The image is not currently used in the linked article. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced with this edit to "maintain balance". Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn Forgot about that. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2011 at 19:32:33 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj.samson (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV, res, wonderful colors and composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Harishchandragad

Creator

Cj.samson

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- is that the fort itself? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so from this being the lead image of the article, this should be the subject of the article. The article says "hill fort" and links to "Forts in India". Is this hill itself the one used as a fort, or...? This has to do with EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• -/ ? Still confuzzled. This picture is not of the hill fort itself, but is the lead article? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support -- Okay, now I get what CJ was saying... I think something showing fortifications would have higher EV, so I still have reservations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My weak support is good for the ALT too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• info -it's a prominent projection of Harishchandra gad,which juts out towards the southeast .This is not a fort. --Cj.samson (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the Harishchandra gad is a hill fort, since it’s strategically located and it’s the mightiest of hill forts. --Cj.samson (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes this is part of the hill fort, the hill consists of caves, peaks, temples, cliff (Konkan kada cliff) and this pinnacle is the projection of Harishchandra gad, since its strategically located , this was used to safeguard surrounding regions and there is no fort structure here to describe it as a hill fort, at the backdrop one can see the complete view of Malshej-Naneghat range. This is an important mainstay for many an empire, from the sixth century to the Marathas. --Cj.samson (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per 'Reason' mentioned by Muhammad --Cj.samson (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Glorious image. Lots of detail. JBarta (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentAny chance of a version without quite so much sharpening and perhaps a tilt fix? JJ Harrison (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. At 100% resolution, it is oversharpened. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit. Better at 100% now that sharpening is reduced. Seems to still have quite a lot of noise for ISO 400 though, both luminous and chroma. I find that processing RAW images through Lightroom / Adobe Camera RAW does a good job of eliminating chroma noise, and whatever luminous noise is left over can be eliminated by programs such as Noise Ninja or Neat Image. Photoshop itself isn't bad for noise reduction (especially if you are selective, applying a stronger filter on the sky than the landscape detail) either, but there are better plug ins available. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit JJ Harrison (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Can someone explain why this particular projection is more notable than all the rest in the area? I'm having a hard time seeing the EV, and the composition looks a bit snapshot-ish. Clegs (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both. Not seeing the EV, as it's not actually showing the fort, just some mountains near the fort. Clegs (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This projection is part of the Hill fort which juts out and it stands facing the plains (Konkan), The geographical character and rough terrain dominated by these hill ranges prevented any real subjugation by alien powers. As I mentioned earlier it’s strategically located and it’s the mightiest of hill forts, and the composition clearly depicts the terrain - the precipitous pinnacle and the vast plains. --Cj.samson (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nice view, but noisy, with unimpressive composition. Neither the image description page or the article ascribes any particular significance to this projection, so EV isn't clear. --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice view but too noisy. This same shot with a better camera might work for FP. Pine^talk 10:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early supporters: are you okay with the edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I Dont mind the edit. FWIW, the noise is negligible at lower res at which most images are judged. If noise is what this nomination hangs on, I can upload a denoised version --Muhammad(talk) 15:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, with the edit --Cj.samson (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Truth be told, I didn't realize the original had so much noise. I should have looked at it closer. While the edit reduces the noise, it now looks a little washed out, fuzzy and less vibrant. On second look, if it's allowed, I'd prefer to change my vote on both versions to Oppose. JBarta (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. EV (no fort).TCO (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• With JBarta's vote change, this entire nom should fail. Unless someone has an objection to JBarta's vote change, I will invoke IAR and mark this "Not Promoted." Pine^talk 08:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes" is not ambiguous. We specifically changed to a fix period a year or two ago to avoid problems where the timing of a close might impact on the success of a nomination in either direction. Anyway, the solution is easy - Muhammad can upload a denoised version. JBarta should look at the image full size in the first place. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, since you (Pine) have voted, you can't close this nomination. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • JJ Harrison: OK regarding your proposed solution. Regarding who can close, I asked an experienced closer about that and he said there is no rule against a voter closing a nom. If there is a rule that says otherwise, please point me to it. Pine^talk 09:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be unethical for a voter to close the nom. I will upload a denoised version of the original hopefully by tomorrow. Again I'd like to stress that judging an image at its max resolution and finding faults will only lead to people uploading downsampled images. --Muhammad(talk) 19:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is a consensus to implement such a rule and it doesn't currently exist, that discussion belongs on the FP talk page. I am not opposed to implementing it, but as far as I can tell no such rule currently exists. I'll start the discussion on the talk page. Pine^talk 20:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending upload of denoised version. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Update My laptop has got a broken screen, sorry but an edit from me will take a week. --Muhammad(talk) 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What's happening here? Almost 3 weeks already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Muhammad has been busy I guess, I've gone ahead and applied the noise reduction myself. As it's a fairly simple uncontroversial change, I went ahead and uploaded over the top of the existing edit. If people are unhappy with that, it can be reverted and uploaded as a separate edit. But given how late in the process this nom already is, I thought it might be simpler this way. FWIW, with 5.5 supports and 3 opposes, I don't think this is a pass anyhow, and it's well beyond the nomination period now. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... I'll have to have a look when my connection is in good enough shape to look at the full size. I think Jbarta said he would support a high quality picture. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Too stale by now. Possibly worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 06:57:54 (UTC)

Reason

High technical quality and EV. Previous nomination was derailed when several editors said that it was an overrepresented subject, with one saying the subject wasn't notable. As it is a picture of a person with an article, I respectfully disagree.

Articles in which this image appears

Lysander Cutler, List of American Civil War Generals (Union)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Unknown, from LOC catalogue

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - appears to be slightly out of focus - his left ear and surrounding hair appears to be the only part that *is*... Nikthestoned 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 07:07:59 (UTC)

Reason

High technical resolution, undeniably PD, great colour and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

United States Capitol (lead image) + 17 more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Architect of the Capitol

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My support goes for everything. ALT3 is especially nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - appears to be leaning slightly to the right (as in, the left-hand-side is higher) which I find mighty distracting. Will support with this resolved, however. Nikthestoned 12:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1 added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

0.4 degrees... Heh, would have thought it was more! Support. Nikthestoned 15:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt-1 Great picture! Dusty777 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: is it just my monitor, or does alt1 look a little more washed out than the original? Clegs (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They look the same to me. Try opening the images in separate tabs and flipping back and forth. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be quite honest I don't see a difference in colour between the original, ALT1, and ALT2. I didn't touch the colours when fixing the tilt, just your basic rotate then crop. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scratch that, I see the difference between ALTs 1 and 2, but not ALT1 and the original. To sum up the differences between ALTs 1 and 2, ALT2 is slightly darker and has a (slightly) tighter crop. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• ALT2 added. In addition to the tilt, color balance and highlights have been adjusted. Original uncropped file was used for editing. O.J. (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment File:Capitol Building Full View.jpg is far superior (as is the night shot File:US Capitol Building at night Jan 2006.jpg). Both are current FPs, but the first one is, surprisingly, not used in the Capitol article. No need for another FP here; just put the current one back in the lede. (FWIW, it was removed here.) Makeemlighter (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I'd rather have the grounds as well. The "full" picture is extremely close-up on the building but doesn't give us much understanding of the area. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt-2 Superior to the others offered including linked images. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Alt-2 Better then Alt-1 as far as the color-correction goes, but the tilt is not fully corrected (Open alt-1 and alt-2 in different tabs, then flip back and forth, you should see what i mean). Once that's fixed, i will give full support. Dusty777 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the tilt is fully corrected in Alt-2. Alt-1 on the other hand seems to be slightly "over-corrected". O.J. (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all Current FPs are larger and have much more detail on the subject. This one is fairly noisy too. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt-3 added. OK, here's my last attempt. Levels and highlight correction about the same as in Alt-2. I did correct the tilt by a further 0.5 degrees and applied some very conservative noise reduction. O.J. (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 23:54:22 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, beautifully posed, PD, and a notable object... brings me back to my youth.

Articles in which this image appears

NES Zapper, Nintendo Entertainment System

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well executed studio photo in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great for a catalogue but rather bland to be calling it a FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This goes for the "opposes" on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Camera nominations as well: In an encyclopedic article on a product, the most encyclopedic possible picture is one with nothing distracting in the background. As such, we have featured pictures of nailclippers and sandals; not all topics can be stuck in the mud and still be FP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your point makes a great case for these to be promoted as Valued Images on Commons but I still think FP on Wikipedia should be something more than that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that; although I'm pretty sure that pictures of how these things usually ended up (chipped plastic, tangled and frayed cords) would definitely not qualify for FP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you can take comfort in the fact my opinion of what should be FP appears to be in minority :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are some technical flaws. The shadow below the gun barrel and above the plug is erased and there a smudge over to the left. It is a rather impotent shot, for a weapon -- on its side and unplugged. A more dynamic angle or being hand-held might improve it. Colin°^Talk 22:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding being hand-held: I think that would destroy some of the EV, as we would not be able to see the grip. As this is not an actual weapon but a video game accessory, I don't think having it aimed at Duck Hunt while the player scowls at the dog would be necessary (although admittedly a hit on YouTube). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the technical issues are resolved, you can change my oppose to neutral (should I forget or not manage to return here during the hols). It is very well taken but looks a bit too much like an ebay auction photo -- but I wouldn't oppose over that. Colin°^Talk 08:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose It's a tough subject in that sense, but I do think it would benefit from the top/barrel being sufficiently visible to document the absence/presence of aiming aids, and remote control or decorative elements. Seems to be something going on. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Some of the shadows seem to be missing which confuses the perspective. I think having it on a totally white background is fine, but it should still have all the natural shadows. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 00:05:45 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful with high resolution, good EV, and a very important product.

Articles in which this image appears

Super Nintendo Entertainment System + 6

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Replaced abbrev SNES with "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" in caption. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Sorry, force of habit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, there is an equally high quality image of the Super Famicom by the same editor. They could become a set. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I did get your email by the way, and will respond in the next few days. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Well executed but not compelling. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is an excellent picture, the clarity and resolution are great! But there is just one problem I can't get past:

Is the encyclopedic value good enough? Sure the SNES was the best selling console of its generation, but that goes for any console at any time. What I am saying is, if that is the main value to Wikipedia (that it was the best selling console of its generation), shouldn't pictures of the NES (Best selling of the 3rd generation), Playstation 1 (Best selling of the 5th generation), Playstation 2 (Best selling of the 6th generation), Wii (Best selling of the 7th generation), and the Nintendo DS (Best selling handheld console) also be featured for that same reason? It would not seem fair to not feature those consoles also, as they have the same EV. Dusty777 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following this reasoning. A featured picture of a bird has not stopped us from promoting a featured picture of another bird species (or even sometimes a substantially different view of the same species.) Rmhermen (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I also fail to see how you consider the EV not high enough. The simple fact that a console has its own article is enough EV for a picture of said console. That being said, even at Commons with Valued Image (which only allows one image in each scope) these consoles could be nominated separately. The only reason I didn't nominate all of them at once is to avoid swamping the FPC page with Evan-Amos' work. If these three (this one, the camera, and the NES Gun) are well received, I'm sure myself or another editor will start picking through the other pictures contributed by Evan-Amos. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I also fail to understand this argument. Let's consider this subject/article/image EV value on its own -- the other games consoles don't affect this image.

• weak oppose I personally don't like the image with no shadows at all. File:SNES-Model-2-Set.jpg is better for having retained some shadow (thought the shadow of the cable has still been removed). However, the use of an eraser round the wire hasn't been carefully done and the wire appears to change thickness along its length. Has the perspective been adjusted -- just looks a wee bit odd? Otherwise it is a good picture, sharp from front to back. Colin°^Talk 12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The white background is fine, but the "punch-out" look is weird, IMO. It would look better with some natural shadows. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I really like this photographer's work, so I say well done to Evan Amos. The lack of shadow is not an issue to me, nor is the "compelling" issue. It's as encyclopedic as it can get (compare to many of our photos of fruit; nothing special, they just represent the subjects well). That said, I think the comment above made about the thickness of the wires could be an issue (see Fig 2). If it's not an optical illusion, it looks like the wire was erased a bit when it shouldn't have been. Same goes with the edge of the wire in the upper-left quadrant. No offense meant to the photographer. For all I know he may not be intending for his images to be nominated here, so the work he does produce is way more than 'good enough' for their humble use in the encyclopedia. If those issues can either be explained or fixed, I'd be happy to support. upstateNYer 18:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm thinking it may be shadows, but I'll ask him. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He says he thinks it was shadows; he has taken another picture, which may as well be nominated separately later. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 00:21:11 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good EV, PD, attractive colouring

Articles in which this image appears

Sony Alpha 700

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nicely executed image, and perhaps valuable, but not FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to say why? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even as a photographer I find nothing compelling in a simple picture of a camera. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But put it this way: If you were tasked with providing a photo of the camera for FPC, what would you do differently/better? You might not find it personally compelling, but could you make it more compelling? If so, how? Some subjects are inherently more difficult to make compelling, but for those subjects, we should try to make allowances. All subjects are (in theory) equally important. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not all subjects are equally important. If they were we would't be deleting reams of content every day for not being notable. That's not my point though. I have stated quite clearly this is a valuable image. I just don't think because something is valuable it should be featured. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • How can this be both a valuable image and an unimportant subject? Although we delete articles for having non-notable subjects, the threshold is pretty low and provided there are enough sources, one can take any subject to Featured Article. We don't allow people to oppose FAs because they aren't interested in a subject, or because they think the subject is unimportant. Perhaps we need to reconsider the "compelling" criterion because it may conflict with "encyclopaedic". We can't just feature beautiful valleys or exotic animals. There's little difference between this and the many featured fruit-on-white-background images we have. As a product shot goes, this is hard to beat. It would be a poor subject if the camera wasn't in mint condition and completely clean. I think Sony would be happy with it on their website or in an advert in a glossy magazine -- though the advert would probably have a lens. If product shots of man-made objects should be featurable, the we should judge them against the best commercial equivalent shots rather than whether we find that product interesting as a subject. Colin°^Talk 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Commons has projects that denote "Quality Images" for technical excellence; "Valued Images" because they capture something important/useful; and "Featured Images" that are primarly a combination of the first two and must have a “wow factor”. I think this is a more coherent approach to image classification. This images fails the last test. Please spare me the obvious fact that this is not the Commons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why should we spare you "the obvious fact that this is not the Commons". That's the key point that IMO you are missing. FP on WP are article-based. They "are images that add significantly to articles" and "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer" (my italics). Whereas, on Commons, the FPs are "some of the finest on Commons" -- no subject or article requirement. The driving force behind FP on WP should be illustrating our articles with fine pictures, not just providing an educational stock image bank. It is hard to see how our Sony Alpha 700 article could be better illustrated by a single picture than this one. I would be very disappointed if there were articles on WP that couldn't possibly be illustrated by a featured pic, because some folk didn't find the subject compelling. Colin°^Talk 10:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not to be overly cynical, but the subject matter has held back FP nominations before. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The issues there were quite different: how to judge artwork, especially original artwork done for WP. Colin°^Talk 12:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I disagree, the image does not contribute significantly to the article. It just shows what any reader would have imagined anyway. Certainly the text of the article in no way references the image in a meaningful way. Sure it is representative but so would a picture of a table fork in an article on forks. Should this be featured? Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wow I don't know how to respond to such a misunderstanding of what an illustration is for. How could someone possibly imagine what that camera looks like without an image? What has the text of the article got to do with it? I mean, why would anyone bother to take pictures of everyday items if the response was "why did you take this -- I already know or can imagine what one of them looks like". That fork picture is stupid and I've removed it from the article. Yes, I think it should be possible to take a featured picture of a fork. We've already got File:Nail-clippers-variety.jpg. Look on a stock photo site. You'll see some careful pictures of forks that people will pay money for. This is a valid subject for high-quality professional photography and should be featurable. Colin°^Talk 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • By deleting that image you just made my point for me. Moreover, I am not misunderstanding what an illustration is... both the fork and the camera are simple illustrations of their subject matter. Neither should be FP because they are boring. Here is a fork picture that is not boring and does a much better job of illustrating what a fork is used for and how it is used. Fork me! Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, no, I don't see how deleting a lame 2-colour silhouette of a fork is relevant to a FP discussion. Although the picture you chose illustrates the use of a fork in action, which is I agree valuable and more interesting idea than a static image, no picture editor would choose it to illustrate an article on forks. The primary subject of the image is the girl. The secondary subject of the image is eating. To be an FP of a fork, the fork needs to remain the subject. Look at all the bird pictures we have. Very few are interesting pictures in an artistic sense. We feature them largely for their technical and encyclopaedic merit. Just because you find camera equipment boring. If we took that attitude, we've have folk opposing bird photos with "yawn. we have enough birds already. I know what a bird is." Coming back to the camera. How would one make a camera interesting? Perhaps advertisers know? Well they just use pictures like this. Go to Canon or Nikon's home pages. You'll see the same picture as this, just with a different badge. Nikon have theirs tumbling about. That's about as unboring as you can get and keep the camera as the subject. Colin°^Talk 17:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, of course you don't see my point. I think that was clear from the start. Nevertheless, you deleted a boring static image of a fork and I showed you one that was much more compelling. I wasn't arguing for it to be FP, but it was closer to being FP than any static image of a plain fork on a white background. That is the case with this camera. It is not my job to show you an image of a camera that is FP. Even if it was and I couldn't make it unboring I would not expect it to be FP just because it was well executed. I'll go back to finding some pretty scenes to snap now. Cheers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either I like orange and black color duo. There are already two featured images of cameras and this could be an equally decent addition. Brandmeister t 21:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perfect example. JFitch (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This kind of photograph is not easy. Certainly harder than finding some pretty scenery and pressing the button. Just making sure the item is clean and free of dust and fluff is a significant hassle, never mind lighting and backgrounds. Very good. Colin°^Talk 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Colin --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 07:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well executed. Not sure about which way to go on the whitespace though.©Geni 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Colin's reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sony-Alpha-A700-Front.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 05:44:08 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, PD, and an underrepresented subject (Indonesian people)

Articles in which this image appears

Sri Mulyani Indrawati; Second United Indonesia Cabinet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

International Monetary Fund

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good portrait of a notable person. Pine^talk 12:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose good facial expression and colour scheme, but low limited EV as is still a simple official passport-photo style image not revealing anything about the subject's occupation (notability), character or any particular historical event. --Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of our FPs don't show the subject in a work environment. Some are promotional shots, some are posed and shot by Wikipedians, some are from Flickr and have a random tree as a background, and some are official portraits from the IMF. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that is the status quo, but my position has been consistent on this over the years, and I acknowledge that is a minority opinion. I find images which show more than just passive physical appearance, have more EV, like this or this or this. Maybe was harsh to say "low EV" so reworded that. --Elekhh (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I'd kill maim beg give away free chocolate sundaes to get a good picture of Garin Nugroho, Nia Di Nata, or Ucu Agustin] on set but... meh, not likely. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Boring but undoubted EV --Muhammad(talk) 03:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nicely done - per nom. Royalbroil 03:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Elekhh Featured should be more than just good enough. Featured should never be boring. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Indrawati, Sri Mulyani (IMF).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 21:40:28 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good EV, good view of multiple features of the dam, good resolution, informative caption.

Articles in which this image appears

Hoover Dam

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Kuczora

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as is A restitch might fix it. There are dust spots in the air, and the verticals are not vertical. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out to me where the verticals are not vertical? It'll give me a better idea of what your looking at. Dusty777 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The water intake tower things are one such example. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• now Support. Dust spots removed + small vertical correction on the left. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I removed some more dust-spots from Alchemists version, then re-uploaded as Alt-1. Dusty777 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Original, Oppose Alt-1. Alternative suffers from too high compression. O.J. (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, there are no serious problems with the original. O.J. (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original JJ Harrison (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Does that mean the original oppose can be stricken? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]