Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2010

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

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

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

Reason

High quality and natural portrait of one of the world's top cyclists ready to do what he does, at the start of the 2010 Jayco Bay Cycling Classic in Geelong, Victoria. Also shows excellent detail for the team riding kit.

Articles in which this image appears

Robbie McEwen, Team Katusha

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, great quality. You got a new camera? --Muhammad(talk) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. This was it's first outing. :-) --jjron (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh... lucky you. When do we see some videos? --Muhammad(talk) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not for a long, long time is my guess :-). The video looks nice, but mainly bought it for the stills capability, so that's priority one. --jjron (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment generally nice image, but could you make the complex background blurred? A lot of things going on in the main subject himself. The skin tone looks little dark, so a bit of adjusting the level would be nicer.--Caspian blue 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the nature of a sportsperson at an event is there will often be a busy background, as we saw in many of the batch of recently promoted baseball images, which I'd tend to prefer rather than artificially blurring it all out (they're quite naturally fairly blurred at full size). Re skin tones, I think this is pretty accurate (could have been some cloud cover, it was coming and going), but he is quite tanned; however will see what others think. --jjron (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice portrait, and the quality is great too. Resolution is a little disappointing though, and I think you got the date wrong in the image info (says 2009). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, copy paste error. Now fixed. --jjron (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good portrait and perfect setting. Maedin\^talk 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is a very good portrait and very eye catching. It looks like one of the best cycling pictures I have seen. --Guerillero (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A great candid image of a Pro-Tour rider. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Solid portrait of him in the kind of environment he should be in. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Wouldn't have minded seeing more of the bike, but not a reason to oppose. The background is ok; it's not as though it's a formal portrait where that kind of thing would be controlled. Fletcher (talk)

Promoted File:Robbie McEwen, Cyclist, jjron, 2.01.10.jpg --Elekhh (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very nice composition, showing the bridge in the landscape. While it has a strong perspective distortion, it has the advantage that it fits in a standard landscape format, and thus it is used in multiple articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Golden Gate Bridge, List of landmarks, Transport

Creator

Chmehl

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gorgeous location, well photographed. Durova⁴⁰³ 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful photo, used well in the articles. Jujutacular ^T · C 11:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great photo with high encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – well done. Aitias (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Told you this was FP-worthy. upstateNYer 06:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment what is so special about this picture of a well known bridge ? what is its encyclopaedic value and what makes you think it is FP worthy ? GerardM (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support & Comment - Well, it´s FP worthy because:
      1. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way
      2. It has no compression artifacts
      3. It has a very good resolution and clarity
      4. It has a good quality (good use of lighting, interesting angle), etc... - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gerard, I'll answer your questions in the order you present them:
      • Why this image is special: Its smallest dimension is twice the size required by FPC, therefore its resolution is high. The composition is exceptional, in that it shows the bridge but also gives a great idea of the length of the span, especially due to the difference in size between the closest and further tower. The lighting is beautiful because of the timing of the photograph: it offers a golden aura that offers that much more interest to the viewer (and ironically exemplifies the "Golden" in the title).
      • What is its encyclopedic value: Well, to begin with, the entire bridge is shown in the image, which is encyclopedic in its own right. Second, it also shows the massive arid mountains on either end, along with the rocky shores of San Francisco Bay. As a trained structural engineer, this bridge - in general - is fascinating to me, but also the fact that it uses an arched length before the suspension bridge is also a notable feature. EV is also high because this is such a well-known bridge: i.e. one would expect to see an FP of this bridge.
      • That is what makes it FP worthy. Do you think that it is not FP worthy? If so, do leave your comments; something more than "there is nothing new to it" would be appreciated since that offers no substantive opinion to the discussion. However, it seems many other users believe it is worthy of being an FP, which I think is an obvious assessment. Once again, beauty is something that is important. Not only is this image informative, it is beautiful also. The best of both worlds, of course. Is it that you believe that a well-known and oft-photographed object shouldn't be featured? Because that is the impression you are giving; as if we should never have an FP of the Golden Gate, or the White House, or the Taj Mahal, or the Vatican, etc. Do you sincerely believe that photos of well-know places shouldn't be featured? upstateNYer 07:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Splendid view and nice quality.  fetchcomms☛ 06:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not convinced why this photo of a well known, often photographed bridge should be featured .. there is nothing new to it. GerardM (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Gerard M. The encyclopedic value in illustrating either the bridge or the surrounding landscape is low/average compared to most images in the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I question the enc. this one. Low enc. in Transport, and simply represents the golden gate bridge in List of landmarks. In golden gate bridge, the camera position makes the photo loose enc...the length and size aren't shown as well as this image shows, for example. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:GoldenGateBridge BakerBeach MC.jpg —Maedin\^talk 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A Roman mosaic fragment that was rediscovered in excavations during the winter of 1998-1999 in the Turkish city Zeugma.

Articles in which this image appears

Zeugma (city), Gaziantep Museum of Archeology

Creator

Commons:User:Nevit (original photograph) File:Antep 1250575 cr.jpg. Editing by Durova and Xavexgoem.

• Support as nominator --Durova⁴⁰³ 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Photo could be better but it's a great subject. Could this be put in any other articles? Seems like it's not meeting its potential. upstateNYer 21:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough call. We don't seem to have an article for the ancient Roman city that modern Zeguma was built over, and the museum doesn't have an article (yet). Am up to my ears this week with Tropenmuseum work; also a Stateside institution donated something--it's a proof of concept situation and I want to turn that around quickly. So good ol' article writing is taking a backseat for the present. Durova⁴⁰³ 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment corrected spelling of city name in rationale and caption. We'd have a better sense of articles in which the image could go, if we had an era for the mosaic; the oldest artifacts at the site are described as "early bronze age," but I couldn't find anything on the web that said whether the mosaic is likely to be that old. Chick Bowen 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one from the same site is given a date of 2nd century A.D., which sounds about right. Too bad we don't have an article on Roman mosaic. . . Chick Bowen 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think some tilting is needed to straight the image. Brand[t] 08:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created an article for the museum. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The museum is in Gaziantep, not Zeuguma! Meowy 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Meowy 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - 's what I get for multitasking. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The photograph is unusual in that it is detailed enough and sharp enough to show all of the tesserae (unlike many of the images on the mosaic article, so maybe it should be on that article too). However, one problem with it might be the colour balance, it seems a bit greenish. Meowy 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless these issues and the possible colour cast issue are solved. Taking a look at the original, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Antep_1250575_cr.jpg, reveals flaws in the altered image: the extreme right andextreme left has been cropped, there is some blurring along the bottom edges that is not on the original and does not occur at the top edges, not all of the surrounding material has been removed. The needless cropping of the original kills it for me as a featured picture candidate. Meowy 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to correct for the perspective distortion from the photographic angle it was necessary to do a perspective crop. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original looks almost free from distortion - I'd keep that small distortion if removing it means some blurring and a loss of part of the original. Meowy 01:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wonder if white is the best background. Being lighter than the standard wiki background I find it slightly distracting, even more so viewed on a monitor. Have you tried other options, which might make the background more neutral? Elekhh (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different WMF projects have different background tones. Durova⁴⁰³ 01:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of that. I meant something neutral to the image, like a light-grey tone picked out from the mosaic, something like this, so that the random edges are not so distracting. Elekhh (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that it affects my vote, but why remove the background at all? upstateNYer 01:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Best photo of this warship IMO, awarded as "Valued Image" on Commons. This warship was used in the 2008 Russia-Georgia War.

Articles in which this image appears

Russian cruiser Moskva

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good image with high EV. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 01:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The colour in the image is noticeably cool and undersaturated. I've tried playing around with both and whilst this does improve things, the JPEG compression is clearly evident at 100%. It's certainly a valuable image to have, but since it's a ship still in service the EV doesn't make up for its technical shortcomings. bad_germ 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per bad germ --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Normal color and saturation for the subject. Durova⁴⁰³ 04:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a handsome photo of an important warship. While I'm not a technical expert, the colours look fine to me. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It has compression artifacts (when look it at full zoom they can be seen in dark areas, and other areas are blurry). Can this be fixed so I can change my vote for this great picture? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In is no artifacts in dark area IMO, rather reflections from water waves. I can quickly correct quality with reduce the size of this image, however it is bad idea IMO. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've commented on this outcome at the FPC talk page, Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Russian cruiser Moskva. Maedin\^talk 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Minimal obscuration is a selling point.

Articles in which this image appears

Eastern Grey Kangaroo

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Feet cut off, but other than that fine... Gazhiley (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The rubbish(?) in the background detracts a bit and it would be the work of a moment to remove. Benjamint 09:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mortar from an old convict building on Maria Island. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it removable though? Gazhiley (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure someone could clone it out. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Best get in touch with the Clone Army for that task... Gazhiley (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. The head actually looks slightly motion blurred to me. It's a good shot, but very reproducible and given we already have a couple of featured pictures of Kangaroos, I think the bar is necessarily high. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of fir's, for which a lot is missing. Are there others? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually thought Fir had two, but one of the ones he nominated apparently didn't pass, so I guess we have just one. It's still just not quite there for me though. You may have more opportunities to perfect the kangaroo portrait on the mainland soon. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per the relatively good composition, interesting facial expression and very poetic background, but not convinced with its educational value--Caspian blue 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Why are there vertical streaks in the background? Was it raining? --ZooFari 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it was. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose Conditional Oppose Although all oppose votes are supposed to be conditional this one is conditioned to the success of the delist nomination Sparrow (female in Australia) (and the closer can dismiss the oppose if that nomination is not successful). The reasons given there applies here too. The subject is not clearly distinguished from the background.  franklin  21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that is a valid reason to make it conditional. You should be judging this image on its own merits, not based on the success or failure of any other unrelated nomination. An exception to that rule might be a delist and replace nomination, but this is not one of those. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, it might be in my best interests to sway that nomination in my favour. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. It makes sense.  franklin  22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not sure I like the composition and the branch in the foreground is distracting to me. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good enough for me. --ZooFari 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Diliff. Very good pose, but lacking a bit of contrast. Local "heritage" in the background distracting Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to lack of contrast.-- mcshadypl ^TC 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of contrast? Do you propose the background or foreground to be brighter? --ZooFari 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Unfortunately some blurred branches obscure its feet and lower legs. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Our existing FP of the subject obscures even more of the feet, gives the impression that there is no tail, has some distracting twigs in front of the forepaws, is very dark on the left side of the head, and has less resolution than this one. If this were a delist and replace, this one would be a winner. Maedin\^talk 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quality image with a lot of color and detail.

Articles in which this image appears

Clinton Presidential Center

Creator

Archipreneur

• Support as nominator -- fetchcomms☛ 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Lovely picture but seems out of focus to me - Very low resolution as well as cannot zoom in to check in close up - even at full resolution view you cannot see much detail. Shame, as its an intruiging building and I'm now going to read the article, which is always a good thing with an FP... Gazhiley (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice subject and view of it, but poor HDR (haloes) and needs perspective correction. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Ðiliff. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- I'm not wild about the colours and lighting on this one. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's quite an attractive image, and has very good composition. It provides information about the context of the building, not only the building itself. I think it has very good EV in the article it mainly illustrates. I added it to Polshek Partnership as well. Unfortunate is technically not perfect, as per Diliff. As always, the panoramic format makes it somewhat hard to optimally fit in articles. Elekhh (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your comments, it seems rather unlikely that this will pass, but I think that I have a good idea of what work needs to be done now. As I'm not really that good with technical things in images, I'd appreciate any more comments before this is closed.  fetchcomms☛ 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main complaint is the overdone HDR. If you're going to create HDR images, you should be careful that they do not exhibit "haloing" or other obvious artifacts. In this case you can see strong haloing around the trees. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per above. But otherwise good photo. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is at least one stitching error going down the center. It's most obvious at the roof railing level. upstateNYer 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

EV

Articles this image appears in

Pinnacles National Monument

Creator

mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: good EV, good technical quality, nice composition, interesting subject. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support definitely - good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose the sky is not optimal. I don't know the place but the composition doesn't seems to be optimal either. Why to take so much of the hill on the left (applies to original and alternative 1) and not more of the pinnacles showing more of the dark volcanic rock? Maybe even a different direction or altitude can help.  franklin  02:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to the awkward composition, especially the sky along with a bit unnecessary strong contrast in level. If you adjust the level, and then manipulate to increase the upper space (the blue sky) by clone-stamping, I'm willing to change my vote.--Caspian blue 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added edit. Is it what you meant?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support edit 1 Some FPC regular said that I'm too sensitive to colors in reviewing photos, and I think I am. I think the increase of the sky makes the composition much stable, and look better. The decreasing of the level makes the scenery much natural, but the de-satuaration of the sky makes me hesitant to change my vote to full support.--Caspian blue 05:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem I saw with the sky is that there is almost no detail there. The rocks are a part of the picture that has a lot of contrast and texture, then having the sky looking flat is not nice. My feeling looking at this picture is similar to those old movies with a guy riding a horse on top of a flat background that is moving. I was trying to do a curve adjustment on the sky but it happens that both; I have not much experience at that and the detail on the sky is only given by very few narrow bands on the sky who's color is too similar to the rest to make them noticeable without without giving weird colors to the sky.  franklin  07:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose The lighting could be better - the shadows are pretty deep. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's really not that striking. Not an interesting enough subject Nelro2 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the edit, please. Which do we prefer? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Or, for that matter, the alt. Could supporters please clarify? --jjron (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• For me the alt is the best among them. Still not sure about the need of ending the picture at that point from the right. (personally I would also remove the light colored ground in the foreground)  franklin  13:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• For some reason I thought I'd voted on this, but haven't - anyway, for me compositionally the alt is the best also, so if one's to be promoted I would go with that. --jjron (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both per Franklin. -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have to agree that the shadows are too dark in this one. It's dark rock and darker shadows. The alternate has slightly better composition but it's still suffering from being too dark. Victorrocha (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose It's missing a "wow" for me, I think due to the composition and lighting. Despite the good caption, the rock outcropping just doesn't stand out to me. Fletcher (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Based on a comment below I thought I might give it a go. I think it is a female but would like a second opinion before adding that detail to the caption.

Articles in which this image appears

Koala

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lovely creature although the diagonal tree blocks parts of the animal.--Caspian blue 06:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For me the tree adds to the EV as it shows the animal in a natural setting... Gazhiley (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Existing Koala FPs , (I think only one is in the article currently, and the article itself is a bit of a gallery, too image heavy). The one below with the joey shows something different from these; what does this add, or should it be a D&R? --jjron (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen Diliff's before (which isn't in the article atm) and I didn't notice the other. D&R could be in order. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'd probably support it as a D&R if anything. But I'm not really convinced that this shows the koala in a natural setting. I've never seen them in (what appears to be) a dead tree before except in wildlife sanctuaries where they use it purely for safety above ground (and get fed leaves by the keepers). In the wild, they're pretty particular about what trees they live in/eat from AFAIK. My koala FP is admittedly not as strong as a candidate as it was when originally nominated, but it's completely wild. I was lucky enough to catch it moving from one tree to another, and so got a fairly complete view of it at eye-level. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just been through the otway national park including cape otway, and lots of waterfalls. I can't say I've seen a single koala though. I wonder if the chlamydia outbreak has had it's toll or if i was looking in the wrong places. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Check the geolocation on my Koala image - it should be pretty exact. In that exact location there were about 10-15 koalas within 50 metres (it's the Aire River camp site). I can't speak for the entire Otway NP as I walked mainly along the coast and not inland. Could have just been a particularly lucky day, or they might have been decimated. I'm not sure, it was 5 years ago now. Spose it's a bit late to go back for koala spotting though. :-) And most of them were in pretty tall trees so not great for photography. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did actually drive on that road, but ended up camping near beauchamp falls. I've since seen a few Koalas in the grampians, but not really many, and usually high up as you say. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The best place to take photos of wild koalas is Raymond Island. You are practically guaranteed to see some of them at near eye-level. --Quartl (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Support Not sure this image offers any additional improvement over the two existing FP's. Part of the animal is obstructed by the branch, and I presume it was taken in a captivity setting as opposed to being wild? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image page answers that. --jjron (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bonorong Wildlife Park isn't a very clear, since in many places a "wildlife park" isn't a "zoo" where animals are captive. Thus I asked. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is probably closer to zoo, but all of the animals there have either been rescued, injured or are the offspring of injured wild animals (excluding the Tasmanian Devil, for which a reserve, quarantined population is needed because of the facial tumour disease). At the same time it was on an actual, growing tree (note the leaves on the RHS) Noodle snacks (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changing it to support after giving it more thought. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I don't mind multiple FPs of the same subject if they are offering something different. Maedin\^talk 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Maedin. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Phascolarctos cinereus Bonorong.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historical significance and high quality image. Restored version of File:Henry Clay Senate.jpg

Articles in which this image appears

Compromise of 1850, Henry Clay, History of the United States Senate

Creator

Drawn by P. F. Rothermel, engraved by R. Whitechurch

• Support as nominator -- Jujutacular ^T · C 18:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit. The uncompressed version has been sent to Durova. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Pretty good work on the dirt and scratch removal. Hope you don't mind the liberty of an extra edit to bring detail out of the shadows. If you have a version saved in TIFF format I could redo this without loss. Durova⁴⁰³ 20:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit, per nominator. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Notable photo. Looks good. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Picture of high value and historical significance. - Darwinek (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. per fastily --NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Henry Clay Senate3.jpg —Maedin\^talk 13:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaklavansick 2.jpg

Reason

all animal shown, side on, good EV. Seeing a nom lower down for the same species reminded me of this image and made me thought it would be worth uploading.

Articles in which this image appears

Eastern Grey Kangaroo

Creator

Benjamint 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Let the battle of the roos commence. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wonder who will "roo"l the "roo"st at the end of the battle?!!......... Gazhiley (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, As near as I can tell this is a female, whilst the one below is a male. There could be room for both (though the anatomical differences are not large). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm an idiot - it says female on the nomination! Noodle snacks (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're also an idiot for missing the comedic opportunity to continue the pun! Yes, I do believe there is "roo"m for both... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Re this nom and the one below, existing Eastern Grey FP . --jjron (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Compared to the current FP, this one is much better IMO. Delist the other? --Muhammad(talk) 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Frame isn't as cluttered as the existing FP, only complaint I have is that it's head is down eating and not raised, is there more shots of this with it's head raised (asking since the photographer is also the nominator)? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. The very dark background on the top affects the visual balance. Current FP presents much better pose and composition. Elekhh (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Elekhh -- mcshadypl ^TC 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A shot with the head up may be possible, I'll give it a seperate nom if I do manage a better shot -- Benjamint 11:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This image illustrates well an Eastern Grey feeding, and appears to be a female. They look like this when they eat on my lawn! I'd suggest making this a delist and replace. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that there is a quorum - an adequate number of voters. However, there was no consensus to promote this image. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good image for the white form of this alpine plant.

Articles in which this image appears

Richea scoparia

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment size ref? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got this photo next to Barn Bluff, but the perspective could make it slightly misleading. More seriously around 5-6cm high I'd say. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like it's not saturated enough? Blacks are pretty light, maybe some levels adjustment would be in order? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, I don't have the facility to do so at the moment though. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added an alt with levels adjustment... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: (original or alt, preference for alt) See no reason to oppose. Maedin\^talk 12:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I can't see why this hasn't had more support. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 99of9 (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV. Celebrity picture, a rarity for wiki

Articles in which this image appears

George Clooney

Creator

Nicolas Genin

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the arm position is awkward, and the photo needs some image touching such as adjusting the level, and saturation not to look the actor pale.--Caspian blue 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1. The lighting is quite flat (probably strong flash?) but for an 'event' style portrait, it's fairly good and clear. His (false) teeth are quite scary though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, largely per Caspian blue -- mcshadypl ^TC 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per nom and Diliff. Flash is a bit harsh, but otherwise pretty good portrait for a notable celebrity. --jjron (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Preference to Original in terms of framing (and yes, I agree the arm is a bit awkward, but there's something about the framing of the alt that nonetheless makes me prefer the original). --jjron (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The framing of the Alt adds relevance to the face and the eyes and therefore emphasizes that he is looking (for an unknown reason) outside the frame. Maybe that's what you see.  franklin  12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt; looks good to me. Very nice shot accurately showing what he looks like, in a rather typical movie star setting. My main criticism is that he is not looking at the camera. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not looking directly at the camera is not a problem if the photo suggests what is it what he is looking at, the problem is that he is looking outside the frame and nothing is suggested that he could be looking at. That's why we feel something is missing. With more space to the left that wouldn't look odd. I have seen white backgrounds being cloned and blue clear sky in some nominations. If I (or anyone) clone this kind of background would that be considered excessive editing? In any case it looks like a complicated task, especially for me.  franklin  19:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Another thing that is not desirable is the light on the back of his head. That one is probably easier to remove as was done with the mosquito nomination.  franklin  19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think any significant cloning is particularly acceptable when it changes anything relevant to the scene, to be honest. Being selective about the framing used, or adjusting contrast, colour balance and saturation is one thing, but actually changing the reality of the scene (even if it is the background) is deliberately falsifying the reality of the scene. Think about it. Would a newspaper find it acceptable? Photographers have been fired for doctoring a photo. I don't think we should do it either. White backgrounds are slightly different, because it's self evident that the subject has been artificially isolated and we're not usually bothered by what is missing. It just wouldn't work so well with George Clooney at an event. The background is part of the scene. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm completely with Diliff here. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt upstateNYer 01:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt1: See no reason to oppose, now that the arm is cropped. Maedin\^talk 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Clooney 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) 3Alt1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Simply an epic animation and a fantastic representation of the multiple layers of complexity and chaos that make up the Mandelbrot set. The user Slaunger suggested that a scaled up version of an earlier animation, made by user Zom-B would probably be worthy of being a featured image. The full Java library (-colouring) is available here.

Articles in which this image appears

Mandelbrot set

Creator

Simpsons contributor

• Support as nominator --Simpsons contributor (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Something weird seems to happen at the end of the animation. The frame sort of jerks back and forth for a second. Any idea what's happening there? Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left that part in intentionally. That's were it starts to break down due to lack of precision (caused by the limited amount of information that can be stored using the DoubleDouble object). I can remove this part if you think it looks unsightly. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• support per nominator. Just a little criticism. It could have ended in the same image if the point were one of those where the set is zoom-self-similar but maybe I am wrong and the reason why it doesn't is that too much precision would have been required or too many images. I don't know.  franklin  20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that would have been possible, but I think that zoom is best because it follows, and leads on from, the set of featured images already on the page. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have NO idea what's going on here, so I'm not going to vote. However, I would like to say it is very pretty. :) J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Mandelbrot set article. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The image has remained in the article for almost a month. On the basis that it's a reasonable size WP:Math article, that for me constitutes a vote of support in favour of its accuracy as a representation - something I am in no position to do directly. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--Garrondo (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - oooh, trippy... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent illustration of the subject. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. per nom. Awesome image. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I only seldom voice my opinion here, but passing by by coincidence tonight and seeing again this very well made animation, which very nicely illustrates the subject, I simply had to vote. I think this animation is a powerful presentation of the beauty of mathematics. Personally I think it is a good idea to keep the end as it is showing how the numerical precision breaks down. I get nostalgic seeing this, recalling how I in a period of my life in 1990, where I was incredibly bored programmed the recursion algorithm on my HP-42S pocket calculator (only the initial picture) in B&W divided into two stacked 131x16 pixel images printed out on the HP-82240B Infrared printer. The calculation took 24 hours and consumed one set of batteries. The algorithm I used was hopeless. The one used here is much more sophisticated and optimized. ;-)--Slaunger (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent Picture Enti342 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it would be a good idea to move this to Commons such that other Wikimedia projects could use this nice animation as well. If you do, I'll nominate it at COM:FPC as well. --Slaunger (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you move it to Wikimedia Commons? --Simpsons contributor (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea as Commons is my home wiki and the place I always upload media, but surely another reviewer here provide a link to some guide? --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can re-upload this at commons with the same name and license and then put this one here up for deletion --Muhammad(talk) 11:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting a bit complicated now. I think it'll be OK if we just leave it on Wikipedia. I certainly don't want it deleted now. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Franklin.vp uploaded it to Commons, and that the en version may be speedy deleted. But don't worry!. It does not affect your nomnation (it shouldn't, at least). When the en version is delected, the commons version with the same name simply takes presedence. --Slaunger (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm becoming drowsy. Need to stay awake to watch cool... (head hits desk) Buggie111 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I also have absolutely no idea what is going on here (and reading the article didn't help at all, it just made my head hurt) but this looks excellent -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif —Maedin\^talk 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image shows the last remnant of the Laurentide ice sheet which covered much of Canada during the most recent glacial period. Some of this ice is 20,000 years old, making it the oldest ice in Canada.

Articles in which this image appears

Barnes Ice Cap, Baffin Island, Sea Ice, Laurentide ice sheet

Creator

NASA, uploaded by Originalwana (talk · contribs)

• Support as nominator --NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's no Snowy Great Britain though... Gazhiley (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. per nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Illustrative and encyclopedic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sea_Ice_off_Baffin_Island.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, and EV. A recent picture hence it shows how little ice is left. Different view from what is normally seen, I personally had never seen such a sight even with google earth.

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Kilimanjaro, List of African Ultras

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The slight haziness and bland colour can be forgiven for the rarity and EV of this picture... As far as I'm concerned anyway... Gazhiley (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose this isn't Mahammad's best image of Kilimanjaro, the other image being used in the article is technically superior, but doesn't show the loss of ice. This image has blown high lights and is a little soft. I don't see why you would use 800 ISO when shooting in daylight. --Leivick (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I was in a plane moving at over 900km/hr. I needed a fast shutter speed to avoid blur. Even with ISO-800, some pictures came out a bit blurry. --Muhammad(talk) 01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 curve adjustments are a great improvement. I also realized that the monitor I was looking at it on doesn't display highlights very well. --22:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per above. A bit hazy so, not exactly FP standard, but great image nonetheless. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Slightly hazy, but it's fairly unrealistic to expect a non-hazy photo from such a distance and (presumably) through an an aeroplane window. Having said that, increasing the contrast or black point seems to help quite a bit and is probably worth doing to combat the haze. Anyway, I think this aerial view is interesting and uncommon and shows the shape of the mountain far better than one from the ground. It's a shame there is so much cloud though. Also, this image does not have significant blown highlights. In photoshop, go to the Image menu -> Adjustments -> Threshold, then drag the slider to 250 (still 5 values below blown). There is virtually nothing in the image that is white (above 250). Therefore no blown highlights IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 01:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 per Diliff. Interesting and encyclopedic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 per Gazhiley, great shot. Fletcher (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 per Diliff. Very nice view. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mount Kilimanjaro Dec 2009 edit1.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HarborSeal2700ppx.jpg

Reason

High technical standard, high resolution, used in infobox of Harbor Seal, avoids significant digital manipulation.

Articles in which this image appears

Harbor Seal

Creator

FASTILY ^(TALK)

• Support as nominator --FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the subject is out of focus.  franklin  00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Sorry, it's a nice shot, but I just feel the quality isn't quite there- doubled with the fact the subject only takes up a small part of the picture... J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cute animal, but the subject is not perfectly in focus. This would be even more visible if the image would be croped. The nomination statement that it is "used in infobox" was correct for less than 1h. It was placed there by nominator 5 minutes before this nomination, and replaced 48 minutes later. Elekhh (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I was too mean. It was me who replaced it. Let me say to the nominator that if the image were of good quality, not being in the infobox is not a problem.  franklin  21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality radar animation showing a severe storm, hook echo, and tornado vortex signature.

Articles in which this image appears

Hook echo

Creator

Josh Wurman, Center for Severe Weather Research

• Support as nominator --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the caption all the colors represent winds moving towards the radar?  franklin  23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow...I never caught that...thanks. Corrected it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm concerned about the size of the animation and the resources it hogs. When I try to scroll past the nomination it locks up my browser for half a minute or so, and I've had the same problem when viewing the Hook echo article. Actually viewing the image page itself is even worse. I'm not on a very fast connection, fair enough, but is anyone else having difficulty with it? From what I can tell, the right hand frame is communicating the most information, as it's the part that most clearly shows the hook echo. Couldn't this frame stand alone? Halving the animation would be good, I think, making it more easily understandable, more easily viewable, and hopefully not kill my browser, :-). Maedin\^talk 09:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine, but if that happens the halved one needs to get uploaded as a different file...this one just got featured over at Commons. I don't really have the skills to edit an animation in half, though...is this something the Graphics Lab could do? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errmmm, pass? :) Even if they aren't familiar with .ogv, I guess they may know others who are or they might be able to figure it out. Hopefully, anyway! Maedin\^talk 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

high-quality image with good composition; not the best photo of the ship (that would probably be File:Uss arizona.jpg), but the only one that is large enough to qualify for FP. The angle this is taken from highlights one of the major differences of First World War capital ships from the same in the Second World War: the extremely low bridges. Compare the bridge on Arizona here to Nevada's in the Second World War.

Articles in which this image appears

USS Arizona (BB-39), Naval Review

Creator

Paul Thompson/War Department

• Relisted, support as nom - previous nom (ended in no quorum) here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support as before; will support either with or without foreground. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Image is of high quality and great composition.

Articles in which this image appears

USS New Jersey (BB-16)

Creator

Navy Department

• Relisted, support as nom - previous nom (ended in no quorum) here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, Edit1 and Original are the exact same image right? So why put up the edit? --jjron (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was me being an idiot; it should be fixed now. Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a nice shot considering the age of a notable ship; obviously not reproducible. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit per nom. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess I prefer the edit, but I've just noticed that the mast is cut off. That's annoying. Do we know what the ship in the background is? J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing we can do about the mast, unfortunately. But look at the bright side: only a small bit is missing, and the cage mast isn't cut off at all! ;) I tried to zoom in on the ship, but it's just too blurry for me to give a definitive answer. To me, it looks like a member of the Connecticut class. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the superstructure (or something?) is too high. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Navsource says that it is probably New Jersey's sister ship Rhode Island. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know about that; you can clearly see the turret face for the 12" guns, but it doesn't look like there's a superimposed 8" turret above it. It actually could be a Colorado class ship; compare it with this contemporary photo of New Hampshire. Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean the Connecticut class? :P You're right re no superimposed turret. I think that we can definitively say that it is either a Maine or a Connecticut based on this: it's obviously a predreadnought, there is no superimposed turret (rulling out BB's 5–6, 13–17), and there are multiple funnels lengthwise (ruling out BB's 8–9). I think that BB's 1–4 were too low in the water to be this ship. If only we had more detail... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, one of those "C" states...Parsecboy (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prefer edit .. GerardM (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Fletcher (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Original had tilt and too much seawater, this better frames the subject. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. This is a high quality and interesting image the ship. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Parsecboy (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:USS New Jersey (BB-16) in camouflage coat, 1918 edit.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Most of the Australian light cavalry units of World War I served in the Middle Eastern theater. This photograph depicts an encampment in an important location: overlooking Jerusalem during the early months of the British Mandate of Palestine. Restored version of File:Australian camps on slopes of Olivet & Mount Scopus.jpg.

Articles in which this image appears

Military history of Australia during World War I

Creator

American Colony Jerusalem

• Support as nominator --Durova⁴⁰³ 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good image well worked --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seem to be some strange artifacts along the horizon which aren't in the original LoC version. The most visible ones are above and slightly to the right of the point where the road turns the corner. Time3000 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV, good image, nice restoration. Elekhh (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I agree with some of the arguments below regarding limitations of EV. Elekhh (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV is questionable; this photo boils down to a bunch of horses, tents, and a few people and carriages. The meat of the image (i.e. what was just previously mentioned) probably takes up ... 10% of the pixels, being generous? There is no context to place this near Jerusalem or even in Israel; as far as viewing it goes, this could be any desert. A saving grace could be a good display of the uniforms, arms, etc of the soldiers or the soldiers in formation, among other things, but I only count less than 20 visible bodies in the foreground. They don't seem to be dressed as soldiers. Basically the detail, and especially the context, is severely lacking. Might as well be a big group of nomads. What does it really add to the article? upstateNYer 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for one thing the Bedouin weren't known for living in pup tents... ;) Durova⁴⁰³ 04:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken, but that pushes my point further: based on the image this could be any desert. The Gobi, Sahara, Death Valley, etc. In no way do you know that the Bedouin have ever stepped foot here. upstateNYer 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many historic pictures have little to positively identify themselves as genuine on the spot. The provenance of such material is what makes that you accept that the material is authentic. It is exactly for this reason why material from GLAMs are vitally important; we post their original, we refer back to their online original and we make damned sure that you can verify its authenticity. GerardM (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I don't vote based on my feelings of GLAM works. That is not part of the criteria. I am here to vote on the criteria. I understand you feel strongly about passing many old works as 'proof' to GLAMs that they should release their work but I'm fundamentally opposed to operating like that; in essence you are voting support for all the wrong reasons. The goal is to promote the best, most representative works of a given situation. This, clearly, is not that. upstateNYer 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source is reliable and the historic importance is far-reaching. They were guarding Jerusalem during the beginning of the British Mandate of Palestine. Do you assert that history would be no different if the Ottoman Turks had retaken that city? ;) Durova⁴⁰³ 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not in any way questioning the sources; it's the context of content of the image that I don't see adding much, if anything, to the article. No detail on the soldiers, the housing, the horses, etc. and to repeat myself, the meat of the image makes up less than 10% of the pixels in the image. Good image in itself, but not one of WP's best work overall. upstateNYer 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reasonable people sometimes disagree. :) Durova⁴⁰³ 21:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support EV is high IMO. At performance of household jobs in camp soldiers are always similar to peasants. The official uniform isn't observed. I well know it as the former soldier of the Soviet army --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose We need more (some?!) FPs covering Australian military history, but I don't think that this meets the criteria for pretty much the reasons raised by upstateNYer - the EV of this photo isn't particularly high. The Australian War Memorial has lots of much better photos of the light horse in its huge collections - it's a real shame that the versions they place on their online database are much too small to be eligable for FP status (though in fairness they've recently done Wikipedia a huge service by accurately labeling their pre-1955 photos as 'copyright expired' and the huge number of photos is a fantastic asset for editors interested in Australian military history). Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support historic material from a well respected source, beautifully restored. High encyclopaedic value GerardM (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In line with your comment above, what exactly about this image makes it deserve a day on the Main Page? What do you learn from the image itself? If you must depend on the caption to know even a bit of context, then that picture isn't really worth the 1000 words referenced in the criteria. Is your support really based only on "good restoration" and "historic material"? Because that's not what the criteria specifies. Nothing in the image tells you even on what continent it take place, what century it is in, or even that there is a war going on. All three are essential to understanding the context, yet none of them are made apparent in the image. You even have one of WP's most prolific editors regarding Australian military history agreeing with me here. I'm no expert and am opposing just based on a novice's view (I can't learn anything from this image, even in the article), while User:Nick-D is opposing as a relative expert for the same reasons, including pointing out that there are a lot better images out there to work from. upstateNYer 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But nothing from the other collection is available at sufficient quality. My comments to his user talk about that might be worth a read. Durova⁴⁰³ 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but that doesn't change the lack of context and, in all honesty, content, in this image. Those images are incidental; voting is based on this image only. upstateNYer 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • GerardM is the key person who negotiated the partnered WMF Netherlands-Tropenmuseum exhibit, which received national news in the Netherlands and a head of state visit from the president of Suriname. In the context of potential leverage to open the doors of more museums, there's no Wikimedian with more successful experience. Durova⁴⁰³ 02:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is exactly the argument we shouldn't see in nominations. See my post above dated 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (nope, up one more, above your reference to the Ottomans). GLAM work is not a reason for supporting an image; GLAM is nowhere in the criteria and the criteria are what dictate voting rationale at FPC. For all the discussions and accusations about 'double standards' and 'moving the goalposts' in the past, this is exhibit A, in that you're creating a 'standard' out of thin air that has nothing to do with the criteria and the process agreed to by consensus at FPC, and are thereby 'moving the goalposts' to make it 'easier' to support, when in fact, the image offers little encyclopedic content and almost no context. "For the greater good of GLAM" is not - and most definitely won't be - in the criteria. If you have to settle for an argument based solely on "opening doors", then it seems you're admitting how much this image lacks overall. upstateNYer 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This image shows what an encampment looks like in those days, the distribution of horses and tents, the proximity of roads. It is also has the provenance of being a camp in a certain place. This image is worthwhile in its own right. When you look at many modern vistas that are proposed you will only find a panorama without anything interesting in it but a snapshot. GerardM (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Once again, nothing in the image is actually informative; you learn nothing of the army outfits, the formation of the soldiers in battle, or even the location or century. Later vistas that you refer are typically promoted for outright beauty; this image offers no beauty so your comparison is as apples to oranges as it gets. Big deal, it shows an encampment, something that changed very little between the 1700s and early 1900s and is just an amalgamation of randomly set tents and parked horses. What on earth do you learn from that? Roughly speaking? Nothing. upstateNYer 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a bit dark for my liking, but well, we can not manipulate original images if the uploader is the photographer. I think the image has "good educational values" --Caspian blue 05:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support'. Bit dark and blurry, but high EV. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: As UpstateNYer. Maedin\^talk 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Australian camps on slopes of Olivet & Mount Scopus3.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Although this is not an image of particularly remarkable quality from a technical point of view (pixels and focus), the composition is, in my opinion, of a high standard, but more than this, the image jumps out as being one of great attraction and interest.

Articles in which this image appears

2010 Haiti earthquake, Airdrop.

Creator

James L. Harper Jr.

• Support as nominator --Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I can kind of see where you are coming from here, but this doesn't scream FP material at me. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as original uploader Its not great from a technical perspective but its unique and very informational, in a way that cannot be provided by text alone. Also it is a good current events segue. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is amazing. Particularly good EV in airdrop, IMO --Muhammad(talk) 10:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Image looks interesting and is very informative, both for the topical article and the general one. Depicts the chaotic nature of these things. --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's an interesting-looking image, and technically quite good. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Supplied an alternate edit. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original - As per above. I knew there was something about this picture that I liked. After reading the votes It all makes sense. I've looked at a lot of airdrop images earlier. I see why this one appeals to me. Tim1337 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt Alt looks like the colors have been put back, original, though interesting, shows that Army camo works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buggie111 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the alt is gorgeous fyi. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are many things wrong with this image, and it of poor quality. I doubt it would be getting any support were it not connected with the tragic events in Haiti. Equally importantly, there is little that gives it high encyclopedic value as an illustration of events in Haiti. As an airdrop, certainly, but there is nothing that identifies it as Haitian. All of: File:Haitian national palace earthquake.jpg, File:Haiti earthquake damage overhead.jpg, and File:EscombrosBelAir5.jpg provide high quality and very high encyclopedic value. The first one particularly so, to the extent that it has become iconic, being used frequently in television coverage, and it has remained unchallenged as the lead image. I was waiting for stability in the article before I chose among these images to nominate. As the crisis progresses, and images proliferate, things will move. I only have confidence in the image of the National Palace as permanent, and to a lesser degree in the overhead shot above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or indeed, File:EscombrosBelAir2.jpg which is a very well composed image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While the photo has EV, it's not a particularly good photo - the colours look washed out and it isn't a clear depiction of what an airdrop looks like. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt mostly for its EV to Airdrop. Per Mostlyharmless, there are some other images that have better EV for the Haiti quake. But I think it actually gives a really good overview-type depiction of an airdrop, showing what it would look like from the ground. You can see some crates striking ground, some on their way down, and the aircraft flying away in the background... not sure what else you would want to see! As to technical quality, it's not picture perfect, but it is an action shot. Fletcher (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose-While the picture is connected to the tragic events in Haiti, that connection does not qualify the quality of the picture. They lighting is poor, the airplane is out of focus, the colors are washed out, the rising dust obscures the crates/parachutes, the landscape is out of focus, and there is a small yellow pyramidal structure that is off-center. This looks like an everyday action shot...not featured picture material.Smallman12q (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the alternate, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer Alt Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• prefer alt --Muhammad(talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:AirdropcloseJan18haiti edited.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good image

Articles in which this image appears

Kea

Creator

Mark Whatmough

• Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. Not perfect at full size but acceptable --Muhammad(talk) 01:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Far from eye-catching, and doesn't have exceptional EV. The background is cluttered above the kea's head and is too similar to the subject in colouration, especially above its neck. I do like the level of detail visible, e.g. of the raindrops on its back, but that is not enough to compensate for the photo's failings. -- Avenue (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see this photograph of an adult Kea as a scientific illustration, and I think that you have missed the point that animals in the wild are often similar in colour to their background. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Not really seeing where Avenue is coming from- high quality picture, shows well what the bird looks like in its natural environment. Not a bird I've seen before, so I learnt a lot. Also a pretty animal, but that's not important. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I find keas fascinating. You may have learnt a lot from this image, but I think an excellent photo of the bird could say so much more. It lives in a visually interesting habitat (the mountains), which provides many opportunities for better backgrounds than this. (Foe example, see some of the other photos in the Kea article, such as File:KeaMacKinnonPass2006.jpg and File:Kea_on_Avalanche_Peak_-_cropped.jpg.) Even the previous infobox picture, File:Kea.jpg, which had a bland background, left it more blurry and unfocussed to show off the bird better. (That picture was replaced by this one just a few minutes before it was nominated here, so don't read too much into its current placement in the article.) And the bird's pose, looking away to something we can't see, leaves a lot to be desired too. As Sabine's Sunbird says, they're not that difficult to find or photograph. I'm sorry, but while it has nice detail, I see this photo falling a long way short of what I'd expect for a featured picture. -- Avenue (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this image showing the bird at a high resolution and moved quickly to place it on the page and nominate it. The parrot in "File:Kea.jpg" is a juvenile and so is not an obvious choice for the infobox image. The background has some rocks in the background, so it does look natural. I was thinking of this illustration as a biological illustration with encyclopaedic value rather than a idealised work of art. Snowman (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying that you nominated it on the basis of encyclopaedic value rather than being a stunning image. -- Avenue (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is an excellent creative commons image with scientific value of a parrot that can only be found in the wild in New Zealand. I also nominated it because I thought it exceeded the featured image criteria, which would be self explanatory to anyone that had read the heading on this FP candidates page. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice image of far from common subject. Good and appropriate DOF --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. With regards to the technical and logistical difficulties of photographing this species, this species is increasingly rare on South Island but it is still easy to find in tourist locations in the Southern Alps, in fact particularly in tourist locations. They are also very easy to photograph as they are exceptionally bold and unafraid and will actively approach people. As such they are probably one of the easiest wild parrots to photograph anywhere in the world, so that should be taken into account when considering the technical difficulties and excellence of this shot. It should be possible to take a much better photograph of this species, with better light and a less distracting background. Also, it should be noted that this is an adult, young birds have yellow nares. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it would be possible to obtain a much better photograph of many FA photographs of animals. I would be more impressed if you presented a creative commons image here of a Kea that is better than this one. Snowman (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you found a better one already, when you uploaded the photo on the right from Flickr. It's not FP quality either, but it's got more appeal and encyclopedic value in my view. Admittedly it's not as sharp, and is not high resolution, but the bird's posture, lack of dampness, and the way the lighting shows off the feather colours outweigh that for me. And yes, I agree it's possible to take a better photo than many FPs, but that seems like a red herring. The issue is whether the photo nominated here measures up to our FP standards. Looking through Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds, I think it clearly falls short. How many photos of even slightly wet and bedraggled birds are listed there? -- Avenue (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The image that you linked has not got the resolution for a FP, and I would not even think about nominating that image of the Kea standing on what appears to be a man-made monotonous flat surface. Birds in the wild do get wet in the rain - the image description explains some wet feathers. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree that photo's background is bland, and I was not for a moment suggesting that it was worth nominating. But I still feel it is a better photo than the nominated one, and I'm surprised at the support that one's received. Anyway, I'll shut up now. -- Avenue (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the somewhat inferior photograph that you have linked has harsh lighting, man-made and artificial looking flat background, and much lower resolution. I think it helps to enhance the wow factor of my nominated photograph, which I have used as the main scientific illustration on the species page. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I'm not worried about the bird being wet, but the background is unfortunate: slight lack of contrast and there's a distracting stone hanging above its head. Elekhh (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is true that the background contains some of the colours similar to that of the parrot. I find it interesting to speculate that the Kea has evolved camouflage to blend in to the natural colours of the rocks and sparse green plants or mosses in the New Zealand Alps and wonder how the colour of this species might have influenced its survival. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's interesting looking at the detail with it being wet and the background is a nice example of its camouflage. upstateNYer 06:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak oppose . Per Sabine's Sunbird. The background is simply too distracting, unfortunately. Keas are very easy to find in New Zealand, as they frequent the carparks of South Island high country national parks, among other places. They're not shy. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Although I do have to disagree about light levels, which appear to be the result of drizzle. This is very typical for Fiordland, one of the wettest places on earth with over 330 days of rain a year, and up to 9000mm of rain. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • edit: Support. After another look at full size I'm now convinced it should be featured. It has detail and EV. And as noted, grey and dark wet weather is extremely common in much of this bird's range. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: To be fair, the thumbnail of the image does make it look dark, dull, and cluttered. But it improves readily upon being viewed full size. Of course a better image can be taken (you can say that about pretty much anything), but this is the best that we have at the moment and it meets the requirements. Maedin\^talk 15:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I see is that being as you said "dark, dull, and cluttered" at standard size, few readers will have the interest to click on it to see it at full size, which I think ultimately affects its Encyclopedic Value. Elekhh (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kind of appreciate where you're coming from, but I (personally) don't think EV should be "thumbnail" EV. The EV is there for anyone who wishes to open it and see it, and isn't defined as, "looks so good they want to click it"; in fact, because it shows the environment, and the dampness of the region, and the camouflage, it perhaps has heaps more EV than if it looked great in thumbnail. You could argue that it's not a compelling image, though. Just my perspective, of course, :) Maedin\^talk 07:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While the similarity in color to the background is unfortunate, the image is vivid and the lighting is, in my opinion, spectacular (many voters seem to be looking for bright images, but lighting like this presents a more realistic portrayal). — the Man in Question (in question) 02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nestor notabilis -Fiordland, New Zealand-8b.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Seems to meet criteria. I think this is a more encyclopedic pose than our already featured Aussie Pelican (although that one is a good shape for the infobox). This one is higher resolution. FP at Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Australian Pelican

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Nice image, but I believe it would be better if the right side of the image is cropped a bit so that it would not reveal a lot of background besides the intended focus as well as to balance the amount with the left side. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review. Do others agree that a crop would help? Obviously this is easy to do if there's general agreement. 99of9 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cropping would start to encroach on the pelican's personal space and cramp it in the frame, :). Plus, environment is beneficial. Seems perfectly fine to me as it is. Maedin\^talk 09:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Somewhat I agree with you if it is too much. Yet if the right hand side is cropped a little bit it should balance the left and right, making the pelican more "centered". Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Technically proficient. Composition not especially exciting. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this. But I want to say that I think the reason is that it was taken from above the pelican and that a crop is not what it needs. Actually I think a crop would do harm to the picture unless it is a very tight crop with the purpose of removing most of the rock on the left.  franklin  21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, Franklin. Which was why I didn't suggest a crop. I'm partial low angle shots for small subjects. Children, pets, etc. tend to be much more interesting when a photograph forces the viewer to confront them at their own eye level or below: a housecat looks terrifying from the perspective of a mouse. How would a pelican appear from the perspective of another pelican or a smaller bird? Durova⁴⁰⁸ 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Very sharp, but not best composition. Would be better if it would be standing on the sandy/lighter spot so the feet and back are better visible. There are already two FPs in the article (1, 2), and this one does not seem to be better or add new information. Finally, these are very slow birds when on the ground, and common on the East Coast, so can be easily photographed. Elekhh (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —No quorum. Maedin\^talk 07:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A recent high-res version from subtle MdA series.

Articles in which this image appears

Absinthe, Maîtres de l'Affiche, Henri Privat-Livemont

Creator

Henri Privat-Livemont

• Support as nominator --Brand[t] 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This should not have been uploaded over the previous image unless they were from the same source. As it stands, the source information only applies to the previous file, not the current one. Please either update the source information or reupload to a new filename. Kaldari (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the source. Brand[t] 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally took a look at the actual image (as the thumbnails seem to be broken). It looks like this image needs a lot of restoration. The one you uploaded over is actually much cleaner. You should revert File:Privat-Livemont-Absinthe Robette-1896.jpg to it's original version and upload this one to a new filename so that people can still use the old file until this higher-res version is restored. In the case of things like posters and prints, it is especially important to retain separate versions from separate sources, as they may have significant differences due to the provenance of the images. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some dirty speckles, but decided not to remove them as they are probably original. I've uploaded as a separate file, but the preview is still void. Absinthe's green fairy doomed the image for raunchy appearance :) Brand[t] 09:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I would have expected that to fix it. Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know if it's my computer, but I can't view the image...I just get the blank rectangle with an red X in the corner... Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too... Gazhiley (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. JPEG artifacting. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 04:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This image won't thumb because it is interlaced and over a certain size. Reupload without the interlacing to fix it. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 07:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. I am particularly pleased with the lighting and composition. One of my best if I may say so.

Articles in which this image appears

Housefly, Musca (genus)

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 15:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This image goes very well with the colors of the infoboxes in these articles. For some reason, in Musca (genus), I like better the image of yours that was there before. Maybe because of the brown in the dead parts of the leaves again looking well with the colors of the infobox. This image is very pleasant to view I will weak support for the moment. I am not sure if the percent of the body that is out of focus is acceptable.  franklin  16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. This is an extremely well-done picture- the colours and composition are fantastic. However, I am inclined to agree to a certain extent with the comments above. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Another fly FPC?! Low DOF. --Dschwen 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something as common as a housefly deserves a lone full body shot. --Muhammad(talk) 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice colours and sharp, but the FP bar for flies is already set very high :). In a way is great as it is, but I think a slight crop could improve it for the purpose of illustrating Wikipedia articles. Elekhh (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit1. Elekhh (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per J Milburn. Agreeing with Dschwen about DOF, but as long as it's a different species it's got separate encyclopedic value. Once Muhammad provides FPs of all the fly species in the world, captures them all mating, and shoots them all perched on ahem he'll probably move on to sexual dimorphism in flies. He's a man on a mission. Go for it, Muhammad. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Some of those ahem shots could only be achieved by astounding dedication or anosmia.[reply]
  • LOL. It gets easy after the first few ahems :) --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talk about suffering for one's art! Prefer crop. :) Durova⁴⁰⁹ 02:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)I might never eat mangoes again.[reply]
• Support Prefer the edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the binomial name should appear in the image description. Snowman (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Do I get a support now :)?--Muhammad(talk) 02:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the cropped version. The sort of photograph that needs special equipment. Would you consider changing licence from 1.2 to creative commons 2 or 3? Snowman (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Housefly_on_a_leaf_crop.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It was blurry at first, but than I went to improve it with GIMP.

Articles

Fly

Creator

Markturney

• Support as nominator --December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm afraid I'm not certain of the technical term (are they jpeg artifacts?), I'm sure someone else can clarify that, but this really doesn't seem to be up to the standard of our insect pictures. Additionally, very little of the subject is in focus, and the resolution isn't massively high. Additionally, the image is only used in a gallery on the fly article, meaning it is not eligible. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont think this is Musca domestica. Waaay too hairy --Muhammad(talk) 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• December, I have reverted your upload back to its original state. Your work is much appreciated, but the original one is bar better than your edit, only because it doesn't have artifacts. the original is not FP material either, thus I'm going to have to say oppose. --ZooFari 06:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. I've removed it from the article as I believe the id is incorrect. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW plus it's no longer used in article. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. Interesting view compared to the other ground level FPs of clouds

Articles in which this image appears

Cloud, Cumulus cloud

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Seems to be not really breathtaking. Still it is a very good shot, considering that it is taken from above the clouds. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per nom. Unusual angle gives an informative view of cloud shapes for people who haven't seen them from the air. Composition, lighting, and pollution keep this from being a full support, but it's difficult to get good shots from a passenger window (which was how this was done?) Not many of us have access to private aircraft or helicopters. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While it may be uncommon to get this type of shot, it's still not a great image. Also not particularly illustrative of the types of clouds identified. Becky Sayles (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

good image

Articles in which this image appears

Red-and-green Macaw

Creator

Arjan Haverkamp

• Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Good image, but the beak is blowned (over-exposed) and there is red fringing at the top edge of the head. Also some stripe artifacts, if I'm not mistaken. Additionally it isn't crisp enough and the red colors are washed out near the brighter parts. --ZooFari 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, leaning towards support. It's not technically perfect, but I do love the composition, and I think it serves as a great lead image. However, as a fairly common and iconic bird (in every zoo and common as pets) I do feel we can hope for a stronger image. J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The trouble is there are relatively few images showing the full length of the bird. However, I see what you mean. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw my nomination Snowman (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An attempt to boost our sports FPs. Seems to be one of the best snowboarding shots we have and gives some snow, scenery, and motion for context. Decent size, too.

Articles in which this image appears

Snowboarding

Creator

Søren Hoven

• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good panning is rare at FPC. A fine action shot. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 21:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Great shot. Looks oversharpened and oversaturated though. Kaldari (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. (I also added to the caption.) upstateNYer 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The tuft of snow on the left shows us where he has come from, and contextualises the shot. Mostlyharmless (talk)
• Weak Support Nice action image, but I think the shutter speed wasn't fast enough. The background is a little bit more blurry than expected. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background blur is achieved by a photographic technique called panning --Muhammad(talk) 14:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreeing with Muhammad: panning is done for deliberate artistic effect in sports photography because it conveys a sense of motion. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good frozen motion is so hard to find these days. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Decent illustration. I've never been snowboarding, but that image captures what I imagine it feels like :) J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per a number of the above --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff's "lack-lustre background" rule. WiiWillieWiki 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Snowboarder in flight (Tannheim, Austria).jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV. Well known fruit but not many good pictures of it on wiki.

Articles in which this image appears

Sugar-apple, Annona squamosa

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, never seen one of these before. Nice picture that helps me understand what exactly the article is talking about. I get the feeling there isn't enough space on the right. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per J Milburn upstateNYer 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above... interesting subject. Fletcher (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Encyclopedic, well photographed. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Elekhh (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Weak Support per below. :) Elekhh (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit1. Elekhh (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well executed image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jujutacular. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with extra thanks for including the scale. A scale ought to be standard for still lifes like this one. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think scales should not be on the featured version, but placed on another version that is shown in a gallery on the image page of the featured picture. upstateNYer 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? They increase the encyclopedic value to the image. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for one, they aren't standardized within this project (everyone's are different), second, they aren't always that accurate, and third, they are ugly additions to a featured picture. But showing the image with the scale in the summary box on the image page of a FP (which doesn't have the scale in it) would surely suffice. upstateNYer 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original. Scale is distracting and unreadable at thumbnail size. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support edit per Kaldari. Scale is original work. I'll support one without one, with a scale version linked on the file page as NYer mentioned. --ZooFari 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• not liking the scale is fine but I wouldn't classify it as original research. In the worst case it can be found a botanical dictionary saying that sugar apples are around 4cm. This doesn't contradict this section. Also doing the measurement himself doesn't fall too far from Wikipedia:ORIGINAL#Routine_calculations. Also it seems to satisfy Wikipedia:ORIGINAL#Verifiability and if the claim of the 4cm is not challenged maybe it doesn't even need a reference.  franklin  21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with franklin that scale is not original work. On the other hand, I don't see much value in it, as it is visually rather distracting (bottom-right corner would be better), and is not better than the same information being provided in the caption. Elekhh (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To me it is originality regardless of the policy. Since I can't verify that it is correct, then I'm inclined to oppose. All sugar apples vary in size, so I just don't see the need; why not just say it is about (much better to believe than a scale used for precise measurements) 4 cm? PS the other aspects in my oppose. --ZooFari 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with you that a caption describing the size range would be better. I still think the image is very good and is no ground for me to oppose it, however I change to weak support. Elekhh (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Classical studio-style photograph at good res, encyclopaedic. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 uploaded Those who prefer the scaleless version please update your votes so we can end this discussion once and for all --Muhammad(talk) 01:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit, although there's a big white splotch where the scale used to be. The rest of the background is a light grey. Might want to fix that. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done --Muhammad(talk) 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original since the actual measurement taken seems reasonable by everyone? Oppose edit 1 per Kaldari and inferior EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the measurements are accurate, Prefer original --Muhammad(talk) 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original and oppose edit1 -- whether or not it can be seen in the thumbnail, the scale is helpful. -- 188.25.62.209 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original my only worry with scales is potentially misleading inaccuracy. It does add value in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, one thing. I'd assume that the white balance on this is correct (paper as a reference). If so then the white balance on File:Sugar apple on tree.jpg needs correcting. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with no concern for the scale. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg —Maedin\^talk 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is one of finest available panoramas of NYC on Wikimedia projects, it is already nominated on Commons and gained very good support there,

Articles in which this image appears

New York, City, New York City, Architecture of New York City, List of tallest buildings in New York City, Empire State Building, Manhattan

Creator

Photographed by: Jnn13, stitched by: LiveChocolate

• Support as nominator --LiveChocolate (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: On the image page, it shows the original photos used (so my next sentence will thus make sense). In the nominated image, there is a stitching error between 8/9...the "Marine Aviation" building has a dip to the right of middle in it. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary comment: Enc is low in city, and mild in New York. If a suitable place could be found in New York City... Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose. Enc concern has been addressed (although I'm not quite sure if the double-panorama picture placement is appropriate, but my stitching concern hasn't. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak OpposeWeak Support. It's a good panorama in terms of the amount of information contained, but there are some issues that should be raised. Firstly, this is a very wide view (approaching 180 degrees, I'm guessing), but because it is taken 'at ground level', there are no obvious visual cues that the panorama has a cylindrical projection. As a result, it looks like the buildings on the left and ride sides are much smaller than the ones in the middle, which isn't necessarily the case. So while the EV is increased by the wide view, it's also diminished IMO by the confusion generated by the projection in the absence of visual cues. It also seems to have a bit of a tilt on the right side and I'm kind of surprised that the image quality isn't better considering it was taken with a 5D MkII and has been downsampled considerably already. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, I've seen it suggested cylindrical is a good projection for very wide panos as rectilinear becomes distorted at the edges.... is this not right? E.g. Cambridge in Colour. As to building sizes, I think we are centered on the Chelsea neighborhood which is closer to Midtown than Lower Manhattan, so lower Manhattan would naturally look more small and distant. I vaguely remember reading the Manhattan schist comes up closer to the surface around Midtown and the financial district, making it ideal for skyscrapers in those areas. That would create the effect of a "wavy" skyline...not sure if that's what you meant. Fletcher (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're right that cylindrical (or other similar projections) is the only projection that really works for panoramas approaching 180 degree AOV or more. I'm not suggesting it was the wrong projection to use, but my point was that because there isn't much in the way of visual cues, it's difficult to tell that it is a wide view. Take this panorama of mine as an example. It's also just under 180 AOV, but because it isn't taken from ground level, everything below the horizon is curved/warped. While some would argue that that is a bad thing (and did during the nomination), at least you can see that there is a 180 degree AOV because there are visual cues (ie in the centre, the buildings are facing you, then as you look to the left, they face diagonally, then when you reach the far left side, the sides are facing you, making it clear that you have just rotated 90 degrees around the scene from centre). Because the visual cues regarding the projection are virtually absent from this NYC image, I think most casual viewers would (subconsciously, if not consciously) view this image and assume that it was a 'normal' rectilinear image taken from a really long way away. It would then follow that the buildings on the left and right side were just 'smaller' or that the island seems to bulge towards us in the middle making the buildings look further away. They are further away, of course, but not further 'behind' the buildings in the middle, they are roughly parallel dispite appearing to be behind. In that sense, I find it misleading. Having said that, I can't think of any better way of showing the entire eastern Manhattan skyline, short of an aerial view from a bit further away. There's no substitute for distance when it comes to panoramas. The further away you are, the more accurate the projection. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I see what you're saying, but now I think it may be worth a weak support. We have some higher quality panoramas of Manhattan, but they seem to be north-south or nighttime perspectives. So this is a different and worthwhile view. Also, I think you might agree the photographer should get some deference as to the most viable vantage point. This image isn't geotagged, but I'm guessing it was taken near a place called Elysian Park. You can see from the Google view it is a shoreline park amidst a highly developed area. To back up, you might need access to a high rise to get an unobstructed view. Fletcher (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken, I have changed my vote to a weak support. Agreed that many of the flaws in the image are largely outside of the photographer's control and aerial shots are unrealistic to expect! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Support The EV needs to be clarified, per Spencer. It's strongest for NYC, obviously; less clear for the "Global Cities" section of City or for New York, the state.Update:EV concern seems resolved. Only weak support for IQ issue Diliff brought up. Fletcher (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added the image to some other page, you are right, it is more useful on those pages.LiveChocolate (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. A very high resolution panorama from an exceptionally clear day that shows the entire west side of Manhattan in great detail. Have added landmark descriptions at the Architecture of New York City article and modified a map to illustrate the range of this photograph. Highly encyclopedic, meets all criteria. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since this is an image of the entirety of one side of Manhattan, the EV would be highest in that article, compared to some of the other ones that have less obvious encyclopedic value. I can't see an immediately obvious place for inclusion, but I think it would work well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, it shows more than just Manhattan. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is just a little bit of Brooklyn to the right and a dock in New Jersey thats all. I don't see any problem. Tim1337 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreeing with Tim1337: other than the bridges every major feature is part of Manhattan. As a note to reviewers who haven't seen New York City firsthand, skyscrapers are so dense in Manhattan that the United Nations building isn't visible at all from this vantage because the UN is on the East River and we're viewing from across the Hudson River. The Chrysler Building used to be the tallest building in the world; only the spire shows from this angle because the Chrysler Building is on the east side. This angle gets the Javits Center and the World Financial Center, etc. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the addition of the map. It actually illustrates my point very well. The buildings directly in front of the camera/blue dot are much closer than the ones on the far-left and far-right sides of the panorama, but to look at the image without preconceptions of the geography, you simply wouldn't realise. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correcting for distortions in panoramas is something you'd know much better than I. One factor to consider is how very few locations offer an unobstructed view this wide. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, In my comment above I pointed to the Google view where you can see how built up the area is. I added a short comment to the caption that might help allay confusion. (?) If it's not disputed it could be added to the articles where the image appears. Fletcher (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support as photographer! Jnn13 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Durova Tim1337 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose subject is being misrepresented. I had never seen this city before but the shape in the map is very different from what I see in the image. Is is possible to solve this doing some sort of projection?  franklin  22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment It's very bold of you to say the subject is misrepresented when you "had never seen this city before!" Since we know the projection of the photo, but we don't know the projection of the map, perhaps the map does not reflect what one sees with his own eyes?? With respect, I believe this is a thoughtless "Oppose!"Jnn13 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I live in Queens, even though the picture was taken from the Hudson river. (Not my view of Manhattan, I'm on the East river side) I see nothing wrong with the way it's "represented".Tim1337 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks round. Is it round? Point 8.4 of criteria.  franklin  13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Manhattan is round. Jnn13 (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Manhattan is round then.  franklin  23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Manhattan is not round. And from the location that this photo was taken, Manhattan's visible shoreline is virtually straight. Read my discussion with Fletcher above for why it is misrepresented by the projection. However, there is nothing that can be done to improve the projection because the angle of view approaches 180 degrees. A view that did not curve straight lines would be very distorted towards the edges. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The straight shoreline together with the shrinking of the buildings makes it look round. Like when looking the edge of a coin like here.  franklin  14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be repeating what was already discussed above. The conclusion was that nothing really could be done (short of cropping out much of the image); the distortion is a consequence of perspective (i.e., where the picture was taken relative to the subject), rather than a problem with the lens or post-processing. And the difficulty is that it may be hard to find a different perspective because there are so many buildings in the area that would block the view. So the question, for you, is whether you want to oppose based on this apparent distortion, or whether you'd support because this is a different and valuable view of Manhattan that we don't have. Please note, I added this sentence to that caption hoping it would clarify things a little: "Due to the wide angle of view, it may be hard to tell that the shoreline is straight, the buildings on the sides approximately parallel to those in the center." Fletcher (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• :) Now I remember a cartoon in which a maharajah goes around the world to become wise. He parts really quick but didn't listen before to what his counselor was trying to tell him. He returns, and telling the stories of his journeys he confuses all: Pyramids with Egyptian women, the coliseum with a fat centurion... etc. His counselor then brought him some books to read which was what he was trying to tell him. ;)  franklin  03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not sure how to create new map. Here are approximate GPS coordinates (decimal?) of camera location: N40.751613, W74.021115 Jnn13 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:NYC Panorama edit2.jpg —Maedin\^talk 11:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirratulus cirratus.

Reason

One-of-a-kind image of an amazing worm with the length ≈8 mm. Great quality and details,good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Terebellida

Creator

Lycaon

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. At first I thought the title meant this image was taken in 1867, then I realised... The image isn't perfect, but I love these kind of microscopic shots. Informative and technically advanced image. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The black background is distracting, and its a bit out of focus. Jujutacular ^T · C 10:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Using a black background is typical for organisms such as these. Instead of distracting, it usefully allows the detail, transparencies, and colours to become apparent. I think the sharpness is acceptable. Great to see something only 8 mm long in such detail. Maedin\^talk 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A black background would be good, but the image appears to have been poorly extracted and placed on the background (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, it's not particularly detailed. I admit that in a thumbnail version, none of this matters, and it is a nice picture, but this is featurehood we're discussing here. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree on lighting and background choices, but 8mm long only needs a macro lens and a few extension tubes to get much better quality than this. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is a touching image that shows the reality of war, even for a superpower such as United States. A soldier whose friend has been killed in action is comforted by a fellow brother in arms in his time of grief.

Articles in which this image appears

Korean War

Creator

Sfc. Al Chang. (Army)

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 18:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This may sound heartless, but I'm not really seeing what the image adds to the article on the Korean War. Yes, it's a powerful image, but loved people die in every war. What does it actually show? J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shows the extent to which the service men paid for the mistakes of the Truman administration and the hubris and arrogance of both President Harry S. Truman and his so-called Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson. Each of these men were vigorous in there refusal to budget for the armed services, were adamant about refusing the request and pleas from the servicemen about the sad state of the service branches, and would not budge an inch from their position of unification and reduction. When the Korean War broke out, Truman assumed he had the military muscle to stop the invasion and was shocked and appalled to discover the US military was nothing more than a paper tiger. They lacked everything needed to conduct combat operations. It was this event that result in Truman firing Johnson, and it was this event that lead to a high initial casualty count as the US servicemen deployed to the peninsula lacked the ability to stop the advancing Korean Army. This was very much so the situation on 28 August 1950, and as such this shows not only a grieving soldier but the cost paid in blood for American politics at the presidential level. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I'm really not seeing it. Oppose. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's what they call original research. :-) However, while the EV to Korean War is limited without creating a symbolic interpretation, I wonder if it could be squeezed into War#Effects of war. Because that's what it is: a poignant picture of soldiers amidst tragedy. Whether it symbolizes the mistakes of Truman is up to the historians. Fletcher (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, that would be kind of pandering to emotion. It's a picture open to great amounts of interpretation- equally, I could argue that it is an image representative of the follies of modernism- someone calmly takes notes while someone besides them breaks down in tears. This isn't really featured picture material, it's "shocking picture on a slide show" material. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

In 1917 the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement received the only Nobel Peace Prize awarded during World War I. Most of the publicity material for Red Cross chapters from that period features pretty young women in nurses' uniforms. This disturbing pair of images is an example of the hard work they performed. 7 million European soldiers suffered permanent disability from the war. This is the only high resolution matching set from a series of images in the Library of Congress about masks provided by the American Red Cross for French soldiers whose faces had been badly maimed. Restored version of File:French mutilé with mask.jpg and File:French mutilé without mask.jpg

Articles in which this image appears

International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#The_ICRC_during_World_War_I, World_War_I#Aftermath, Prosthesis

Creator

unknown, possibly American Red Cross

• Support as nominator --Durova⁴⁰³ 23:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fits the criteria, and is very interesting. Never knew that such things existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buggie111 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
• Support Very interesting. upstateNYer 06:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Fascinating. Maedin\^talk 14:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: There was an article on the masks in Smithsonian magazine a couple of years ago, for anyone who's interested in reading up on the subject. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support valuable to show the progress in prosthetics. GerardM (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hmm, quite interesting :) --ZooFari 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there any particular reason that this sit-portrait is out of focus, which seems particularly evidence around the face? It doesn't seem particularly sharp, considering the circumstances. Which is a pity, because I would have loved to see the detail in the face, and the changes. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These gave me chills to work on, which rarely happens. Would have preferred better technicals if any viable alternative were available. IMO it was worth it, although your opinion may differ. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is a striking pair of images, and of doubtless EV (I would add it to prosthetics, but I can't fit it well). But it just falls down in the lack of focus around the face, unfortunately... anywhere else in the image would be forgiveable. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very valuable illustration. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't see why not. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mostlyharmless. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:French mutilé with mask2.jpg and Promoted File:French mutilé without mask2.jpg Abecedare (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A distinctive image that documents historic funeral practices in Suriname during its slavery era. Restored version of File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.jpg

Articles in which this image appears

Funeral, History_of_Suriname#Slavery_and_emancipation, History_of_slavery#Other_South_American_countries

Creator

Th. Bray

• Support as nominator --Durova⁴⁰⁸ 18:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Worthwhile image, good ev & nicely restored --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What is N. 11? In the Dutch part of the description is mentioned but still I don't know what it is. What is "Th. Bray"? I am asking this because depending on what it is it may me something that is better removed or not. Does someone know? About the restoration, in my opinion (since I don't know I won't vote based on it), while it certainly looks nicer this way I don't think the paper in the lithography looks or looked that way ever. Is it worth it to loss the appearance of the paper in that way to bring out the colors and the white? I guess I am being contradictory here, I am talking about the possibility of removing the "N.11" and complaining because the paper was lost a little. Anyhow, I will probably learn something from comments about this.  franklin  20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the Author... But in the description it says "unknown".  franklin  20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the author line at the hosting file. "Th." was probably an abbreviation of the author's first name. The museum provided no explanation of the notation "N.11" but that type of notation from lithographs of this period usually indicates that an image was published as part of a larger set. My practice is to retain original printers' marks. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Th. is often Theo. GerardM (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Actually, Th. is almost always an abbreviation for Thomas (I've never seen it used otherwise); see Thomas Jefferson's signature as an example. upstateNYer 05:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Dutch person we are talking about.. Th for Thomas is something I have never seen for Dutch people. GerardM (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Although I might personally prefer a slight crop of the right and left sides. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting and encyclopedic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Geothermal areas of Yellowstone

Creator

mbz1

• comment If you see problems with English in the caption, please feel free to correct it.
• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't see why not. Already been a FP at Common and Spanish Wikipedia. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely clarity, amazing colours... Gazhiley (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could do with clockwise rotation, I think. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are not sure about this, I would rather not. The thing is that some time ago I crashed my computer, and original images were lost. To work with the nominated image would mean to reduce the size, and the quality would get worse.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also hard to tell where the horizon truly is - not sure if we can assume that big calcium carbonate plateau is perfectly level. Fletcher (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.: Yes, good point about the carbonate plateau. The pools of water and the cascade in the middle of the picture still don't look quite right to me (the cascade looks like it's flowing slightly uphill), but I'll accept that this is a rather unverifiable criticism, and I think the picture is good as it is. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. A good reminder to burn to disc! A crash lost almost all my Asian photographs several years ago; about the only thing that survived was an orchid from the Singapore arboretum. Glad you were able to salvage a good shot, mbz1. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting off topic but I would recommend one or more external hard drives and software that automates the backups. (I can never underestimate my own laziness). Fletcher (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course its always a good idea to upload to the wiki as soon as possible too :) Noodle snacks (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very attractive image, encyclopedic. Fletcher (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Aren't there already a number of hot spring featured pictures? (I might have just seen them at commons) Noodle snacks (talk)

I do not think it is the right question to ask. It is almost as asking "Aren't there already a number of hills or mountains or buildings or... featured pictures?" Hot springs are more or less rare, and they differ from each other a lot. We have this image File:Mammothterracetrees.jpg of the same hot spring featured, but even this one is very different from the nominated image. That image is mostly missing colors because, when it was taken, the algae was dead, which is an indicator of a changing tempeture of the springs. Hot springs are ever changing, and it is, what makes them interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I should have been more specific anyway - I meant this spring in particular. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Gazhiley and Fletcher, despite sharing NotFromUtrecht's unverifiable concerns about rotation. (The water flowing down the face at far right is the part that seems most unnatural to me.) Nice clear reflections too. -- Avenue (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dead trees at Mammoth Hot Springs.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is a historically significant image, showing Heinrich Himmler visiting a concentration camp. Heinrich Himmler is considered as the architect of Holocaust and the chief of the German Police and Minister of the Interior. He also oversaw concentration camps, extermination camps & killing squads.

Articles in which this image appears

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

Creator

BArchBot

• Support as nominator --Shekure (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's just too small, unfortunately. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and the creator isn't the Wikipedia bot, but the photographer: Friedrich Bauer. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mostly based on size, and it looks a tad slanted.

Buggie111 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Small, not of stunning quality (technically or compositionally) and not of massive encyclopedic value. Not really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High EV of a more or less rare phenomenon. Good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Glory (optical phenomenon)

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: it's an interesting phenomenon, but I don't find this picture to be particularly striking in terms of composition, subject matter or outstanding technical accomplishment. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the times, when a glory is present, there's nothing else but clouds are seen. The nominated image is different. It clearly shows Mauna Loa, with its bold top and forestry bottom. One hardly could chose the composition for such shots at all. IMO the nominated image is the best image of the phenomenon Wikipedia has to offer, and IMO the nominated image is unique enough compare to other FP images that it has the right to be considered. The image was taken from a very, very shaky helicopter. I tried very hard to avoid reflection. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided so far, it looks really hard to get a good picture of that. Good EV, but not a great picture. Leaning towards support. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what, thanks for the comments to both of you, NotFromUtrecht and NativeForeigner. IMO not all FP should be great pictures. Some of them should be simply interesting and educational and this one is! If the picture is promoted, somebody could find it by a pure accident while looking over FP images, get interested in what it is, and read the article. Then next time he flies, he will try to see the phenomenon himself, and it is what education is about IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is, naturally, a weird one. I can't help feeling though, despite everything else, the subject of the photo is something small at the bottom of the picture. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the deal. The image's resolution much exceeds the required 1 mega pixel, which means I could easily crop the image to show the glory close up, but my idea was to show how it occurs in a real life, where to look for it. Such glories could be seen more or less often assuming the right clouds are present, the person sits in the right place, the plane is close enough to the clouds. To see the glory one should look down. How many planes passengers look down? In my situation the glory was not only down, but slightly behind. I saw it only because I knew I would see it, and I looked for it. To see it was one deal, to take an image was quite a different experience. Here's how I took that image. There was a very small window at my knees level, which I was able to open or to close as I wished. So, I put mu hand with my camera in that window. I even could not look in my view finder, when I was taken the image. And after all my efforts nobody has supported the image just yet :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think that's maybe because people agree with J Milburn. I for one Weak Oppose due to the very small nature of the subject in this photograph, given how frequently potential FP noms are rejected for this reason... I understand the technical difficulties of this shot, but I can't support it given how small the subject is in the picture... Gazhiley (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw--Mbz1 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

We don't cover that many reptiles at FPC. This is quite an interesting one. It is true the tail is partially obscured, but I don't think that its too significant. I believe this water dragon was attempting to warm up. The overcast weather gives nice soft lighting.

Articles in which this image appears

Australian water dragon, Physignathus, Agaminae, Basking

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Could that twig above his tail be cloned out? --ZooFari 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite possibly, but I'm not sure which you are referring too could you be a little more specific? Circling it with the annotation tool at commons might be the quickest way to do that. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --ZooFari 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did it. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wrong date, no caption. --Muhammad(talk) 16:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice quality and countering bias per nom --Muhammad(talk) 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Opposing per cut off tail is pretty much standard. Stating this in the nomination blurb doesn't render a picture exempt. If you want more reptile pictures to be featured, how about you nominate some other than your own? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any good ones besides his? --Muhammad(talk) 10:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without stating opposition or support for this image, Muhammad, that's a terrible argument. We feature pictures on their own merits, not because we don't have anything better. If a picture is not good enough, we can wait. Are you suggesting we should happily feature images on an underrepresented subject, even if they are not of the usual quality, only to delist them when something better comes along? Yes, if there's no chance of a replacement (I believe we have a featured image of a frog that is now extinct?) or if replacements are very unlikely (we frequently turn away pictures of common subjects if they are touch-and-go quality-wise), we can be a little more lenient. However, the fact that we have few featured pictures on a certain topic should not mean we ignore flaws; it should just mean we put more effort into searching for images. Try asking at the WikiProject for the best images- they may know of some very nice ones stashed away that no one has got around to nominating. Check the featured lists on Commons and other projects. Check any websites with free images again. Don't just accept a weak image in an attempt to redress the balance- would we accept badly referenced or incomplete articles at FAC just because they're on an underrepresented topic? J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Microscopic shot, high resolution, pleasing to the eye, used prominently on a number of important articles. A good amount of detail. Not the kind of thing you see every day, I feel this will be a great addition to our FPs. Already featured on the Turkish Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Salmonella, cellular microbiology, bacteria, food, foodborne illness, produce traceability, list of Normal Flora species

Creator

Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What are the yellow folded structures? I assume that the red string-like structures are the flagellae, which to me look a bit disorganised probably due to processing. I think that the image description should be more complete for this image to be understood properly. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only assume they're the skin cells. I'm sorry, I'm no expert; this merely jumped out at me as FP-material while I was reviewing a FPOC. J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skin (keratinised stratified squamous epithelium) cells are probably about 50-100 times larger than these bacteria. I would like to know what the image shows. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The caption on the image page is word-for-word from the source website, and my caption is a modification of that. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That does not mean that the image description is ideal. The image description says "invading cultured human cells", which I find a bit vague. By zooming in and out with the SEM it should be apparent to the observer what that yellow structures are. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could send an email? J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not quite sure where to pitch my comment. This bacteria would grow on culture medium so there might have been a particular reason why they were grown on a human-cell culture for the SEM in question. If this image appeared in a journal, it presume the paper would also include how the specimen for SEM was prepared, including any materials used, what the human cells are, what parts of the human cells are seen, and the magnification or a scale. It would be interesting to learn why the flagella are tangled up - these are the structures that enable this bacteria to be motile and if find it difficult to see how they could do this in a tangled-up state. In this type of an image of a processed specimen it would be important to know what is artefact. I think as a minimum the image should have a scale (or magnification or indication of the size in the image description), what the yellow folded layers are, an explanation of the tangled-up flagella, and an explanation of any changes caused by processing and artefacts. I have nothing against this image becoming FP, when the image description is adequate. I have occasionally gone back to authors to find out more about images. Snowman (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Agreeing with nominator. (I appreciate the need for more detail regarding the image, but IMO is not currently affecting EV enough to wipe it out; there is enough information for it to be useful. With respect to the above, it appears to be a call for a cellular biologist or bacteriologist to teach us their field for the purpose of understanding a single image; would be great, but unrealistic.) Maedin\^talk 11:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've thought about the arguments, and it actually seems to have rather high encyclopedic value as an illustration. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Dramatic photograph of an iconic character. No artefacts, pixels, scratches, or grain. 1,194 × 1,499 px.

Articles in which this image appears

Frankenstein (1931 film), Frankenstein's monster, Frankenstein, Frankenstein in popular culture, Boris Karloff, Universal Monsters, Horror film, Boris Karloff filmography, Monster

Creator

Universal Studios

• Support as nominator — the Man in Question (in question) 02:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.  franklin  12:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how do we know this was published without a copyright notice? no evidence is provided on this image page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have provided details. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Tricky one. On the one hand, it's not technically perfect. On the other, this is a pretty iconic image/portrayal. This is rather unlike other FPs we have, which is nice. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A little more info please. Did you download it from somewhere or scan it in yourself? Did you do any restoration work? If so, please document it. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I own a poster/print, but to avoid the scratches on my copy (and because I do not have a good scanner available), I uploaded this instead [1]. It is the same image. I restored nothing, and it appears the same as my copy, so no restoration was done by anyone else, either. The range of focus is also the same. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No evidence has been presented that this photograph was published before 1978 without a copyright notice. The image description says it's from a poster of unknown date with no copyright notice. The poster could have been published last year for all we know. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kaldari, unless it can be confirmed that this was distributed before 1977 without a copyright notice. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Vivid contrast and color balance. No visible artefacts, pixels, or grain (other than the grain natural to the image). 1,287 × 1,600 px.

Articles in which this image appears

Martha Washington, List of First Ladies of the United States, George Washington and slavery

Creator

Unknown (January 1, 1800) / The Man in Question (uploader)

• Support as nominator — the Man in Question (in question) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would be nice if the background was transparent, rather than white. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, done. — the Man in Question (in question) 16:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Although there's something a touch bland about this reproduction, it's based upon an original that was taken from life and meets the criteria. It's a good practice to promote the best we have of historic subjects when they meet the criteria: helps to coax open the doors to better material. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not the most exciting of pictures, but a valuable illustration. Shame we don't know the artist, but I suspect they are not notable themself. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A fine illustration. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted —Maedin\^talk 12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I was lucky to get a clear blue day for this particular panorama (don't ask how many times I got up at dawn only to have clouds over the peaks). Shows a sizable chunk of the terrain through which the overland track passes, and a nice slice of the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park too. Some labels here

Articles in which this image appears

Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park, Overland Track, Mount Pelion West, Pelion Range

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clear view of the scenery and adds EV to a quite number of articles. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice and sharp panorama. Elekhh (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice image. It is very eye catching. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful panorama. - Darwinek (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Can we get assurances that NS isn't being paid by Tasmania's tourism board? I jest, of course. Yet another quality panorama. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per above. And if he is paid by them, it's good value on their behalf... Gazhiley (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom., Diliff et al. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —Aaroncrick (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pelion Range from Mt Oakleigh.jpg —Maedin\^talk 12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

good image

Articles in which this image appears

Golden Parakeet

Creator

Ironman br

• Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good detail, and a fairly natural looking environment considering the zoo location. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I'd preferred a focus on the eye(s) instead of the feet. bamse (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Nice image and a strong lead. I love the expression (if any such thing exists for a bird?) and the fact it appears to be looking right at the camera. J Milburn (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- good composition and EV. It's a high resolution shot (2000*3000px) and the bird fills the frame, so I think the slightly OOF head isn't too much of a problem, since there's a lot of fine detail visible. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Detail is sufficient but background is distracting. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Although the background is distracting, the worst parts are at least away from the head. Engaging pose. -- Avenue (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Guaruba guarouba -Gramado Zoo, Brazil-8a.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Admittedly there is an existing FP of this waterfall, but it was mentioned that this current nominated image has better EV due to the more complete view offered by it. The two images are very different in scope and I think there is probably grounds for two FPs on that basis, but I'll let you decide.

Articles in which this image appears

Wentworth Falls (waterfall), Wentworth Falls, New South Wales and Blue Mountains (Australia)

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've always preferred this one by quite a lot. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, fantastic shot. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great EV in Wentworth Falls (waterfall). Hope you'll visit more national parks... :) Elekhh (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fine for two FP's in my view when they are both this good... Gazhiley (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: striking photo and good detail. The other FP is very nice, but this one gives a good impression of the scale of the waterfall (there are people visible at the very bottom) and shows the entire cascade. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Upper Wentworth Falls, NSW, Australia 2 - Nov 2008.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

There is already a male FP, but the species is sexually dimorphic, so a female would be a good compliment.

Articles in which this image appears

Australian Wood Duck, Anatidae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Makes for a very awkward looking infobox, twice the size of the entire article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just made article bigger. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent shot. Agree about the taxobox- perhaps they could be side-by-side? J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice --Muhammad(talk) 11:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- clear EV (per nom.), nice detail, nice composition. I particularly like the coherent colour scheme in this picture (ie. brown bird against similarly drab brown background). NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Striking composition and colours. Shekure (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A great image. Compliments the male nicely. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chenonetta jubata female 2.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not taken in natural habitat, but the aviary was a large, walk-in type, so there isn't anything in the picture which suggests that. Apparently quite a common aviary bird.

Articles in which this image appears

Star Finch

Creator

User:Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent shot in every way. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Meets all the criteria. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Slight concern that this was oversharpened, otherwise great picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: nice shot, ticks all the boxes. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Peripitus (Talk) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Neochmia ruficauda.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High Quality Image.

Articles in which this image appears

Pied Heron, Ardea (genus)

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good detail/pose (would prefer to be slightly less from-behind though) and no evidence of zoo/cage. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support- as above, I would prefer it slightly more from the front, but the focus and composition are perfect. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per above. Elekhh (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't mind seeing the back of an animal. The angle works fine for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mostlyharmless. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- good technical quality and EV, nice composition, interesting subject. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very high Encyclopedic value, great composition. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ardea picata.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Commons FP, POTY candidate in 2007 - there's more like this one.

Articles in which this image appears

Agama mwanzae

Creator

Christian Mehlführer

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- good technical quality, good EV. I don't have a problem with the wide crop and 4:3 aspect ratio since, in this case, the unusual position of the subject is quite appealing. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's a very pretty lizard- are we certain that this is not tilted in any direction? J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I doubt it makes any real difference. Support. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - what is not to like ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I do like how the upper body is on a horizontal plane. A striking image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Wish it could have been done without blurring the foreground so much, but overall, good quality and beautiful subject. Fletcher (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But the tail is out of focus :P Noodle snacks (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It was on my list to nominate... you were quicker. Elekhh (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:MC Siedleragame.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clear, interesting, good resolution, walkers for scale. Illustrates the main part of a very popular walk/hike in the Lake District.

Articles in which this image appears

Catbells

Creator

David Iliff

• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 13:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very recognisably Cumbrian, a great shot. I admit I'm possibly a little biased here :) J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simply breathtaking. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yet more wonderful evidence that Mr Iliff has too much time off work, and also apparently control of the weather systems... It's never a sunny day when I'm there!!! Great picture, and as per J Milburn, very recognisably Cumbrian... Gazhiley (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Possibly the only part of England that resembles California landscapes. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 19:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. California resembles us :) J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Peripitus (Talk) 22:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great shot, very nice lighting. Human scale and footprint well captured. Elekhh (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Very nice - I love all the shades of green. -- Avenue (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Its a breath taking shot. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everyone else. Good work. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Catbells Northern Ascent, Lake District - June 2009.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It shows unique direction of the subject, with compelling overview of the tree colonnade. Also, with little contrast, it brings dark and overwhelming point of view.

Articles in which this image appears

Vrnjačka Banja

Creator

Tadija

• Support as nominator --Tadija (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- FkpCascais (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The overall quality is poor. -- mcshadypl ^TC 21:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sharp enough by FP standards. Pretty picture, but I also don't find it extremely encyclopedic. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- low image quality, EV not great. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to withdraw nomination. I agree with you comments and accept. All best, --Tadija (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Highly aesthetic image, showing this lizard endemic to Dominica in a natural habitat setting. While not all parts of the body are sharp, the focus is well placed on the head. I was contemplating of nominating it since a while, and now that there are so many lizards running for the FP I thought is time to take the challenge.

Articles in which this image appears

Dominican Anole

Creator

Postdlf

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Well, can't fault the reptile nom surge, but I'm not sure it is the best photo. The legs and tail are obscured and the environment is a bit lack-lustre. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The technical quality is there, but the obscuring rock in the forground stops the picture making that jump from being good to being great. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. This picture is of great quality and it seems to me that even if "the environment is a bit lack-lustre," it deserves to be featured. I must have missed the rule where the picture had to have bright and pretty colors to make FP status. WiiWillieWiki 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Diliff. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Adds significantly to article The Peacemakers. Beautiful historic painting, displayed in White House, documents the only meeting between Union high command, featured at Wikimedia Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

The Peacemakers, David Dixon Porter, River Queen (steamboat)

Creator

George Peter Alexander Healy

• Support as nominator --Scewing (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This copy is significantly smaller than the original, and it could probably do with a little restoration work. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer an image comes to fine art the less appropriate a digital restoration becomes. Once a reviewer mistakenly supposed I had restored a Rembrandt. as if I would dare Durova⁴⁰⁹ 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well, but this is still a lot smaller than it could be. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Smaller than it could be, but large enough for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This fellow gave me a nip on the toe whilst I was photographing a cascade. Naturally I caught it and placed it into a slightly shallower rock pool to allow a photograph or two. I think the image quality is pretty good considering that the subject is under relatively turbulent water. There are only a handful of yabby photos on commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Yabby, Cherax

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The image quality isn't bad, but I'm not certain it's adding much to either article at the moment. Is there no way you could be more certain about the species? If so, we could create a stub article for the species and have instant EV there... J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its true, but I can't find an online reference to id it and I haven't a clue who to contact. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried a quick Google search, but the majority of hits are how to cook or catch them, which is a little sad. I'll ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods, see if they can point us in the right direction. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution period portrait of dancers in traditional costume. Restored version of File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portert van twee jonge Balinese danseressen TMnr 10004678.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Bali, Headgear, Balinese dance

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁷⁹ 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not enough EV IMO, and I don't feel convinced with the restoration. Since you've completely manipulated the background, I feel that a better job could have been done to make the tones as even as possible. I'm specifically talking about the left portion next to the girl's arm. I also see some smudges that were not visible in the original (if you'd like, I could leave some image notes on Commons). ZooFari 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What advantage does this offer over a contemporary (and colour) photograph? I've seen holiday snapshots that look quite similar. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As per Gerard, a period piece offers a more authentic image. A guy dressed up as Napoleon may match the costume to near perfection, but it's not the same as a picture of Napoleon. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure that the analogy works - Napoleon is a historical figure, these girls are not (and I don't think the costume has changed a great deal). GeraldM does make a fair point about the ear piercing though as far as a cursory look around can tell me. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so don't use Napoleon. An authentic Mayan [insert object] is likely worth tens of thousands of dollars while a reproduction, even if made from precisely the same materials, to the same pattern, etc, etc is likely worth little more than the cost of materials. Why? The history itself provides value. A print made by Ansel Adams will always be more valuable than one made from his negatives by someone else, even if they think they've matched it perfectly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be willing to keep an open mind regarding the encyclopedic value? This image was one of six that the Tropenmuseum curators selected per a request that they choose material of great importance. The six files arrived last Friday with my first cup of coffee, which due to time zone differences was nearly the end of the business week in Amsterdam. They did not include the reasons for their selections. Last night I emailed the museum with a request for information. Received an auto reply from their media liaison which seems to say (if I can make sense of Dutch cognates) that she has taken the day off. The encyclopedic value of this image seemed good enough to nominate without better information, but more will probably be forthcoming soon. Please be patient. Durova³⁸⁰ 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (on Staxringold's) I would like to add to that comment that the use of "history", IMO, should be understood as some value added by some extra information known about the subject, e.g., inn the examples provided, knowing it is really a Mayan thing or knowing it is a Ansel Adams' and not only the date. We do need the info that the museum is going to provide. franklin  01:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI our contact person is out of the office untill Wednesday.. GerardM (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. a picture requested to restore by the Tropenmuseum. Shows the young age of the dancers when Balinese dances were not yet a tourist attraction. Also have a look at the ears of the girl.. another thing you do not see any more. GerardM (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support There are a lot of advantages to a contemporary, colour picture (the costumes are colourful). But per myself above. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm not convinced with the argument that a color image of the same subject could be easily obtained, so the black and white image has less values than color photos. If we already have such image, please present to here. I searched for a free image of Balinese dancers in high quality at Flickr, but well, could not get one. Of course, color images of the luxurious gold headgear or costume would be very nice if we can get them, but I don't agree with the notion that a black and white photo has less values depicting the same subject. The photo captures its own nice mood, and I actually prefer more dramatic manipulation in the level. One thing that gives me curious is that the girls look very young as compared with Bali dancers commonly found in the present. If any editors knowledgeable of Bali culture or Indonesian culture tell us about any possible changes on the dancers' costume, and activity through time, that would be very nice though.--Caspian blue 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mum has dozens of photos of them from her last trip there. They are not of high quality, but they are extremely easy to obtain. Some of the photos have dancers of a similar (young) age. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for dancers a different crop is needed. This looks like they are riding an elephant or sitting.  franklin  14:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but a crop is what you do to a picture... the original picture has not been cropped. GerardM (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much. The word should be the one for when you decide when taking the picture. Composition maybe? Let me try again. For dancers a different composition is needed. This looks like they are riding an elephant or sitting.  franklin  19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Gerard. 22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Votes must be signed to be counted. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was me[2]; sorry about that. NW (Talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• adding to my vote: limited EV in both articles in which it is used. In Bali it is competing(with respect to information provided[not necessarily in quality]) with a similar image. Would like to hear more about the museum claim for restoration. So far, from what is said doesn't seems to be a reason to claim EV. About the time, and black and white topic: I see the value of dated items as showing lost values. This image is showing Balinese dancers in some sort of traditional costumes but, is it showing Balinese dancers in 1929 as opposed to what dancers wear (or can wear) now? Is it 1929 specifically important year for the dance in Bali or for this kind of costumes? Are these two specific dancers important in some sense? If none of these has a strong Yes as answer then how is the EV claim supported? The preference for a 1929 picture has to be like the difference between a picture of a newly invented shirt or a shirt that is no longer used as opposed to a picture of a tie in 1929 that is equal to one in 2009 but only old. Where this costumes started to be used in that year? Maybe the people of the museum can answer some of these. The placement of the picture in headgear and in bali is very resent. Although it looks very well there (for headgear only) it is not very clear yet whether it will last.  franklin  00:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment A little of (maybe original) research, shows that hands are a key part in the Balinese traditional dance (see Balinese dance and these are not shown in the picture making the choices of the photographer not so happy ones. On the other hand, the dancers are young and this is emphasized by the third article (newly added) and shown by the image (OR here too or at least using Wikipedia as source).  franklin  02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Had expected a reply from the Tropenmuseum staff by now. No further explanation for the selection has yet been forthcoming, although they chose this specifically per a request for high ev material. Perhaps suspend the nomination pending further information? Durova³⁸² 01:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending further information. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Bali's culture is now, for better or worse, influenced by the needs of representing it to the tourist industry, an industry that only really got started in the 1930s. (See Adrian Vickers, Bali: a Paradise Created for further reading). Voters interested in the EV this image may or may not have should take this into account. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A photograph of the bridge (and only the bridge) has a lot of uses, complimenting File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg in many places. I think this panorama does a fairly good job. I didn't stay in Sydney for long as the weather wasn't too great.

Articles in which this image appears

Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney, List of attractions in Sydney, Tourism in Sydney, New South Wales, Australian Landmarks, List of historic civil engineering landmarks, Through arch bridge

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is a very good quality image, and I see you did some work placing it in 6 articles, but I find the current FP better, as it provides more valuable information about the context and has a more neutral background. I would rather support a similar quality daylight image. Elekhh (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same argument might apply to the opera house image too. The bridge article itself has historically had plenty of discussion and arguing about the images in the article. The previous infobox image that was eventually settled on is pretty similar in composition to the one presented here, except lower quality. The panorama you refer to has ended up tacked to the end of the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that panorama format generally doesn't fit so well in wiki articles, and often ends up removed, so the format of the nomination is better. However, I still think the FP is better (even croped) and that a daylight image would add more EV, and should be possible for this very much photographed bridge. I think it could be more aesthetic as well, as generally, the weather is quite good in Sydney :) Elekhh (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's one of those subjects where there are so many different ways to photograph it (a bit like Tower Bridge in London) and every time, you'll get something a bit different (lighting and weather). I'm in agreement that the view from the northern side (ie current FP panorama) is the better angle because it has the ability to incorporate the Sydney skyline and the bridge isn't viewed quite so straight-on, but if the subject is just the bridge it isn't so important I suppose. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went to Blues Head Reserve (Opera house intersected with bridge), Kiribilli (Its a bit side on if you aren't trying to get a skyline) and Ashton Park (Bridge Partially Obscured). A little research reveals that Fort Denison has the bridge partially obscured (and the last ferry is at 4:30pm). For both the bridge and opera house I think the best place may actually be from the naval base, but that wasn't a fence I was going to hop.
• WeakSupport. I was leaning towards abstaining on the basis that the focus seems to be on the colours rather than the bridge. But I think that for what it does, it's a good shot. I could see a daytime image also being featurable, but I don't think that's a reason to oppose - this is an iconic structure and both a day and night image would compliment each other - although I think a day image would be better in the article lead. However, given its similarity to the other FP, I'm still not sure that a case can be made. Perhaps a delist and replace? If some comment was made about why this is better, or a second night shot is necessary, I might lean towards a full support. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I can say is that the article editors settled on a night shot, and not a wide panorama for the infobox image. This photo reflects what they seem to want. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a delist & replace is really the answer, as the existing FP is not strictly a Harbour Bridge photo, it's a panorama incorporating the Sydney skyline and Opera House too. Best not to compare to the FP - evaluate the image on its own merits as there is no current equivalent FP for this subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On its own merits, I find the colourfull lights of North Sydney and Luna Park are distracting. That's why I think the view from the northern side, or by daylight, would be better. Elekhh (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. For landmark bridges it's possible to justify more than one FP, especially if the photographs are demonstrably different. Note the precedent. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 00:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Tower Bridge, London
• 
  Tower Bridge, London
• 
  Tower Bridge, London

• • Agreed on that point. I didn't vote on the first two, but supported the last because it also illustrated the Thames (which is the subject of multiple FPs - in fact there's hardly a landmark in the City of London without one!). I do think that some kind of justification should be given. For example, saying that this is an image of the structure only, a panoramic view, or an image taken from the southern end, etc. Since Noodle Snacks hasn't given any reason I've had to make my own interpretation as to why it may or may not provide extra encyclopedic value that the existing FP doesn't have. I suspect we'll get this more often as FPC continues.... Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reader of Sydney Harbour Bridge has limited use for a wide panorama beyond some context in the bridge location. Articles like Sydney and New South Wales may be better served by a panorama, but this image seems to compliment the Opera House Only shot in those articles. In articles like Australian Landmarks, List of historic civil engineering landmarks and Through arch bridge (the last two I've just added) a panorama is entirely the wrong thing to use. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- very nice shot, good EV. My only comment is that it's a pity that the reflection of the very bright light to the right of the bridge has ripples in the water which are sharply defined, whereas all the other reflections have a nice smooth quality to them. I'll leave it up to the creator to decide whether to fix this or not. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circuilar Quay.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image illustrates the United Nations in patrolling Port au Prince in the damage and chaos present immediately after the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The image is striking and well composed, and shows the role of the United Nations, damage apparent, fire, and large numbers of people. It is a particularly dynamic image, as illustrated by the girl running across the road. The very front of the UN Landrover is cut off slightly, but I consider this a minor flaw. It has remained stable in the main article for some time now, and adds value to the timeline of events.

Articles in which this image appears

2010 Haiti earthquake, Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake

Creator

Marcello Casal Jr/Agencia Brasil

• Support as nominator --Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (edit - support for Edit 2.)[reply]
• In my opinion this needs a white balance adjustment. This picture in the Caribbean looks gray like a picture in Europe.  franklin  07:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weather isn't uplifting and sunny enough for you in this photo? ;-) Even the Caribbean gets cloudy days... Besides, a white balance adjustment won't turn a dull grey scene colourful. Perhaps you mean a saturation adjustment. In any case, I think it looks about right. Maybe slightly underexposed if anything. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it does need an adjustment. This photo taken immediately afterwards shows more light. It was also on 1/250 but f11 rather than f14 - there's an acceptable tradeoff there for depth of field, I think, but I'm not going to object to adjusting white-balance. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      

      • Franklin, or the record, Edit 1 seems to have a levels adjustment as well as a white balance adjustment. There are now blown highlights in the sky and I have a suspicion that the white balance is actually incorrect now. Sample the UN vehicle paint. I can't say for sure how 'white' it normally is, but you've taken it from being perfectly grey (on a 5x5 pixel sample on the UN vehicle in the middle of the U) to red/green tinted. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added Edit 2 which I think gives the image the improvements it needs. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea what GIMP does. I just used an automatic "white balance" tool that GIMP has. By the way, those areas (at least those in the sky) in which there are blown highlights are places in which the original doesn't have detail either (a constant gray c8ccd7). It is very little in both, but it is rue that something manual can give not so many similar colors. The alt was mainly to show how insanely burning the sun is there. By the way, I will try to read what the difference is between level adjustment and white balance adjustment but if I don't find it or I don't understand I will ask you. When you apply the tool in GIMP (the white balance thing), in the history, it calls it "levels".  franklin  14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 2. Think this has the improvements needed without the incorrect white balance or blown highlights. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Diliff. A definite improvement on the original, and faithful to the image immediately taken afterwards. Increasing the light levels really draws your eyes down from the sky into the centre, onto the subjects of the photograph. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 as per Diliff... Gazhiley (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 per Franklin's finding of a constant grey. No point making a religion of avoiding #fff. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, but I prefer Edit2. What I was trying to say is that the detail is there, but it is true the GIMP filter leaved the differences very small in wide areas of the sky. The goal is to be able to see the detail in the sky and in Edit2 this is better while also giving it the brightness that this place probably had.  franklin  16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• That's the wrong logic to apply IMO. Franklin and I used two different methods to evaluate the colour balance. His was to let GIMP choose colour balance based on an algorithm to calculate it based on the entire scene (potentially flawed, depending on the colours in the scene). Mine was to use a known white (assuming the UN vehicle is reasonably clean) object. I can only suggest you think carefully about which is more reliable as a source: The entire scene filled with a variety of colours, or a known white/grey object. Not many photographers would use auto white balance when a grey card or equivalent is available. I have a feeling of deja-vu, like we've covered this ground before, it's not about religion, it's just about using the best available tools to get the best result... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 2: very interesting picture, good EV, striking subject matter. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. In ref to comments above - in my experience that (use the known/spot white) is a far better method than GIMP/Photoshop's auto functions, particularly when there is such a clear reference in the image Peripitus (Talk) 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I checked again the original and I was wrong. There is indeed detail there, where the Edits have blown highlights (and I should say that both have, Edit2 certainly less than Edit1). I think I was using the eyedropper wrongly. Now I used a personal trick of burning and dodging until you get visible detail. The original gives this File:BurnedAlot.jpg, Edit2 gives this File:Edit2burnedAlot.jpg and Edit1 gives this File:Edit1burnedAlot.jpg. In the two Edits there are areas that remain uniform. Diliff, I guess it is difficult to conciliate pleasing my need for a bright sun and the little variability of the tones in the sky of the original, but could you please try another attempt stopping before producing blown highlights. Even if I don't find it bright enough. I think I prefer not having the subjective brightness instead of having objective blown highlights.  franklin  22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, I did notice that there was same blown highlights in my edit too, but as you say, a lot less than in your edit. The examples you showed in your comments above show that Edit 2 has just a little patch on the right side of the smoke where it is genuinely blown, but the rest of the colour in the examples is where just one or two colour channels are blown, rather than all three? I would not consider that (1 or 2 channels blown) the same thing as truly blown highlights which are pure white. In any case, I just spent 15-20 minutes cloning out the literally hundreds of dust spots from Edit 2, so what I might try to do tomorrow is blend the non blown patch of sky into Edit 2, rather than start from scratch and re-clone out all the dust spots. Funny how nobody noticed or commented on them (including me) considering how obvious they are when the image is viewed at 100%! So in summary, I'll see if I can blend non-blown sky into that blown patch when I get a chance tomorrow. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course!! cloning! That gives both brightness and removes blown highlights. I learned something today. And yes, is only the tinny patch on the right the one that needs to be fixed in Edit2.  franklin  23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 2-  franklin  13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:EscombrosBelAir5 Edit1.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

sharp. clear. shows well.

Articles in which this image appears

Blue Mountains Tree Frog

Creator

Benjamint 10:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 10:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice shot. Shows the interesting environment particularly well. Does appear to be slightly motion blurred though, but could be my imagination. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Checked the EXIF: it was 1/60 -- Benjamint 11:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well that's slow'ish, but the shutter speed alone means very little without the focal length, whether it was handheld or on tripod, and if handheld, how stable you were, whether optical stabilisation was used, etc. But it's sufficiently sharp I think. Just not quite perfect. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, It was 35mm and handheld with IS. Was too long ago to remember how stable I was. Benjamint 11:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, wonderful. The little waterfall in the background really adds to it. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting and encyclopedic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Blue-Mountains-Tree-Frog444.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image, recently promoted to FP at Commons, is a beautiful, high-resolution and educational illustration. I know satellite images of hurricanes are quite common, but this one stands out to me.

Articles in which this image appears

Fujiwhara effect, Typhoon Parma

Creator

NASA, uploaded by Atmoz (talk · contribs).

• Support as nominator --–Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice quality and well illustrative --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it possible to indicate which typhoon is which in the caption? Lemon martini (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Sorry, I added imagenotes on the Commons file. Apparently those don't work here... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Indeed hurricane images are quite common. This however exceeds most by illustrating the Fujiwhara effect, and is of very high quality. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Jujutacular. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV is clear. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:ParmaMelor AMO TMO 2009279 lrg.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and has been on six articles for over a month now. Also, This is a great photo of the snow in California

Articles in which this image appears

Snow - Types of snow - Climate of California - Southern California - California - Sierra Nevada (U.S.) - Sequoia National Forest - Kernville, California - Kern County, California -

Creator

Zink Dawg

• Support as nominator --Zink Dawg -- 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Sierra Nevada range is a fairly large range. Would it be possible to provide the names of the peaks visible here? Or the name of the nearest well known peak? Durova⁴⁰⁹ 23:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is near the Sequoia National Park area.--Zink Dawg -- 00:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Sequoia NP in Central California, not Southern? That what the article says anyway. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that Kernville, CA is in Central California. I thout Kern County was in Southern California.--Zink Dawg -- 03:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the most part, you need to upload the image to Commons and provide a description. Until coordinates are provided, I will have to oppose per EV. --ZooFari 03:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Maedin\^talk 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image is of high technical standards, sufficient scalable resolution, is an excellent illustration of the related concepts, has a free license, supplements two separate articles, is accurate, has valuable captions, and demonstrates no image manipulation.

Articles in which this image appears

Indicator diagram, Cutoff (steam engine), Steam engine

Creator

Old Moonraker

• Support as nominator --Calliopeman316 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Shouldn't this image be SVG? --Chrismiceli (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One is linked to on the image page, but it doesn't seem to render. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An indicator diagram would very rarely have the mechanism drawn. The piston position doesn't match any of the possible positions indicated by the diagram. Additionally, an indicator diagram is a plot of pressure vs volume (P-V) not pressure vs piston position. This distinction is important for calculating the work done in each cycle. While position and volume are linearly proportional the diagram is misleading and so has no place in Indicator diagram. File:Steam engine in action.gif is more useful for the steam engine, but is too fast and a bit small. I would be happier with something like this, perhaps with animation too. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another flaw - the direction of the cycle is not indicated in the diagram. I'd also ditch the scales and units - it is no less educational and the percentages are clunky. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As I've discussed with other images, combining charts and diagrams into a single image is a bad idea. It is inherently confusing and a poor way to present information. It may be acceptable for popular magazines and newspapers, etc., but Wikipedia should have a higher standard for presenting information in a professional manner. At the very least, I don't think it's appropriate as a featured picture. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. I took thermodynamics and I don't get this after a quick scan... upstateNYer 19:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

David290 recently took a series of excellent photos to illustrate the New South China Mall article. The New South China Mall is a marvel of overbuilding -- the world's largest (with room for over 2,000 stores), yet 99% unoccupied since its 2005 opening. The nominated photo shows an eerie combination of an empty public retail space with garish hanging decorations suited for a busy market (note the "for lease" signs hanging among the floating English alphabet characters.) I am hoping that selection as a Featured Picture would draw more attention to this fascinating article and David's gallery. This is the first time I have nominated a picture.

Articles in which this image appears

New South China Mall

Creator

David290

• Support as nominator --Milowent (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It has fairly poor image quality but it's a significant subject and not a scene you see every day (although given the size of it, this is just the tip of the iceberg). I've uploaded a perspective corrected version of it but I'm not sure if I can support it because of the image quality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quality-wise, the photo is poor. It also does not illustrate the "eerie"-ness that the nominator refers to. It is difficult to see that this mall is in fact "empty" in any respect.-- mcshadypl ^TC 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Well, things aren't looking good for my nomination. I am not a photo expert so I can't argue much with your opinions on that. You visual types, though, would probably enjoy the PBS documentary short made about the mall [3], it conveys the eerie nature of the huge empty space quite well. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view the field of view needs to be wider. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- quality is low, even when the image is downsized considerably. Composition and lighting could be better. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure of the procedure, but I happy to withdraw the nomination at this point. I'll come back wiser next time. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per myself and above. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's a beautiful waterfall scene, and quite different to the typical temperate rainforest scenery that we usually see.

Articles in which this image appears

Luang Prabang and Kuang Si Falls

Creator

Commons:User:Benh

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks very nice but I feel very confused by the 246° fields of view... Elekhh (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose -- it's very difficult to decide, but I have settled on this judgment because I think the picture lacks focus. On one hand, the wide-angle is good because it shows the entire pool... but then the tree-line is cut-off and the two parts of the bridge are asymmetrical. The waterfall is the most interesting part of the picture... but then parts of it are overexposed, which means the aforementioned problems can't be solved simply by cropping the picture. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lighting is patchy on the waterfall and a narrower field of view would be less confusing. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High EV, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Surfing

Creator

mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew what's wrong with this one. Oh well, I withdraw my nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit premature, I think: it's only been up for 48 hours, and was listed at the weekend which is often quite a quiet time. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, but I know from my prior experiences that, if there was neither vote nor comment for 48 hours, it means that the image produced no interest at all. I do not know why, but whatever... --Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way, your pictures are so original people often do not know how to react. :-) I was looking at this... I could not decide about the EV of a wipeout, which is basically just someone falling down. Then again it is a pretty cool capture and wipeouts must be a regular part of the sport, so I might have given it a weak support. It's not a bad image at all, more of a different one, and I think people respond most often to what they're used to analyzing. You see dozens of flower macros, you form an idea of what qualities to look for, what flaws to point out. I don't think I've ever seen a still photo of a wipeout! So in that light, thank you for submitting it and hope you don't lose patience with FPC. Fletcher (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support crop -- in terms of technical quality and interestingness, the original photo is excellent. However, my main concern is that its EV is a bit weak, since the picture itself doesn't make it clear how the wipeout occurred. This would not be so much of a problem if the subject occupied more of the frame, but in the picture the main subject is very small. Consequently, I've done a crop of the picture, which places more emphasis on how the wipeout has happened: in my crop, the point of the wave that the surfer has just been thrown from is emphasised much more strongly. Your caption on the image page also adds a lot of EV since it describes the wipeout as being of the 'freefall' type: more EV would gained if this were mentioned in the Surfing article. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the subject needs to be much bigger in the frame. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't know if it's possible to illustrate this without a movie or a series of pictures. Would be nice to see where he came from. I think the resolution of the surfer is okay as long as it's the phenomenon that we're focusing on. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments and for votes. Surely oppose votes are better than no votes at all :). I cannot agree with any of oppose reasons. Noodle snacks, the resolution of the image allows to crop it out to have the surfer fill out the whole frame, but to show a surfer wipeout. the wave is as show a pianist without piano, for example. Papa Lima Whiskey, illustrate without with a single shot is as possible as illustrate any other surfing maneuver with a single shot.After all a falling surfer is a falling surfer --Mbz1 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, because the surfer seems a long way from the wave, which lessens the picture's impact, and because he is partly obscured by his board. Good action shot though. And I would support the latest inline pic above in a heartbeat. -- Avenue (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

First by its highly important historical and architectural values, and because of beautiful sun direction and tree branches. Very pleasant picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Žiča, Architecture of Serbia

Creator

Tadija

• Support as nominator --Tadija (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - excellent photo. --Cinéma C 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Almost all the elements of the image are in front of the building.  franklin  01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While it is a pleasant picture, it's way too noisy, could use some perspective correction to straighten the lines, and seems like it may not be the best angle, as we're getting mostly a side view that is largely obscured by trees. And even though sometimes it's unavoidable to have people in the frame, that woman is really close and seems like the shot could have been better if you waited for her to move along. Fletcher (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; it feels like there's too much going on in front of the building- I don't really get a great concept of what the building actually looks like. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very emotive and powerful poster, which says a lot. I have it on the cover of a book next to me, on my wall at home, and I have seen the it (and bastardisations) on clothing and the like- in Britain, it is comparable to the likes of the famous Che Guevara photo in terms of its iconic status. This svg is a perfect reproduction, and, as an svg, can appear at any size necessary. There can be no better illustration for the article on the poster itself, and is a decent addition to the other articles on which it is used. I think it could probably be used in other articles as well. Has that "wow" factor that we're not allowed to talk about, and meets all the criteria, as far as I can see. Yes, it's simple, but it's certainly a highly valuable addition to the encyclopedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Keep Calm and Carry On, motivational poster, Ministry of Information (United Kingdom)

Creator

UK Government (design), Evilandi (svg)

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An an adopted Brit, I appreciate the symbolism of this, and the enc is high in the articles. There's something strange about using an SVG version of historical illustration, but of course it's the design rather than the poster reproduction that creates the impact. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially as the design now has significance within popular culture. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I think it fits much better within the category of propaganda than in motivational posters. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The SVG of something historical coupled with the relative simplicity of the image puts me off a bit, but it's a crystal clear illustration. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs counterclockwise rotation. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 05:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak conditional oppose pending rotation. Too bad it isn't in raster graphics or I'd do the correction. If rotated, count this as support. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've obviously got better eyes than me- I can't see it. Is there somewhere I can request this? J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a graphics lab that usually has vector editors available. Needs about a tenth of a degree rotation. Take a close look at the text from left to right; once you see it it jumps out and becomes distracting. Happens all the time with historic material. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've made a request at the lab and got a reply- can we perhaps have this request on hold while this is worked on? Apparently, there are a few other issues that need to be fixed. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, I was doing it when you added this. Replaced the figures of the letter by text and centered it (they come horizontal by default). Still I see them rotated. Maybe some optical illusion?  franklin  21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please revert and upload under a different name. The two are different and now there are two conflicting requests. --ZooFari 21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've got a mug with this on! It's Blue on my mug though, but I assume that is no issue just choice of the mug maker... Gazhiley (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm concerned that the vectorization is not perfectly made, particularly the text which is all crooked and misaligned. There's no rotation necessary, it's just that the shapes are slanted, most likely due to straight forward trace from a raster. Needs to be reworked. --ZooFari 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above- your assessment is probably right, and it is being worked on. Perhaps it would be best to put this nomination on hold. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, missed it. --ZooFari 21:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wouldn't this be more authentic if it was a high resolution scan of an original? Noodle snacks (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These were never actually used, as such- it's the design that's famous, not the poster. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Might I point out that the font of the text on the original posters used is different to the one in the nomination: [4]. (Check the K, C, A and R for clarification.) I don't think it looks nice as a consequence. If I remember correctly, the original nomination (before the text was rotated) had it right, though. Also, the crown needs rotating; it wasn't just the text. 79.67.154.166 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Already reverted my edition to the poster. this website claims that the second picture is one of the originals. Can someone recognize what is the font being used? If it is really one the originals it would be good to have it. If there were no original prints at all then it doesn't matter.  franklin  00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The posters "have a unique and recognisable typography" according to our article. The font on the current image certainly matches the one used on my book cover. I also have a poster of it from The Times- I'm afraid I can't compare that myself, as I will not be home again for several weeks. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asking for the font so that, when fixing the alignment of the letters, I can use the right one.  franklin  01:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Grr. A search in Google give many places saying that it is not a specific font but something hand drawn. We will have to just move the letters already there.  franklin  01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Definitely seen this and heard the phrase before. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this picture is very fit for VP but I see no reason why this is worthwhile featuring. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It meets every criteria? High resolution, high quality, accurate, a strong addition to the articles in which it is used, freely licensed- to boot, it is a historically and socially important image in the UK, and evokes a wide variety of emotional responses? Seems like the perect FPC to me. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've commented on the closure of this nomination at the FPC talk page: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keep Calm and Carry On. Maedin\^talk 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nergaal -- mcshadypl ^TC 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we please keep this open or relist it? We have a new alternative from the graphic lab, made from scratch. I will ask the author to come and explain it. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the number of votes that would need to be updated, perhaps it would be more suitable to close this and create a new nom for the latest version. Maedin\^talk 14:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my thoughts too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi there, author here. I've retraced it by hand and it should be a nice improvement. I'd be more than happy to address my views on this Featured Picture candidate, but the new nomination does seem like a good idea rather than have the mess of vote changing. Of course, I'm open to whatever we all agree upon; just let me know anything else you need from me (and where you want me to write about it!) Mononomic (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keep Calm and Carry On 2. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 17:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not promoted in favour of new version nominated here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keep Calm and Carry On 2

Reason

It seems to be lizard season here, so here's one from Tanzania. Good quality, EV, and IMO interesting especially the tail.

Articles in which this image appears

Dwarf yellow-headed gecko, Lygodactylus, Autotomy, Regeneration (biology), Gekkota, Gecko

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. However I see four dust spots in a line that should be cloned out... I'd do so but maybe you can process from RAW (?). Fletcher (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to do so, I don't have the RAW and I can't see them either. --Muhammad(talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit at right... hopefully that got them. they were in the background on a line about horizontal with the tail. Fletcher (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I see them. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 13:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Attractive and encyclopedic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What's the deal with the tiny little tail? Do they all have that? J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autotomy and regeneration is very common among these species. Of the few lizards of this species I saw, most had such short or no tails at all. --Muhammad(talk) 14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, now that that tail issue is clarified. Bonus points for the fungi :) J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to the red stuff? I think it may be resin --Muhammad(talk) 01:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, perhaps more likely... You don't get resin like that here :) J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dwarf Yellow-headed gecko edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very high resolution, a nice vantage point and hey, countering systematic bias too, as I doubt we have many Laos-related FP images.

Articles in which this image appears

Luang Prabang

Creator

Commons:User:Benh

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Very nice and illustrative --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well executed. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; beautiful countryside. Fletcher (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Attractive and encyclopedic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom + nice composition. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Luang Prabang pano Wikimedia Commons.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good EV, shows how the giraffe eats. Good quality and has been in the article for over 5 months. Also, I think it is particularly illustrative of the tongue and lips that are tough enough to withstand the thorns of plants it feeds on.

Articles in which this image appears

Giraffe

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 01:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know which subspecies it is? Are we looking at a wild one? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know but my best guess is it's a juvenile Kilimanjaro Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi). --Muhammad(talk) 12:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to know if it is a wild one also. I have become a bit confused over what information on this image is factual and what is a guess. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fact, it's a giraffe. Fact, it's a juvenile. Fact, it's pictured in Tanzania. Fact, it's feeding. Guess, the sub-species. --Muhammad(talk) 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are its parents? Snowman (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The photograph appears to be taken from the same level as the Giraffe's head. I would like to know more about how the photograph was taken to understand it better, and perhaps more details about the photography could be added to the image description. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how it seems to you that way. Both of us were on the ground. Maybe I'm just too tall :) What else would you like to know? --Muhammad(talk) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see anything in the image description to say that it is a juvenile. Is it a guess that it is a juvenile (see above)? Was the juvenile about the same hight as yourself? Were you some distance from the Giraffe? Is it male of female? To be a FP and to be more useful I think this photograph should have more information in the image description. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject that this image is illustrating, feeding, does not require details about its gender or height. --Muhammad(talk) 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think its height would be correlated to its age and an estimate of its height would be useful. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can only estimate the height. It was probably around 8-9 feet tall. I was about 20m away from the giraffe --Muhammad(talk) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That it fine. Which zoo? Snowman (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I quite like this one. The fact that the branch is denuded of leaves below the tongue shows how efficient the tongue is. Agree with nominator that gender is unimportant, and agree that it is likely a Maasai Giraffe. Might it benefit from a tighter crop though? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading Maedin's comment I re-examined the photo and saw what he meant about the leaves, I suspect he she is probably right about cropping. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a she, :) Maedin\^talk 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not say "gender is unimportant?" ;P ! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Later commons divulge that the animal is in a zoo. Does this change your opinion of the subspecies of Giraffe? Snowman (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tanzania is known for having this sub-species of giraffe and the pattern also matches the mentioned sub-species. See below for zoo reply. I don't understand why you are getting so worked up over unnecessary details. --Muhammad(talk) 12:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, I am not getting worked up about unnecessary details, so I would be grateful if you would withdraw your comment. I am helping to get this good image through FP by helping to build up a meaningful image description. I see your image as a potential scientific illustration for biology pages on various language wikipedias, where a detailed image description would be vital to understand the image. Snowman (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for the harsh wording. Anything else? --Muhammad(talk) 13:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The pattern matches that subspecies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with Sabine's Sunbird and Snowman. A slight crop (on the left) would help, and more precise information about the location of the photo (nature reserve, safari park, zoo, wild) and size/age of subject on the image description would be also useful. Elekhh (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Information added to description page. Juvenile 8-9 feet tall, pictured in a zoo in Tanzania --Muhammad(talk) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Errmm, please don't crop it on the left! If you do, you lose the branches which aren't so bare, and that reduces the EV. Because this is a "feeding" pic, the less bare branches are quite important for context. I don't see anything wrong with the current crop at all, it's nicely framed. Maedin\^talk 20:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think it needs cropping. Snowman (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Crop Uploaded I prefer the original though per Maedin. --Muhammad(talk) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot. I think it was worth it, and the crop is better. One last q: is it feeding or being fed? Elekhh (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's definitely feeding. The plant was growing in the giraffe's enclosure. --Muhammad(talk) 02:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either Only other bit of information is the plant species (or genus). The leaves remind me of Acacia but I'm not familiar with the African species. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Acacia to me too. I will ask an expert --Muhammad(talk) 02:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got confirmation that it is acacia. Specie won't be possible to id though --Muhammad(talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1. Weak Support original. Elekhh (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original: as my earlier comment. Haven't decided on edit1 yet. Maedin\^talk 07:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: with preference for original, due to superior EV. Maedin\^talk 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that the image description has been substantially improved, which helps my understanding of this image. However, I think that the name of the zoo should be included too. If we knew what zoo it was in, it might be possible to find out what sort of Giraffes are kept in the zoo. I think that the image description is important. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the problem and the reason why I didn't mention the zoo part from before. Tanzania hardly has any zoos, since the animals roam a very large portion of it wildly. Every year, for a few days, the ministry (I think of natural resources) sets up this display of live animals, most in their natural environments. There is no name to that display. After the few days of display, it's closed down and I presume the animals taken back to their respective national parks. --Muhammad(talk) 12:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with preference to original. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, but prefer edit 1. It retains enough leaves to get the point across. Making the tongue bigger is more important. (And it removes most of the distracting yellow flower bud(?) at top right.) -- Avenue (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Giraffe feeding, Tanzania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Portfolio photo of a model at the top of her career.

Articles in which this image appears

Alice Burdeu, List of Australia's Next Top Model contestants

Creator

David Joseph Perez

• Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I really don't like the strong lighting (it's significantly blown - yuck) and pose (she looks more like a replicant from Bladerunner), but I'm not sure if I'm even qualified to talk about what makes a good fashion model portrait so I'm reluctant to oppose without hearing other POV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't know much about fashion photography either, but I don't think people are supposed to look like they're made of plastic. Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or a decapitated severed head sitting on a mount of fur. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plastic objection is really not a valid reason to oppose a fashion photograph. Basically all editorial photos make models look like plastic. Just for one point of comparison, here is a scan of the cover editorial in Paris Vogue this month (scroll down)[5]. Rose Cordero is looking totally like plastic, and the lighting is extremely uneven. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you're right, we are in danger of crossing into Wikipedia:IDONTLIKE, but the poor lighting that I was referring to was the backlighting. Most of the background is blown white. It's just not aesthetically pleasing to me and only makes it harder to see the details of the model. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting is just a tad uneven... Fletcher (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Make up is a fact of life here. Low key lighting means I can't see much of anything though. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to poor lighting -- mcshadypl ^TC 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above lighting issues... Gazhiley (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lighting isn't just generically bad, but particularly for this subject matter. The photo could stand perhaps without her body (though that is a big piece of the EV of a photo of a model, someone who largely notable for their body), but half of her face is also in heavy shadow, leaving it with so-so EV as a simple biographic photo of the subject as it's currently used. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It brings balanced view of the man, and also shows some of his character. Love the lighting, and arm in the foreground. If needed, bigger photo may be uploaded.

Articles in which this image appears

Predrag Miletić

Creator

Tadija

• Support as nominator --Tadija (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's no source listed on the image description page, did you take this photograph? Jujutacular ^T · C 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But i did, you have all of that on commons page. ([6]) --Tadija (talk)

• I see now, thanks. I was looking at the version that was still on Wikipedia. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is there a particular reason this is in greyscale? Yeah, it's very arty, but it's not generally that encyclopedic... J Milburn (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well no, it was just wished like that. I have similar photos in color, this one is only grayscale. --Tadija (talk)

• Is there a reason you consider the greyscale more encyclopedic than the colour? J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, J Milburn, really, nothing special, just it could be interesting as person is actor, so it can be encyclopedic per man's occupation. I will never add portrait of some politician or scientist in grayscale. But this is ok. Also, i hope that this is not problem for nomination? :) :)

• Oppose. The hand is just too large and dominant, taking up most of the foreground and being larger than the face. A little bit of hand would be fine - I've seen plenty of portraits where hands or other body parts add expression - but too much hand is problematic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this shot, it strikes me as technically good and it is nicely dynamic. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The picture is original and looks just great. FkpCascais (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Colour is more encyclopaedic and I'm not a fan of the perspective effect for article illustration. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hand is ginormous and distracting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A nicely lit image on a food plant (but I don't know what the plant is).

Articles in which this image appears

Broad-tailed parrot, Crimson Rosella, Rosella

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The feathers look noisy --Muhammad(talk) 01:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think it was anything serious, but I did a masked NR. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support; not your best shot, and not our best shot of a parrot, but decent and a good addition to the species and genus articles. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Nice. Some of the articles are a little image-heavy, but this is the best image in them (probably, I only checked a selection). Maedin\^talk 11:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If no further votes are made, please treat my weak support as a full support for the purposes of determining whether this is promoted. If no one else has an opinion, I feel this is worth promoting. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clean and attractive. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- Avenue (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Platycercus elegans Wilsons Prom.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows the whole orchid, clear and sharp the whole length.

Articles in which this image appears

Dipodium roseum, Dipodium

Creator

Benjamint 11:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 11:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- nice shot, but I'd like to see an uncropped alternative version (if possible). The current version is a bit too tall and thin for my liking. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support --It looks wonderful! So nice and gentile! Wow! --Tadija (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It would probably be nice to have more space around it, but this is a good encyclopaedic view. The scrolling viewer works really well, so the narrowness isn't an issue. Maedin\^talk 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love the crop. Very good technicals, encyclopedic. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks really good in the scroller. J Milburn (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dipodium punctatum portrait.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Easily on par with the same of North America.

Articles in which this image appears

South America

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting, encyclopedic, and attractive. We have a bunch of these, but that's a reason for me to support rather than oppose - they're all of FP quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt version -- Avenue (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to oppose currently. There is heavy compression artifacts all around the land masses, which is especially unacceptable when there is a 21600x10800 TIFF available (the crop of South America at full resolution turns out to be about 3500x4800). I'll take a crack at using the software listed to create a new image. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an enquiry to User:Davepape who has done a FP of Antarctica. He kindly generated an image of South America for us. I think you'll find it to be of much higher quality. I support ALT. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt and oppose original. Resolution of alt is too superior. Maedin\^talk 21:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per prev similar noms... I'm always slightly dissapointed I can't zoom in further though to see people's houses etc ala google earth... ah well Gazhiley (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:South America - Blue Marble orthographic.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Best photo in category of rare spider. Big resolution and good quality. Well illustrative for EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Brachypelma klaasi

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good quality image & good EV --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is this spider often found in sandy habitats? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info This spider hides among rotten wood and dry leaves. He is difficultly distinguishable on such background. This tarantula can run across open plots in search of extraction. Speed of run - to 7 km/hour. He loves a hot climate, but prefer a shadow. Poison is similar to poison of a wasp, however a dose much more. Сhelicera (poisonous "teeth") about 5 mm. I took on lease this tarantula from private zoo collections. My son (at the age of 13 years) released it before a lens of my camera. So, it is studio shot --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would disagree about it being a studio shot. In a studio shot, one glance a the picture can tell that the background is unnatural. The background of this is however IMO, deceiving. --Muhammad(talk) 00:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For animals from a zoo any background is a deceit. Spiders contain in terrariums with a different ground. The coconut shaving, wood sawdust, sand is very often used. My variant shows a contrast background, the animal is well visible. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The sand is ok with me, it gives some contrast. Support is weak as I can't make out the eyes. The caption should be clear about the sand not being natural I think. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

1881 political cartoon of Guiteau. It is useful to show the media portrayal of him at the time, and is of high technical quality. Restored version of File:Guiteau_cartoon.jpg.

Articles in which this image appears

Charles J. Guiteau

Creator

Published by Keppler & Schwarzmann, initials on cartoon are "WAT"

• Support as nominator -- Jujutacular ^T · C 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would be nice to include the caption below from the original, but can't really do that without the stuff above due to the border. Seems to fit well after reading the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good. It is a shame about the caption, though. Maedin\^talk 13:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Guiteau cartoon2.jpg --J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very pleased with getting hold of these- high quality publicity shots from a commercial film, the article for which I have been working on since the day it was first shown. The images really capture the feel of the film, as well as giving a strong impression of the character of April. As well as a solid illustration for the article on the film, the shots double up as high quality pictures to illustrate our article on the actress. I personally prefer the first image, but I can appreciate that the second is also an extremely good shot, so I offer them both here. I don't, off-hand, remember whereabouts in the film the second shot is- take a look at the plot section of the article and you'll see what I mean. I can check if people want to know. I would also be completely open to these both being promoted as a set, but I'm not red-hot on sets, so this may not be appropriate. (The third image of the set that was released to us is sadly of a slightly lower technical quality, so, despite being a suitable lead image for the article, is a less suitable FPC.)

Articles in which this image appears

Dustbin Baby (film), Dakota Blue Richards

Creator

Liam Daniel/Kindle Entertainment

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both, as separate images. The first portrait works well as a lead image in Dakota Blue Richards. The second contextualises Richards character in the film Dustbin Baby, showing her within what is a grimy urban setting (which I presume is characteristic of the film). Their encyclopedic view as illustrations is high in either case. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per Elekh I'm only supporting the first. I did a pretty cursory evaluation, and the character really stood out - but the rest of the image lets it down. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yeah- for a little more context, the film is a dramatisation of a book by Jacqueline Wilson, a British children's author. Although most of her books are aimed at the demographic of 9-12 girls, including this one, they are known for their gritty realism. This one deals with themes as diverse as foster care, youth crime, unwanted pregnancies, bullying and the like, so it's hardly a pretty girl's book about fairies and ballerinas. You would be right to understand the idea of a "grimy urban setting" as key to the film. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- good EV and technical quality. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original per NotFromUtrecht, and good composition. Oppose Alt: Composition is not very good, format not so convenient, overexposed sky, not horizontal. Elekhh (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original only. I hope someone doesn't complain about a very minor scalping. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only, per Elekhh. -- Avenue (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dustbin Baby- April in the graveyard.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

excellent resolution, clear illustration

Articles in which this image appears

Osmium

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 07:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I feel like it needs a sharpen, but doing so causes a large degree of blown highlights, so I'm not sure if it should be done or not. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay . . . I assume you (and others) are noticing the resolution? This looks much better downsampled. Maedin\^talk 22:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, hence my support - it just looks better sharpened a bit imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, just checking, :) Maedin\^talk 22:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as creator too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rare, high EV and nice quality --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Strangely beautiful. -- Avenue (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Osmium crystals.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Showing area surrounding Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's estate. Existing photos are very low-resolution where this version is 12000x3900. Taken with a Nikon D3.

Articles in which this image appears

Monticello

Creator

Sbuckley

• Support as nominator --sbuckley (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for composition. The visual center is a couple of random trees. Renata (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The original has a lot of dead space, and is tilted. I've rotated and cropped the edit but it is still a little wavy. Vertical control points in your panorama stitching software will fix that up. There are also blown highlights in substantial portions of the sky. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update In the original RAWs, the sky is completely white, so I tried to recover as many highlights as possible without totally modifying the sky. Also, I don't think that the building is particularly straight, since the floors weren't level on the tour. Yes, the crop is better for the screen. I have a 13"x40" printout where the building is huge and the path/trees lead your eyes to the building which is what we try to do in my photography club. Thanks for the criticism! sbuckley (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not huge on wow, which should not be too important when compared to the EV of this practical transportation image.

Articles in which this image appears

Sydney Ferries, Inner Harbour ferry services, Sydney, Ferry

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is it possible to get the ferry with a cleaner background? --Muhammad(talk) 02:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - very distracting background. Elekhh (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Has been removed fairly promptly from all articles except Inner Harbour ferry services, Sydney... It's a decent image, but articles like that are tough to find a home in. Everyone has their own photo to shove in there. :-) For the record, I think I may have a better photo of a Sydney Ferry.. I'll have a look. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just uploaded two images of the Circular Quay-Manly ferry Collaroy (larger ferry). I haven't added them to any articles yet (they'd probably just get removed as yours were anyway, but I'll give it a go). I think they're probably better examples in terms of simplicity of composition anyway. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, I just noticed that even the captain appears to have found it a pleasant enough day to warrant leaving the helm to take a photo in the first image ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe he's a big fan of Featured Pictures and spotted you and wanted a picture! hehe Gazhiley (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overly busy background. In particular, the spiky building behind the ferry (?) appears at first glance to be a part of the ferry. Even after viewing the image at full size, I wasn't positive it was a building as opposed to something protruding from the ferry. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit late, but its Luna Park, Sydney. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

really nice picture!

Articles in which this image appears

Geography of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, Portal:Horses/Selected picture/15, Wild horse, Tarpan, Cleebronn, Erlebnispark Tripsdrill

Creator

Brackenheim

* Support as nominator --109.192.36.50 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Conditional oppose, leaning toward support. Only use in article space is in a gallery. Could you find a better place for it? Portals don't count. Durova⁴¹² 19:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info Coat colour in this case seems to be silver grullo [7], whatever that may mean for the status of these two individuals in re-breeding programs of wild horses. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image has been removed from all of the horse articles. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fact that these horses are kept as an attraction in an amusement park is encyclopaedic in its own right, but of course, their status as reconstituted wild horses should be made explicit. In any case, the stub Erlebnispark Tripsdrill needed creating. Anyone with the superhero power of translation should feel welcome to chip in. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is there any particular reason portals are not valid? The portal space is a reader-facing space, and does put a lot of show on certain images. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that although portals are reader-facing, having an image, for example, that is good but only in a portal wouldn't have enc. value. I think the enc. is gained simply from articles, so the portal links are not "invalid" per se, but rather, the nomination should focus on the use of the pictures in the articles. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is my first ever FP nomination. I have carefully read the criteria, and believe this image meets the technical requirements. Moreover, it has encyclopedic and historical value since it is a high-resolution photograph depicting the last Queen of Egypt.

Articles in which this image appears

Narriman Sadek

Creator

Original photographer: Armand. Uploader: BomBom

• Support as nominator --BomBom (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Artifacts. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this needs some attention. I'm not sure if--as Makeemlighter says--the artifacts are a problem that can't be overcome but it at least needs some restoration (scratches, etc.) gren グレン 02:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good retouch that improved the educational values of the original image, good quality and clean photograph of Audi e-tron, one of the best and cleanest (no other objects in the image) available images of vehicles.

Articles in which this image appears

Audi R8, Audi R4

Creator

Photographed by: Der Wolf im Wald, Retouched by: LiveChocolate

• Support as nominator --LiveChocolate (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good shot and the edit helped a lot IMO. Was going to nominate this myself --Muhammad(talk) 01:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Awesome. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The reflections on the floor and image in the background detract quite heavily from the composition, and the uneven lighting makes this less than ideal for an illustration of the car. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice image. Reflection doesn't bother me and given that this is a yet to be released model we can't expect absolute perfection, although this isn't all that far from it. --Leivick (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I tried to understand the problem with the reflections. I don't see an issue there, nor do I have a problem with what's on the wall. Not perfect, perhaps, but you're hardly going to get a car in a white cube. Maedin\^talk 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with mostlyharmless that point sources aren't the best way to light a car, but it is what you are probably going to get in a showroom or exhibit. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Distracting reflections and poor lighting. The reflections from that blue background thing are the deal-breaker for me. I see no reason not to insist on perfection here since we'll be able to get more pictures of the car. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might not be the case - it is a concept car at the moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not unreasonable to note that lighting etc. is often less than ideal at car shows (see the Toyota concepts article for comparison, with this image as one done well). But there are similar problems photographing rare animals in the wild. And of course those aren't sitting still, set up for photography! I don't think there's any reason to lower the standard here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem I see with the comparison you make is that the animal's natural habitat is an acceptable element of the photograph—even desired. Cars and other vehicles, on the other hand, seem to get a bad deal; on the street, there's too much clutter, or too many people, or other cars. Or, they are a bit dirty, even though, like animals, a spotless car in its natural environment is a little hard to find! At a show, the spotlights (and the super sexy shiny wax :p) are considered problematic. As are any background elements (which would be very difficult to avoid). At this rate, we'll never have an Audi e-tron FP, or many other cars for that matter, :) Until, of course, we actually find someone who owns a hot car and is willing to drive it to a seaside cliff at sunset, clean and wax it while in position, and then let us photograph it to our FPC's delight. Maedin\^talk 07:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't buy that. There are difficulties in taking all featured pictures. What really bugs me about this image is that there appears to be a large dark space on the right. I can't know for sure what the photograph would have been like otherwise, but I suspect that there are better camera angles. Anyway, for better or worse it's an image with poor composition. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as far as I can tell this is an image of the vehicle at concept stage - the final product could be visually very different. It is misleadingly presented as an actual car to be produced in one article and a does not significantly contribute to the second. Guest9999 (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Nice lighting, good resolution, important image for school. (Plus, March Madness is coming!) Transferring here following a few weeks at PPR.

Articles in which this image appears

Brigham Young University, BYU Cougars men's basketball, Marriott Center, Arena

Creator

Mark A. Philbrick

• Support as nominator —Eustress ^talk 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps the vignetting should be removed. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it lens vignetting, or is it just due to the general focus of the lights on the court with a bit of diffusion/reflection accounting for the lighting on the seating? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No lens vignetting, just interesting lighting. —Eustress ^talk 02:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I doubt there is any vignetting, the light will be focused almost entirely on the court itself. Nice shot, illustrates the court very nicely. I can imagine just how the air will smell, and how surprisingly cold it will be... Takes me back :) J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- meets all the criteria. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good detail and a pleasant composition. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Muhammad(talk) 00:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with special EV given lack of people in stands as well as general composition. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Rare and encyclopaedic.--Sabri76'^message 08:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Marriott Center 1.JPG —Maedin\^talk 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

On the basis of talk page discussion I had a quick squizz at the turkish FPC. This image seems useful to illustrate quite a few articles. The only flaw is some motion blur on the seller's face, but the ability to see the hairs on his face is not so important here.

Articles in which this image appears

Siri paya, Goat meat, Hawker (trade)

Creator

Paulrudd

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support emotional look --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree, minor motion blur doesn't ruin this, as the composition is so compelling. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good picture. Ah... delicious paya :) --Muhammad(talk) 13:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One man's delicious is another man's yuck! ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd try it :P Noodle snacks (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Mmm, there's already some drool running down my mouth. -- mcshadypl ^TC 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the composition of this one as awkward as this previous nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Homeless guy. It seems to have been taken from a car (or by a giant). The framing is begging for more space for the cart. A bunch of stuff on the left that could have been avoided by pointing more to the wall.  franklin  02:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the nomination Noodle snacks. The circumstances of this photo are not the kind that allow you a lot of time for reflection on framing, etc. It is not recommended for foreigners to walk the streets of Kabul in 2009, and I've had some minor problems so far (been here two weeks). But I find that particular district (where the photo was taken) to be quite peaceful, and very tricky for kidnappers : the streets are narrow and empty, so it's hard to be followed and impossible for a car to drive on. I did my best to point the camera so as to see the (short) seller and his products, and waited for him to look at me (which I find more dramatic than him looking somewhere else), then I cleared out. By the way this has just failed FP on commons...--Alllexxxis (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting insight into getting the shot. It's always interesting to hear how others go about these sort of informal portraits (waiting for eye contact, trying to be a fly-on-the-wall etc). By the way, it's 2010, but I'm sure little has changed since 2009. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No idea why i typed 2009...--Alllexxxis (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The colours are great, and at first glance this is attractive, but unfortunately the composition and motion-blur let this down for me. The image is rather unstructured, with the two dominant sets of lines drawing my eyes away from the seller and meat, towards the rubbish piled in the background - which is unfortunate, because I'd like to see more FPs from around the world to counter systematic biases. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Mostlyharmless. I wouldn't mind the composition so much if the man weren't looking straight into the camera. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He looks like he's about to throw a hoof at you :) Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A hoof if you're lucky -- look at his other hand! Fletcher (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IMO the concern about systemic bias overrides the minor technical faults. Fletcher (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose confusing composition. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as creator --Alllexxxis (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Meat seller in Kabul.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. The only lizard mating picture I have seen on wikipedia. Image gives a sense of the natural rocky lizard habitat as well. Also, lizards seem to be doing well at FPC

Articles in which this image appears

Trachylepis, Skink, Reptile, Squamata

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It looks like business time is just beginning, since they aren't quite lined up right yet, but this shot shows behaviour, including the male biting the female, and the clear differences in size, very clearly, and has very high EV. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Sabine's Sunbird. (and despite of being a bit intrusive into their private sphere :) Elekhh (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not censored. :P Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wouldn't try to censor an image on Wikipedia of yourself mating then, I assume... ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But in most countries you can only photograph people legally when they don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You need a model release for certain uses though. Therefore I think Sabine's Sunbird will be safe provided he/she doesn't mate in the street. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. :-) Obviously the critters are in need of a PETA campaign to protect their privacy! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So PETA strips off their clothes and privacy to protect the animals'? --Muhammad(talk) 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if PETA choose to strip in public, then they are giving away their right to privacy, but an animal doesn't have the same choice (or indeed a home in which to be private). Anyway, we're getting silly and way off topic! ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good EV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Rare and encyclopaedic. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Sabri76'^message 08:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Trachylepis maculilabris mating.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

good image

Articles in which this image appears

Hildebrandt's Starling

Creator

Noel Feans

• Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Alternative 1 is my preference. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, the term 'alternative' is used when a different image to the orignal is presented for voting (which is usually discouraged as it confuses voting). 'edit' is the prefered term for when a change is made to the original nominated image. Not a major issue, but it helps to use the appropriate terms. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 1 is my preference. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I suggested this as a possible FP, I think it is a stunning shot that really does a great job of showing off the structural colour of this type of starling. Possibly a little blurred when you zoom in really close but I don't think that detracts too much from the quality overall. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit - slight strong preference for the uncropped version (over over-tight new version of edit 1). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tight crop version has been an error, original version now restored. Please reconsider your vote accrodingly. Elekhh (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• back to slight preference for uncropped version. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Sabine's Sunbird. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Duplicate; Mostlyharmless updated vote below. Maedin\^talk 13:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportSupport Original- wow, looks very good. Crop in Edit 1 is too tight from above. It moves the attention from the eye to the neck or top of the wing. I don't mind the idea of cropping but it should not be just removing as much useless background as possible.  franklin  04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that the crop displayed now is too tight. When I voted for the crop it was for the previous version. See my comment below. Elekhh (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tight crop version you voted on has been an error, original version is now restored. Please reconsider your vote accrodingly. Elekhh (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Now you will really hate me I find this one a tiny little bit long from below. I really support either. It is just that when things look so good the choice is has to be made according to smaller things coming close to the ridiculous.  franklin  02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- very nice, plenty of detail, very good composition. Maybe a slight crop on top and/or bottom could further improove it. Elekhh (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When I nominated it I thought a crop might help, but I did not want to risk "spoiling" the image. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it is a nice background anyway, but the format and size of the crop are more efficient for Wiki articles. Prefer Edit 1. Elekhh (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either - preference for crop. Great portrait and sufficient detail, although very soft at 100% (almost seems upsampled, although I guess not if it were taken with the 5D Mk II). Looks like Muhammad has some Tanzanian competition? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photographer is probably a tourist so I doubt the competition but it's nice to see something from Tanzania that was not taken by me. --Muhammad(talk) 13:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ... and nice colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alternative 1 cropped from the top and bottom is now available. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 1. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, composition is brilliant. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you prefer the original version or the cropped version? Snowman (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No real preference. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support prefer crop. A little fill flash would have helped with the bright background. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, slightly prefer the uncropped version. -- Avenue (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, no great preference. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am confused now by the existence of two different crop versions with the same file name: one on commons and the one here on Wiki. Elekhh (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for that - the other crop was made for main page (DYK) purposes only; the tight crop was to square the picture. Restored. Materialscientist (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It was nominated for a FP on the German wiki and at least one additional version was made for that nomination, which are nothing to do with the nomination here. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lamprotornis hildebrandti -Tanzania-8-2c.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

clear. only one in article of joey. good posture, only one in article showing a "normal" posture.

Articles in which this image appears

Swamp Wallaby, Macropodinae

Creator

Benjamint 13:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 13:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Attractive picture, encyclopedic value is high. WiiWillieWiki 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Very nice picture. I know is not its fault to be so small and dark, but I find it a bit hard to see at standard wiki article size. I would suggest a slightly tighter crop option. I also would like to know where was this photo taken (i.e. what is that stick and aranged stones in the background?). Elekhh (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Crop added. It was orphaned by a car accident when it was still in the pouch and has been hand-reared. It's technically wild (now independant of people) but still visits the rescue centre garden on a daily basis for water. A lot of wild animals behave this way in summer in my area because a household will often have the only water for several kilometers. For a hand-reared animal it was remarkably timid, probably because I was a stranger. Benjamint 00:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I find the crop definitely better. Thanks also for the background info. Do you happen to know than exactly how old is it? If yes, I think it would be valuable info to be added to the image summary. Weak support Alt - I still find it a bit too dark. Elekhh (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Any chance of a few more pixels on the crop? I'm finding it fairly borderline detail wise. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done --Benjamint 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the crop. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support crop: Quite a good portrait, bonus for visible feet. Maedin\^talk 07:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Jujutacular ^T · C 06:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (crop).--Sabri76'^message 08:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Swamp-Wallaby-joey-Wallabia-bicolor-cropped.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]