Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2005

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.

I am sad every time I visit the full list of images and no longer see this image there. The reasons for removing this image from FP given during the last vote by Janderk were somewhat misguided -- Berber and Tuareg suggest that there are indeed a fair number of fair-skinned blue- and green-eyed people who wear the turbans of the Blue People. As most of the concurring Oppose votes referred back to his comments, I am resubmitting the image here. +sj + 09:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - +sj + 09:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "As most of the concurring Oppose votes referred back to his comments". Acutally two of the oppose votes referred to Janderk's opinion and there were eight oppose votes in total. ed g2s • talk 16:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Suspend nomination. The last vote finished on the 2nd December. Although the time between nominations is not explicitly defined, less than 1 month is far too short. ed g2s • talk 16:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Re-nom.3F was the last time we discussed setting a guideline for time between renominations. I would like to see a 1 month guideline explicitly recommended, just so we have something to refer to when someone suspends a renomination like ed g2s has done with this one. - Bevo 18:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed, although I'd suggest 2-3 months at least. BTW I wasn't assuming authority to suspend this nomination, merely recommending it. Although unless there is a backlash against this in next 24/48 hours I will move it to the archive. ed g2s • talk 21:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I agree with Ed that one would expect at the very least about 2-3 months between re-nominations. James F. (talk) 08:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Enochlau 02:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Hello people, does this matter? Shoot it down again if you really hate it. JediMaster16 03:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Sure. Oppose. Doesn't strike me or make me go wow; also, the colour in the photo is somewhat bland and heavily subdued. Enochlau 12:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Suspend or otherwise Oppose, dull colors and not stunning. BrokenSegue 15:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. Not enough time since last nomintation. ed g2s • talk 01:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Blue or green eyes are much more common than people believe in Lybia and Tunisia, and blue eyes are common among Tuaregs. Ericd 22:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

self-nom; seems on par with other photos in FP and is only photo of this years' olympic flame on WP! seems characteristic of most olympic flames as well. blurry on full view but I was getting bumped by the turk to the right of me and the nigerian to the left and the greek behind me was using my shoulder for support! :) looks great in thumb and flame at opening ceremony 2004.jpg intermediate sizes. Used in Olympic flame, 2004 Summer Olympics- Alterego 23:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support - - Alterego 23:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak Support. As you said it looks great at a small view (about 800 pixels still looks good) but full image is a bit blurry. --Fir0002 04:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 06:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure what is suposed to be in focus. Both the fireworks and the crowd are blury. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. No part of the photo is particularly well exposed / in focus. Not stunningly composed. ed g2s • talk 02:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd like to support, because it is a good photo. The camera shake isn't so bad as to worry me too much, given this is a bit of a one-off event. It's more the composition that I find confusing. Also, I might prefer Image:Opening_Ceremony_Athens_2004_Fire_rings.jpg for a shot of the Olympic ceremony (though its got unclear Stock.xchng licensing) and Image:2002 Winter Olympics flame.jpg for the Olympic flame. - Solipsist 13:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 06:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• NOT promoted, +2/-5 -- Bevo 16:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stunning photo of Christmas Island from space. Released by NASA, uploaded by Seth Ilys. Note the clouds over the southeastern part. Amazing. - grendel|khan 01:33, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - grendel|khan 01:33, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:30, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I uploaded a png derived from the larger image to get rid of the artifacts and pixelation (of course, the file size is 10x larger, too...) --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 04:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I reencoded that PNG as a higher-quality JPEG. Filesize is 150k or so (a little more than a quarter of the PNG), and I can't tell the difference at 3X magnification. grendel|khan 06:00, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
    • Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me, but your jpg looks a little brighter and reveals some of the pixelation in the water more clearly, although the large file difference is enough to make me ignore these "problems". Looks good. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 06:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutrality^talk 17:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Enochlau 03:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 17:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Lovely well-focussed pic, a great asset to its article - Adrian Pingstone 11:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support and note: I just uploaded the larger original version. Janderk 14:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted: +6 / -2 -- Solipsist 18:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have put in a couple of options again. I like the second one becauseof the little strands of web visible at its legs Third option I like because the head is clearly visible Last one I like because of the semi transparent nature of its legs.

• Support first image. Self Nom. --Fir0002 04:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support any of them. Fredrik | talk 05:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I would support any of the daytime ones. The night one loses some of the detail of the spider. Enochlau 06:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support either the second or third [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 19:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support any daytime picture, slight preference for the Third Option - Head shot. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:49, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support the third. The fourth could go on the Spider web article for sure though. Matthewcieplak 08:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Third. --ZayZayEM 00:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support 3rd - possibly in place of Image:Redback frontal view.jpg - Solipsist 11:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted 3rd: Supports #1:4 #2:4 #3:7 #4:1 Direct opposes 0 -- Solipsist 18:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service image of berries. I found it visually appealing. Illustrates the berry article. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nominate and support. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Tasty. Support. Fredrik | talk 05:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor focus, especially on the left hand side. Enochlau 06:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Mind the resolution. If you want it to look perfectly sharp at the pixel level, just size it down to 25%; it will still be large enough at that size. Fredrik | talk 23:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed so. It looks much better now (with the auto-resizing). Change to support. Enochlau 15:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Yum -- Chris 73 Talk 00:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A good image when zoomed out. Just out of interest, why didn't you upload a resized versions, as the full image looks pretty bad. --Fir0002 23:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry! just looked at it now and it was a resized version. --Fir0002 23:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Solipsist 11:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I used the GIMP to resize it, but it might have compressed further (creating more artifacts)... Image:Alaska Wild Berries Resized.jpg ugen64 04:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted: +7 / - 0 - Solipsist 19:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Support. Better than the London one. ed g2s • talk 03:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. In my opinion, this is one of the top five images on Wikipedia. On a side note: the difference between South Korea an North Korea is striking. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:49, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The Nile is pretty striking, as is the rest of it. Matthewcieplak 08:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very famous image, and rightly so. grendel|khan 09:20, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
• Support Enochlau 10:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Awesome! Check out Japan! It'd be interesting to find out how it was done - multiple images of course would be necessary to have the whole world at night, but also how did they eliminate the clouds and pick out the lights so well. --Fir0002 23:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Plenty to enjoy in this pic. You'd think there would be some variation in the colour of city lighting, but I guess it has been processed out. -- Solipsist 11:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 08:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Super duper support. Is that line running through Russia the Trans-Siberian Railroad? ugen64 03:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 08:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support TachyonP 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retained as a featured picture: +10 / - 0 - Solipsist 19:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Oppose. Lovely image, shame about the clouds. ed g2s • talk 03:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sadly, though. It'd be a really nice image if it weren't so darn blurry over more than half of it. grendel|khan 09:18, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
• Support. Keep it. You're still able to make out many interesting features from it. Enochlau 10:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Sadly tooo blury [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 12:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose--ZayZayEM 00:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- it is striking how much this resembles fractured glass. --Elijah 05:50, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
• Support - Though not perfect its interesting. I also don't like the blurred elements and scan lines, but it is still more real and direct than the Earthlights composite. - Solipsist 11:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 08:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 06:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice Dmn / Դմն 00:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. James F. (talk) 08:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Much too blurry to give me any pleasure - Adrian Pingstone 11:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not retained as a featured picture: +5 / -7 - Solipsist 20:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Oppose. Too artificial and grainy. ed g2s • talk 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing spectacular. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Matthewcieplak 08:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 10:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Fir0002 23:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It looks a bit dated, but it is still a good composition. -- Solipsist 11:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Janderk 17:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - the lighting is poor, and I just don't understand the relevance of the fuzzy globe background; also seems to imply that one would handle that plant at that age in that way; I don't think it's done that way (say, as you would transplant tomato plants) - Bevo 17:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not retained as a featured picture: +2 / -6 - Solipsist 20:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Support. ed g2s • talk 03:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:48, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Matthewcieplak 08:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support--ZayZayEM 00:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Solipsist 11:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Enochlau 00:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 08:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ugen64 03:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 08:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but Comment - this image doesn't actually illustrate any articles - it's identical to Image:Mars_Valles_Marineris.jpeg, which appears on Mars and Valles Marineris. One of them should be deleted and links redirected to the other one. Worldtraveller 19:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Retained as a featured picture: +11 / - 0 -- Solipsist 23:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This image was created by User:Evercat, the same person as the currently featured image Image:Buddhabrot.jpg. However, I consider this one to be considerably more beautiful. It looks like a great work of religious art. It is used on the page Buddhabrot and clarifies why some people feel Buddhabrot images to have a religious feeling. - 221.249.13.34 06:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - 221.249.13.34 06:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. What ever will we do about the proliferation of brilliant images of things which are already featured? Matthewcieplak 08:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Enochlau 10:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd say keep the current one for the time being. Enochlau 04:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• As you say, Image:Buddhabrot.jpg is already featured. I don't think we should have 2, perhaps the other one should be delisted? Evercat 12:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support this shows the Buddha likeness much better. Delist the other one. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:45, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Thomas G Graf 19:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, new one looks sharper. ed g2s • talk 22:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support --ZayZayEM 00:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support and delist previous FP Buddhabrot. -- Solipsist 11:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support new one and delisting BrokenSegue 19:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support new and delisting the old one. Janderk 17:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support new and delisting the old one. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support new and delisting the old one.. (had to be different from the others ^_^) ugen64 03:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support new, support delisting of old one. James F. (talk) 08:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • New image promoted: +12 / - 0 and 1 anon — previous image demoted +7 / -1 -- Solipsist 21:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From NASA. If only we had physical maps like this for all of the countries. Used on Geography of France. - grendel|khan 09:17, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - grendel|khan 09:17, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
• Comment. I have uploaded the full version to the commons.
• Oppose. The drop shadow ruins it (it's uneven aswell). ed g2s • talk 22:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the drop shadow be uneven? If the Earth is round and the light is coming from a point source, you wouldn't necessarily have the exact same amount of shadow along edges with the same slopes. --brian0918™ 19:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure, if the shadow was supposed to be representing some sort of realistic effect. A nice even shadow around the edge to give slight emphasis to the borders would've been much neater. ed g2s • talk 01:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Isn't France deliberately cut out from surrounding countries, and that is what is craeting the shadow?--ZayZayEM 00:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Shadow isn't too obtrusive. --Elijah 05:53, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
• Neutral. I think the detail in the data is excellent and I like the fact that it is France that is the subject. So this should have a place in featured pictures, but I am also uncomfortably with the floating territory/drop shadow treatment (for example its not clear that the Channel Islands aren't in France). Unfortunately I couldn't find an original source image which could be used for an alternative boundary highlight (such as desaturating and tinting the neighbouring countries). -- Solipsist 11:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 00:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 03:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 17:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I actually like the drop shadow... ugen64 03:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose; would be support if, indeed, like Solipsist suggested, we could use the original with the other countries faded. James F. (talk) 08:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rescue me! Boring image - where is the excitement? JediMaster16 03:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support (JediMaster, how exciting do you expect a topographic map of France to be?) Shows the topography of France clearly, it's informative and pleasing to look at - Adrian Pingstone 11:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Have to say I agree with JediMaster16: it's clearly an illustrative image, but hardly gripping or exciting. Featured pictures should surely make you think 'wow' when you see them, and I can't see how anyone could find this a particularly thrilling image. Worldtraveller 19:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• NOT promoted, +6/-6 -- Bevo 16:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was browsing Saturn V (via the front page bit about part of it being a "natural" satellite) and came across this wonderful image which shows all the launches of all the rockets, and it's simply a very nice image. Image was made by Reubenbarton with PD NASA images. --Golbez 17:43, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Golbez 17:43, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

  Sigh, hopefully no one saw the page juggling I did. Messed up a bit, should be fixed now. :/ --Golbez 17:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. --Elijah 05:51, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
• Support. Nice composition.--Eloquence* 11:19, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting. Enochlau 00:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice, but a composition of 17 pictures of the same object, no matter how inspiring doesn't seem featured picture worthy to me. -Lommer | ^talk 08:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Lommer, boring, also bad compression. ed g2s • talk 03:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 09:00, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Janderk 17:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. James F. (talk) 08:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This awesomely illustrates parts of America's space program. JediMaster16 03:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Marcika 00:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent assemblage of pics, illustrates the article nicely but, above all, it's imaginative - Adrian Pingstone 10:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its a good idea, and I guess its illustrative, but the different tones of the pictures and the close cropping of each one - it just doesn't looks so good. --Fir0002 23:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. They all look so much alike to me, that I don't see the significant value to seeing them all in the same image. - Bevo 03:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It shows some evolution of the design. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted: +9 / -6 — Solipsist 17:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not all portraits are striking, but this one is. This is a portrait of Thomas More, made by Hans Holbein the Younger in 1527 (oil-on-panel, 29 ½ by 23 ¾ inches). High-resolution image. Neutrality^talk 17:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Neutrality^talk 17:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Support we need more art in our gallery. BrokenSegue 19:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Renaissance art is seldom my cup of tea, but I remember Holbein's Thomas More being a painting which stopped me in my tracks whilst wandering through the Frick Collection. -- Solipsist 22:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support---it's a striking portrait---but shouldn't it be in JPG format? What's with the huge 2MB PNG? grendel|khan 22:09, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with above comment, perhaps jpeg is more appropriate. Enochlau 00:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 08:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 01:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Janderk 17:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I've uploaded the same picture in JPEG format (it's from http://www.english.upenn.edu/~schreyer/ - the exact same image). See Image:ThomasMore.jpg ugen64 03:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Especially good to see a high-quality source image (PNG form). James F. (talk) 08:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted as Featured Picture : +11 / - 0 — Solipsist 17:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

High-quality X-ray, clearly illustrates the topic polydactyly. Also makes me think, "you have six fingers on your right hand; someone was looking for you..." grendel|khan 22:33, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. grendel|khan 22:33, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
• Comment. Does the patient need to have given permission for the use of an x-ray of his hand even if the doctor owns the image? Enochlau 00:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the law says that they must be asked if their face or another identifying feature is shown. I have a dentist fried who only asks his patience for permission to use photos if their whole face is shown (when he gives presentations) not just their teeth. BrokenSegue
    • That's my understanding as well; I believe that so long as there's no identifying information included, the patient's clinical data can be distributed. grendel|khan 06:51, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
      • In that case, support. 03:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Would anyone mind if I photoshopped out the LRP in the top left of the picture? I find it distracting and unnecessary. →Raul654 02:49, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't trust enough in my photoshop skills to do that; if you can make it look convincing, then by all means, go ahead. (If you do one, could you please also do the three other images on polydactyly?) grendel|khan 06:51, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
    • 'Done. →Raul654 08:06, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • PS - Support. →Raul654 00:07, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• This image looks very srange to me (besides the polydactyly obviously!)(though, I am definitely not a doctor familliar with the latest x-ray quality so....). Has this image been digitally altered? Why is the skin so clearly visible? I can even see folds in the skin near the thumb and details of the fingernail! Bizarre and reminiscint of images produced using backscatter X-ray imaging. Can you say something about the device used to produce the image? --Deglr6328 05:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe the X-ray machine used to do this uses an electronic sensor instead of film to capture the image; the pictures come back from the radiology department on CD in DICOM format without ever having been on film. The only digital alteration I performed was an auto-levels adjustment to brighten it up a bit. I don't think these are backscattering X-rays or anything funky like that, but I can't be absolutely certain. Drgnu23 would know. grendel|khan 06:51, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Support, absolutely! -- Chris 73 Talk 01:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support ugen64 03:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 02:22, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fyngyrz 07:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted as Featured Picture: +7 / - 0 — Solipsist 17:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful, striking, and much more impressive than a little blotch on the sun. - grendel|khan 23:29, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - grendel|khan 23:29, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Support Denni☯ 23:35, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 01:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Considered nominating a TRACE image myself. Much Supported--Deglr6328 02:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Wow! Support. →Raul654 12:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. That is an example of a striking image indeed. Mgm|^(talk) 16:08, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support the Sun! Neutrality^talk 23:47, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support ugen64 03:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 08:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. What are those white dots on the right hand side? Are they meant to be there? Enochlau 02:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't see 'em. Are you sure they're there? grendel|khan 03:32, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
• Support. This looks awesome. JediMaster16 03:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Magnificent display of the immense energy of a sun/star. --Fir0002 22:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Clicked on the enlargement, and Wow. PaulHammond 13:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Incredible... -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted as Featured Picture: +14 / - 0 — Solipsist 17:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A self nomination of a photo I took from the summit of Volcán Santamaria in Guatemela, looking down on eruptions at Santiaguito, a new volcano growing on the side of the old one. This is possibly the only place in the world where you can look down on an erupting volcano. - Worldtraveller 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Self-nominate and support. - Worldtraveller 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The stuff in the foreground is distracting, blocks much of the erupting volcano, and isn't visually pleasing. Also, since the photo isn't of sufficient detail, I can't imagine how it would add significantly to an article about volcanos. Enochlau 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. An excellent picture, but not particularly striking enough. JediMaster16 03:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC):
• Support Nice focus and enjoyable to look at. Good enough for me as a Featured pic - Adrian Pingstone 11:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The volcano looks pretty good, but the rest of the image is pretty ordinary. --Fir0002 22:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 23:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, distracting foreground and sky seems to be overlit. Too white. Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, its on a par with Image:Mahameru-volcano.jpeg, but if I were to go with another volcano image, I would have to choose Pu'u O'o. -- Solipsist 20:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, nice shot, but not quite feature-worthy - Jpo 00:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +3/-6 BrokenSegue 03:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

View of the Black Sea near Sochi is a colour photograph by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, taken in 1915. The image is featured in the articles Sochi, Black Sea, and Argonauts.

Public domain from the Library of Congress website.

See http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/prokc.21643 for more information and the raw image.

• Nominated and supported on 30 Dec 2004 by User:Ghirlandajo
• Support. Not the most gripping subject and we already have some quite good sunsets. However Prokudin-Gorskii seems to have been a pioneer in perfecting the techniques for early colour photography. James Clerk Maxwell may have got the first colour photo in 1861, but it took Prokudin-Gorskii to get the result looking realistic. My only question would be is this the best example to choose (it quite possibly is). I find the Library of Congress torturous to navigate, but I also came across an excellent discussion of Prokudin-Gorskii's portraits of Tolstoy at http://www.utoronto.ca/tolstoy/colorportrait.htm -- Solipsist 11:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- good early color work. --Elijah 19:28, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just because it's good for its time or it is a pioneeering work doesn't mean that we should ignore the fact that it isn't all that clear and the fact that the horizon isn't that horizontal. Enochlau 02:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. So good-looking it's.... amazing. JediMaster16 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC):
• Support I say it's stunning. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose How can you have a Featured Pic with an obviously sloping horizon? - Adrian Pingstone 10:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The world is not flat you know. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Enochlau. --Fir0002 22:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ugen64 23:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 22:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 05:10, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Beautiful, but it has the horizen problem and seeing a body of water doesn't necessarily help us understand what makes the Black Sea special. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted: +8 / -4 almost a consensus, but not a clear one. -- Solipsist 11:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took this picture of the Willimantic town hall. A fine example of Victorian architecture, this clock tower appears atop the Willimantic town hall. It's also hilariously suggestively-shaped, right down to the little ridge around the, ah, crown. I chuckle every time I drive by it. grendel|khan 07:08, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. grendel|khan 07:08, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
• Minor object. Flat colors and fuzzy clock face. Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with MacGyverMagic. Just out of interest, as I'm planning on buying the 300D, do you like the camera? --Fir0002 07:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• oppose. Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum, I smell a troll. Surely Image:Kiritimati-EO.JPG was good enough if you wanted a phallic image. -- Solipsist 21:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

• Support. I'm a fan of architecture. I've been all over New England and yet to see a clock tower like this. There's a minor tower behind it which is not visible in the picture. The phallic nature of the clock tower is more the Victorian Architecture which that town is famous for (apparently there are more 'virgin' Victorian houses there than any other place). DrGnu 23:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is probably an interesting thing to see in reality, but this picture seems a bit dull to me. Methinks, the colors just don't grab you and make you think "Wow!" like a FP ought too. -SocratesJedi | Talk 19:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +2/-4/0 BrokenSegue 22:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. I think this diagram is brilliant through its simplicity and significantly adds to the Bantu article (It probably should be in Bantu languages or even in Bantu expansion, but that's irrelevant here). I don't see too much maps, diagrams and illustrations nominated here, so I thought I'd give it a try — I want to know what it takes to create something of Featured quality... — mark ✎ 14:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. — mark ✎ 14:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think you've done a good job at clearly illustrating the topic, but it's just that the picture doens't strike me as being fascinating or simply fantastic. Enochlau 20:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A clear illustration, but hardly worthy of feature illustration status. Denni☯ 23:38, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
• Support.Very good Illustration, and absolutely damn fine picture. This is an encyclopedia project, not a fancy art show. Just because its not fancy-pants doesn't mean it isn't great for what it is.--ZayZayEM 03:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Good illustration, but not really feature-quality. Oppose. Neutrality^talk 05:02, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not really feature-quality. Also its not very precise, as someone who hasn't read the article I don't know things like where the language originated - a dot with a label would be handy. Also the arrow technique only vaguely shows how far each phase spread. Does the phase spreading end at the tip of the arrow or where? Not bad, and if I were to read the article I'm sure I'd be able to find out these things, but the diagram should be able to tell me. --Fir0002 07:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Can it be precise? I don't think such a diagram could ever really be much more precise. Its not like the language had rigid clear borders as to where it stopped spreading and never ever spread any further in that "wave".--ZayZayEM 07:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The vagueness is indeed unavoidable — the data is vague too (we are talking here about historical developments that can never be traced exactly). But the point about marking the original location is well taken; I'm going to place a dot in Nigeria.
• Neutral. FPC seems to be pretty hostile towards diagrams at the moment, so I purposely lean towards support. I think you've done an excellent job here, but the subject isn't too gripping (and I work in linguistics a little). However, it would be worth making a text free version available on Wikipedia:Commons (along with your other diagrams, which are all of a similar high quality) -- Solipsist 21:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's nice, but not quite FPC material. The diagram may be an excellent illustration in the context of the article, but it doesn't really stand on its own. - Jpo 23:52, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - It adds well to the article, but it's not that really just stunning on it's own. It's good, but it needs context. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +2/-6/1 BrokenSegue 20:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An impressive US Geological Service picture of an erupting volcanic cone on Hawaii, which I think gives a vivid impression of volcanism. I should note that the high-res image is a bit blurred; this is almost certainly heat haze from the high-temperature lava lying on and erupting from the cone. [added] I suspect that the photographer also used a telephoto lens (not surprising in the circumstances). I don't think this should count against the image. - ChrisO 16:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The quality isn't good at all. Enochlau 20:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Not bad, quality is a bit poor, but the clouds give a nice moodiness to it. --Fir0002 07:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I get better quality out of my camera. And they aren't FPCs. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I can't see anything seriously wrong with the quality, and the background gives a very nice mood. I like the colors and the atmosphere. Besides you can't expect spouting lava to be in perfect focus. Support. Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong support. This is an incredible image. It is both stunning and extremely supportive of the articles it accompanies (Volcanic cone primarily and Xenu in a less important, but still good way). What's wrong with the quality on this image? It's not 4 screens wide, but it's not a tiny image either. It's showing an impressive phenomenon in a dramatic and memorable way and I fully encourage anyone here to support this for promotion to a full featured picture! -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support! I like it. And the picture quality looks good to me. Do we also have a fancy mountain name contest somewere :) -- Chris 73 Talk 00:13, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 22:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• support. I almost nominated this myself, but figured people would carp about the quality. There's something not quite pin-sharp or noisy about it, but the image is still exceptional and how many of us could do better. -- Solipsist 21:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The excessively dark foreground is distracting, but hey, this is a volcano shot at night. - Jpo 23:54, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 16:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a still life, I doubt anyone will get much better shooting with a telephoto in low-light condition from a plane or an helicopter. Ericd
• Support. --Viriditas | Talk 06:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support --- I loved this image so much that it made me start the Pu'u 'O'o article and nominate it for DYK. All based on the emotional impact of the image. (By the way, I used a cropped version at Pu'u 'O'o and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The cropped version has less dark background, looks better when reduced in size) - hike395 05:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted as Featured Picture: +10 / -2 - Solipsist 20:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we are about to delist some mountain photos so there is room for a new one. I recall visiting Yosemite National Park as a child, and this picture from PDphoto.org really does it justice with its crisp detail and rich color. Its used as a rather small thumbnail on the Yosemite National Park page, but is a little larger on the Yosemite Valley page. - Solipsist 09:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nomination period for this image is extended for an extra two weeks to allow time to acquire an anticipated potentially better quality version of this image. - Bevo 19:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the extension: Two weeks have passed (almost) and I'm still waiting for the hi-res images. Perhaps we could wait another couple of days? --MarkSweep 09:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably better to renominate it as and when the hi-res version turns up. Thanks for following up on this. -- Solipsist 09:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 09:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 14:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful. Enochlau 19:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Was thinking about nominating this before. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 01:51, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - If you look at the full image, there's some serious problems in the sky. Autiger 05:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are visible JPEG artifacts in the sky. Perhaps someone could upload a version with less compression, i.e. higher JPEG quality setting. I've uploaded a tweaked version in which I manually removed some of the noise in the sky. You'll have to look at the full image to see the difference. --MarkSweep 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support either one -- Chris 73 Talk 23:45, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Strong preferecne to the original version. When you compare the two images one straight after the other, the original one looks abit blurry, but I saw the original before the modified and the first impression that it looks great stuck. I dunno why, but the slight blurriness matches the photo and doens't detract. --Fir0002 04:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I modified the original to remove the JPEG artifacts that Autiger pointed out. That involved selectively blurring a few areas, which I tried to counteract by selectively sharpening the foreground. It could be that I went overboard with the sharpening, though. --MarkSweep 05:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oh, and just for the record, I shall officially abstain from voting. --MarkSweep 05:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ansel Adams isn't PD yet, is he? Matthewcieplak 08:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually yes! But only for his photos documenting the Manzanar War Relocation Center, one of which I added to the Adams page just last week. He took a few other photos for the US gov, but it is less clear that they are PD (see Talk:Ansel Adams - if the 'Tetons and Snake River' photo could be verified PD, I would nominate it here). You've got another 50 years to wait for his Yosemite photos to go out of copyright. -- Solipsist 14:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know how Ansel got involved, this isn't one of his pics. Cavebear42 08:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first one has jpg artifacts and the second one is terribly oversharpened. Will support if a higher quality original is uploaded and if the license is confirmed to be public domain.Janderk 17:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no doubt whatsoever that the image has been released into the public domain. Did you check the original image source which is indicated on the image description page? It even has a Creative Commons "public domain" icon on it. Regarding the oversharpening, I could redo the smoothing of the sky area and not sharpen the foreground as much, but I doubt I'll get around to this anytime soon. Maybe someone else could give it a try? It's not very difficult. About better image quality, PDPhoto explicitly offers hires versions (3000x2000 tiff files with 8 bits per channel) for $2 each. Does anyone feel generous? If anyone decides to purchase the hires version, perhaps indicate this here and/or on the image description page, and make sure that we can get the hires version under an appropriate license (see WP:BRP). I'm in the process of contacting PDPhoto.org myself. Update: I've been in contact with pdphoto.org and will upload a high resolution file as soon as possible. --MarkSweep 20:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying the license, which I should have noticed. It would be really nice if we could obtain a higher res version. Personally I would be happy with an image of the same size as long as the jpg compression is less. Janderk 12:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral, for the same reasons as Janderk - Bevo 23:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've heard from pdphoto.org and will hopefully receive an uncompressed high resolution file soon. I don't have an ETA, and I don't know when the vote will officially close. If it's supposed to close very soon, I'd argue for extending it. --MarkSweep 13:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Extension in those circumstances (possibly resolveable quality of image concerns to an image that otherwise contributes substantially to a Wikipedia article) seems a good idea to me. - Bevo 16:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• support. Its a great crisp pic at either res. Cavebear42 08:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support both. Especially unmodified. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can you see the flaws in the sky in the original? On one of my monitors I can't see them, and yet on another display they show up clearly. - Bevo 15:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted yet: +8 / -3 / 2 - There could be enough support here for a consensus to promote, but I think the objections would change to clear support once a version without jpeg artifects becomes available. -- Solipsist 21:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Emperor Gum Moth Caterpillar is very beautifull, and I think at least one of these images have done it justice.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Some of them are hard to see because of the background color, but I'd be happy to support the top right (feeding one). Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I support picture number one (top left)--ZayZayEM 07:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose all: (1) shows only part of the animal, (2) has half of the animal out of focus, (3) is only the underside, and (4) has the light from the back. Good pics, but short of feature material. Sorry. Also, for future nominations, maybe its better to put only one image up for a vote, and not all of a series. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:18, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I will support the top right picture. I echo Mgm's concerns about the background distractions in all others but do NOT oppose them. I am slightly concerned about the focus issue in the top right, but I'm willing to give some artistic license to it. It's a nice picture (set of pictures, actually). Good work. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Doesn't the out of focus back part help show depth to the picture? Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. They're all good shots, but I prefer #2. - Jpo 23:57, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support any except #3. --Aqua 09:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support for the complete works. --Thomas G Graf 19:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Promote #2 (+7/-1/0 overall). I think number 2 has the most support BrokenSegue 20:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a picture of one of the dominating features of the landscape on Monterrey, Mexico, and it is fairly well known throughout the country. I think it's a great picture, but I've never nominated a picture for featured status before. I took the photograph, and it is used on Cerro de la Silla. --Spangineer ∞ 23:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Update – For those who have voted to oppose for reasons of too much sky or the ugly building on the right, I have cropped the top and bottom of the picture, to see if your concerns are met. Those who liked the old version, please let me know if the new version is acceptable. And if you have any more suggestions, let me know. --Spangineer ∞ 22:04, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support --Spangineer ∞ 23:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 00:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support either version -- Chris 73 Talk 00:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Dominating indeed. Support. Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

New version is still fine with me. Support that one too. Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Neutrality^talk 06:49, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment - I like the picture, it's sharp and striking, but I think I'd like it more if some of the sky was cropped away, so the picture consists of three more equal parts (ie ground, mountain, sky). Also a bit of a shame about the rather ugly building on the right. Worldtraveller 17:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I like the modified version a whole lot better and support its nomination. Worldtraveller 10:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. I've a soft spot for mountains and this is an interesting one. Looks like a very good angle to get the mountain's profile, but the air quality is a litle too hazy (although probably very good for Mexico). - Solipsist 21:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting subject, nice shot, good quality. - Jpo 23:59, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Worldtraveller. That building on the right is very ugly. Oppose. Enochlau 23:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • When I meant building on the right, I was actually talking about the brown grilly thing, which is still in the modified version of the picture. However, the modified version is far more acceptable, so I would like to change my previous oppose to a neutral vote. Enochlau 23:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The picture is good but I think there are some more impressive mountain images on here. Lots of vegetation on the slopes hide the underlying rock formations which would have changed my vote to support if they were revealed. More sunlight would have helped. An excellent picture for an article but not quite FAC given all the mountains images I've seen and taken.RedWolf 05:24, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I really like the photo of the mountain, but think the foreground is really distracting. Consider cropping away some of the town (esp the ugly building on the right)? I took a look at what the might look like in MSPaint and it seems pretty okay. But nice picture in general. Part of me almost wants to support, but not yet. -SocratesJedi | Talk 19:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This FPC has caused me to think about it a lot more. I really like this picture, but I think the modified version is even more impressive and good, but I've decided to give full support to both pictures with extra support to the modified version. It's a nice picture that really captures something impressive. I encourage others to vote for it's elevation too. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Either, but personnaly I rather the original. --Fir0002 00:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Modified Version Promoted +9/-0/2 BrokenSegue 20:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not quite your average holiday snap. What's more impressive is that there was no photoshopping or cropping required. ed g2s • talk 17:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. ed g2s • talk 17:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fredrik | talk 18:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- Solipsist 20:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. — mark ✎ 20:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Love the detail in the hi-res version. - Jpo 00:02, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, cool pic. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:09, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• If only all pics had such high res Support BrokenSegue 04:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, of course. --Aqua 09:17, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 16:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - awesome picture. --Spangineer ∞ 19:57, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. Support. Enochlau 23:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• YES YES YES --BesigedB ^(talk) 14:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. Wow this is a neat image. -SocratesJedi | Talk 19:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice colors and composition. Mgm|^(talk) 19:49, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic photo. I echo all of the above --Fir0002 22:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support despite my general Anti-French sentiment. Awesome pic. Cavebear42 08:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressive. --Thomas G Graf 13:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good viewpoint, colours, composition, detail... — Pt _(T) 00:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted, Overwhleming support BrokenSegue 01:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

File:Chihuly Inside and Out close-up.jpg

Self-nom; the thumbnail doesn't really do it justice, but I'll crop it if necessary. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Picture of a picture. Mark¹ 00:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a picture of a sculpture. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shows how much I know about art. ;) Mark¹ 00:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Nice photo. However, the license is unclear, and the image may not be free if the sculpture is copyrighted. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:53, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but probably Oppose in practice. Its an excellent photo, and illustrates Dale Chihuly's work well, but the license may be a problem. Assuming that the sculpture is copyright/fair-use, the resulting photo is also basically fair-use and not free. But also...

  Rats, I had been thinking of nominating my own photo of a Chihuly chandelier, Image:VandA Rotunda.jpg - except I'm still not quite happy with it. Now if you want a tough licensing problem, UK sculptures aren't covered by copyright - so is an American sculpture, commissioned and exhibited in a public space in the UK copyright or not. Which jurisdiction applies? -- Solipsist 21:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I have sent an e-mail to Mr. Chihuly's publicist asking for clarification on this issue, and specifically requesting permission to distribute my photos of his work under Creative Commons's Attribution-Share Alike license (forgoing fair use, which still applies even if she declines). It's a long shot, of course. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, as expected, they've refused to allow me to put the images under a free license for the time being, so I withdraw this nomination. However, it appears the image is still available as fair use, so I've scaled it down dramatically and will continue to use it in articles. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Nomination withdrawn BrokenSegue 01:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)