Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2008

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

Reason

This is a really cool picture - very unusual and eye catching. Also check out the normal projection of this image.

Articles this image appears in

• Panorama
• Stereographic projection

Creator

gladl

• Support both Abdominator (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, highly illustrative. The alternative contains some ugly stitching errors. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both encyclopedic and interesting. I see no problems with the technical aspects of the photo. --Sharkface217 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Interesting, definitely has the "wow" factor. Oppose alternative, errors, fuzzy in treetops. --Janke | Talk 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-28 14:43Z
• Support original. The whole world in a little ball. Cooool. --Bridgecross (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, not fully sure how to judge this kind of picture but the second one has tons of stitching errors which go along with blurriness on one side. Obviously, they might be unavoidable for this type of image but I didn't see them in the first... but, the first isn't quite is astounding. gren グレン 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Hmm, sorry, but I think it looks very strange... —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 00:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's the point.--Svetovid (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the first one. Mind boggling. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1^st, Oppose 2^nd Very enc for stereographic projection, must have taken you a lot of time. However, can you please fix the varied exposure for the Notre Dame one, and I will strong support that one is well. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no. 1 Well done and original.--Svetovid (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both (more on 1^st one) I think I got a slight headache when I first saw the first one heh. Great job, though the sky on top left looks awkward somehow. The latter is good too, but it looks rather common, IMO. — Yurei-eggtart 20:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both These are amazing Teque5 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first one, oppose edit. I think I need to go and have a lie down... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Only Second one isn't good; bad stitching S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though it might be useful to have the original for comparison.--HereToHelp 12:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Globe panorama03.jpg MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A large, clear, and beautifully composed photograph of historic steam locomotives. I've cleaned up the artifacts from the original upload at Image:Locomotives-Roundhouse.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Jack Delano, Timeline of United States railway history and Roundhouse.

Creator

Photograph by Jack Delano, 1942.

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, now that it illustrates Roundhouse. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Comment An attractive image, but is it really encyclopedic of either of the articles in which it appears? Spikebrennan (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)** It had been completely neglected in the slush pile of US-PD images over on Commons and not used in any article. It would be suitable for several articles, but since many railway topics are already abundantly illustrated (with imho lower quality images) I added this to two pages where illustrations were rare. Seems proper to let another Wikipedian who didn't Photoshop the pic or nominate it for FPC judge where it goes. Certainly has encyclopedic potential. Durova^Charge! 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Achingly pretty and old, but technical flaws are rampant and there's just no encyclopedicness to make up for it. --ffroth 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gorgeous scene - can't believe it was taken so long ago and it's as good as it is. Someone should sharpen it tho - I might have a shot later on if no one else does --Abdominator (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A lovely scene but does it need to be so green ? I adjusted the colour balance and got, in my opinion, a much more pleasing result - Peripitus (Talk) 00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and upload an alternate if you like. And please add it here if you think it's better (it's simultaneously on Commons FPC so feel free to add there as well). Quality color photographs as old as this are unusual so I've been very conservative in my approach: artifact removal only with no histogram or sharpness adjustments. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - Peripitus (Talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both, preferably the Original I prefer the green coloring. However, both images are acceptable due to their stunning nature and encyclopedic value. --Sharkface217 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality for 1942. Kodachrome? BTW, I would prefer an even better corrected version. Try a simple photosoup "auto levels" - that will get rid of the green cast in the shadows, still bothering in alternative. --Janke | Talk 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both, preferably the first. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
• Support Original Second has significant errors in the darker regions. Teque5 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Prefer original but edit works too. Cat-five - talk 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original one. Great vintage photograph. - Darwinek (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, meets all the criteria. Chris.B (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Sharp, colorful image. Full of motion. Displays well the mechanics, holders, and arrangement of the staff involved at the starting line of an Keirin in japan. The judges, officials, and betting fans can also be seen.

Articles this image appears in

Keirin

Creator

Furmanj

• Support as nominator Furmanj (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Good pic, but is it really encyclopedic? Clegs (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, very, very weak oppose I think the guy in the tower on the right detracts from the focus of the image (which is the race, I assume). --Sharkface217 06:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I included him on purpose to show where the officials are arranged Furmanj (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the amount that it adds to the encyclopedic relevance makes up for the fact that it's slightly distracting, it would definitely detract from the relevance to not have the official included. Cat-five - talk 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, definitely encyclopedic... and I like the Judge being there... just not sure this is the best arrangement. gren グレン 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Sharkface217. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite the concern above about the official it is a very nice shot and the official makes sense per my reasoning in my comment above I believe. Cat-five - talk 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposealthough encyclopaedic, it is uninspiring. The judge, his tower, and the blurry pipe just to the left of that tower are distracting. sorry. Witty Lama 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful image; I'm surprised it's not already featured. Used in dozens of articles, and the subject is extremely notable.

Articles this image appears in

Mars, Portal:Mars, Template:Mars, and many others

Creator

NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

• Support as nominator -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that we already have a picture of Mars featured, but it's the other side of the planet. MER-C 12:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's nice enough at thumbnail size, but picture quality at fullsize is quite frankly terrible. I would guess this has been substantially upsampled, which could explain the pixellation. Even a 50% downsample (which leaves it just above minimum size limits) is of poor quality. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per above. Hubble is fantastic, but it can't compete with planetary images taken from Mars' orbit. Curious; the currently featured pic is from the Viking program, decades old. We have new orbiters around Mars now, are there not even better available now?--Bridgecross (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sorry but the crop is far too tight --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose, but I find your reason odd. A wider crop would just show more empty space, and the current Feature Picture (as shown) has an even tighter crop! It's the first one we are voting on, the second photo is already an FP. --Bridgecross (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
• Strong oppose. Looks really, really, really bad. Like our smudge-picture of Pluto. --ffroth 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, simply too unsharp. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The original FP for Mars seems to be good as it is. --Sharkface217 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Appears to be upsampled some 300 or 400 %... --Janke | Talk 09:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Looks nice. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aitias, did you look at the original (i.e. the real candidate) in full size, i.e. 2,400 × 2,164 pixels? You always need to do that... --Janke | Talk 13:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Janke, of course I have. But I like the picture in the overall impression. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose I won't join the bashing but will suffice it to say that the current Mars FP is much closer to the best Wikipedia has to offer than the current candidate. Cat-five - talk 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Technical quality is substandard, and it's particularly noticeable at fullsize. Chris.B (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopedic value

Articles this image appears in

Fog bow
Glory (optical phenomenon)

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Original version of this edit was nominated Here. As you could see it not only failed to get promoted, but what was much, much worse than this I made some very incivil comments toward the opposers of the image for what I am sorry. I've decided to nominate the image again because IMO it is an interesting image and not so many people know about these phenomena. The edit was downsampled and I've made some noise reduction, which IMO improved the quality of the image. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Technical quality is, well, pretty terrible --ffroth 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both The first one is very confusing; it's hard to tell what you're looking at even after reading the caption. Alternate has bad lighting quality and artifacting. Clegs (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose both by Clegs. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (preference for original). Made me go and read three articles and learn some new stuff - surely this is what an FP is really about? Quality is acceptable. Having said which, are you sure that the shadow in the original is strictly a brocken spectre? The alternative is a bit too shadowy, and I like that the GG Bridge in the original gives a good size comparison, and it also shows a good 180° of bow. --jjron (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original but we need to make it clearer exactly what we're looking at and which phenomenon is which; we need to specify what part is fogbow and what part is glory, for example. As with Jjron, I'm not sure that what's here qualifies as a brocken spectre because I'm not sure I see an actual shadow here, just the glory. Matt Deres (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your questions, Jiron and Matt. I believe I'm not very good at explaing my images. am I. Fogbow is the outside white half-circle. The glory is rainbow colored circles in the middle of fogbow. The spectre of the Brocken is my own black shadow inside the glory and, yes I'm sure it was the Spectre of the Brocken. Please take a look at this crop of the original image (Of course nothing good could come out, if one crops the image, which was taken with 8mm fisheye lens :).) May I please ask you to compare it with much better and much clearer image, which was of course taken with a zoom lens. See how similar the shadows (the Spectre of the Brocken) look? Of course in my Original part of my shadow (my Spectre of the Brocken) is covered by the Bridge shadow (could not help it). It is really amazing to see the Spectre of the Brocken in a real life. These shadows are three dimensional and seem to be floating in the air and it feels as I'm myself floating with my shadow too.--Mbz1 (talk)
    • I wasn't questioning that your shadow was there, I just wasn't sure whether it was a Spectre of the Brocken, largely to do with the size of this shadow as discussed in the article (it talks about them being very large). It sounds a fascinating thing to experience. --jjron (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Jjron. The size of the Spectre of the Broken as the size of the normal shadow depends on the position of the sun. Most Specters are seen, when the sun is low. That's why the size of the Spectre of The Brocken is usually huge. In my situation the image was taken with the sun still being high. I was able to see these phenomena only because I was looking straight down from the bridge. That's why the size of my Spectre of the Brocken was not as big, and once again the image was taken with 8 mm fisheye lens. It is also interesting to mention that everything (fogbow and the glory) is centered around the observer. If a person would stay next to you, you still would see only one (your own glory and only one your own Spectre). If you take a camera out of your eye and move your hand with camera few degrees off, the glory at the image would be centered around your hand, which is holding the camera. Yes IMO it is really fascinating to see. At one point I wanted to travel to Germany to Brocken just to see these phenomena.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd also like to share with you this inage . This Spectre was created not by the Sun or by the Moon for this matter, but by the high lights of my own car. That's why you see not just one, but two Spectre of the Brocken. IMO the best way to explain the Spectre of the Brocken is not by its size, but rather by the form of the shadow. As you could see the shadow looks more like rays and it what it really is, just one more form of Anticrepuscular rays. On the other hand as you could see from this image my shadow is very big, but it is a normal shadow and not the Spectre of the Broken. I'd also like to mention that to me much more important is not your support , but your interest to the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do realize that most of you not only never seen a fogbow, but not even ever heard about it. IMO one could think of fogbow and glory as of paintings at the fog. May I please ask you to look at this image and at this image. They both are from famous atmospheric optics site, which I recommend to everybody, who's interested in AO. Here's my own image, which was published at APOD. I hope that looking at these images may help you to realize that the quality of the nominated images are as good as it gets with such subjects. If I may, I'd also like to mention that I sent my original image to Les Cowely from this atmospheric optics site and he called it "remarkable". He told me as soon as he has time he would add it to his collection of fogbow images.Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

In my opinion a very nice picture.

Articles this image appears in

Fireworks

Creator

Ondrejk

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reasons see above —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose does not meet criteria #5. Cacophony (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No it does regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding it. Maybe next time you should do that *before* you nominate it. After all, it dosen't add value to an article if it does not appear in an article. Cacophony (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We usually don't care about that criteria.. usually some time during the process if people support it, then it's added to the article as a matter of course before the final promotion. --ffroth 07:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, speak for yourself. That's an automatic oppose for mine (or more to the point, an ineligible nomination). It must be in an article before nomination, and also be pretty certain of staying there. --jjron (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pah, it's pointless to "conditionally support pending addition to the article" since it's 100% sure that someone will add it at some point before promotion --ffroth 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that would be a pointless vote, which is why it's an automatic oppose. Cacophony is 100% correct - if it's not in an article it's an automatic fail on Criterion 5. It should not even be considered for nomination if it's not in an article. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Opppose - sides of fireworks are cut off. -Halo (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, composition. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't add anything to the article it's in-- there are several better pictures in the article. I've taken ones like these, or even better, with my camera at college. Clegs (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are a dozen or so pictures of fireworks in that article, and there's absolutely nothing to make this one stand out above the rest. The composition is not of featured quality, and the fireworks depicted are not particularly spectacular; as Clegs stated, there are better images in the article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 08:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing unique about either. It could be fireworks anywhere. Furmanj (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

stunning and informative

Articles this image appears in

Global warming controversy, Northwest Passage, North Pole, Arctic, Open Polar Sea, Polar ice packs, Arctic shrinkage

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator. Ferrylodge (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yes, this is informative, but please check the criteria (Criterion 2). This is only about half the recommended minimum, and contains nothing that could not be relatively easily reproduced. SVGs are usually the preferred format for this type of image (in which case the size would not be such an issue). --jjron (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose by jjron. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 03:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the featured picture nomination that I submitted. I never nominated a picture before. Could you please tell me whether the original NASA picture has enough pixels, and if so can it be uploaded to Wikipedia/Wikimedia without losing the pixels? The original NASA picture is here. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original NASA image is just a satellite view of the north pole, nothing about Arctic Shrinkage --ffroth 07:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two NASA imagesx: the marked-up image, and also a raw image. Can someone more knowledgeable in these matters tell me whether the marked-up NASA image and/or the raw NASA image has enough pixels to qualify as a Wikipedia featured picture? I have no idea. If only the raw image has enough pixels, then perhaps it could be marked up by a Wikipedian while maintaining the picture quality, right? Thanks, and I apologize for my ignorance in matters photographic.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, we're running into one another all over. To answer your question, neither do. You'll need a much higher-resolution image of the area in question for this to pass, in my opinion — it's a good image, but too small. --Haemo (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks again Haemo.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per JjronClegs (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As noted, there are two different NASA images provided. First, allow me to rebutt some of the arguments given above against the nomination of this image. The web size (540 x 405 image) is on the Earth Observatory web site with its accompanying caption. Linked from that page, and cited above, is a "large image format" showing the sea ice extent without the annotations (GIS shapefiles marking previous sea ice minimum extents). In this instance, the name "large image" is potentially misleading insofar as the large image is large only in the sense of having more area included in the image. Both the web size and large images are at the full resolution of the satellite sensor instrument, named 12.5 km per pixel which includes the entire Arctic Ocean in a 540 x 405 size image. In other words, short of a totally new technology for monitoring sea ice, this is as good as it gets. I believe the compelling nature of the image and its unique character and informativeness, potentially qualifies it for consideration under the exceptions provided in Category 2 for images of less than 1000 pixel width resolution. (Disclaimer: AMSR-E actually collects 6.25 km resolution data in several different microwave channels, so a visualization sort of like this could be and has been done with brightness temperature data alone to get higher resolution, but it is not sea ice concentration but a loose proxy thereof, and nowhere near as attractive a visualization.) (Disclaimer 2: I am not the original nominator of this image, but I am the image author.). Now why I support the image, as opposed to why I oppose the opposition. The web image with GIS layers (sure, "it could be easily reproduced": to date the other visualizations of sea ice extent and/or sea ice concentration (see work by the Science Visualization Studio, for example) do not, in my highly biased opinion (See Disclaimer 2 above), show it as well and as cleanly and clearly. I have not see others doing this so well.) conveys the central point elegantly and clearly: the sea ice minimum this past year was remarkably smaller in overall extent than any previous such recorded minimum. The visual does this well and without requiring reference to the caption (itself quite fine, and no, I was not the author of that text). Any person can look at the image and immediately get the message and information of the data. A more sophisticated and knowlegable person can look at the patterns and changes quickly and easily. The overall graphics and image quality is clean, crisp, and informative. I believe this merits consideration as a Featured Picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsallen1303 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Most people agree that it is a good picture. However, our guidelines indicate that we need pictures to be a minimum of 1000px on at least one side. The image which is centrally composed is about half this size — in my opinion, it's just too small. There are also technical problems with the picture — including noticeable and distracting jpeg artifacting. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution criteron states "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." My argument was to the effect that the image merits consideration based on the uniqueness standard. I seem to be in the minority. A TIFF format could be made available if that is the sole stumbling issue, but since it is not standard for display on the web, it's not what the Earth Observatory site provides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsallen1303 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like a very unique image, and historical too. It blew me away. I hope there might be some way to improve it or otherwise move it into featured status.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "unique and historical" refer to images which cannot be reproduced nowadays — for instance, the image of FDR, Stalin and Churchill at the Yalta Conference might fail size requirements, but still be nominated because it is a unique, historical image. This could very easily be reproduced in a higher resolution using the original images and data, without jpeg artifacting. The artifacts alone are enough to sink it, quite frankly. --Haemo (talk)

It's not an issue of providing it in TIFF - it's not the file size that's the issue, it's the image size. I actually thought this was a diagram, rather than an annotated photograph which Jsallen1303 seems to be saying it is; that is why I made the original comment about these being better as SVGs. It seems to me however that a vector illustration could easily illustrate this information and be just as convincing, as Jeff Dahl also states below, thus removing the issue of size. Therefore, because it could be easily be reproduced in another (better) format, that rather negates the "unique" argument - it may not exist in those formats yet, but easily could with no loss of historical value, and then be more useful. That's not the case for historical photos (which in my opinion are allowed too many 'excuses' by many voters anyway). --jjron (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No reason not to have vector version. Just because it's important and informative doesn't mean we should blindly abandon size/quality requirements; just compare to recently featured vector maps for comparison. I also question how the data have been selected, why is there a 21 year median and then pull out two years (2005, 2007) and ignore 2006? Examining every year's data (rather than conveniently selected data) may reveal thaxt the scare-graphic isn't quite as scary as it would seem. The only way to tell whether this is true is to actually look at all the information, something we can't do in this image. But no matter what the data, quality/size is way too low and the map is really not that unique. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. It also doesn't show the Antarctic, which is both cooling and gaining ice.[1] The term "scare-graphic" seems to fit well. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows what it shows. How you react is your business. The fact is, the Arctic Ocean has not been ice-free in more than a million years, but will be very soon at this rate. If the same thing happens to the huge glaciers on Greenland, then there may be a significant impact on sea level.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really understand the comment - there's not many other images here getting knocked because they don't show Antarctica. As Ferry says, it shows what it shows - there's no reason it should show Antarctica. --jjron (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it wasn't being used in Global Warming articles, I would agree. Criteria 8 says featured pictures must be neutral. In the context in which it is used, it is strongly aligned with one side of a huge political debate. The image could be perfect and 4000 pixels wide, and it still shouldn't be featured, because it is a polemic. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Why is the caption in French? If it is changed to English I will reconsider my vote, but also per the above. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator, but not the uploader, so I don't know why a French-language version was used. There is an English-language version here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I have never seen a sunrise or sunset anywhere or in any picture that was as spectacular as this sunrise. This is an excellent picture that captures the moment right before the sun appears over the hill in the backround. The silhouetted trees in the foreground add to the effect.

Articles this image appears in

Sunrise

Creator

User:Thingg

• Support as nominator Thingg (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing special here. Sorry, but FPC is not a showcase for favorite snapshots... --Janke | Talk 07:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there anything interesting to be said about the clouds? They are the most prominent feature of the photo, and if this photo could be used to illustrate a particular type of cloud it might have more encyclopedic value than it does at Sunrise, which it doesn't really add anything to (it should probably be moved to the bottom of that article, as it adds less encyclopedic value than the images below it). TSP (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Janke and I agree with TSP's comment that there are better, more encyclopedic, shots in that article already. This image, for example, is surprisingly good for an animated GIF. I don't think there's much in particular to be said about the clouds and since they're not in focus, it's probably not worrying too much about. Matt Deres (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Have to agree with Janke here. I've taken better. Clegs (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, well, I thought I'd give it a shot and see what you all thought. As much as I'm dissapointed, I do have to agree with TSP's point about it not adding much to that article (Sunrise). I had thought about putting it in the Cloud article or whatever type of clouds they are (I'm pretty sure they're either Altocumulus, Nimbostratus, or Altocumulus undulatus - added to article), but since it was already in Sunrise, I felt that that could be considered photo spamming and I didn't want to give that impression. Comment on Matt Deres's objection: I'm not sure where the clouds are out of focus; could you tell me where? Thanks. Also, is there a procedure for withdrawing my nomination? As much as I hate to say it, you are most likely correct in saying this does not meet the "significantly improves an article" criteria. One more thing, do you this should stay in the sunrise article? or should I remove it? - moved to bottom of page. Thingg (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you really want to withdraw the nom the easiest way is to put a bold 'Nomination withdrawn' at the bottom of the comments and sign it; someone will then close it shortly. --jjron (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Might pass as a quality image on Commons. There's no limit on sunsets over there. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that it matters, but it is a sunrise. Thanks for the suggestion as well. Please note the modifications and notes to my above comment and consider this nomination withdrawn. Thank you all for your input. Thingg (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (Nomination withdrawn). --jjron (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great action shot from Commons FPC.

Articles this image appears in

Rubin Okotie

Creator

User:Nwiebe

• Support as nominator Cacophony (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow! rarely do we get professional quality sports pictures from professional competition. This is very nice. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support enc. value, but no accurate focus. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great photo with encyclopedic value and the football spirit. - Darwinek (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fcb981 Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 21:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 - nice action shot, although the original lacked sharpness. This is fixed in Edit 1. --Fir0002 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 2 then original as a superb action shot - Fir0002, you also appear to have downsampled (edit 1) significantly and brightened it, making it in comparison a bit washed out left of Okitie - Peripitus (Talk) 09:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The downsampling was unavoidable in gaining sharpness, the brightening didn't happen AFAIK. The only other thing I did to the image is a mild noise reduction filter. That said, I've uploaded another edit at full res which I think is better than the original, but not as good as Edit 1 --Fir0002 10:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Just doesn't look like anything special. Nothing notable going on in it, just a simple save save by a goalkeeper. Not sure it even has much encyclopedic value other than to show what Onka looks like. Buc (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't play or watch much soccer, so I'm not sure how many times a keeper makes a diving stop with his fingertips in a typical FIFA match, but to capture one with a good angle, using good equipment, with reasonably good composition/focus, and then license it freely is quite exceptional. Sure you can find plenty of better shots from Getty, but none that you can use here. Cacophony (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As to Buc and Cacophony, saves like this happen rarely in the college games I photograph. I've been trying for two years to get one this sweet, and have not yet succeeded. Clegs (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Buc. Pstuart84 Talk 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fulfils all the criteria. We have to be careful will these (I'm talking generally, here) 'nothing special' opposes. The job of the photograph is to illustrate the article, not for every picture to be of an event or object that is incredibly spectacular. Iorek (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All, prefer Edit 2 Looks good, encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support excellent action shot Ryan shell (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. Also added to goalkeeper (football). I uploaded a great sports shot too but it's just a bit too small for FP status, so I'm happy to see a football pic get promoted. howcheng {chat} 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:U20-WorldCup2007-Okotie-Onka edit2.jpg MER-C 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neat! Thanks for nominating and touching up my photo. Nick.wiebe (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Lots of information; recently vectorized

Articles this image appears in

The following:

• Battle of Waterloo
• Napoleonic Wars
• Military strategy
• Battle of Ligny
• Hundred Days
• Battle of Quatre Bras
• Battle of Wavre

Creator

Original made by Gsl. Vectorized by Ipankonin.

• Support as nominator -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If accurate, it's good for the article, but as a picture it lacks appeal. --Janke | Talk 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral For me: boring... —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Top enc. Labeled very nicely. SVG. All-around pretty. A no brainer! --ffroth 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A bit boring in its current state, more colors would be appreciated. --Sharkface217 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added 2 alternates. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice diagram, I'll take your word on it being accurate since I'm no expert to say the least. Cat-five - talk 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (addendum to my support of original), I support the flags but I think coloring the whole thing is a bit much, I'd definitely like to see an edit 3 with the flags but no coloring if possible and would support that. Cat-five - talk 06:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Edit 3 then. Cat-five - talk 07:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 3 (per Cat-five) - excellent. There's one slight problem - for me in Firefox and IE, the scale renders with the bar for 5 miles protruding through the bottom slightly. If that could be fixed, I think this is a brilliant image. E9T8A8 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong yet conditional oppose conditions met Lycaon (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC) until some names are corrected (e.g. Gembleux->Gembloux, Chatelet->Châtelet, Philippville->Philippeville, Grammont->Geraardsbergen, Hal->Halle). Lycaon (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed in edit 3.Fixed in all versions. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Also fixed Louvain→Leuven, Ziethen→Zieten, and D'Erlon→d'Erlon. I'm somewhat embarrassed for not verifying the names before nominating. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 3 I didn't mention Louvain, because that is also a recognised English name for Leuven, but maybe it is better like this. Lycaon (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all these names are/where wrong. For example Zieten is also spelt Ziethen in reliable sources, and D'Erlon to d'Erlon depends if it is not at the start of sentence. There is no need to put funny foreign squiggles over words like Châtelet. Also be aware that Belgian towns and villages often have two names and using the French name is not necessarily wrong. One should look at English sources about the Battle of Waterloo not at current map usage. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Somewhat good looking, but not interesting. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See Image_talk:Waterloo_Campaign_Map.svg#png->svg
  • Why the change from Image:Waterloo campaign map.png to Image:Waterloo_Campaign_Map.svg?
  • shouldn't the word "map" start with a lowercase letter?
  • Following tradition, the Prussians ought to be designated in black not green (as they are in the png image).--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed green to black, and I uploaded the edited images under new names - except the original, because it's being used in articles. SVG is a much better format to store this information in. See the SVG article for details. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No flags please as it is unnecessary clutter. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could do with being a bit larger so the text is easier to read. Buc (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Because it is an SVG image, it is already as large as you want it, because with SVG images, you can zoom in as much as you want, and it will never be distorted. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But it is nice if images are sized so you can examine the detail without having to resize; this is for the benefit of readers. It's just a balancing act between having them small enough to display conveniently on the screen and legibily. On this image I have no opinion either way on sizing, but I would support with a tinted background; stark white is hard on the eyes and often even a slightly tinted gray or tan can make all the difference. The beige used here is not the best choice, however. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I lightened the background on edits 1 and 2. I think it looks better. I also changed the nominal width on all of them to 1500px. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportThe movements are accurate I prefer the beige background otherwise it has my support. Tirronan (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All, Preferably Edits 2 and 3 Finally, they're no longer boring. I like Edits 2 and 3, as they are very nice and highly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference for the beige. --Malachirality (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any de Bivort 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Waterloo Campaign map-alt3.svg MER-C 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I just saw this picture for the first time, and it immediately struck me as an excellent diagram. It effectively sums up most of the British Isles (terminology) article in one image, and in a way that is, I think, very easy to understand. I can't think of a more effective way of presenting this information.

Articles this image appears in

British Isles (terminology)

Creator

User:Lexicon

• Support as nominator Terraxos (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Considering there is such debate over the usage of the term 'British Isles' (see British Isles naming dispute), I would only support if the term is replaced with a less objectionable alternative, eg. 'UK and Ireland', 'Islands of the North Atlantic', etc. Schcambo (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Graphically unappealing. --Janke | Talk 13:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The picture needs to be a bit more lively IMO in order to become a FP. In it's current state it's quite boring. --Sharkface217 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fails to show relationship of Man aand Channel Isles to Great Britain. Rmhermen (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? They aren't part of the island of Great Britain or its immediate sister islands (like the Isle of Wight)... --Golbez (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what Rmhermen means is that it needs another political circle ("British Crown"?) that goes around the UK, the Isle of Mann, and the Channel Islands to show their political relationship. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Right now they seem no more related than the Republic of Ireland which the Irish would certainly not appreciate. Rmhermen (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to address this concern. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was confused about the British Isles naming dispute, so I looked at this image a few months ago, and it really does communicate the relationships very, very clearly. I don't think it's possible for an illustration of these concepts to be more visually appealing; this is clean, clear, and simple. - Enuja (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Informative but not compelling. Extremely helpful if one is already interested, but I don't think it can be used to create interest in the subject. Technically I think it meets criteria 3. I don't think there's a reasonably better alternative to the term "British Isles" in this context (there are more territories represented here than just the UK and Ireland, and other islands of the North Atlantic exist that are not represented), but I'm open to the possibility. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Useful but no wow. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I find the diagram very useful and informative, but there's just nothing to really grab a viewer. It's not a prerequisite for an Euler diagram, but something like this might be more useful still if the set areas were in a ratio based on population or physical area. Also, Scotland, England, and Wales should have their own areas (as Jersey and Guernsey do), shouldn't they? Or perhaps a different colour of line could be used to distinguish landmasses. I like the idea, but there's too much room for improvement to support it being an FP. Matt Deres (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- The image is wonky when you click to enlarge it. Just has the new "islands" circle against a white background. hmm. Saudade7 04:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is a picture that adds significantly to the article, as well as being a good picture alone.

Articles this image appears in

Pond

Creator

User:Juliancolton

• Support as nominator Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Technical quality isn't perfect, but that's not my first issue. It doesn't show a pond as much as it shows a tangle of snow-covered brush. I think there are better pictures out there to illustrate this article. Clegs (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, it doesn't really show the pond. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have another version that shows more of the pond. Juliancolton (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above (not encyclopedic for the article for which it is submitted). Spikebrennan (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upload the other, Julian, and let's see that one. Clegs (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- framing of the shot could be a lot better. - Longhair\^talk 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ok, I will upload the other one. Juliancolton (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both - low technical quality. You need a better camera for an FP picture in this category.--Svetovid (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weather was cloudy and foggy that day, so that could be the reason it doesn't look good. Juliancolton (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both The image isnt sharp at full size. Although the first picture is marginally better in quality neither are good enough for FPSeddon69 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A well crafted image on an encyclopedic topic. Quality images on medical topics tend to be rare at Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

agar plate, growth medium

Creator

Image taken 10/1985 by Bill Branson. AV-8510-3737

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We have precious few quality medical photographs and this is a particularly well-lit, descriptive example. --mikaul^talk 08:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support High enc, good looking. Not perfectly sharp in full size, but good enough considering its large size. --Janke | Talk 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice image showing the topic clearly. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-02 18:46Z
• Weak support. As Janke says, it might need a sharpening on the right hand side. That said, a slightly downsampled version would still convey all the essential information. Would give full support to a sharpened/downsampled version. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose not super technical quality. Also I think the caption is confusing (not nominator's fault - came from the .gov site) - the colonies on the plate cannot be RBCs (they are non-mitotic) and I would guess they are staph colonies plated onto some sort of RBC media. Not sure what's going on scientifically here. de Bivort 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both informative and subtly mysterious. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I honestly cannot see a "halo" on the right plate. I don't like the blurred condensation on the left plate. The image in the agar plate info box shows how plates can be more visually interesting, and I simply don't think that this a high quality, informative image. However, because this looks like it is going to pass, it needs a more explanatory caption. I think adding as a second sentence "Both plates show positive infections." would be helpful. - Enuja (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - i think it might be the soft glow. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support - lovely image. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Either. Good photo --Fir0002 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Agarplate redbloodcells edit.jpg MER-C 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The picture features a dramatic composition with a vast array of differing colors and gives an excellent representation of the spectecular sunsets, complete with sun-pillar, that occur when the weather is just cloudy enough but not too cloudy and sun is still able to shine through. The picture was also feautred on the local news, the day it was taken.

Articles this image appears in

California, Central Coast, California, Sunset, Marina, California, Salinas, California, Pacific Ocean

Creator

Signature^brendel

• Support as nominator Signature^brendel 02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are the clouds clearly defined enough for an FP? I'm not sure. --Sharkface217 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very pretty from a distance, but poorly-defined up close. There's a huge pictorial element here which I tend to disregard for FPC, as it's depiction of the subject which is relevant. As such, it's a reasonably good sunset pic, but not an outstanding capture at all and of very dubious value in the California-related articles. The horizon isn't horizontal, btw. --mikaul^talk 08:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OIppose per above. Just a nice sunset, could be anywhere. --Janke | Talk 09:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per mickaul, Janke. Cacophony (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A beautiful image, and taken on Christmas, no less. But it's only in a gallery in Sunset, and is not encyclopedic for any of the other articles in which it appears. Spikebrennan (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The arguments above regarding its use in CA-related articles are duly noted, but I cannot find a better ocean-sunset picture on the Sunset article; that is I fail to see how any of the other pics, save the perhaps the currently sole FP which dipicts a special type of sunset, does a better job as dispalying a sunset. Happy New Year, Signature^brendel 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Nothing to indicate it from california. Bjman_Talk 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Elegant illustration of a somewhat difficult to understand electrical theory.

Articles this image appears in

Three-phase electric power

Creator

User:BillC

Thanks very much for the nomination. The image does scale, as it has been here, but it is best seen at its native size, as in the article, or its image page. — BillC ^talk 01:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Cacophony (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks cool and informative. What are the circles with the 's' shape and the rectangles? Suggest making a label or mention in the caption. Also suggest trimming down the suggested caption (of course keeping the full caption on the image description page) and perhaps our image creator could upload to commons and use {{Information}}. The shortened caption could mention what the purpose/use is. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AC generator and resistive load (i.e. your appliances) respectively. MER-C 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in current form - It looks good but, although I know what this means it is unclear. I've just shown it to a few others and it gives the wrong impression. As it is the 3-phase line looks like the red phase only. Would be much better with the generator/load in the same place/same display but the loads blue/red/green - equally spaced and at the top above the level of the load. This would make it clear that the tranmission line is all-three phases and that the captions for the load and generator do not refer to the blue phase. I think this would also show the phase changes in transmission better - Peripitus (Talk) 09:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Gives the false impression that the speed of the current changes. --Janke | Talk 13:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I agree. Current doesn't have a speed, let alone one that either varies or is constant. Charge does, however, and its speed does vary in an alternating field, which is what the diagram is representing. In a idealised conductor, the density of free charge, i.e. that available to form a current, is a constant. When an electric field is applied to that charge, it will experience an acceleration of a = qE/m, where q and m are the electronic charge and mass respectively. Since the strength of E is varying sinusoidally, so does a and so therefore does the velocity, and displacement, of the charge. — BillC ^talk 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caption doesn't mention charge at all, only current "flow". See what I mean? --Janke | Talk 09:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Highly illustrative, if a bit confusing. --Sharkface217 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nobody is going to learn 3-phase power from looking at this animation. It's just too complex --ffroth 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As someone who knows what 3 phase electricity is, i find this diagram extremely confusing. Seddon69 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how it could be improved? Cacophony (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Technically very good photo, encyclopedic. Featured picture on the Commons.

Articles this image appears in

Neon signneon when excited by an electric charge. If the image description page and caption could make this connection, and have better documentation, I would consider supporting. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No "wow"... Also, if the sign would contain neon, the color should be red, not blue-green... --Janke | Talk 12:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That statement is incorrect according to Neon. Other colours can be created using mercury vapour and phosphorus, never mind the possibility of using a coloured enclosure that effects the appropriate spectral correction (but would produce additional heat). Samsara (talk •</****Very well put. Given that, should we change it's caption in the article gallery? All it says now is "Neon" and that sounds pretty deceiving to me. --84.90.46.116 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (Of course it'd help to know actually what element was used in there! )[reply]
    • • • Above comment was me... didn't know i wasn't in :\ -~-Mad Tinman _{T C} 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure you understood my first reply. You do still need Neon, but you may also need to have other reagents present as well. All I'm saying here is straight from the Neon article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC) See below Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, in addition to comments above, the Neon letters itself are way overlit. Personally, I think (even though the size is a bit small), Image:NeTube.jpg is an example of a much better image showing this topic. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it's neon gas. If you check Neon sign, neon gas produces reddish-orange colors. Who knows what in this? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-02 18:49Z
  • See my earlier comments above. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just re-read the various articles about Neon, Mercury etc., and it seems that while it's somewhat ambiguous in the Neon article, it may be true that mercury can produce the appropriate glow without any kind of interaction with neon. If anybody knows the details of this, can they please go and make the corresponding articles a bit clearer. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll Actually Support this.. Neon tubes ARE bright, which the image shows, and it clearly shows the neon tube w/o any disturbing bg.. And i just love this pic.. have has it as wallpaper for weeks now :) Yzmo ^talk 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main concern here is the encyclopedic value of the image. It creates the misleading idea that it's Neon gas in there, while neon gas doesn't produce that colour (this illusion, imo, negates the encyclopedic value). Given the way the gallery is set up in the Neon Sign article, which I agree with, this light sign would be far more encyclopedic if it demonstrated the element in it used. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]