Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2009

[[[1]]]

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

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

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

Reason

High resolution file of an architectural design for an early expansion upon an important structure. Restored version of File:Latrobe White House.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

White House, Benjamin Henry Latrobe

Creator

Benjamin Henry Latrobe

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good ev, high quality image. I'd love to see later ones as well showing the progression from this to it's current appearance if anyone has those... Gazhiley (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only the first floor?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of the caption's description "Principal Storey" means just that - it's for the first floor... As the nom's description states this was due to a planned extension - if it was only affecting one floor it would only include one floor... Ronseal? Gazhiley (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the equivalent of the current State Floor, which includes the Blue Room, Red Room, Green Room, and State Dining Room. This can be determined by the doorways at the north and south porticos, which today are on the State Floor. Note: When viewing the South Portico, this would be considered the "second" floor. The ground floor exits directly to the blacktop drive on this side. On the north side, this floor would be considered the "ground" floor. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Of the 211 architectural designs by Benjamin Henry Latrobe in the Library of Congress's collection, only a tiny number are available in high resolution digitized format. The restoration on this one took several days' labor. I've also been working on a 118.9MB .tif file of his presentation for the United States Capitol. It suffered much more extensive damage and I've been reconstructing sections of the facade. After 35 hours' labor on the other image I realized that restoration was only half finished, so turned to this. It would be wonderful if LoC scanned all the Latrobe material at high resolution. By featuring one or two, perhaps we could persuade them to do more. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Lovely — use it on 20 January 2009. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weren't there plans for a Barack Obama FP to be used? Spencer^{Merry Christmas!} 20:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Barack Obama will be the FP that day. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice restoration and an interesting subject that a historical floorplan adds a lot of EV to. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose because it sounds like Hoban not Latrobe designed the actual porticos, making it unclear what if anything this design was used for. I'm not sure I want to feature this picture if it was not a design that was actually used (though it is still pretty interesting). Fletcher (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I very much want to support this for its exceptional EV and high quality (and I will if I get a clear answer), but I'm wondering what's going on:
  1. Latrobe's article states he designed the east and west colonnades, but I'm not aware of east and west colonnades on the White House. I thought the only colonnades were the north and south ones (which are labeled as porticos, but the stacks of columns supporting the porticos are colonnades). I'm assuming these colonnades (porticos) are those shown in the images at right, the north and south porticos of the White House. Now if that's the case, the article needs changing (and referencing).
  2. If Latrobe did only design the colonnades, then this image is misleading b/c the caption implies that he designed the architectural plan, even if he is the creator of this blueprint. I think that should be mentioned in the caption.
  3. Also, as much as I like the image, I'm well aware that it is not the current floor plan of the first floor of the White House. Being the case, this should be mentioned in the caption so it is clear that this was either overridden, or possibly replaced (maybe the destruction during War of 1812? - I can't see the Truman renovations completely changing the floor plan, but maybe?).

Granted this will need a long caption to be complete. But on that note, I'd like to see what FPC reviewers have to say about captions by commenting here. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Colonnades, in this context, refer to the structures now connecting the main building (Executive Residence) to the East and West Wings. (The colonnades Latrobe did preceded the two wings; the White House article says they were used for utilitarian purposes like laundry and stables.) See diagram here. Fletcher (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but it's huge. Wonderful find, and it looks great. But why is it 23 MB? Surely it could be a small fraction of that without any noticeable quality loss.--ragesoss (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Latrobe White House cropa2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

In the holiday spirit and the lyrics of "Sleigh Ride", we can nearly be like a picture print by Currier and Ives. Best wishes, whatever it is that you celebrate. Restored version of File:Brush for the lead.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Sleigh Ride, Currier and Ives

Creator

Currier and Ives

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 08:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marvellous. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Awesome image. Good EV. Season's greetings! Makeemlighter (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very clear lines/good resolution and a good pic :) Orderinchaos 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support However, the description under "Other versions" should be changed to "This is a restored version of File:Brush for the lead.jpg. To generate the present version the original was rotated and cropped, dirt and scratches removed, depigmented areas replaced, histogram adjusted, and desaturated." The current text implies that the other version is the restored one.StN (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Brush for the lead2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A depiction of the original (destroyed) Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City. Restored version of File:Waldorf-Astoria 1904-1908.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, Joseph Pennell

Creator

Joseph Pennell

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 20:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Another excellent image. Strong EV in two articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - IMO the image does not have a lot of EV in either article. A sketchy, perhaps smudged drawing of a building does not effectively illustrate how the building used to look. As for the Joseph Pennell article, I believe the other image on the page (of the Bond ad) is much more valuable since it is mentioned in the article and reflects on of the things Pennell is known for. Also, Pennell (according to the article) spent a lot of his time and did a lot of his work in San Francisco, not New York, which is where the hotel is located. Yes, some of these flaws can be attributed to the stubby article, but I don't think it has "strong EV in two articles" at all. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find any other image of the original Waldorf-Astoria? Much less one at this resolution? Durova^Charge! 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel it has EV in The Waldorf-Astoria Hotel since it shows the original hotel. Sure, it doesn't have the kind of detail you'd find in a photograph, but the picture definitely gives a sense of the magnificence of the original building. It has EV in Joseph Pennell since it represents his work as an illustrator. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - partly for its EV, partly because I like the medium. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Xavexgoem, excellent image. Epson291 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An excellent composition in an under-represented medium, well-restored, that has sufficient EV and is well-used in both articles.--ragesoss (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Waldorf-Astoria 1904-1908b.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very encyclopedic image.

Articles this image appears in

Adoration of the Magi (tapestry)

Creator

Designed by Edward Burne Jones with details by William Morris and John Henry Dearle

• Support as nominator --Bewareofdog 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurred on left hand side. --Leivick (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurred on left, cut off on top. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Dragon. Japanese woodcut. Dark and mysterious and fearsome. Also a high resolution file in good condition. Restored version of File:Ukiyo-e dragon.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Dragon, Woodcut

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration. Question: Is it me, or does this appear to be slightly tilted? Spencer^T♦C 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of older works have borders angles that are slightly off from true 90 degrees. So rotating to get one edge at horizontal or vertical leaves the others tilted. Cropping and rotating these things is an act of compromise. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Spencer Noodle snacks (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Made some time over a 150-year span (the main period over which ukiyo-e developed stylistically) by an unknown artist... there just isn't enough known about it to properly contextualize it. For me, it lacks sufficient encyclopedic value.--ragesoss (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Ragesoss: this just doesn't have the EV to be featured. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality image depicting an important part of the life cycle of the fly.

Articles this image appears in

Housefly

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Disgusting. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original and Durova's input. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For its obvious EV and despite the less than optimal lighting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What is it they are on, the top of a fence or something? I'd prefer a more natural (romantic?) setting, but it's still a quality, encyclopedic photo. Fletcher (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are on top of a metal wire which is used to hang clothes to dry. Muhammad(talk) 06:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose lighting isn't flattering, it isn't particularly sharp and the background is noisy (which is pretty easily treatable via selective NR). EV is good per above though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Housefly mating.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of the better known species in the Alstroemeria genus. It replace a poorer quality taxobox image of the same species in the article. Shows the typical arrangement of flowers for this species. This isn't the same image or species as my previous unsuccessful Alstroemeria nomination.

Articles this image appears in

Alstroemeria

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another good one. Focus, framing, depth of field. Well done. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. Excellent quality specimens too. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exceptional focus on all flowers and good details. Good replacement over the old picture. Muhammad(talk) 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning picture! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Very well done. — Aitias // discussion 02:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Alstroemeria aurantiaca.JPG --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Adds value to its article, a beautiful flower. Merry Christmas to all!

Articles this image appears in

Sprekelia

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would prefer slightly larger, but meets all the technical specs. I like the pollen on the petals. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm not the biggest fan of the pollen, but it's still an exceptional photo. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do you have an uncropped version with a little more room on the top? The cropping feels a little tight on that end to me. Thegreenj 22:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No room to be had at the top unfortunately on that particular image. There is an alternate though which I have attached. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Agreed that it was cropped a little too tight at the top though. And based on the reflections on the leaves in the background, doesn't the light source seem a little cold? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sprekelia formosissima 1.JPG --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Early depiction of the Bethlehem Steel plant in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Watercolor by Joseph Pennell, May 1881. Restored version of File:Bethlehem Steel Pennell.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Bethlehem Steel, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Creator

Joseph Pennell

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yet another excellent image. Not as much EV as some of the others you've nominated lately, but still good enough. Keep up the good work! Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I wish I could use watercolors like that... VX!^~~~ 05:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent image and EV. But maybe it is superfluous in the second article. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Alvesgaspar. Lovely, interesting painting.Fletcher (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think this is a very good work with high EV. I also think it works well in both articles. One minor question though: is this tilted clockwise by a couple degrees or is it supposed to be like that? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His original watercolor was tilted and the smokestacks are not parallel. One doesn't expect the shoreline to come out horizontal because this appears to have been a diagonal view across the river. This restoration has been rotated for correction, and due to the nature of the tilt there's a necessary loss of foreground. It's an act of compromise because the more one corrects the tilt, the more of the sky and foreground get sacrificed. Durova^Charge! 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you mean. Thanks for the thorough response. Still support. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I geocoded this with some degree of precision as the article didn't have coordinates. I consequently discovered that Ram-Man had a bunch of images geocoded in Bethlehem and have asked him if he can improve the precision. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bethlehem Steel Pennellb.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality shot with good EV

Articles this image appears in

Damselfly, Ischnura heterosticta

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 02:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and Question, any idea what Image:Unidentified Damselfly 6171.jpg or File:Unidentified Damselfly 6142.jpg is? I found dragonfly/damselfly heaven the other day, it has literally hundreds of them swarming everywhere and I recognise the nominated species. I rigged up a mt24ex rip off yesterday with some aluminium and the radio triggers. I have half a dozen species to capture yet. I also tried stacked extension tubes on my 400mm, but ditched it in favour of the 200mm because I thought the lighting wouldn't be so good. The results turned out to be excellent back on the computer though and the huge working distance is likely to be really useful. The only downside to the 400mm for damselfly/dragonfly hunting is the weight (very close to 3kg with batteries and battery grip). Noodle snacks (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: I'm by no means a biologist so I can't really help you with the IDs - I find Brisbane Insects a useful site and you can also use the Victorian Museum/Australian Museum to help with IDs. But yeah awesome that you've found a nice spot! How is the autofocus with the extension tubes? Because they would be very handy with a 400mm's working distance. The lighting on this seems a bit odd though - cyan cast. --Fir0002 08:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lighting is probably just a white balance issue there. Those two are with the 70-200mm though. Autofocus was good, there is quite a bit of range that it works over (maybe 1.5m) and it still seems to have the accuracy and speed that the 400mm seems to be known for. For these small damsel flies a bit more magnification would be handy (another box of tubes or one of those 500D magnifiers instead). It isn't at maximum magnification but File:Unidentified Damselfly 6171 2.jpg is a 400mm shot from approx 2 meters away with my diy flash rig. The image is a 50% crop. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The article is little more than a chaotic gallery of images. Pictures cannot (should not) be evaluated independently of the articles they illustrate. How can we stamp a seal of high EV to an image in these conditions, without perverting the ultimate goal of FPC? Commons FPC is the right place for this particular image. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is used in Damselfly as the taxobox image and is demonstrative of Damselflies in general (being a fairly common species in at least one part of the world). In my book a high quality image of a species has pretty easy EV regardless of article usage. Either way I created Ischnura heterosticta, where it more specifically serves to display what the male of the species looks like. Furthermore the FPC criteria don't really mention the state of the article, to allow for future growth one should really be asking would the image be of use if the article was of featured quality. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave damselfly a bit of a clean and removed about 50% of the images. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better now. But I'm still opposing as this picture (in the gallery) has better quality and resolution. Also, this FP was removed from the taxobox to insert the present picture. Although it still remains in another stub, I wonder if this is a good practise. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first image you linked to is Ischnura senegalensis (The Common Bluetail article is about that species), this image is of Ischnura heterosticta. The two are found in geographically distant locations and are probably just a case of Convergent evolution. To resolve the ambiguity I had already tagged the image for renaming, which will happen when the bot gets around to it. The old FP is fir's image, so I doubt anyone is going to get insulted. It looks to me as if its due for delisting. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to echo what NS said above - I think that an image's enc value is almost entirely independent of the content of the article; it's an intrinsic attribute of the image. Furthermore I'd argue that an image has even greater EV in a stub because it is essentially doing the work of the (missing) text and thus the 1000 words are put to good use. --Fir0002 11:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that is certainly not the spirit of WP:FPC. If it were, pictures would be evaluated only on the basis of their intrinsic quality and potential EV (like in Commons FPC and VIC), and the need to be part of an article wouldn't make sense. In the limit, your final argument justifies the existence of articles consisting of image galleries only. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the contrary, this is precisely in the spirit of FPC: Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. If the article already has a detailed description of a damselfly then the accompanying image adds less to the article than if the article had no text (note this doesn't mean that I think an article should just be comprised of images!). --Fir0002 22:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for quality and EV. WRT the above, the picture must contribute significantly to an article to have EV, but at the same time the photographer is not responsible for writing articles or fixing their problems (unless he causes them...). Fletcher (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think Fletcher said it best and I agree with that assessment. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Before being photographers, we are all editors here and thus share some responsability for the quality of the articles we edit. Using them with the sole purpose of showing our photos or serving our nomination interests may (and does) cause damage to the encyclopaedia. The profusion of image galleries is a significant sign of that practise. In this particular article (Damselfly) a FP was removed from the taxobox with the purpose of hoisting the present candidate, not noticing that this other FP, which is in the gallery, has a much better quality and resolution. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral IMO Alvesgaspar raises some important points. The purpose of FPC is to recognize pictures that contribute well to articles. The damselfly infobox should have the best quality and resolution, which IMO is not this image. That said, the creation of the stub is IMO good as it facilitates the image and will probably be better written by future editors. Muhammad(talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd actually disagree slightly, in my view the taxobox image should be the clearest representation of the subject at thumbnail size. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per arguments by Alvesgaspar and Muhammad. This has been a problem for some time now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Ischnura_heterosticta02.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good quality image illustrating both the fly and and feeding. IMO aesthetically pleasing as well, for those who like bugs :)

Articles this image appears in

Blow-fly, Chrysomya, Chrysomya albiceps, Chrysomyinae

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 20:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What is it eating? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was some rotting meat mixed with sand. Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. I like the quality - focus, lighting, DOF is pretty good. I like the action captured. The Green bottle fly article could do with some love though, but the biggest issue is no species ID which affects EV. Change to full support if you can get a full ID. --jjron (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Species identified. Muhammad(talk) 10:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently its not a green bottle fly. I have made the required changes. Muhammad(talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • D'oh. Have changed to full support, with the assumption ID is now correct. --jjron (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two users from diptera.info confirmed Muhammad(talk) 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per jjron. Hope no one is eating when they click on this. Fletcher (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Slightly too much dead space on the RHS for an encyclopedic shot. Also seems like the WB is a bit out? Seems a little warm to me but could be wrong. --Fir0002 04:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - surprising clarity and disgustitude. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Chrysomya_albiceps_eating.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality image showing details of the structure. It also shows the insulators and vibration dampers in good details.

Articles this image appears in

Electricity pylon, Lattice steel pylon

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In my view details like the insulators would be better served with individual telephoto shots. The shot itself is sharp but the background is very distracting. I'd try and find one on the top of a hill somewhere so you can just get sky as the background. Also, I think it is tilted. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - I agree with Noodle Snack's assessment of the background. Using the sky would make this a much better shot. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition is poor as the lattice structure itself isn't emphasized and gets lost in the background of trees and indistinct sky. Madcoverboy (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For a common subject such as this, I think we want a really compelling photo. Lighting here is kind of flat and the background is busy, as noted. I think it seems to be leaning to the right as well. It's a nice sharp image though and pretty good EV. Fletcher (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Awesome quality and EV, +wow with that snow falling off the top. This image really shows how much snow falls on Mount Baker.

Articles this image appears in

Mount Baker

Creator

Wsiegmund

• Support as nominator --₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 15:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the caption would read better if the "annually huge" was changed - perhaps "The annual snowfall on the mountain is huge" or something along those lines. 16:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, changed. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - has good EV, as do several of the other pics in the article. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality image, interesting composition. Sharp, detailed.

Articles this image appears in

Conifer cone, Ice storm, Winter storms of 2008–09, Eastern White Pine

Creator

Redmarkviolinist

• Support as nominator --ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 23:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good photo, needs a description. Not sure how much encyclopedic value it adds at the article where it appears. Seems like it would be more relevant to ice storms or something along those lines. Durova^Charge! 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have expanded the description and added the picture to other pages. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 02:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it needs a description on the image hosting page. The location, species of pine, etc. would be good. I'm leaning toward borderline support here, yet it might fare better at Wikimedia Commons FPC where evaluation is more purely on photographic merit. Durova^Charge! 18:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, species is Pinus Strobus, or White Pine. I've filled in the description and added the picture to the page. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per dialog above. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I just disagree with the EV of this image. The ice obscures the view of the cone, detracting from its EV of conifer cone, and for ice storms I think the larger-scale pictures of the effect on trees, power lines, etc. are more encyclopedic. It's a pretty interesting to see the cone wrapped up in ice, but not that encyclopedic IMO. Fletcher (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it might have EV if the species that is covered in ice has evolved to cope with it. I'd like to see proper identification per Durova though. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that being able to cope would make it in any way unique though. If trees couldn't cope with below zero temps/ice, they'd all die over the winter. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well tomatoes for instance pretty much die when exposed to frost. I do recall hearing about some specific evolutionary traits of conifers that allow them to survive in heavy snow regions, particularly the tapered shape and lack of branches in the trunk. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, true, although my point was almost all trees native to the cold climates must by definition be able to survive sub-zero temps or the hills would be bare. I'm sure they have evolved some defences, but nothing unique to this particular tree. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Adds very little value to the articles. As Fletcher said, larger scale images of the effects of ice storms provides more information than a lone pinecone. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Despite the above I was only able to find one rather dubious reference (link removed) as far as evolution of pine cones goes so oppose since the ice obscures the cone, and since the limited framing obscures the effects of ice storms. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah very dubious. It only relates to the shape of the pine cones and the weight of snow, nothing to do with ice or sub-zero temperatures per-se. And it specifically denies evolution! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a religious website. What else can you expect? Muhammad(talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution (14.2MB) panorama of London as it appeared in the early seventeenth century. Restored version of File:London panorama, 1616.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

History of London, Stuart London

Creator

Claes Janszoon Visscher

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't definitively decide whether or not to support this, but at least on my end the entire image looks quite blurry. Much of the text can't be read and a lot of the details are also compromised due to this. If the text at least was more legible, I would be more inclined to support this. -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of sharpening the original with a deconvolution algorithm (edit 1), which has brough out a bit more of the detail (though I'm not sure the writing is any more legible). Unfortunately it's also brough out the JPEG artifacts from the original, but it was saved with quite high quality so that's not a huge problem. Time3000 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Oppose I really want to support this, but the unreadable text just takes too much away from the image. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Support Edit 1 Per above, most of the the text is readable though, the top left bit is unreadble, so weak support. Otherwise a beautiful and historical photo (and hi-res). Epson291 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original - NYE fireworks display in Melbourne, Australia as seen from Alexandra Gardens Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Reason

Happy New Year everyone! This was my first time that I was in Melbourne for NYE and it was pretty crazy - trains were packed to the very brim and all roads were just solid with people! Anyway a high quality photo with good EV - one of my last images of 2008!

Articles this image appears in

New Year's Eve, Fireworks, Pyrotechnics

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Looks good, but its got a lot of compression artifacts in the sky and around the fireworks. --Yzmo ^talk 01:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think the technical quality is sufficient, but it's on the small side for an FP and composition-wise I think this falls well short of a number of our (technically inferior) fireworks shots (e.g., this or this).--ragesoss (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I know that fireworks are pretty difficult to shoot (and you don't get much time to change your exposure settings) but they look fairly overexposed to be honest as they're missing colour information in the middle. It isn't unavoidable, and generally the fireworks look much nicer, even if the scenery isn't as well lit. I don't have any particularly great fireworks shots myself from a compositional perspective (always difficult to get a good vantage point that isn't swarming with people) but I do have some where the colours are far less washed out, which I think is pretty important with fireworks. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully some of the alts are more pleasing --Fir0002 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately not really, as the colour is still pretty washed out by overexposure. What I think probably would have worked better was to stop down the lens a bit more (I used f/13 to f/22 at ISO 100 last time I tried, diffraction isn't really an issue in this sort of photography) and let the exposure go longer. That way the fireworks won't be as exposed as they last for a smaller percentage of the total exposure, but the background will still be exposed fairly well. (Examples: [2] [3] [4]. I know they're not great either and there isn't any interesting background to speak of, but you see the colour of the actual fireworks better, rather than just the glow around them). Ideally there isn't too many fireworks all at once though, as that potentially this means it'll be overwhelmed, so getting the balance right is sometimes really hard as you cannot predict how fast the fireworks will move, how many of them will explode in the next xx seconds, and even where in the frame they will explode. An unforgiving style of photography, to be sure. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh and this is just an idea that popped into my head a second ago. If you had the camera really steady on a tripod, you could actually take a frame before the fireworks started, with a much brighter exposure for the background. Then you could blend it with the fireworks frame to get them both exposed nicely. Never tried it before, but I can't see why it wouldn't work. I've got a little program that takes the brightest pixel in a series of images and combines them into one image. Works well for multiple exposures in star trail photography, so you can take sixty 1 minute long exposures to get an hour long star trail without the problems of hot pixels/noise. Only problem is when clouds are moving across the frame. You'll end up with the brightest bits of them all in the final image too which isn't ideal. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While pleasing, I fail to see the encyclopedic value (3b and 5b). It's not a particularly excellent example of fireworks nor an excellent rendition of the Melbourne skyline. Is Fir0002 starting to rest on his laurels?! ;) Madcoverboy (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very good picture of a nine-banded armadillo in the wild.

Articles this image appears in

Nine-banded Armadillo

Creator

Brian E. Kulm, Yiati

• Support as nominator --Why1991 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose Below minimum size requirements. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Doesn't meet size requirements. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy close per above. de Bivort 18:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I reverted two edits to this nomination in which an IP changed votes and remarks. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted It is extremely improbable that this would pass given its size and softness. --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Currently, none of the images at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I depict the Middle Eastern theater of that war. It's time to correct that systemic bias and I believe this has more technical merit than some of the images already featured. Restored version of File:Turkish trenches at Dead Sea.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Dead Sea, Sinai and Palestine Campaign, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I

Creator

American Colony Jerusalem

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 01:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree, this is a pretty good image and it's about time the Middle Eastern theater of WWII got some recognition. I don't think it has a place in the Dead Sea article though. I was there just now and there isn't a single reference to the war effort in there, and the image seems quite out of place there. If noone disagrees, I'll proceed with removing it from there. Mad Tinman _{T C} 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pretty good image of the Mid East theater of WWI. Agree with Mad Tinman about removal from Dead Sea article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Quite an eerie photo, but a very good one that meets the criteria nonetheless. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is a very moving photo, to say the least. I also agree with the view of Abraham B.S. above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Good image. Weak support only because its EV is good but not outstanding. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't want to be disrespectful but seems a fairly mediocre example of a trench (see some of the photos trench article) and there's nothing in it (AFAIK) that makes this scene distinctive to the Middle Eastern theater of war.--Fir0002 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes. It is a mediocre example of a trench (which is why it doesn't appear at that article). The Ottoman Empire was in a tailspin. Quite illustrative for the Middle Eastern theater of WWI though. Durova^Charge! 08:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how is it illustrative for the Middle Eastern theater of WWI? Is there anything in this scene which is unique to that theater? To put it another way, if you were shown this photo with no other information could you identify it conclusively as coming from the Middle Eastern theater of WWI? --Fir0002 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Turkish trenches at Dead Sea2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Pretty hi-rez, very dynamic, easily stands out, representative of the spirit of Singapore in many ways. (And the clouds are awesome).

Articles this image appears in

Singapore, Four Asian Tigers, List of tallest buildings in Singapore, Downtown Core, List of cities by GDP, List of cities in the Far East by population

Creator

Someformofhuman

• Support as nominator --Bubsty (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose looks oversharpened and oversaturated. de Bivort 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Oversharpened and a bit 'watercolour'ish looking. Good in thumbnail but not great at full size. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lights are overblown. And the crane on the far left tower appears to be quite blurred. –  LATICS  talk  02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Fletcher (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment & Oppose

The crane was blurred because it was moving. They were having late night construction.

I appreciate Bubsty for placing my image as featured candidates. (Didn't knew it until I checked today) But I wish it could be removed from the nominations list. There are a number of photo-graphical mistakes in my own picture in which why I never and wouldn't bother to nominate it, and in which I am embarrassed to explain. It'll be great if you had asked my permission to do so first the next time. And I oppose my own picture. Neither any of my pictures from Commons are deserved to be nominated at all. Someformofhuman Speak now! 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality. Finally got close enough to this timid species.

Articles this image appears in

White-faced Heron

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While this is very good I personally find the taxobox image File:White-faced Heron.jpg a more engaging shot; unfortunately the focus on that looks to have just missed, otherwise I would be inclined to nominate it here. Another thing I was wondering though was whether you'd intentionally cropped at the bottom where it is; it's a strong reflection and I'd be interested to see how it would come up if we could see the whole bird in the reflection. If not, I'd possibly crop it a bit higher up, at least taking out the reflected neck feathers. --jjron (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No room on the reflection, mostly because I was trying to keep the focus point on the eye. Attached an alternate with a slightly different pose, similar luck on the foreground reflection though and the lighting is imo inferior. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Greater realism with water ripples. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original as above, would prefer a slightly different crop as jjron Muhammad(talk) 10:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good shot but I prefer either the one Jjron mentioned or File:IMG 8332 1000.jpg - less distracting backgrounds and better look at the feet. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd guess I'll argue that a front on shot better shows the nuptial plumes (pink feathers in breeding plumage) on the the neck and that the photograph demonstrates a different type of feeding behaviour to the other images ("The White-faced heron uses a variety of techniques to find food including standing still and waiting for prey movement, walking slowly in shallow water, wing flicking, foot raking or even chasing prey with open wings"). Noodle snacks (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I've actually got quite a few of this bird myself (I've only got this one with me at the moment on my laptop though) which have nicer backgrounds. But I think NS has a good point too regarding illustrating feeding... --Fir0002 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support See comment above - I've seen/taken nicer shots of the bird itself but this one is pretty good for feeding --Fir0002 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. The lead image of the article has just been nominated. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg Enough support, no opposes and quite a lot of neutral --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An early demonstration of camera obscura from a seventeenth century manuscript. Restored version of File:Camera obscura unrestored.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Camera obscura, History of the camera

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality is good, and in showing both the input and output image, this drawing seems to illustrate the concept more clearly than the other pictures in the article. A good restoration, too -- the original looks like hell.  :-) Fletcher (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great image and superb restoration. Fletcher's right, the original was in rough shape. Nice job, Durova. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both. :) Durova^Charge! 03:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent restoration! I agree with Fletcher: this picture illustrates Camera obscura better than any of the others. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Camera obscura2.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Martin Obras http://martinjorgee.wix.com/jorge-martin#!c%C3%A1mara-obscura

Reason

Sharp, well lit, clean background - in short a high quality image of a wild bird

Articles this image appears in

Fantail, Rufous Fantail

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This one is looking pretty good sharpness and lighting wise Noodle snacks (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the way the branch intrudes into the foreground is distracting, but more significantly, the talon on the right side is completely blurred, while the talon the left is sharp. It goes from blurry to sharp so quick that it looks more like a post processing thing than DOF transition or motion blur (?). Indeed the bokeh is really too strong for me; I think the lead image in Fantail looks more natural, showing some in-focus branches the bird is sitting on. Attaching the animal to its environment adds to its EV, in my view; I just want enough blur to keep the emphasis on the subject. Fletcher (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is some motion blur on the wing actually, but otherwise it looks very sharp. The shallow DOF is mainly because the branch that the bird is perched on is almost in line with the view of the camera, which accentuates it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah the DOF is entirely natural and is created in the way Diliff mentioned above (I was semi-hiding behind the tree trunk). The alternative shows part of a nearby tree if you prefer it. Also yes there is some minor blur on the wings (from memory it was startled by the sound of the shutter) despite 1/1600s --Fir0002 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the alt a bit more but don't think the FP should be obscured by the branch. Fletcher (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that the branch is much of an issue: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Also I think your sentiments here are relevant, in that yes you could find fault with the branch, but realistically this is about as good as it gets for wild birds. --Fir0002 00:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor composition in both cases. The branch interferes in both photos. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original despite the branch and some minor blurring. This photo illustrates the subject very well. The bird is easy to see against the background. Wronkiew (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose alternative 1 it is not in any articles and should not be put into any articles as the original image shows the same subject matter but has greater encyclopaedic value - it shows more of the bird. Guest9999 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general practise is to replace the original in articles with the Alt generally. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images with less encyclopaedic value should not be used in articles because they could be featurable. The original image is a better depiction of the bird for use in the encyclopaedia and should be used in the articles it is currently present in over the alternative image; even if the alternative image has technical qualities that could make a difference at FPC. Guest9999 (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of the alternative is to give people an option - whichever version people like most will go into the article. So if the majority thought the Alt was a better image then it would replace the original. If the majority thought the original was best then it would stay. So perhaps you could state your preference in a positive rather than negative fashion :) --Fir0002 08:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • An example: File:Poster-sized portrait of Barack Obama OrigRes.jpg is the lead image in Barack Obama, it is probably not featurable, File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg is a featured image of Barack Obama but it will never replace the other image in the article. Another example: remember that picture of a bird that received massive support a few months back only to be removed from the article it was in by the editors' who maintained because it showed an atypical pose? The factors that matter at FPC can differ from the factors that determine whether an image should be placed in an article and from the process of peer review that keeps that image in the article; since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not just a collection of great pictures the former does not take precedence. I'm not trying to be negative and I think both images are very well taken shots, I am only unsure as to whether support the original because of the extremely high standard for this type of image that has been set by editors including yourself. Guest9999 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if that alternative had been listed in the nomination of the other image it would probably have been chosen instead which is the point here - to let others help choose which image should be the one to illustrate the article. And if you think that's the original then that's fine. You're welcome to your opinion on the matter but I would argue that this image is well up to standard for wild birds (note that it is unreasonable to demand the same quality for a wild bird photo as for an easily accessible flower in the same way it is unreasonable to demand that quality from a historical image) --Fir0002 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that FPC is a place to set out article content or decide whether an image should be used in an article; it should be used to evaluate images used in articles against the criteria. An image of a bird is always going to have greater encyclopaedic value than one of that a bird partially obscured by a branch, especially when they are as similar as the images in this nomination. Guest9999 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Avala (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Branch obscuring legs and lower (from gravity's point of view) part of abdomen. Motion blur on foreground wing. Beautiful picture, but damn. :\ The alt is good too, but it has too much obscured by the branch, and could use some more DOF. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But nothing is obscured by the branch in the original...? Also refer to the examples I cited above to Fletcher - to me picking on the branch seems like looking at this nom from the perspective of finding an excuse to not support! --Fir0002 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may find, if you look at your own images again closely, that the proportion of the bird covered by the branch in the original is much less than in the alternative. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality image during an American college football game.

Articles this image appears in

Armed Forces Bowl, American football, History of Air Force Falcons football, Shea Smith

Creator

U.S. Air Force photo/Mike Kaplan

• Support as nominator --–  LATICS  talk  22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seldom enough that we get good sports photography under free license. Durova^Charge! 00:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak opposeI think the composition could be much better, particularly if the player's entire body was shown. It's also detrimental that the background on the right side of the photo was left in since the opposing player is completely blurred anyway. The photo doesn't adequately show the QB's body positioning prior to the pass since the framing only focuses on the upper body. I would likely change my vote if the player's entire body was shown. -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support both, preference to jjron's Edit1 Per Durova, these are probably hard to get. We do have a good picture showing the QB's whole body and footwork, which is good for EV. But arguably, this picture puts the emphasis on his head and arms as he prepares to pass. I also don't mind the background blur, as it is just enough to give context while emphasizing the QB. My main reason to support is that this picture seems likely one of the best we have, and it is hard to get these. I don't think a FP necessarily has to be the absolute best we have, or best possible shot. Fletcher (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would support if there was a realistic article on this particular player, but as is I tend to oppose on EV as I don't think it has huge value for any of the articles it's in. So that leaves me pretty neutral overall. --jjron (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Au contraire... :) (Yes, I just created it.) –  LATICS  talk  04:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OK then, Support (preference for Edit1), good job on the article BTW, even if done on the fly - hopefully the article will remain! FWIW I've added what I think to be a slightly improved edit. --jjron (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like "action" shots like this and think they can be just as or even more EV than whole-body shots of the player. Good job. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pref edit 1 I think readers will know what the legs would look like, so the crop is unimportant. I prefer the selective focus; Having everything in focus tends to make it difficult to know what to look at. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Both Pretty good photo, but IMO doesn't have enough EV to be featured. Also, the completely-blurred right side is pretty distracting. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit 1 because of sharpening artifacts. Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Shea Smith-edit1.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of the more famous New York City apartment buildings, notable (among other reasons) as the location where John Lennon was killed. One of the earliest surviving landmarks on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, photographed from an angle that would have been impossible a few decades later due to subsequent development.

Articles this image appears in

The Dakota, Upper West Side

Creator

Historic American Buildings Survey

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow, compare to what surrounds it today. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure it deserves FP status but I put it as lead picture in the 1st article -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That is an impresive photo, both in quality/historicalness. It really gives you a feel how much it has changed today. Epson291 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Partly because of the quality and historical significance, but mainly because it's related to John Lennon, the second-best Beatle. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Good restoration of a strong photo, but I think it has been cropped too aggressively. The extra foreground and the poles across the road on the right, missing in the restored version, add a lot to the context. And as others note, that context and the drastic change in context from then to now is a big part of the image's appeal.--ragesoss (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the foreground is almost entirely road and the far right is Central Park (which had already been fully developed before this photograph was taken), it didn't seem like a great liberty to crop out phone and power lines which are generally viewed as problem elements in photography. Nearly all of the neighborhood that saw subsequent development remains in the image. Durova^Charge! 01:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above; caption might make note that we are looking at the south facade (I think). Fletcher (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Dakota 1890b.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

After this failed nomination I retook the shot with the water flow adjusted to a point just below where the sprinkler would spin, therefore keeping my camera relatively dry and hopefully fixing the aforementioned sprinkler bias issue by providing an image of one in operation.

Articles this image appears in

Impact sprinkler

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bravo, I wasn't sure this could be done. From reading the previous nom, I think people were forgetting this thing spins and no doubt vibrates when it's turned on. But you found a way to shoot it. While the photo is fantastic, the caption could be more detailed to explain what's going on (noting there was a previous request for a diagram). I take it the left side nozzle is the "spreader" nozzle as described in the article? Fletcher (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done, although I'd like a little more space to see the water to the right.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Support - Supported the first nom, and I still support this. The water adds a cool effect to it as well. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality shot --Fir0002 07:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support amazing. I can really see the "wow" in this image. Nice work. --Kanonkas (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose I am going to go against the flow (groan) on this one. Its is much better with the addition of water compared to the old nom, but I think that this limited degree of water flow, whilst making the subject easier to photograph, fails to demonstrate the sprinkler in operation. I like that this new version also shows water coming out of the opposing nozzle, but none of the water is actually sprinkling, its more like an impact trickler :) Noting that it is in Noodle snack's back yard and that he has a number of lens choices, I think an attempt could/should be made to capture the device in full operation with a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action and the spray in full flow. Mfield (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have to disagree with Mfield. I feel if it showed the spray in full flow, there would be much less emphasis on the sprinkler itself. This image, IMO, depicts the water, but still manages to be the subject. Spencer^T♦C 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. (: --Ashleyy osaurus 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyy osaurus (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. I still think this subject is poorly served by a photograph. It requires at least a slow motion video clip, but ideally an animation, to be featurable. Very good photograph, but inferior EV for a subject whose essence lies in its motion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't it be sprinkler, not sprinker (title of nom and caption)? TerriG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.155.96.6 (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite right, a repeatedly copy and pasted typo, fixed now. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Very good picture. As for EV, it gets only weak support since we really need to see this in action to understand what an Impact sprinkler is all about. Unlike an animation or video, however, this still shot allows us to examine the mechanism for more than a moment, so I think it's worthy of being featured. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a high quality image, and it looks pretty cool. However, as Papa Lima Whiskey pointed out, it does very little to clarify how the object works mechanically. As that is the main goal (and problem) of the accompanying article, I'm opposing because I feel it fails to add any real value to the article it appears in. A slow motion animation would do much more to clearly show how it works. Furthermore, the caption is meager at best. Fransw (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support — Aitias // discussion 03:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Impact_Sprinkler_Mechanism_2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality panorama of Cohoes Falls during winter, showing the old electric plant (currently owned by Brookfield Power) on the left. It shows the flow of meltwater during a warm spell in winter. Complete with a partial rainbow on the right.

Articles this image appears in

Cohoes Falls, Mohawk River, Cohoes, New York, The Great Peacemaker, Downtown Cohoes Historic District

Creator

ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

• Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm only going to comment on usage right now (monitor issues), and I'd like to note that it has rather weak enc. in The Great Peacemaker and Downtown Cohoes Historic District. It's fine in the others, though. Spencer^T♦C 01:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition isn't very good, you either need to find a spot where you just get the waterfall, or alternately pick a vantage point where you can include both the power station and the waterfall. Technically there is periodic banding across the top of the image, visible at thumbnail size, probably caused by exposure variations across the frame (set your camera to manual). None of the verticals are straight. I believe the program you are using will let you define vertical and horizontal control points in order to fix this sort of distortion. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose a lot of detail there. A bit drab to shoot it in the winter. Feels tilted CW. I think I can see different tones in the segments of the sky. de Bivort 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good observations by Noodle Snacks. The far left in particular is really too soft and distorted IMO. Fletcher (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

details, natural light, natural environment

Articles this image appears in

Crested_Tit

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A bit small, but good Ev. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I have to correct and send a larger version! --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - this image is in a gallery, and I much rather prefer the image in the infobox of the article. Whichever image passes, it should be the head image for the article. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Somewhat soft, and it has blown highlights on the neck.--ragesoss (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a good shot but it's agallery image that adds little value to the article because a similar but superior - in terms of encyclopaedic value - image which shows a greater proportion of the bird (tail, wing, legs) is used in the main body of the article (). Guest9999 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the auto-iso seems to have killed that one. :( Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it's not feature picture quality but in terms of an encyclopaedic illustration of the bird it is superior to the image nominated. Guest9999 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Missing tail, and quality is good but not great. Fletcher (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Extremely high detail, amazing EV. This has incredible wow, it's fascinating. This is one of Mila's best, plus it's an FP on Commons as well.

Articles this image appears in

Pamukkale

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Good photo and good demonstration of scale. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The location has plenty of wow but I'm not convinced this photo does as the sky is very bizarrely coloured. I've seen better angles/composition in Pamukkale than this one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Aycan (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose per diliff, the edit has a wierd looking sky. The person in it does give a useful sense of scale in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Second original added. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to nominate that separately, as this nomination would be due to close shortly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still oppose the Original 2. I've noticed a pattern in Mbz's images. They're visually interesting, but the quality/editing is often a bit suspect. In #2, the background is still extremely dark - darker than it should be IMO, even allowing for underexposure for the foreground. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Diliff, may I please thank you for taking your time to comment on the images? Here's the original (not post processed image)File:Hot springs of Pamukkale origibal.JPG in case you have a wish and time to make it look better.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wonder what that cable in the lower right hand corner is. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what this cable is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mila-- welcome back, I hope. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 2.After Mbz's comments, I've gone back and edited the original unprocessed image to bring out the definition and I think it is infinitely better than what was originally nominated here. I had to improvise on the sky as it was fairly dull and I'm not sure if I overdid it, but it looks fairly natural to me and I probably wouldn't pick up on it if I didn't know it had been adjusted. Also, I didn't crop it to the same proportions as the original nomination as I think it is slightly more informative as-is, but I wouldn't oppose the crop either if that's what people wanted. In fact if I were to crop it similar to the original, I'd probably also crop the bottom to remove the cable and the darker patch on the bottom left. I suggest we keep this open a bit longer to give others the chance to change their vote if they want to do so. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, I do prefer the crop as described above as it looks much less messy, and I have replaced it as Edit 2. See here if you want to compare to the uncropped version. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you,Diliff! It does not matter if the image will get promoted or it will not. What matters that you found the image interesting enough to spend your time on it.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. When I saw the original unprocessed image, I realised how much potential there was in it. Perhaps try not to increase the contrast too much in future though? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe better yet to post my nominations together with the originals right away in the hope thay you will help me to make my images look better. ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2--Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Looking realistic now Noodle snacks (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion on the alternates please. Wronkiew (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hot springs of Pamukkale edit cropped.JPG --Wronkiew (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-236-1045-15A, Russland, Einheimischer in deutschen Diensten retouched.jpg

Reason

This image meets most of the criteria outright. Although "small" (not 1,000px²), the image has a good composition and I did some work to get rid of major scratches. This is one of the better quality images donated by the Bundesarchive to Wikipedia Commons. The image is historic and so I know that a number of images have been passed without meeting the minimum resolution requirements given their historic value. As if to underscore the historic value of the image, this image is fairly popular in published books; this is a well known image to WWII Eastern Front historians. This is amongst Wikipedia's best work relative to the subject it represents; the photograph cannot be retaken, and there are few images available for Wikipedia on Russians who fought for the German Army during the Second World War. It has a free license, adds values to three articles (insofar) and is accurate.

Articles this image appears in

Wehrmacht, Russian Liberation Army, Heer (1935–1945)

Creator

Waidelich; retouched by Catalan

• Support as nominator --JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note -- I tried increasing the resolution. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Spiffing. 82.0.93.62 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose interesting composition and subject. The image quality is low though - it has lots of compression artifacts. There is no way to "increase resolution" without going to the original data or negative. de Bivort 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I was hoping that the historical value of the image would supersede the obvious lack in image quality given the conditions the image was taken in and who the picture was taken by. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The issue with the image quality is not something relating to the conditions the image was taken in. It is a digital reproduction issue. Also, you can't just 'upsample' the image to 1000 pixels to make it through FPC. The alternative image looks fairly awful as a result. The original film/print would have far higher quality than this. Whether it is obtainable, I don't know, but this version will not pass at this res, IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. In that case, withdraw the nomination. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, it is a pretty good photo. Only the size and image quality stop me from wholeheartedly supporting it. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose for technical reasons. The type of image I call a heartbreaker during archival searches: encyclopedic, interesting composition, but just too short on technical specs to consider for featured picture candidacy. Keep up the good work and do continue searching, please. Historic FPs are rare finds, even with restoration. About 1 in 1000 has the right stuff. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - Withdrawn by nominator. --jjron (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High Resolution Image with apropos applications in Wikipedia

Articles this image appears in

T-37 Tweet, Air Education and Training Command, Oxygen mask

Creator

— BQZip01 — ^talk

• Support as nominator --— BQZip01 — ^talk 08:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose white look significantly blown out, blacks are not very dark. de Bivort 18:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we remove some of the haze, please? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better now. I'm going to be neutral because the image has quite a lot of noise, but it also exceeds the resolution requirement by some amount. At the same time, downsampling is not an option due to the small but significant text on the edge of the ENJJPT coat of arms. The white paint may well be blown out, but that's somewhat forgivable as it's not the central subject. The whitish halos around the pencil (?) and some other objects bother me a bit more, though. The composition overall is fine, even if the photographer should have been invisible to make it really perfect imho. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV is somewhat weak, spread over three articles. Shows little of a T-37; does serve to identify the student pilot but is not very educational about the topic, though admittedly it is a hard one to illustrate; does show an oxygen mask but again, not an extremely informative view. Fletcher (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose per the above comments. Particularly agreeing with Fletcher about the oxygen mask. It's a reasonably good photograph but not ideal for any of its encyclopedic uses. Durova^Charge! 17:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution illustration of historic social dancing with good demonstration of context: active dance poses, musicians, and nearby figures drinking and socializing. Tonight I'm gonna party like it's 1799. ;) Restored version of File:Il Ballo.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Dance, Social dance

Creator

Giuseppe Piattoli

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 01:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-restored, high-resolution, and it is well-used in illustrating social dance (especially since social dance today often looks so different).--ragesoss (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but isn't it "Tonight I'm gonna party like it's 1699"? Spencer^T♦C 17:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose Don't especially like the look or composition of the thumb, and I'm not sure what this version shows that a modern photo wouldn't. I thought the social dance article might be specific to old dancing, in which case the old rendering would help, but it wasn't. de Bivort 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Shows what a 18th-century social dance is like, in a way that a modern photograph would not. Historic views are still important to show the development. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Good, but not great, EV. It'd be better if the articles talked more about the history/development of dance. Moreover, a description of what they're doing would be nice. Sure, it looks like they're dancing, but I can't tell much about the actual dance. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Il Ballo2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution historic aerial depiction with legible labels of village landmarks. Restored version of File:Caledonia, New York aerial2.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Caledonia (village), New York, Livingston County, New York removed from article (for now) - see note below. Guest9999 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

Anonymous (published by Burleigh Litho. Co., Troy, N.Y.).

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 02:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fantastically detailed image. Despite the huge file size, it seems like there are artifacts throughout (especially noticeable around the typed characters) that are in the unrestored version as well. But it's such a large, detailed and attractive image, with more than enough detail to read all writing and significant bits, that the artifacts don't really matter.--ragesoss (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - This is an exceptional image. I don't think I could say much beyond what ragesoss mentioned - other than the fact that it was published in my home town! :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have removed the image from the second article it was as it was poorly positioned and the context for its used was not established either in the image's caption or the article's text. Guest9999 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image that provides a good historical look at the city. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Caledonia, New York aerial2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This file is not only public domain; it's also open (MATLAB) source. It's at least as elegant and informative as a prior winner: Pi-unrolled-720.gif. It's also made by a Wikipedian with many contributions to the commons.

Articles this image appears in

Snell's law, Index of Refraction

Creator

Oleg Alexandrov

• Support as nominator --Clarknova (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simple yet informative.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Is there a way to turn it off? Durova^Charge! 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hit 'Esc'. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, it might be a good idea with some of these animations to include a shutoff option for people who suffer from epilepsy, migraines, or other neurological conditions. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or who will... Fletcher (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I don't see why the caption need be restricted to refractive indicies and light since Snell's law can be applied to other waves too. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the most used case, and there is no need to be fully general. As long as the reader is given a simple and clear explanation, that should be good enough even if it is not the most all-encompassing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I agree with Noodle Snacks. When I first read the caption, "speed of light" irked me because it makes the image sound like it is only applicable to light waves. This could leave some lay readers to think it doesn't affect any other type of wave, including every other type of radiation wave. I would suggest a minor rewrite:
      Wavefronts from a point source in the context of Snell's law. The region below the gray line has a higher index of refraction and proportionally lower wave velocity than the region above it. (Previously used commas unnecessary)
      I feel as if the red dotted line should also be mentioned in the caption, but I don't know how to incorporate it. I also added the image to index of refraction, where it now sits nicely as the main image of the page. I will support this image if the caption can be updated and generalized. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You still have to be careful as the refractive index is only applicable to the light case. I'd reword the caption for Snell's law to generalise it by omitting the refractive index, or moving to the end a "In the case of light...". Either of the current proposed captions would work fine as is in Refractive Index. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Index of refraction clearly states that it is applicable to sound waves as well. Snell's Law states it is applicable to "light or other waves". Granted both articles are poorly referenced, but if I remember correctly from college physics, Snell's Law and index of refraction are not limited to light. And if it is (and proven), using the term light is a bit loaded and should be replaced with electromagnetic radiation since I also don't remember a limitation set to the visible spectrum. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite right, I do apologise as I am somewhat ill. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Snell's law is applicible to just about any type of wave who's velocity is dependent on the medium the wave travels through. As to the inclusion of the red line in the caption, I propose this as caption:
              Wavefronts from a point source in the context of Snell's law. The region below the gray line has a higher index of refraction and proportionally lower wave velocity than the region above it. The dotted red line is perpendicular to the wavefronts and thus represents a Fermat-shortest path from the source to a point in the lower medium.
              If it is somehow possible to incorporate the fact that the wavefronts in the lower medium are hyperbolic rather than spherical, I'm all for it. Fransw (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Snells_law_wavefronts.gif --Wronkiew (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

OK, so like with recent noms some people will say 'it's just a car', but I personally think this goes beyond requirements for car photos - please view fullsize. Sharp across the vehicle at 17 megapixels, clean car and photo, good setting, good composition, good use of DOF, good details (you can see individual flecks in the metallic paint!), pleasant reflections on the vehicle, etc, along with full encyclopaedic details of car (model, year, etc). Far higher res than I usually upload - you could print this as a poster - but I'm guessing the only people likely to use this commercially are Mazda, and surely they'd take their own photos :-).

Articles this image appears in

Mazda Atenza

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are a few dust spots/birds that need cloning: Above and slightly left of the antenna, left and horizontally inline with the rear spoiler, two either side of a line going vertically up near the RHS intersection between A-Pillar and bonnet. There is also a faint stitching? band in the sky just to the left of the front mazda logo with another splodge on its left. You also probably need to tastefully apply a little blur in the foreground to hide the stitching lines due to the change in focus point with each shot. All easily fixable. I'll support after that, my only real criticism is the front of the car being in shade. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the couple of dust blobs, but I don't see a stitching band in the sky. What I do see is a stitching error on the driver's side pillar. Not a significant one, but probably worth fixing. Also, I find the shadow detail on the bonnet a bit dark (more so in the thumbnail than at full res though). Did you shoot RAW and if so, could you perhaps lighten it? None of this is enough for me to oppose, but hey, they're fairly easily fixed so I can ask, can't I? :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a small contrast enhanced version which highlights the band. I can't see the drivers side error, I can only see possible a stitching error on the passenger side A-Pillar but I think it is just the intersection of two trim pieces. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yeah, I see it, very slight though. Stitching error on the driver's side B pillar is here. Oh, and what are those three blobs sitting on the top of the bonnet just to the left of the clouds? They don't look like dust as they're not quite circular, and it would be a coincidence for three to be sitting in a row on the bonnet like that. They look more like the effect of the clone tool clipping the bonnet, but I could be wrong. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. More than enough detail, good angle. Very reminiscent of Capital Photographer's baptism of fire nomination, actually. ;-) Good luck, product shots seem to attract a lot more scrutiny than the average FP. I guess being easily shot, they need to be almost perfect. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff. Was it taken on sloping ground? Durova^Charge! 18:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree with above suggestions on exposure: the hood (bonnet?) seems too dark, and I can just barely make out the metalwork of the lower grille - some of it may be altogether black. Otherwise would be inclined to support. Fletcher (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What's with the focus transitions on the ground? Was the focus adjusted between shots? Thegreenj 06:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, resolution and EV. Is it tilted or shot on a slope? Muhammad(talk) 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, but support nonetheless. A pretty image, and certainly valuable as a hi-res image. But I don't like how the car is tilted down the hill. I assume that the steering wheel is on the right-hand side of this car since it is in Australia, but I can't tell from the angle of this shot. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Replies - sorry, had not been on since nominating this until last night. Thanks for comments (and pedantic observations!). Have uploaded a 'corrected' version over the top of the original (I don't think that's a problem since it was just touching up minor errors). From the top:
  • I don't think the spots identified by NS were that significant but have fixed them regardless - FWIW they weren't dust spots, there were a lot of insects about and the 'spots' were mostly out of focus bugs flitting through the shot, some frames (I took more than just this set) had birds in the bg too as suggested, I fixed some before uploading, but must have missed those ones, so well picked out.
  • Re the stitching band in the sky I honestly can't make that out without cranking the contrast right up (perhaps you have a 'contrastier' monitor or something), and even then it's minor, so in the end I haven't changed that because I can't see it.
    • If you could be bothered (and I doubt you can), you can use an adjustment layer in photoshop to jack the contrast so you can see what you are doing, without effecting the image itself. I believe my monitors are accurate and fairly well calibrated. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I thought of that today actually, but uploading this takes about an hour on my connection, so you're right, I can't really be bothered :-). Your monitors are probably fine, but nonetheless different well adjusted monitors can display a bit differently seemingly. That Diliff couldn't really make it out either indicates that it's pretty minor. Or maybe you've just got sharp eyes. --jjron (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you wanted done with the foreground, I didn't find it too significant, but have applied a small feathered Gaussian blur across the bottom to try to make it a more consistent transition. Re Thegreenj, yes focus was adjusted across the shot, otherwise it would be like other car photos where the focus falls off across the image. Shooting from this angle relatively close to an object and then stitching is quite a different matter to a 'normal' stitch where you're usually distant from the object and/or stitching lengthways across the object.
  • Yes, Diliff was right re the stitching error on the B-pillar (dammit, I actually fixed another one just near that so don't know how I missed that one!), I have fixed it up, hopefully to your liking.
  • Re the shadows, yes it was shot in RAW, but I find lightening it up makes the brightly reflecting parts too bright, and I'm not really expert enough in editing RAW to alter just the shadow areas. Lifting them much beyond this in Photoshop tends to bring in too much noise, so this was what I eventually settled on. As Diliff said, I think it 'seems' more of an issue at smaller sizes than it really is.
  • Re the proposed stitching error on the passenger side A-pillar, as suggested that is a join in the interior trim (I saw that before uploading the first time and actually went and rechecked not the just the original photo but the car itself).
  • Re the three blobs on the bonnet to the left of the clouds, I'm not sure what you were referring to - there were three grey blobs/streaks which were there in both the original photos that overlapped in that section of the stitch, I wondered what they were too, but I think it was some grey cloud just poking up behind the bonnet, they did look a bit odd even if natural, so have edited them out.
  • Re the ground, yes it was sloping slightly, I don't think the shot's tilted (the clouds look level). As can be seen this is at the top of a hill. To get the background I wanted without distracting trees etc there was only a pretty limited angle of shot, and using the 100mm I was already back in the bush heading down the other side of the hill. Bringing the car forward onto flatter ground meant I couldn't take it with that lens and thus lost the effect. This limited angle also affected the lighting. I agree I would have preferred the front around a little more into the sunlight, but doing so meant that either I took the car almost front on, rather than the preferred 3/4 front/side angle, or I shifted the camera around and lost the clean background. And this is about as good as I'm going to get it there, this is looking north/north-east and was taken late afternoon within a day or two of the summer solstice, meaning that this as far south as the sun's going to provide the ideal lighting. I would have used some fill flash if I had the gear, but atm can't shoot flash off-body.
  • Re Spike - yes right hand drive. In fact you can see both the instrument panel 'hump' in front of the driver (even at image page size) and the steering wheel itself, and I think you can tell which side they're on (but then again I know where they are).

Thanks again for everyone's time. --jjron (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Still one splodge on the sky seam line though :P Noodle snacks (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:2003 Mazda6 GG Classic Hatch, McMillans Lookout, Vic, 21.12.2008.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A restored image of a famous part of Amsterdam, which can't be rephotographed. Except for the Munttoren and some merchant's houses in the background all buildings have been broken down in the last century and replaced.

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam, Singel and Munttoren

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lovely photochrom. Please upload the original version under a separate filename, link to it from both the nomination and the restored file, and include notes on the specific types of edits performed. Use File:Archangel reindeer3.jpg or File:St Alexander's Church2.jpg as examples. Restored featured picture nominations should always be carefully documented. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you requested me to. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much. Fine restoration. :) Durova^Charge! 01:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (although does not like the caption on the bottom of the image)--Caspian blue 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can anybody crop the bottom line ? M.K. (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can, but it is part of the EV... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know other FP's have kept it for enc, as well... I can't find it right now, but I remember it was a synagogue. Spencer^T♦C 22:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Synagogue at Nuremberg. Spencer^T♦C 22:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support nice fake colors! de Bivort 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support GerardM (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pretty houses in the back. Spencer^T♦C 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:AmstelAmsterdamNederland.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A period illustration of a knight in Gothic plate armour. From a hand tinted woodcut, late fifteenth century. Restored version of File:Gothic armor.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Knight, Gothic plate armour, Gorget

Creator

Anton Sorg

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Great picture. Weak support because EV not as strong as an actual photo of a Gorget or Gothic plate armour would be. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What period illustrations show better than anything else is how the armor was worn, and with what accessories (or lack thereof). Surcoats and tabards were standard in some eras, unused in others. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's nothing that a modern photograph that gave dated its portrayal couldn't show. I honestly don't think that older illustrations have greater EV for their subjects. Greater appeal, perhaps, for matching and the historical value, but not necessarily better value for showing the equipment itself and how it was used. Thegreenj 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per makemlighter. The extra detail of the full rez over the thumb does not tell us about armor, or even accessories. If you found an article for it along the lines of medieval watercoloring then I think it would have high EV. de Bivort 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - We want a variety of sources so we can look at this from many perspectives. We can have a watercolour, and still have a picture. Both will add value. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nom. If you can believe it, the Knight article only has two illustrations (including this one). Spikebrennan (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gothic armor 2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution and encyclopaedic view along the Jamison Valley on a sunny day, showing the exposed cliffs and the dense bushland common to the Blue Mountains in Australia.

Articles this image appears in

Blue Mountains (Australia) and New South Wales

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent view of the geography. Fletcher (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice detailed photograph. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all the above. Durova^Charge! 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and EV. Much better than the old version :) Muhammad(talk) 11:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jamison Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia - Nov 2008.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, high quality NASA satellite photo

Articles this image appears in

Ice age, Scandinavia, Scandinavian Peninsula, Climate of the Nordic countries, Östersund

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Spencer^T♦C 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely. Durova^Charge! 19:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice, you can almost see my house. ;) TheLeftorium 00:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Most definitely ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice, sharp as heck too. Would prefer without the border line though. --Chasingsol^(talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Beautiful image with high quality.--Caspian blue 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice image, M.K. (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Large, detailed, and informative. NauticaShades 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support useful and informative image with a good caption (even if it was borrowed from NASA). Fletcher (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though edited for space, clarity, and excessive detail. Spencer^T♦C 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Gorgeous. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support & Question It's an absolutely stunning image in terms of detail. The question part is this: Off the coast of norway, in the patch of ocean not covered by clouds, there are several straight lines visible (best at full resolution). Are these image artifacts, or something else? Fransw (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless they are perfectly parallel waves, they are probably due to image stitching. vlad§inger ^tlk 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that already, but they do seem to be (near)perfectly parallel. They are indeed, as Vladsinger states, not very noticable at normal size viewing, but they do become clearly noticable on fullsize view. Fransw (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support above issue hardly noticeable. vlad§inger ^tlk 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Scandinavia.TMO2003050.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution historic caricature with encyclopedic value in several articles. Restored version of File:Puck cover2.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Spanish-American_War#Aftermath, American Empire, Puck (magazine)

Creator

Ehrhart, S. D. (Samuel D.), ca. 1862-ca. 1920, artist. (from Dalrymple, Louis, 1866-1905, artist.)

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. Good EV in Puck (magazine) and American Empire. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cute EV for American Empire, does well in the thumb too. de Bivort 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Makeem. Fletcher (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good image Wandalstouring (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Puck cover2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, high resolution with encyclopedic value, contributing to an article which previously had no images showing this stage of the insect's life.

Articles this image appears in

Hermetia illucens

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and reasonable quality but I think you can achieve greater sharpness in this and your other insect contributions given your equipment and settings. Are you using the "bicubic sharper" algorithm when downsampling? You might also try a small amount of 1px radius smart sharpening. If you are at all the practical type then a homemade softbox for your flash would soften the lighting and improve the quality of these shots too. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use the bicubic (best for reduction) {best for smooth gradient) option. Would you reccomend the bicubic sharpening? Muhammad(talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bicubic Sharper (Best for reduction) is how it is written in photoshop, maybe try a little sharpening post downsample then. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the bicubic {best for smooth gradient) would give pretty soft results in comparison to the other algorithm. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good, detailed image. Shadow doesn't really affect the central subject. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support good enc, lighting would be greatly improved with some flash more diffusion. de Bivort 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Given the difficulty of the shot, I think we can overlook the slight flaws related to the flash. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Another one where the lighting is a bit strong -- but EV is even stronger. Fletcher (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great capture! 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAway (talk • contribs)

Promoted File:Black soldier flies mating.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

When illustrating historical concepts it's informative to have illustrations from that period. This comes from an engineering treatise published in 1588. Restored version of File:Sixteenth Century Cannon.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Cannon, Siege#Age_of_gunpowder, Gabion

Creator

Agostino Ramelli

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 03:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the encyclopedic value. M.K. (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support, should the darks be made a bit darker? One wonders how they could get the perspective so off. de Bivort 18:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've never seen one of my drawings then...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good technicals and enc value.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent restoration work, and this is from before perspective was really understood, (at least, widely). Most art from this period appears like this - basically, the mind is very good at rotating objects, so that we can identify, say, a chair from any angle - but an artist needs to turn that automatic ability off in order to get perspective right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the quality and EV. Fletcher (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good encyclopedic value. A302b (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sixteenth Century Cannon2.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I feel that this image shows how pin tumbler locks in a very easy-to-understand way. I am proposing these images as a {{FeaturedPictureSet}}.

Articles this image appears in

Pin tumbler lock

Creator

--Pbroks13^talk?

• Support as nominator ----Pbroks13^talk? 08:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fairly easy to understand, particularly with the captions. A good diagram set and very informative. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent illustration of the concept. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though I would prefer a rasterized format over unreliable svg. de Bivort 18:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you say that vector images are unreliable? --Pbroks13^talk? 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • SVG renders differently on different browsers and has font embedding isssues. Your images looked ok on my screen though. de Bivort 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We just delisted raster versions, although now we can make higher-rez rasters.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is very true, SVGs do tend to have font issues; however, they can be eliminated quite easily. Overall, SVG images are considered superior to (most) raster images. --Pbroks13^talk? 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • People always say this, and then it's easy to find person X with browser Y that can't see half the fonts, or they render ugly. Raster is easier, and I don't really care about *infinite* scalability. de Bivort 17:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah I agree with you, although it is also fairly trivial to render a raster image at at least 3000x2000ish, making it more than enough for just about any practical publishing use, a lot of people seem to create them at unreasonably low res. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very enc, informative SVGs.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff. Fletcher (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support impressive. Spencer^T♦C 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think these images can be, and should be, made into 1 or 2 images. You would lose nothing on technical grounds, and the sole page they are used on looks cumbersome. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Hey! I understand the Pin tumbler lock now. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice and clear -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But I'd like to see the colour of the incorrect key changed, IMHO there isn't enough contrast between it and and the rotated correct key directly below (since the lighting makes that dark grey) Noodle snacks (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very descriptive images. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this as a featured set (and the concept of featured sets), Support if it is merged into a single image. It's far more usable, both in articles and as a reference for users to download if it's just one image. Can always link from the image page to separate images. --jjron (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could work, but that would mean that the caption would be incredibly long. And, I think that the descriptive captions really help with explaining the images. However, if you can figure a way to make it work with one image, please let me know. --Pbroks13^talk? 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Refer to my merged FP 'set' File:Nectarine Fruit Development.jpg and its article usage. If images really belong in a set, this is how I believe they should be done - as one image. For yours, being as it's such a prominent part of that article, there's no reason the article itself couldn't contain a lengthy description which refers specifically to this image (aka the caption). --jjron (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But how could you combine the zoom sequences of the Mandelbrot set|200px set? Mathematically, they are all part of the same subject, but I do not consider an such a large image (petapixels and gigabytes) a viable alternative. The community felt that the standalone image was iffy, but the zoom sequence was superb.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pin tumbler with key.svg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pin tumbler bad key.svg

File:Pin tumbler with key.svg

File:Pin tumbler unlocked.svg

Were promoted as well. seresin ( ¡? )  09:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Sharp, well lit, good EV - all the attributes of an FP

Articles this image appears in

Stag beetle

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm assuming the 'armour' of the beetle is iridescent and so the colour is hard to get accurate, but it does look a bit peculiar. Other than that though, good capture. You certainly have a backlog of images from summer '07! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah it was iridescent (as de Bivort mentioned below) which made getting the lighting right very challenging! And yes I do have a large backlog from 07 and I'm keeping busy this summer too ;-) --Fir0002 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support big honkin' beetle with fearsome maws and near-glowing backside. Good work again, Fir. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suport - lovely. Re: Diliff - yes, many scarabs have physical iridescence. de Bivort 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good details and lighting. Muhammad(talk) 21:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DOF could have been more perfect, but the characteristic feature is very well captured. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support EV seems very good, although the lighting seems rather harsh. Fletcher (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DOF is good enough, lots of EV and I love how the lighting and iridescence work together; makes him look part Fabergé - Peripitus (Talk) 12:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The flash or lighting seems a bit strong to me. A302b (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another fine shot! TAway (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality and good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Golden stag beetle.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Probably the most distinguished African-American scientist of the first half of the twentieth century. Insightful portrait from the end of George Washington Carver's life by Arthur Rothstein. The eyes speak volumes. Restored version of File:George Washington Carver unrestored.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

George Washington Carver

Creator

Arthur Rothstein

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and flowers add to the composition. Muhammad(talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems fitting for a botanist. :) Durova^Charge! 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Noisy at high res, particularly in the face. The suit, by comparison is (sadly?) captured exceptionally well. There are also several spots on the subject's face (especially one on the LHS, on the side of his head) whose providence is doubtful. They could be skin blemishes, but could easily be spots on the photograph as well. Shadows are lacking in contrast in spite of not being lifted much against the original. Also, I'm not a fan of this notion that glowing or otherwise remarkable eyes help in winning academic accolades, but that's irrelevant to the assessment of the picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film grain. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support His skin pores are fairly visible - typical of a man as old as he is - but I don't see overt "noise" beyond that necessary within a photograph of this era. George Washington Carver is, of course, highly important and encyclopedic - his research revolutionised agriculture, and pretty much directly led to all the peanut products that we now eat - in addition to all his other discoveries. A true genius, and a highly notable person. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is as much a question of how to view photos optimally on this page as a comment on the photo.First try as I might I can’t adjust my monitor and video card so that I can see 3 black blobs as apparently I should (though I remember I could do this on my old computer).Despite this I have spent the day fiddling with photos and the print out mostly as they look on the screen.This photo looks poor on my monitor with no shadow detail.Downloaded at full res and viewed in paint shop pro it immediately looks better without doing anything.The histogram shows there is a good range of tones.Take the gamma up to 1.15 and it probably looks as the photographer intended. The pin stripes in the jacket are just visible but the skin tones are still dramatic. Take the gamma any higher and it gets blander.How your monitor is set up obviously makes a big difference to this picture. Viewed as it should be it is a fine photo. I can see no grain at all. I agree the face is slightly pock marked but this adds character.So firstly I would vote for this as a featured picture my only doubt being a lot of people won’t be able to see it properly and secondly I would like to ask what I can do about my monitor (short of buying a more expensive one.)Dave59 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

91.105.11.98 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi, thanks very much for the comments. The grain is most visible on the brick wall at right. Try viewing at 200-300%. And I thought the jacket was a tweed. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like an interesting, encyclopedic, high quality portrait. I don't think it's excessively grainy. Fletcher (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support - i really don't like the composition. It seems too tightly cropped on both sides. de Bivort 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I agree with deBivort about the crop being too tight. Also, I find the flower in the foreground very distracting. If this is such a great portrait, why isn't it the lead image in George Washington Carver? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because technical quality isn't the only factor when choosing a lead image. The lead image from the article shows Carver during a more active part of his career. This is the end of his life. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Washington Carver2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's a valued image Wikimedia Commons

Articles this image appears in

Creator

ComputerHotline

• Support as nominator --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose/Speedy Close - It may be a Commons VI, but without even being in Richard Stallman it fails the first hurdle for EV. It also needs renaming as it is named for the photographer not the subject and has no caption here. Mfield (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not in article, needs English caption/description, harsh lighting, extremely unflattering. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose His katana is not visible. [9] Fletcher (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Distracting background, too. Spencer^T♦C 02:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose that man is not photogenic at all, sorry. Pstanton 07:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Irrelevant, mean. de Bivort 01:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose good detail, resolution, but flash is unappealing and it is overall too snapshotty.

Not promoted --Muhammad(talk) 06:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

jjron suggested that this might be a worthy competitor to the currently nominated Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg, and I have to agree.

Articles this image appears in

White-faced Heron

Creator

Glen Fergus

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to vote on this one since I'd probably get accused of COI or something. But jjron did also say "unfortunately the focus on that looks to have just missed". It is either out of focus or just very soft, not to mention noisy, I don't think it is close to the technical requirements. The background of this shot is clearer, particularly at thumbnail size, this is why I submitted it over my own image when I did a 5x expansion of the article for WP:DYK. But I still think the pair are complementary. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Even if technical quality isn't perfect, I think the background is more pleasing and less distracting, making this image stand out to me more. Fletcher (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Sorry, I think it's an excellent picture, but the focus isn't right so doesn't meet FPC criteria. To me this is a perfect candidate for VPC rather than FPC and would support it if I saw it there. --jjron (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose The loss of detail due to the soft focus is a problem, and the noise likewise. I would suggest WP:VPC. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominated at VPC. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that this one is a better version. The bird stands out more and is much clearer to see. A302b (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have better shots of this bird in sharp focus which I'll try upload soonish --Fir0002 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Muhammad(talk) 15:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Depicts an 19th century grain mill that has seen better days and has been neglected.

Articles this image appears in

Beck's Mill, also used in two featured portal

Creator

Bedford

• Support as nominator --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - It's aesthetically okay, but at 100% I'm not enjoying the composition. Without the EV I probably wouldn't be able to support this pic. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 01:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Soft, blown highlights and bleeding, huge tilt, CA all over the place, it should be a WP:VPC candidate, not a FP one. The large number of images in google of this building suggest that a decent version in its original or unrestored state should be available somewhere. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several pictures free to use on the article page. Would one of those be better?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Noodle snacks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Assuming that the building is still standing, I suggest re-shooting with a professional camera on a day with better lighting. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture is before the mill was restored. It now looks like this.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, they restored that thing to death. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they did one heck of a good charge. Still, I can't believe they charge $5 to go into it. I'm glad I was able to get Before, During, and After photos nicely showing the changes.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the points mentioned by Noodle snacks above. — Aitias // discussion 03:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could be a good candidate for the valued image program? Durova^Charge! 17:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yeah, shame about the blown highlights and chromatic abberation. I suggest nominating it at VPC, as it still has excellent EV. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like no way this will pass. Oh well, it was my first attempt. I've uploaded over 800 pictures onto Wikipedia; one of them has to be FP worthy. Will definitely nominate to VPC.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do come back with your next good effort, or perhaps try picture peer review. Most of the regulars at FPC had a few misses when we started. Best wishes, and since you're MILHIST you might be interested in restoration? I've got plenty of material waiting for attention. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Muhammad(talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

In the aftermath of the Watergate Scandal President Richard M. Nixon lost the faith of the citizens of the United States, and after fighting a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to convince the public that he was not associated with the scandal Nixon yeilded to public demand and resigned the presidency, becoming the only serving U.S. President to do so. As such, this is the first (and to date only) letter ever submitted concerning the resignation of a president, a rare and historical find that I feel deserves an FP star.

Articles this image appears in

United States Secretary of State, Watergate scandal, Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Richard Nixon

Creator

Richard Nixon / United States Government

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this picture really portrays some of the history of the Watergate Scandal --jfk52917, future US Senator (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - While the image is a bit small, I support it for its superior EV. I also added it to Richard Nixon, where it also belongs. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative 1 Top EV. (Altering to support the higher resolution version). Durova^Charge! 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt #1Comment. I thought about nomming this myself, but it seems kind of blurry. Is this really the best resolution of the document available anywhere? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hang on guys, this is a bunch of text on a piece of paper. What about this could possibly be a featured picture? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have text FPs of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Edwin Smith papyrus, Emile Zola's J'accuse letter, and both the German and Japanese instruments of surrender from World War II. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus can change and be put to the test, and just because one document has been approved doesn't mean every one in that genre has to be featured. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - Only if we start a new FP category for Documents. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with a FP category for documents. Shall we work on consensus guidelines for featuring documents, as distinct from other kinds of images? Spikebrennan (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that would be a good way forward. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Superb EV. NauticaShades 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey. If the image showed the scene of Nixon signing the letter, or announcing it to people (with acceptable quality), I would definitely support, but just the text?? Nope. --Caspian blue 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured text pictures

c. 1600 B.C.	1787	1823	1898	1945	1945

Four featured text image are manuscripts while two images such as the German instrument of surrender and J'accuse are pressed by machines. The dates of them are also older than the 1974 image.--Caspian blue 23:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half and half, Caspian. The Japanese document was written on a different sort of typewriter. And mere age doesn't make a historic image more or less important. This is the only United States president in history to resign from office. Durova^Charge! 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I carefully checked the Japanese document, but I do not believe it was a production from a typewriter. Age is also an important factor to judge its value in historical and art pieces. Moreover I don't think the degree of the impact that the surrenders of Germany and Japan caused to the word is as same as the resignation letter of a president in a country.(of course, the country has been boasting her strong power after 20th century)--Caspian blue 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a script typewriter. Here's a sample of how they produce.[10] Slightly different typeface on that model, but should convey the idea. Every instance of each letter is exactly the same; the indentations and lines are mechanically even. During the mid-twentieth century there were typewriters that didn't use courier typeface. Durova^Charge! 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of bias towards American topics is a valid concern, but the solution would be to expand our coverage of non-American topics, not to cripple our coverage of American ones. And I think you would be hard-pressed to argue the only resignation of a US president in over two hundred years was not a significant event in American history. Fletcher (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, if you've checked, the majority of our non-US text FPs are images I nominated. I'd certainly be glad to nominate other major historic resignations if they become available in high quality free licensed form. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are plenty of heads of other states that have resigned in writing - some of whom will also have been the only one in their country to ever do so. Just to put some perspective back in. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Per above - Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - An iconic letter with huge EV value. Skinny87 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, too small for my liking (800px...), nominate for replacement and Support Alternative 1 - simply higher resolution, not sure why the original was the smaller version anyway. Obtained from the US Archives site. Caption needs to be enhanced, but undoubtedly an historic image. Even then a weak support, because it's only relevant next to a photo of him signing it - although the signed letter itself is more encyclopaedic than just the text of the letter. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This seems very encyclopedic. As for the concerns about it being just text, I would say that Nixon's handwritten signature, Kissinger's notation and initials, and the White House letterhead are graphical elements that give it historical impact it wouldn't have if it were just a plain transcription of the letter. However, the caption does need improvement: I was a little confused why it was addressed to Kissinger, which is only explained if you follow the link to the National Archives (or if you have, you know, independent knowledge). Apparently, Nixon's presidency officially ended when Kissinger penned the "HK" on that note. Fletcher (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Lots of EV here. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Vast amounts of EV and a very good quality scan mean that this meets the FP criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What next? The Dead Sea Scrolls are "just text"? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment seems like pointing at me. Don't exaggerate your feeling to mock people in disagreement with you. If I did not highly think of such old and valuable "manuscript" in history, I would not even send my time searching and organizing the images in the table above.--Caspian blue 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I challenge the people who claim "vast amounts" or "lots" of EV to show me EV in this picture that can't be represented by text, and goes beyond the two signatures. For instance, can we crop it to the two signatures and it retains its EV? What Fletcher has pointed out can be told in two sentences, which doesn't really impress me against the saying that "a picture's worth a thousand words". I don't think this meets the definition of a picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A picture may be worth a thousand words, but I don't think every picture requires a thousand words' description -- sometimes a picture is effective precisely in its simplicity. This picture is effective in showing an official process (Nixon's resignation) commonly described in words, but not seen. The brevity of the letter allows it to be seen, rather than just read. Indeed had Nixon rambled on for five pages rationalizing his actions, it would be far less effective as a picture (or set of pictures), being so dominated by text, and would probably not be very interesting. It's the stark banality of the letter, juxtaposed with the effect it had, that makes it an historically significant picture.Fletcher (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question we are asking is not whether Nixon should have rambled on. The question is whether this is a featurable "picture", and nothing so far has convinced me of that. And I doubt your stark banality comment can be referenced, so it will have no utility anywhere else on Wikipedia. The huge difference between this and the other FPs listed above is, of course, that no article could be written about the subject of the here nominated picture, whereas all the others have one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be a matter of how one regards at these things, PLW. When some editors see restorations of historic engineering designs they ask for vector diagrams and consider it a waste of time that I put so much effort into paper grain. My formal training is in history rather than engineering, so my goal is to bring the reader back in time and let them imagine--even for a moment--that they're a patent agent in a world lit by candles registering the very first light bulb design. I'm one of the youngest people who remembers Watergate, remembers the 'I am not a crook' speech, remembers the discovery of a missing 18 minutes on the presidential tapes. It was as if the political world was crashing down, and no one knew how it would end. Suppose for a moment it's 1974 and you're a reporter for the Washington Post, or Speaker of the House, or Gerald Ford himself: the surprise and relief and the wonder that the resignation actually happened, followed by thoughts of What next? When an encyclopedia reader can see such an important document for themselves it's easier to imagine it in one's own hand; it makes that history so much more vivid. Maybe you don't view the information that way, but to those of us who do that's enormously valuable. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've given my opinion and you are free to disagree with it, although I don't understand the basis for your disagreement. I do not need to source my opinions given outside of article space, so I find that objection somewhat odd. I also note that the Criteria do not require a Featured Picture to have a standalone article dedicated to the particular subject. Although many FPs do have such an article, some do not, such as File:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg, a picture of a whipped slave used in historical articles, for which there is no article for that particular person; for our purposes, the "subject" can be interpreted to be the topic of the article in which the image is used, just as, in this case, we do not need an article about the actual letter. Rather, the image should add value to the articles in which it's used, and as explained, it is illustrative of an historical event (regarding Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon; and also in United States Secretary of State by visually depicting an abstract process described in the text. I see less EV for the Twenty-fifth Amendment). Fletcher (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then let me be more clear. There is absolutely no precedent for this nomination being approved, as the other scripts that are featured all have their own article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do be more clear then. Bring forth diffs of any conversation before this one where the supposed imperative of a separate article for text FPs was discussed. Durova^Charge! 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not quite. The absence of an article demonstrates that this document does not have the necessary notability to have an article of its own (if you want to prove me wrong, write one, and reference it well with reliable sources), in addition to not really being a picture in the first place. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think you've got completely the wrong idea about EV here PLW. An FP doesn't have to have an entire article based around it, it merely needs to contribute to an article and I think this document probably contributes significantly to many of the articles. You might disagree about documents vs photos etc, but it certainly seems like consensus is against you on this one, judging by the supports. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please stick to criticising my actual statements rather than putting words in my mouth. I defeated the notion that any of the above-listed documents constitute any sort of precedent for this nomination. It's not featurable, because it's not a picture. It's a jpeg copy of what in the modern day would be a Word document. The assumption that in the case of the other documents, an exception was made due to their extreme importance and notability is highly warranted, and equally the assumption that such an exception should not be made for this document because it's notability has not been demonstrated to the same extent (and btw, the word document comment does not apply to all the above, since some of them include handwriting that may in itself be interesting, or thoughtful laying out (I don't like "layouting")). I do not believe this belongs in the image category at all. If you've read along carefully, you'll have noticed that I'm not opposed in principle to a "Featured Documents" or some such category of featured content, but it will take several more days (being optimistic) until such a process is going to be running. Let me remind you that the huge difference between the two categories is that the majority of pictures proper can be understood by the illiterate (e.g. disabled people, children, and huge but decreasing portions of the developing world), while documents will be entirely unintelligible to those groups. And btw, just because you can read does not entitle you to belittle those groups. Try and remind yourselves why you're contributing to this project. Hopefully, it's not for self-aggrandisement, or if it is, please do a convincing job of hiding it. I'm absolutely genuine, honest, firm, and serious in that request. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Since you asked me to stop putting words in your mouth without actually providing any examples of exactly where I did so, I find it hard to respond to your request. By the sounds of things though, you're just playing semantics here. You absolutely did say "There is absolutely no precedent for this nomination being approved, as the other scripts that are featured all have their own article" and "The absence of an article demonstrates that this document does not have the necessary notability to have an article of its own". Any reasonable person would paraphrase that to mean that you believe that it should have an article based around it for it to be notable enough to be a FP. If this interpretation is wrong, then I think you are being particularly obscure in your argument. If it is right, then where exactly have I put words in your mouth? Anyway, back to the rest of your reply. You say it isn't a picture. Well I had a look at the dictionary and it has two particularly relevent definitions: "visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a painting, drawing, photograph, etc" and "any visible image, however produced". I suspect that based on that definition, it clearly is a picture. Besides, this is a scan of a physical document with an actual inked signature on it. Word document texts are by definition encoded with alpha-numeric characters, not pixels. Your analogy is therefore incorrect. I think you're just making yourself look ridiculous again by insinuating that because I don't see the problem with this document being featured, that I want to belittle the illiterate and aggrandise myself! Please get off your high horse, and I'm absolutely genuine, honest, firm, and serious in that request too. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It seems to me that you are wilfully ignoring the particular combination of things at work here. It is not a picture and in addition, does not seem to have any exceptional notability that would permit us to make an exception, as evidenced by the fact that no article has been written about the piece of paper here depicted, in stark contrast to the existing FPs that might be seen to fall into a similar category. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • To be honest, I think you're wilfully ignoring the indisputable fact that it is a picture, among other things. I find it impossible to have a discussion with someone who simply isn't on the same plane of reality as the rest of us. I give up. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • With all due respect to inclusionism, scanning in a piece of printed text and uploading it as a jpeg does not make it a picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It's been explained above what's wrong with this point of view. Granted, you can be entertaining when you improvise new rationalizations (yes, we must oppose the image for the sake of illiterate children in Uganda!) but now you're becoming a broken record. Fletcher (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • PLW, you posted a challenge in boldface and italics for people to explain what EV exists here that cannot be replicated within the article body. Several people have. You have not acknowledged merit to any of these positions--even within the scope of 'we'll agree to disagree'. You posted this request, so please articulate what sort of response you would respect. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I'm afraid your request is self-contradicting. I don't ask questions that I already know the answer to. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Actually it's fairly often when editors engage in open discussion that they initiate a question with some sort of idea of the lines along which reasonable responses may lie. They might not always be persuaded by those responses, but the terms in which you phrased this--first a 'challenge', then later an assertion that you 'defeated' a notion, suggests a competitive orientation rather than normal editorial dialog. Durova^Charge! 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • (edit conflict) I've been asking for EV other than the thinly-baked, "well, it's a president resigning and it has his signature under it". It hasn't convinced me and will not, no matter how many times you repeat it. If you have anything new and interesting that directly relates to the piece of paper here depicted, please bring it forward, but again, of course you can say anything you like in FPC but if you can't reference it in an article, it has no bearing on the encyclopaedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - no ambiguity in my mind. de Bivort 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although this may be a picture of ink and paper, it is the event solidified. All of these documents are what allows the world to function; this one is no different. Granted, typed letters and signatures alone are not impressive or important, but that is just a small aspect of the whole concept represented by this document. To those who oppose, consider all consequences that this one paper embodies. It is far more than letter; it is the physical manifestation of the ideas behind the events and thinking of that time. That’s what a good picture does; it communicates ideas to the viewer. This is why I hope those who oppose might change their mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.165.120 (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IP users do not have suffrage at FPC. If you wish to vote in any WP process, including FPC, FAC, XfD and so on, please create an account. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. High quality historical document. It's a very simple sheet of paper, but I think the starkness and what it represents is what makes it powerful and interesting. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose important document but I don't think it adds enough value to the articles it's present in. I can't see how anyone's understanding of the topics would be reduced if it were removed. None of the articles describe the appearance or content of the letter itself and only one actually appears to mention it at all. Guest9999 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this image belongs on the pen is mightier than the sword: a powerful reminder of the power of words. Definite Encyclopedic Value. Happy‑melon 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that he "penned" his own resignation, not somebody else's - unless you know something we don't. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Letter of Resignation of Richard M. Nixon, 1974.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Gustave Doré was a major engraver - usually considered amongst the masters of the craft - and this particular engraving is dramatic and very nicely composed. Even at this tiny 250px size, it's dramatic and interesting, at full size, it is spectacular.

Articles this image appears in

Charon (mythology), Gustave Doré.

Creator

Gustave Doré

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: You may recognise this: It's an image I nominated a while ago but withdrew, for reasons happily no longer relevant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment What about a featured set of the Dore Inferno images? de Bivort 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 75 images might be an excessively large set, and I'd have to make sure every single one was used somewhere. Might not be practical. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support making a featured set of all the images that are used, assuming they are all of high quality. Also, I don't think an image set could be too large, at least not with 75 images. de Bivort 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The detail on the cliffs and water is nice, but it's rally incredible how anatomically detailed Charon is. Featured sets generally need to be complete. Theoretically, if there are a finite number of images, they all belong. But with 75 images (some may not be as good as this), I don't think that's possible. Besides, each image is worthy in it's own right. (Sets were made when one image was marginal, but the set was overwhelming. The tumbler locks are such a case - one image alone might not be approved.) So maybe keep a list of other Dore´ images on hand in a template, and perhaps group them on a subpage. But I don't think a list is called for. --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How is 75 images not "possible" - a page with an array of 9x8 or 10x7 or 12x6 images... seems straightforward enough. de Bivort 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But on what page? Generally, it's preferred that such galleries are on Commons instead. One possibility might be to do a page on the art itself, as with the William Hogarth subpages, but we'd need some good sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured sets are a demotion; a crutch used for images that aren't good enough on their own. What we've seen has been excellent; this image is worthy in its own right. By "not possible," I was expressing doubt that all 75 images could be restored to the technical quality of this one, and have intrinsic artistic value as to match this one. (Even a master has his share of works that just didn't come out as good as the others.) That said, you're welcome to prove me wrong.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All are pretty good, but some have decidedly more "Wow" than others, and there's also some other problems, e.g. Do we want to feature two pictures of Francesca di Rimini in the storm of souls, or is one enough? What about the three images devoted to Ugolino's story of being trapped in a cell with his family without food or water, and eventually being driven to cannibalism after begged to mercy-kill them, and left alone? (We could, actually - all three are very high-quality, but they're also a very understated and subtle tryptich, relying on the changes between the images to provide a sympathetic picture of the poor fellow, not gory scenes from a cannibal feast. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those three could make a good set, especially if all three were good but not quite excellent.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, moving on, any more comments on this image? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Beautiful engraving, excellent EV. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Dramatic picture, good quality (we would better support as we'll all have to deal with this guy in due time...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and he looks mean (albeit in an anatomically correct way...) Elucidate ^{(light up)} 10:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now. I'm pretty sure I supported this when it was up before, but I'm having a little trouble doing so now. The EV in Charon (mythology) is debatable. While this is an excellent illustration of Charon, there are a bunch of others in there too. What makes this one exceptional? Same thing with Gustave Doré. This picture is in a big gallery of his works. Is this engraving particularly important or representative of his work? I certainly think it has EV in both articles, I'm just not sure if it has enough to be featured. It is truly a spectacular work, though, and I'm glad we have so many of his works on here. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To put it bluntly, it would be hard to say one particular work of Doré is particularly important: Doré was best known for producing sets of illustrations for books. He was quite lavish about it: in some works, like the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, there's more pages devoted to engraving than to text. So, you know... I figured the best thing to do is to try and choose the best 5% of the 300 or so engravings of his I have. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just out of curiosity, how did you come across so many of his engravings?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bible has about 200 (I think some editions have a few additional engravings that mine lacks, but it's still at least 90% complete), Inferno jas 75. Doré tended to do large-scale, lavishly illustrated book illustration sets instead of individual pieces. They weren't exactly cheap - well, okay: I got a shockingly good deal on Inferno: $20, American. But the Bible was much, much more than that - but I put back some money each month towards such Wikipedia projects. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a large, really old Bible here that I should really have a look at. My scanner pretty average though. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gustave Doré - Dante Alighieri - Inferno - Plate 9 (Canto III - Charon).jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution historic photograph of George Washington's portrait in the making during the construction of Mount Rushmore. Restored version of File:Mount Rushmore unrestored.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Construction of Mount Rushmore, George Washington, George Washington's legacy

Creator

Rise Studio, Rapid City, S. Dak.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now this is a piece of history. Good restoration, phenomenal Ev. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I'm probably neutral leaning oppose. I think it's far too narrow a shot of construction to add too much value to the construction page... and not sure it really adds much more value to legacy of Washington than having him placed in context with the other faces. It is a great picture though, I just wish there were more, better ones from construction on Wikipedia. gren グレン 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Can't give it my full support because its EV is hurt some by such a limited shot of the construction. Great picture, though; I wish we had more like it. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This should pass IMO. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mount Rushmore2.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Nominating these two images as a set with the recent preference for a single image, now nominating as alternatives, since one shows the wide view and the vast number of people and the other focus on the slogan. The images are of good quality and good EV, and much better than the images which appeared in the local newspapers.

Articles this image appears in

International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Professional photograph of current affairs. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support selecting one of these as FP, with preference for option 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentStrong Support The second image is better I think for EV, but a question... the soft patches - some parts of the image are very soft, much softer than other parts that are in the same plane. Especially around the edges of the signs at the top of the frame. My first thought was heat haze but maybe its motion? Mfield (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've thought about this one long and hard before coming to a vote and i think encouraging people to go out and document important events in the world far outweighs any minor issues with the image. If we want to have strong pertinant imagery then we need to highlight good examples that we have, wikipedia will only be improved by people going out to cover this kind of event. Mfield (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shutter was quite fast, I don't know what could have caused it Muhammad(talk) 11:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For one I don't support the concept of a set of featured photos; I think one should pick the best, most illustrative picture to nominate. It's easy and common to have many shots of the same subject from different angles or focal lengths; unless they only make sense as a group, I don't think more than one needs to be nominated. The recent nom of the pin tumbler locks diagram is an example of where it makes good sense to nominate a set. As for EV, I think either one has has some, but not a lot, given that Wikipedia Wikipedia is not a news site. It does illustrate the "International Reaction..." article, but those kinds of articles are a little "newsy" for my taste anyway, and sometimes they get merged into the main article after a couple years. Fletcher (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the articles do get merged, surely the editors will consider using a FP to describe the situation :) Muhammad(talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In regards to Fletcher, not just sometimes, often. There is usually a big "stink" over the article, with a large frenzy of edits for say, a week, and then the article disappears. I doubt the eventual EV of this picture, as it could [IMO] easily lose it in say, a month. As a result, right now I'll abstain. However, if this leads to a real war (look up definition), then I will gladly support. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not like the situation in the middle east any more than it is, but I looked up war as you suggested. Answers.com "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." Wordweb Princeton University PC Dictionary," The waging of armed conflict against an enemy." Surely the situation falls into these definitions, doesn't it? Muhammad(talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either. Eventually the content in those article might get integrated into Gaza–Israel conflict (which links back to articles in 2004 or so) but the image would still have EV there and the image does ultimately record a historical event. It could always be thrown into Protest or something generic too. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original a more focused composition. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original as per noodle and durova. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Good shot and I agree that if the article merges, it will still have sufficient EV. And besides, if it doesn't, we can always consider delisting. There isn't any point looking too far into the future with FPs. It is only the present that matters. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Both are well-composed and encyclopedic, and I would support Alt 1 also except for the focus. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Good composition and, of course, encyclopaedic value. A moment of historic significance. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per Fletcher. News photo? Yes. FP? No. Yes, I believe we should wait until the end of the war. I'm they'll many more interesting images.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for acknowledging that this is an interesting image. Different images show different perspectives, and can be featured differently. After the war, we may get a picture of the guys signing a treaty and we may be able to feature that as well, even though that will be a news picture, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't feature this one. That's like saying, Hey you know, last year's movies were good but I think this year we'll get better ones, so we should't award the Oscars this year and wait for next year :) Muhammad(talk) 16:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons, I don't think their very good, in the original, half the field is out of focus, and the alternative is awkwardly small and is crowded with identical signs. It just doesn't see that great to me. Pstanton 07:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
  • In the original the field is out of focus to divert the viewer's vision to the sign. Its called creative use of Depth of Field. Muhammad(talk) 06:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Good composition, and capturing a historical moment happening around us in the world today. A302b (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, strongly. The picture is a good solid picture, not sure it's FP quality in itself but that's not my main problem. It's a picture from Tanzania, not exactly the forefront of protests against the conflict. If this was an image from Instanbul or London or one of the major protests I wouldn't be so much against this. It's also a little bit of presentism because we need to step back and wait to know which of the protests are deemed important at least a week or two after this to see which picture should be featured. The image shows one sign and isn't particularly evocative of a protest or show the character of the protest on a broader scale. This and this are what I think of as protest images and maybe we won't have any like that... but I saw the protests in Bordeaux today (didn't bring camera) but there were definitely shots that would capture it better than a narrow shot of one sign clearly shown. I say we wait until this conflict is over and then go through whatever pictures there are and find the best. If this proves to be the best then maybe then I'll go for it. gren グレン 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I think from a number of discussions about this on the FPC talk page, the consensus is that a FP only needs to show an aspect of the subject well. It doesn't have to represent it absolutely. If anything, this image illustrates a culture/beliefs that are under-represented on Wikipedia and on FPC (although single-handedly, Muhammad may be changing this) and as such, that may actually make it a better candidate. London or Istanbul might have a greater prominence in the news, but why are their protesters more important than Tanzanians? It doesn't look like a tiny gathering. You are right though that this is an conflict that is constantly evolving and other images may present themselves, but if there are two great images from different regions, we can just as easily feature both. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Diliff and Muhammad. I changed to neutral based on your arguments. My bias was that the most important protests were 1) the largest (Turkey) or 2) those in the areas involved (Israel / Gaza) or 3) and domestic pressure countries that will place big diplomatic roles in the UNSC, negotiations for cease fire (U.S., EU, maybe Arab league). I probably deserve a CSB award of shame for that because we must represent areas which do create an important and under represented aspect. That being said, I think the picture could show more and I will still choose to wait until this is over to pick an FP. Thanks for your responses and thanks for pictures that are hard to find elsewhere, Muhammad. :) --gren グレン 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tanzania has a large population of Muslims who are vocal, expressing many of their dislikes through peaceful protests. There have been protests against the Publication of the Porphet's caricatures and against the Hizbullah-Israel 2006 War. All these protests were attended by tens of thousands of people, but you will not find much mention of this in the wikipedia articles or in the news, due to the low media exposure. I sent a few of this protests low resolutuion pictures to CNN and BBC and they couldn't wait to show them:-) Apart from illustrating the nature of this and many other such protests, the picture IMO also shows that Africans too are actively involved in the world picture, what a London or Beirut image would be unable to show. I think Dliff mentioned the rest. Thanks. Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just happened to stumble across a gallery on the protests worldwide on my local (Melbourne) newspaper's website and thought I would share it. These image are from professional news agencies in Los Angeles, Mexico City, Dubai, Washington D.C., Montreal, Buenos Aires, Ankara, Damascus, Athens, New York, London and yes, Melbourne. They do a good job of expressing emotion, but I'm not sure how many would actually be FP material. Credit to Muhammad for getting a shot that (by the looks of consensus) is. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They seem to love the ultra wide angles for the exaggerated perspective! Noodle snacks (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A protest in Tanzania is just as newsworthy as one in London, but that's the problem -- it's more news than encyclopedic. In answer to Diliff, it doesn't show anything about Tanzania's culture, other than their style of hats, and you have to be very careful about inferring people's beliefs from attendance at a protest. Photography is a powerful medium but it has the potential to confuse or mislead as well as enlighten. What I don't like about protests is that they reduce people to a group mentality based around signs and slogans. I'd like to know what that guy in the foreground thinks: ok, so he is protesting Israel, but is he protesting that Israel's response is disproportionate to Hamas's rocket attacks, or is he protesting that Israel responds at all, or is he protesting violence per se and wants peace and reconciliation between Palestinians and Jews, or is he protesting that the Jews have not yet been driven into the sea, or was he just trying to cross the street and got swept up in a huge mass of people? :-) I can see that the news agencies feel obligated to go take pictures any time there is noise and excitement, but as an encyclopedia I think we should be featuring pictures that communicate some clear meaning, not just that some people somewhere protested Israel. Fletcher (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, the original picture above was used as the cover page for this online magazine. Muhammad(talk) 09:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting crop there... Fletcher (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I thought you would like to know the link that allows you to see the past covers on our magazine (http://www.ovimagazine.com/gallview/3/869). Thanks again for allowing the use of such a great image.Butcam (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image was taken a few days after the Sayre Fire in November 2008. There were a lot of reports in the local news about the site, as it lost almost all the homes in the park. The area was deemed a crime scene by the LAPD, and the public were not permitted access. This is one of the few free images that exist of the area. Although the image is a bit cluttered, what with all the burned rubble, I believe it is of encyclopedic value and that it meets the FPC criteria, but then I'm no image wiz. <shrug> This is my first PFC, so be kind :)

Articles this image appears in

Sayre Fire, Sylmar, Los Angeles, California

Creator

Michael Mancino

• Support as nominator --Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For now. Good EV and aesthetically nice, need to see it in better detail later. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - Does anyone else find this kind of similar to this FP? ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone fix the epic tilt? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convince that it's tilted, Noodle snacks. Sylmar is at the northwestern end of the San Fernando Valley and abuts the mountains. Basically it's built on alluvial fans. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking at the building verticals and some of the conifers in the background, which generally have straight trunks. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I initially thought the was tilted, too; however, if you zoom in and look at the one remaining trailer home, the walls surrounding it and the flat-bed tow truck, you'll see they are all straight and their lines are parallel with the edges of the image. The trees and surviving houses in the background do look tilted but I think this is more to do with how the land lies. Also, the worker standing in front of the truck, although bending at the waist slightly, his legs are also in line with the edge of the image. I would imagine the man would not lean lean backwards and then bend forwards as it would be an unnatural stance. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it was suffering some distortion which I made some edit to correct as well. Anyway, attached is an edit for someone else to decide on :D. The fix does eat some stuff out of the frame though Noodle snacks (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mild wide angle distortion, I was thinking. The staggered cement block wall at right and the 30mm focal length confirm it. In this part of California you'll find mid-twentieth century parking lot walls built this way: they look angled but they're actually constructed on a level, adding new rows as the ground rises. Very hard to find a reliable true vertical in this image, but if you split the difference between the two edits and go for roughly equal amounts of angular distortion on both halves of the image I'll support. I like the touch of sharpening btw. Durova^Charge! 07:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Noodle snacks, would you be able to do this, please? I have no skills in photo editing whatsoever. Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • New edit uploaded over the top which is what Duvova described, more or less. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Noodle snacks (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 per above. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 per encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Burned mobile home neighborhood in California edit.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Intriguing shot of a rare condition: erythrism in katydids. Good quality; reasonably high resolution. Erythrism in katydids cannot be adequately explained without a picture.

Articles this image appears in

Erythrism, Katydid

Creator

Flickr user ricmcarthur

• Support as nominator --AxelBoldt (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose High enc does not outweigh a cut-off subject that's not as sharp as we're used to.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose similar to HereToHelp's opinion, but it looks more like a too-shallow depth of field. Might be ok with focus on the insect's head, but it's on the creature's thorax. Can't quite understand why. Also cut-off leg. Sadly opposing despite high EV and good contrast otherwise. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, The author would have gotten much more in focus if he was side on to the bug. I'd nominate it at WP:VPC though. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The Tuskegee Airmen were the first African-American pilots in United States military history; they flew with distinction during World War II. Portrait of one of the airmen by notable photographer Toni Frissell, the official photographer of the Women's Army Corps. Restored version of File:Tuskegee airman.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Tuskegee Airmen, Toni Frissell, Military history of African Americans

Creator

Toni Frissell

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm going to commit blasphemy against Toni Frissell by suggesting that the photo be cropped for ENC purposes. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thought crossed my mind, but it couldn't be rotated without losing the context in the bottom of the door frame. Consider another FP by the same photographer. It looks like the composition is artistic intent, but if you'd like to propose an alternative please do. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a great restoration, a relevant subject. GerardM (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It poses an interesting question... why assume artistic intent for Toni Frissell, but not for an unknown photographer? I guess being by Toni Frissell is part of the encyclopedic value of this and that aspect would be compromised by cropping, while even if a (to our eyes) awkward composition was intentional on the part of an unknown photographer, that doesn't contribute much to EV.--ragesoss (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look in close on the face and the rest of the compositional choices fall into place, at least to my eye. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Page 1
• 
  Page 2
• 
  Page 3
• 
  Page 4

(First nom and Second nom of the first page, which is currently featured.)

Reason

The first page was linked in relation to Nixon's resignation letter, and I thought, "why just the first page?" Featured sets seem to have come back in to the vogue recently, so I'm giving all four pages a shot at becoming one. They seem as large, clear, and important as the first. The first page would be the "lead image" and (more or less) retain its current status, but with the rest of the document along for the ride.

Proposed caption

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government. The document defines the three main branches of the government: The legislative branch with a bicameral Congress, an executive branch led by the President, and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. Besides providing for the organization of these branches, the Constitution carefully outlines which powers each branch may exercise. It also reserves numerous rights for the individual states, thereby establishing the United States' federal system of government. It is the shortest and oldest written constitution of any major sovereign state.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

United States Constitution

Creator

U.S. Government; uploaded by User:Keeleysam

• Support as nominator --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Speaking of which, per the discussion that arose on the Nixon resignation letter nom, let's start a FPC/Discussion conversation about standards for documents as featured pictures. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, go ahead and start it on the talk page.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well, the nom just about covered everything I could have said... Definite support. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historic material ... really important. GerardM (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As I said down at the pin tumbler lock, and have said in the past whenever it's reared its ugly head, I oppose the concept of featured sets. Choose the best one, and that's the featured image, which can then link to the others (or make them a single image if suitable as with the lock) - in this case the lead image is already featured, the obvious choice having already been made. Or, if the images are all so good and high enc, then they can become individual FPs, most likely maintaining their own articles. Featured sets are just hedging your bets. --jjron (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what if page 4 were the obvious best one? Would you support featuring a page few could identify, even though it's still part of the document whose first page most Americans could spot instantly, even if the quality of page 1 weren't up to the level of page 4? With respect to documents, I think featured sets make the most sense. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page 1 is the obvious choice for the reasons you give, not because of quality. If page 4 was a great quality scan and page 1 cruddy, then we would assume that a better version of page 1 was available and justifiably oppose. Featured sets are a waste of time. Let me give my own hypothetical - if this becomes featured as a set, and one of the images is removed from the article, does that mean the whole set is delisted? The obvious answer has to be yes. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel that for any situation when a member of a set is removed from the article, somebody will come back and replace it in the article. I think that's a moot point since anybody on the encyclopedia can fix the erroneous move. Besides, who would want to remove a page of the constitution from its own article? I understand a newbie may make the mistake and prefer to only see the page he/she has seen all his/her life (which starts the article in the infobox anyway), but somebody more experienced will come around, notice it, and fix it, that is if it gets past recent edits patrol anyway. I think sets should be used sparingly, but there are situations - such as this - where they are extremely helpful and useful. I think Fletcher's comments below sum up what I'm thinking. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen talk of image sets being nominated that contain upwards of 70 images - in fact I think we may already have one of about this size. It's certainly NOT a moot point that one or more of those will find itself out of articles. Once this is out of the bottle, we're going to see more and more of these things with less and less justification. And as I said originally, if all the images are so valuable, they will most likely maintain their own article, and be featurable as individual images. --jjron (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As Wadester explained, the first page of the Constitution alone is insufficient to maintain its own article. As for the 70+ images Dore' set, that's completely separate. I know you're afraid of slipepry slopes, but if it helps, perhaps we can require a set to show the same subject, but different views, pieces, or variations of it that would not be possible or practical to have in one image. The "subject" must be a specific thing, like a [[tumbler lock], not engraving. That's not an official requirement; no such requirements have been set fort, which makes your objection more understandable. If anyone would like to formally address the issue, be my guest. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perhaps the time has come to follow the Featured Topic concept and introduce the idea of a Featured Set for Featured Pictures of a related group. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has existed for about a year, but since it has now resurfaced, I'm fine with formalizing the guidelines a little more than {{FeaturedPictureSet}}.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not even realize that we had such a thing. Perhaps if it was more visible then people would aim for it more. Or maybe I just need to cruise around Wikipedia more... TomStar81 (Talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Featuring one page doesn't make sense. They are all at about the same quality and it's not a document without all the pages. If we keep limiting it to page 1, it's an excerpt with an arbitrary cutoff dictated by the size limitations of a page written more than 200 years ago... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said on the pin tumbler lock, if they really belong together combine them into a single image, as we are not limited to old page sizes. Otherwise choose the best one. --jjron (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I support limited use of Featured Sets where, as here, you have several related images that have collectively strong EV, but it would be awkward or artificial to combine them into a single image. I tend to oppose the idea for photographs, since we don't want people submitting little galleries of the same subject at different angles. Fletcher (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree - this should happen rarely, but it should be allowed and saved for the rarest/important situations. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you would consider a pin tumbler lock one of the "the rarest/important situations"? --jjron (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly he was agreeing with my view that sets should not be used for photographs, but was not ruling it out entirely. Fletcher (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But now the rot's set in, it's an inevitable consequence that it will be used for little galleries of photos. --jjron (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Constitution Pg1of4 AC.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Found this while preparing the Commons POTY 2008 - this was second place in 2006, and was so powerful that I had to bring it over here a bit more. It is a little under size, but I think that its power is sufficient that we should consider it.

Articles this image appears in

Poverty in France, newly added to Homelessness

Creator

Eric Pouhier

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Brilliant, but why are some areas dark? This is probably an author-added thing, but it probably subtracts from the EV. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Switch to oppose, and of course above I meant vignette, didn't know the name of it. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose A striking picture, but sad to say, it should be possible to find a homeless person to take a picture of at the minimum required resolution. It also looks somewhat overprocessed as with an HDR image. As for EV, it is self-evident for Homelessness, less clear for Poverty in France which does not have any information on homelessness in France, other than this picture. It does illustrate poverty, but not all the poor are homeless. Fletcher (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose below minimum size requirements. Durova^Charge! 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear support - A very strong picture, I can't imagine a beter depiction of the subject. Plenty of mitigating qualities for the small size -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small, and I have a feeling it may have been over-edited. Certainly lots of vignette. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Small, the vignetting and desaturation aren't realistic. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Noodle snacks, but it has enough EV to make it weak. Spencer^T♦C 02:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It looks like someone messed with the saturation/lighting levels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, image post processing removes some encyclopedic value to add sentimental value. The original might have a shot (if it were larger). gren グレン 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Spencer^T♦C 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Detailed chromolithograph of Brooklyn, New York as it appeared during the late nineteenth century. Individual storefronts by the docks are legibly named. Restored version of File:Currier & Ives Brooklyn.jpg (very high resolution).

Articles this image appears in

History of Brooklyn

Creator

Currier and Ives

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 03:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yet another excellent restoration. A good historical image with great EV. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support People think they know Brooklyn, this is what went before.. GerardM (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - hits all the right points - Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. Spencer^T♦C 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration with high encyclopedic value. A302b (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The detail in this is astonishing! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Incredible detail. Good job on the restoration (especially getting rid of the crease). NauticaShades 14:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hm, can't think of anything new to say. "If you download one chromolithograph this year, make it this one!" Fletcher (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Currier & Ives Brooklyn2.jpg --Spencer^T♦C 23:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.

.

The canyon is up to 900 feet deep (275 m) and a half mile (0.8 km) in width.The canyon below the Lower Yellowstone Falls was at one time the site of a geyser basin that was the result of rhyolite lava flows, extensive faulting, and heat beneath the surface (related to the hot spot). The rhyolite in the canyon contains a variety of different iron compounds. Exposure to the elements caused the rocks to change colors. The rocks are, in effect, oxidizing; the canyon is rusting. The colors indicate the presence or absence of water in the individual iron compounds. Most of the yellows in the canyon are the result of iron present in the rock rather than sulfur]]

Reason

Hihg resolution image, which shows how Yellowstone NP got its name.

Articles this image appears in

Yellowstone National Park;Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fantastic location. I can't help suspecting it's oversharpened, though. Could you explain why only the CS3 information is available in the metadata, and not your camera data? Durova^Charge! 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the original image: File:Yellowstone canyon not post processed image.jpg. My metadata and my camera data sometimes is lost in one of my photo shops. I do not remember everything I've done with the image, but I do not recall sharpening it.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The edit seems a little oversaturated. Was it really that color? NauticaShades 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment has this image been nominated before? de Bivort 22:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was withdrawn: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The colors of Yellowstone canyon. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not this image. I uploaded a new version yesterday.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The fly was very small, around 3mm only. The quality therefore is not perfect but quite good. The image is the actual size without any downsampling, simply cropping out the empty space. This is the max magnification possible with my macro lens.

Articles this image appears in

Anthomyiidae, Muscoidea

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Sorry, I think this is great, but honestly the blur is kind of distracting and I can't really see the fly's body in detail. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this level of magnification, the blur in the background and freground is unavoidable, Fir0002 can probably explain why. As mentioned, the fly is only 3mm long compared to housefly's 10mm, hence getting good details requires more magnification which is not within the range of normal macro lenses. Muhammad(talk) 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It may well be a magnificent contribution photographically, but I'm still leaning towards the Valued Image camp on this one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per nom. It has good enc., but I don't think the blur detracts too much (but enough to make it a weak support). Spencer^T♦C 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fair enough on the depth of field issues, but its too small in the frame, and when you crop there isn't that much left, probably need to combine your macro lens with half a dozen extension tubes :P Noodle snacks (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Picture is a stunning example of the modern architecture and one of the worlds tallest buildings

Articles this image appears in

Transamerica Pyramid

Creator

Cabe6403

• Support as nominator --Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose tilt and perspective distortion. It's a difficult building to get a clear shot of but I think for enc this building is better captured from a different angle and not from its own street level as per example. (The most complete top to bottom image I have seen is with a 600mm from Treasure Island and that requires a very clear day). Mfield (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both, not sharp enough to be FP. Second one could probably use a tighter crop and less distracting building in the left foreground. First one is tilted and would have to be retaken without the shadow on the pyramid. gren グレン 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You actually don't need to oppose the second, it's not an FP nom and is labelled not for voting, it was just an example to show what the building actually looks like without the distortion and to show how difficult it it so get a clear shot. Mfield (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did that because I started thinking maybe the second one was close to FP for a while... well, at least I liked it better than the first one so I think that threw me off :) --gren グレン 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, rather major tilt issues. Spencer^T♦C 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see what the issue with the tilt is... looks minor to me and I wouldn't even consider it an issue, just part of the viewing angle. This picture was taken from the top deck of a moving bus as it passed crossroads perpendicular to the street shot down. It is a very difficult building to get a photo showing the structure top to bottom. --Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - not clear enough to see the entire structure.--Truco 01:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Actually I think it came out surprisingly sharp, but the tilt and perspective distortion are pretty bad (I almost ran under a doorway!). Fletcher (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think the tilt is actually as bad as people are saying. Part of it is an illusion due to the fact that you're not looking straight-on at the pyramid's edge, so one side has a greater apparent angle than the other. That said, the perspective distortion (mainly on the edges of the frame) is fairly strong and could be corrected, but I don't think the image is FP material all the same. Sometimes they require more work than taking a snapshot from a moving bus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality LOC scan of the state of aeronautics and hot air ballooning in 1818. Displays many different versions of hot air balloons of the time, many of which are quite fascinating. I admittedly just added it to the Hot air balloon article, where it definitely belongs. I found it at the Wikipedia for Schools site interestingly enough.

Articles this image appears in

Timeline of aviation - 19th century, History of ballooning, Hot air balloon

Creator

Ambrose William Warren, 1781?-1856, engraver. (Uploaded by Bubamara and CarolSpears it seems)

• Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. According to the image page the creator is "Warren, Ambrose William, 1781?-1856, engraver". You've listed the uploaders. Have made a change above in the nom. --jjron (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good find. Perhaps an adjustment to the color balance would be in order? Highlights are deficient in blue. Durova^Charge! 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Request brief suspension - I'd like to have a go on an edit. There's some tricks you can do with engraving scans of this sort that will help this one a lot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Shoemaker's request Shoemaker's our best restorationist of engravings. It'd be fascinating to see what he does with this. Durova^Charge! 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternate. Good job. Durova^Charge! 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending Shoemaker's edit Noodle snacks (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - Right. Done. I'll put this back up at the top of the page. I think that's right? Feel free to critique the colour - I have an LCD monitor, so colour is a bit angle-dependent, which can make precise matching a bit difficult. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the effort - I'm not really a graphical editor. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries! It's one of those things that's not really all that hard if you know what you're doing, but the trick is learning what you're doing in the first place. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a look at both the original and the edit and I'm finding it hard to notice any significant difference, other than the greater contrast/higher black point value. Durova mentioned that she thought the blue channel was deficient and looking at the histogram, it is. But correcting this would make the background a neutral light grey. I assume this is not what you intended to do. If anything, I see a greater deviation on the green channel in the edit, but to the eye, the colour is extremely similar - just a bit darker. Also, I'm curious about what exactly you tried to achieve in the edit as it doesn't seem explained here or on the image page. As I know very little about the technicalities of etchings/engravings, I wouldn't know what makes a good or a bad restoration of one. Given the paper has no doubt become faded/stained over the years, do you aim to restore it to as-close-as-new, or do you accept the colour of the scan but merely remove blemishes to the detail? Why do you trust the colour balance of the LOC version? Without knowing the answers to these restoration questions, I'd find it hard to judge this nomination and the two images beyond the artistic/historic value. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few different things I'm trying to achieve:

1. Firstly, ink should look reasonably black: Grey ink has a tendency to look "blurry", as the eye instinctively expects it to be black, and presumes deviance is from the black being blurred. I've almost never had reason to regret this trick.
2. The paper should be a reasonably-natural looking colour. It doesn't need to be a pristine white - that's very easy to generate from something like this for printing, anyway - just drop saturation and tweak the whitepoint - but it should look believably like paper. The old version didn't look quite natural, with regard to colour. I tried a few things, and in the end thought that matching the LOC scan showed a pleasantly-non-distracting sign of age - something I try to leave in my images. Of course, had I been working from a non-historic original, e.g. a modern reprint, or thought it likely this one would be used for printing (you do NOT fake paper texture when printing), I'd have immediately removed all paper texture and set the background paper as a pure white. In my experience, desaturating to greyscale looks ugly - it gives far too "cool" of colours to look natural - and requires you to either nearly or completely make the background white. But this image with a white background is already available. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. There's a few minor bits of cleanup I did that were missed in the original. None were hugely visible - but they annoyed me.

I hope that helps. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks for the explanation. I guess what confused me was that if this was an image of an engraving, then the paper that it was printed on would not be relevant like it would be if it were an actual historical document. I'm also confused about whether this particular print is of historical importance. Is the original etching still around or is this print all we have left? If the original etching is still around, would a modern re-print be preferable to this restoration of an old print? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unlikely that this old of a woodblock or steel plate would still exist, or, if it did, that Wikipedia would get access to it, and that it hadn't been damaged over time. As for the paper - there's two schools of thought on paper texture and engravings, and I've variously gone with both, but in this case, there's already one without the paper texture. Th old paper can help subtly emphasise age; and engravings can often look better on somewhat warmer colours than the default computer screen white, but it's not, as you say, a major part of the historicness. If I can, I usually try for with paper textre first, though - removingthe texture is a one-way operation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm at it, I'll Support my edit. Hey, why not? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative Great job on the restoration. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Discussion regarding the restoration has satisfied my curiosity and I support this document. Very interesting. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I made a minor improvement to my version - Carol Spears, who did the initial cleaning work, offered her unadjusted file, so I recleaned the areas I had cleaned, and redid the colour adjustment. I don't think the changes should be visible unless you really know what you're looking for, but it should be slightly better at full resolution now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Interesting content and EV. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb EV. Very nice. Fletcher (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aeronautics2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good technical quality, excllent EV, though the image is of relatively low resolution. It is an FP on Commons.

Articles this image appears in

Rock Pigeon, Cere

Creator

User:Dori (of Commons]]

• Support as nominator --Elucidate ^{(light up)} 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm undecided. My gut feeling is that it doesn't show enough of the bird. This is an extremely common animal - probably the most visible and plentiful bird (in cities, at least) in the world, and I would imagine we should be able to get a similar quality image of the entire bird, not just the head. That said, we did recently feature the head of a rooster... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the rooster was used in articles like Comb (anatomy) and Wattle (anatomy). I wonder what the white thing on the pigeon's beak is called? Noodle snacks (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called a cere which redirects to beak. Cere isn't synonymous with beak so probably could have it's own article... Benjamint 05:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have written an article on the cere. It's still quite rough, but I'm working on it. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWeak support The old taxobox picture was better imo (btw you didn't change the caption in the article). The strong light makes the iridescense hard to see, and too little of the bird is visible. Narayanese (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the images around a bit, and fixed the caption. My mistake. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 10:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Whil it's not a superb image of the bird, it does show the distict beak well. Narayanese (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Has this image been sharpened? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would be interested in how people compare this image to this image: http://commons.wikimedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2009&sq=Qlik&lang=&file=File:Common_Pigeon_Portrait.jpg Tomfriedel (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I'm going to weak oppose this one because I like the more neutral lighting in Tomfriedel's alternative. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've nominated Tomfriedel's image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (both). Wild-type Rock Pigeons have orange eyes. Pearl eye is a domesticated mutation. That first picture shows pearl eye and is a Santa Barbara feral. The second pic shows a Chequer (English spelling which I use) pattern is also found in escaped domestic pigeon (feral) flocks and is likewise not the original wildtype bar pattern. The current picture in the infobox now is as close to wildtype C livia as we have been able to find so far. I must admit I'm not completely happy with that one either. It looks a bit like it is about to choke on a piece of corn or something? The pic of the pigeon at Fort Lauderdale beach is a little removed from its wild ancestors natural resident range and having wrong pattern, so I can't support it being featured in the Rock Pigeon article. The trouble is a lot of the pictures being used are actually of feral pigeons. Ferals carry mutations that should not occur in the wild flocks in their original habitat. Nowadays however you would be hard pressed to find pure strains of wildtype C livia unless you went out into the wilds of their original habitat. Mixing with escaped domestics has contributed to mutations (selected for by man in domestic stock) now becoming common in wild C livia. Anyhow, I'm raving on! The pics would be fine to be featured as "feral" C livia but don't belong in the infobox of the Rock Pigeon article. I can live with them further down in that article though. I should add that if the right picture of a blue bar feral pigeon is found (having all the right wildtype criteria with no mostly man propagated mutations), then it would pass as wildtype as they are essentially the same species. A picture of a pigeon walking on a concrete path or flying by buildings is not the right setting. Sitting up on rocks on a cliff face as would be expected in native habitat is the shot we are looking for.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Shows the skyline of Sydney in an encyclopaedic and visually pleasing way. It is currently the lead image in the Sydney article.

Articles this image appears in

Sydney

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to say that it is a nice image, but it would be good form to wait until the active discussion about the choice of top image has formed a consensus, especially as there has been talk about EV. Your image has only in fact been in the article for 24 hours. (I disclose that the previous image in the article was mine, it as been there for some time. Yours is a far better image photographically, I am not offended by it being replaced - mine was no more than a quick shot taken from a ferry that I thought would be useful to WP so I uploaded it, i am not proud of it at all.) But it feels a bit off to self nominate yours for FP at this point, especially in light of recent discussions about self nomination and the length of time images have actually been in the host article. Mfield (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, fair enough. There didn't seem to actually be any discussion on the image on the talk page. The person who initially seemed against the image admitted they preferred the replacement once they saw it in the infobox and there was no other discussion since then. I'm happy to mothball the nomination for a while if desired. To be honest though, the EV of the image as a definitive skyline of Sydney in the article is clear. Even if it were decided to keep your image as the lead image, I'm fairly certain it would, as I mentioned on the Sydney talk page, be a good candidate to replace the skyline as viewed from Balmain further down the article. I wouldn't have nominated the image if I didn't think it stood a good chance of sticking there. As we discussed about self-noms and time periods, I thought we basically agreed that while it is generally safer to wait to confirm EV, there is no mandate for it and we should judge each case individually. As I said above, I don't think there could be much argument on the basis of EV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see the appropriateness of having this picture in the economy section of the Sydney article. For one it is not supported by text, none of the buildings mentioned in the text can be seen in the image and its features are to small. I also think that the previous image would be more suitable for the info box. Perhaps this would be more suited in the tourism section replacing the opera house pic and Just because it is a featured photo (soon) doesn't make it appropriate for that section. The photo that I have added to that section is supported by text and some of the institutions and a lot of the subject matter can clearly be seen in it. Adam (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you think the previous image is better in the infobox? Also, I concede that this image doesn't show the logos on the buildings as well as the Balmain image, but it is a far more complete skyline of Sydney. I don't know if I would say that the text of the section relates to the buildings visible in the Balmain image. The only one I can see is Westpac, and the caption makes no mention of the economy. Anyway, I think if you want to discuss it further, we'd best take it to a talk page as this is getting beyond the reaches of the nomination. For disclosure, both Adam J.W.C. and Mfield are the authors of two images that this image has replaced or has been suggested to replace, respectively. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already disclosed that if you'd care to have read my original comment, I have no bone to pick with the image being replaced, I have an issue with an image being proposed for FP whilst a discussion is still underway as to whether it should even be included in the only article it is now in. Mfield (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you did, and I did read your original comment. It was just a summary of disclosure regarding both you and Adam together. No need to get narky - it wasn't an attempt to undermine your disclosure.. As I said though, there actually was no discussion underway at the time I submitted this. The only objection raised on the Sydney talk page was withdrawn. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm supportive of the image, but I tend to agree there should not be ongoing dispute about it among contributors to the article (either here or on the talk page). Hard to assess its EV until we know it is going to be stable in the article. Tentatively I favor it for the infobox rather than the Economy section, as the Balmain image places the emphasis on the financial/corporate landscape; a broad overview of Sydney's skyline is less useful there. Fletcher (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, there actually wasn't a dispute on the article's talk page at the time I submitted this. I raised the issue on the talk page prior to adding it to the article, and one person had initial reservations about it, but when another contributor added it to the article of his own accord, they rescinded their objections and supported its inclusion. For all of the debate here, as far as I can tell Adam J.W.C is the only person who objects to the image in the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose While visually it's pretty much perfect for a city nightscape, I'd have like the composition to also include the harbour bridge as in this pano you previously took. --Fir0002 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be an almost identical picture to that previous one, then? :-) I actually intended to take the same shot as the previous FP when I was in Sydney, but because of the NYE fireworks, they had begun to scaffold the bridge up and it looked pretty awful so I delibrately excluded the bridge. I can appreciate that you might want a slightly different composition, but given that I cannot simply go back and re-shoot (I've been back in the UK for a month now), this is the image I managed to take. Are you opposing because you wish it were different, or are you opposing because it is really unsuitable to be an FP in its current form? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I took it as a HDR upgrade to your existing one :) While I very much appreciate this being very difficult for you to redo, I do think that the bridge should be part of a lead panorama of Sydney as it's such an iconic part of that city (and at any other time of the year including it would have made perfect sense). So for that reason I think your existing FP has greater EV and thus I couldn't support this one nice as it is. --Fir0002 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the existing FP has a different purpose though - this image is suitable for the infobox and the existing FP works well as a panorama at the bottom. Yes, it would have been nice to include the bridge, but if I did, it wouldn't make a good thumbnail for the infobox and therefore would merely have been a candidate to replace the existing FP, rather than complement it. Besides, as Durova mentioned, not every image of New York City needs the Brooklyn Bridge. It is very difficult to get photo with a good composition, with non-panoramic proportions and the Opera House, skyline and the Harbour Bridge all in the frame. As an analogy, you already have a good FP of a kangaroo but you've nominated a new one with different characteristics. Some things about the new one are better (no man made elements in the background, shows feeding) but some things are worse (angle, less aesthetically pleasing composition/pose), but because it describes a slightly different aspect of the same subject, you thought it worth nominating. Same situation here IMO. This image wouldn't be fit for purpose if it included the bridge. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never been to Sydney but is it possible to shoot from an angle similar to this? That would be one way to get the bridge and the opera house whilst retaining acceptable dimensions for the lead image. If it's not possible then I'll change my vote to Neutral because I can understand what you're saying with them illustrating different aspects. But just to let you know that other FPC wasn't actually successful so I haven't yet got a kangaroo FP :) --Fir0002 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh really? I was sure that last one went through.. Okay, nevermind, but you got my point at least! As for that image, well it might be possible. Sydney is a massive city with lots of coastline, but quite often it is difficult to get a good shot from public property, as all the good vantage points are obscured by multi-million dollar houses on the harbour. :-) Anyway, you can't actually see the skyline in it, so it may be cut off by other houses, I'm really not sure. It would take a lot of exploring to find the hidden gem shooting locations, I'd say. And as I said to Mfield below, some of them require access to people's balconies! As a mere tourist with limited scouting time, I was more limited to where the ferries happened to take me! Even this shot required a 10 minute walk through residential streets from the nearest ferry stop, or else a 20 minute hike across the Harbour Bridge and then down a few side streets. You sort of have to know what you're doing, to cut a long story short! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • On that note, I am waiting until next time to shoot one from here[11] (or better yet of possible from the land in the lower half of the frame) as it gives a nice broad view. Mfield (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That actually looks like a good spot to shoot from. Sydney is blessed with so much harbour that there is practically an unlimited number of good locations to shoot from (if you can get access to the shoreline, a decent vantage point or in an ideal world, a friendly resident with a balcony!), although I think that would probably also result in a panoramic composition. I can't quite tell from a map exactly where it was shot from. That little peninsula is either Cremorne Point or Taronga (from what I can see from Google Maps). Actually given the title of the image (given it is on your site, did you take it? If so, why are you waiting until next time to reshoot it?), it must be from Taronga. The ferries go to both locations so it would be worth the trip. I'd be very interested to see what you can shoot from there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes I took it and that one is shot from the zoo, but it's a crop from a two frame handheld pano that I shot a few years back when we jumped on the ferry to go there for the afternoon with some friends and i just had the camera on my shoulder. No tripod and only the one lens. I have meant to get over there at dawn last time i was in Sydney to shoot it properly but had no time. Mfield (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this image would be appropriate for the lead image in the Tourism in Sydney article instead of the Opera House image and in the same section in the Sydney article. Also I am not sure if this image looks natural especially the colour of the Sky. If I were there at that time would it look exactly like that. I wouldn't mind seeing a version of this image that hasn't been tone blended. Adam (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of things.. I agree it could work in the tourism article, but I actually think that if it were to, the Opera House picture should probably be moved to replace your image from Balmain in it too. I'm not saying that to spite you, I'm saying it because it is actually located right in the middle of the Sydney Opera House section! ;-) As for the colour of the sky, the sky can and does turn pinky purply just after sunset. It doesn't happen at every sunset, but it does happen. It has been enhanced slightly with a minor saturation boost and contrast enhancement, but I maintain it does still look natural. Besides, would your image of the Blue Mountains look like this if I were there? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • • It would look like this if you were there. Also I never objected to the image being in the Sydney article but I did suggest that it would be good for the tourism section, but I admit that that it does look good in the info box as well. As for the tourism article (in Syd) I think all images would be appropriate as they all show Sydney from different perspectives. Adam (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support This picture is a great composition and shows a very impressive view of Sydney. Wladyslaw (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, aesthetically pleasing. IMO adding the harbour bridge would probably make the image lose its appeal as seen in thumbnail in the article. Muhammad(talk) 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I think it would also make the proportions of the image too extreme for the infobox. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent composition. No comment on the harbor bridge dispute--looks fine to a silly Yank from the other side of the world. Not every panorama of NYC needs the Brooklyn Bridge and/or Statue of Liberty. The possibility of different vistas adds character to a city. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I said above I was supportive of the image so I should give an official !vote. I think it is definitely a great image for the article, and whatever its final placement, I agree no one seems to be trying to get rid of it. Fletcher (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I wonder if there isn't a larger resolution available. The colors in the sky are very impressive! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - really good.--Avala (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sydney skyline at dusk - Dec 2008.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original - A wild Eastern Grey Kangaroo feeding in native grassland. Alt 1 Alt 2

Reason

Unlike my previous FPC of a wild kangaroo this was taken in deep bush and so doesn't have any issues of man made structures in the background. High quality image of an iconic Australian animal.

Articles this image appears in

Kangaroo, Eastern Grey Kangaroo, Macropus

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 03:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - While I like the shot, compared to this image we cannot see significant parts of the animal. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided although I think Alt 1 is best for the article. Nicer sky and I'm not sure if a bit of grass in its mouth adds much to EV. :-) Good image, but I do agree that it's an unfortunate angle in that you're looking up at the animal and its feet are obscured. As an aside (not that I'm considering it as a FP by any means), since we're talking kangaroos, I just got around to uploading a decent image of an adult and joey here. I'm thinking it could be added to the article but probably to remove one of the existing ones - perhaps the first one in the gallery of the Joey. Your opinion? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest I actually prefer the existing Joey shot as it seems to have a better background and lighting. Possibly this one could be replaced instead... ? --Fir0002 11:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I wasn't sure. I do think the existing Joey shot is quite obscured by grass and the detail is somewhat difficult to make out though, but definitely the lighting is better. The one you mentioned is clearly poorer quality and soft but at first glance I thought it best to leave that one as it seemed to be the only male kangaroo in the article, but your FPC here is a male too, isn't it? I'm not an expert at picking out their bits. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah I think this one is a male but not 100% sure :) --Fir0002 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is. 100% Benjamint 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 1. The only unobstructed view of the animal's midsection and the best color contrast of the three. (I wouldn't object to promoting the original for the reasons given below). Durova^Charge! 17:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original for use in Kangaroo where it adds value to the section on diet. If the image is taken as describing a kangaroo feeding rather than just a kangaroo I think portion of the animal shown is acceptable.
• Oppose alts, would not add as much value to the article as they do not show the food in mouth or jaw motion. Guest9999 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 1 Best lighting out of the lot, and I prefer the background. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 1 I am not big on technical terms but all I can say is great photo with the best lighting compared with the other two. I also like the other versions and support them as well. I think the Kangaroo in Alt 2 is probably the clearest. Adam (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 1 It seems to be the best one. Good composition. A302b (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1. We see the most of the kangaroo in the first alt, and the grass and branches provide a nice visual frame. NauticaShades 14:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original, Alt 1 Both have substantial EV, just in different places. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Original or Alt 1, but prefer Original. The background is not as nice, but the facial expression is great.--ragesoss (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eastern grey kangaroo dec07 02.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 06:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, adds value to article; first good photo in the species article

Articles this image appears in

Parma Wallaby, wallaby

Creator

Benjamint 04:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 04:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original (cropped) equal parts encyclopedic and charming. Good focus and contrast, on the small side but not too small. Durova^Charge! 06:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Do they normally sit with their tail facing forward like that? I can't say I've noticed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting question. The ONLY time I've seen this pose before in a macropod is when they are giving birth (it gives the joey, who is little more than an embryo at birth, an easier, safer path to the pouch). But this doesn't look like it's giving birth. Perhaps the creator can elaborate on what was going on here? --jjron (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they often sit like that - I've got a shot of one of these without a joey and it's sitting exactly the same --Fir0002 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never seen a kangaroo sit like this but seems quite common among wallabies; I've got dozens of shots of Red Necks in this posture. Seems to be something they do when they're really relaxed and content. Benjamint 10:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Maybe I need to get out more... :-). --jjron (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Wow. Good image, I like the composition (of the cropped version), and it certainly got me interested. Good Ev, too. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original. Good EV, if this is a common pose. NauticaShades 14:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - probably better for on Wikipedia, though the uncropped might do better on commons. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Parma wallaby crop2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's already a featured picture in Wikimedia Commons

Articles this image appears in

Old World Swallowtail

Creator

ComputerHotline

• Support as nominator --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Also support Edit 1 as better version (previously supported original before edit) A302b (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Good quality macro --Fir0002 11:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Plenty of detail. NauticaShades 14:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, despite the nominator failing to give a 'Reason' :-). --jjron (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above (and necessity for more votes). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Thomas Bresson - Machaon-1 (by) edit.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 06:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality. The fly is one of the most dangerous vectors of parasites and before this picture, wikipedia had none. So good EV as well.

Articles this image appears in

Chrysomya megacephala, Chrysomya, Coprophagia (Just added. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Even more disgusting than the last one! Great capture though. Enough of the fly is in focus for EV. I'm not sure I want to eat mangos anymore. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for technical quality and EV. I don't even want to think what you endured to get this shot. Durova^Charge! 17:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quelle horreur! I agree about the mangos!. More than just slightly off-putting, really... Nonetheless, great image with excellent EV. Also highly interesting, in a rather unappealing way. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I think. I defer to the expert photographers as to whether more of the fly should be in focus, but it seems good enough to me. Fascinating and disgusting. I just added it to Coprophagia, where it has super EV. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Yes, more of the critter should be in focus but there is only one Richard Bartz, who has the skill to freeze them while taking several pictures for the stacking. Excellent EV, BTW. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated caption to include Coprophagia. Muhammad(talk) 07:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ick. A possible image for April 1 POTD. Spencer^T♦C 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Ch.megacephala wiki.jpg --Spencer^T♦C 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Stunning Panthera tigris altaica photograph with very high resolution. I think its quality supercedes previous photographs.

Articles this image appears in

Tiger, Siberian Tiger

Creator

Nick Jewell

• Support as nominator --A302b (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The background seems to have a fence which IMO is a bit distracting and easly blurrable. Muhammad(talk) 02:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was the best siberian tiger picture I could find, although I agree it would be better with a blurred background. Unfortunately, I don't want to mess the picture up, and don't know how to do this. It isn't my picture, and I don't know a lot about editing photographs. I just did a lot of searching to find the best tiger picture I could find with a free license. Are you (or anyone else) able or interested in adding blur? A302b (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Picture removed from both artciles, where they had been put today, replacing better ones. Not a good practise to use articles just for the purpose of hoisting FP candidates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry, I didn't know. I honestly thought this is the best image available, and looked through the various tiger pictures. I didn't know that editing pages and nominating at the same time wasn't allowed. I am willing to withdraw this nomination if it is against the rules. But I still think it is a better picture than the ones that were there previously. Is there a page where there are different versions of a picture and people can choose which one is best for the topic? This version has such better resolution and sharpness, and shows the subject clearly. A302b (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not against the the rules so there's no need to withdraw. That said I Weak Oppose because it's a bit soft/low DOF, slightly too many blown highlights and poor background and a cursory glance at commons:Category:Panthera tigris altaica suggests that these are relatively common in zoos and a better image shouldn't be too hard to take. --Fir0002 10:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. I still prefer the original, as it seems sharper to me (clearer eyes, etc), and is much higher resolution quality. I agree the background is unfortunate. A302b (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      P.S. I didn't take the picture, but spent a long time searching. I was unable to find any better (sharp) pictures with such high resolution that also had a free license. A302b (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This may or may not be the best image for illustrating tiger fur (scary thought?), as it shows the fur both dry and wet. I found that interesting, and will be observing how this nomination goes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose out of necessity, since it's not being used in any articles. The composition is not as good as the existing FP, although this one is more detailed. Still, we can hope for a better tiger headshot than either this or the existing FP.--ragesoss (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historical image that contributes greatly to Herero and Namaqua Genocide and really drives home the horror of the event

Articles this image appears in

Herero and Namaqua Genocide, Scramble for Africa, Battle of Waterberg

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --Pstanton 07:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support a bit small but good EV Muhammad(talk) 07:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good encyclopedic value. A302b (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historic image, excellent EV, used to illustrate a number of articles. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 10:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dramatic image --Fir0002 10:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• question needs a level adjust? de Bivort 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this just isn't a good scan and unless we know the original doesn't exist to be rescanned I don't think it should be promoted. gren グレン 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per gren. Though moving, the quality isn't good. Also, it's too small. Spencer^T♦C 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose on technicals. 160kb just isn't enough data, which is a very sad thing to say because the EV is so high. Perhaps a good candidate for valued pictures? Durova^Charge! 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did nominate this picture mainly for its emotional value. If anyone can clean this up/find a better version somewhere, that'd be excellent. Pstanton 21:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll throw this out there. The site has [email protected] as its e-mail address. If anyone speaks German they might want to send by an e-mail and see if the image was taken from a museum. If so we might be able to get a better scan that way. gren グレン 20:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Small and poor quality. But great EV. A definite candidate for Valued Pictures. If someone can find a higher quality version of this, it's an obvious support. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality picture with good DOF and lighting. Replacing poor quality and very small images in three articles as the lead image. Good EV as well. Sorry for freaking you out with all these fly pictures ;-)

Articles this image appears in

Flesh-fly, Calyptratae, Oestroidea.

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Like it much better than lower image. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support alternative I understand why you (Muhammad) like the original, but the alternative has more of the subject in clear focus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternate - its clearer than the first and presents the unique details in a clear way.--Truco 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support alternate Durova^Charge! 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternate. Great quality and plenty of EV. The angle is better on the second, though. NauticaShades 14:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. disgusting. Spencer^T♦C 23:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternate lighting is getting better I think. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to a homemade diffuser --Muhammad(talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Milk carton? :D Noodle snacks (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something like that ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sarcophaga Bercaea2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High-res and of a very nice quality; good enc. as well

Articles this image appears in

Werdau

Creator

Aka

• Support as nominator --Spencer^T♦C 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support great detail and clarity. The projection seems off to me though, like it flares too widely going up. Not all the verticals are vertical. de Bivort 01:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per de Bivort. Durova^Charge! 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a beautiful high res photo (despite not quite perfect verticals), but my main concern is it seems more decorative than encyclopedic in the article Werdau, which doesn't have much information at all. If the architectural style, age, and any notable history of the building could be identified, it would improve EV. Alternatively, I would like to see if there's consensus that a photo of a single prominent building is sufficient to illustrate a town as a whole (?). Fletcher (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let me expand the caption. The building is also noted as "the landmark of Werdau", and apparently has been printed on postcards and china. Spencer^T♦C 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Surprisingly young by European standards. Fletcher (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support Wladyslaw (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Werdau - townhall (aka).jpg --Muhammad(talk) 07:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Captures the finer features of a mantis shrimp with remarkable detail, including fluorescence (maybe it could benefit from cropping but I do not know how).

Articles this image appears in

Mantis shrimp

Creator

• Support as nominator --TAway (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very clear, detailed pictures which benefits the article it is in. Andy (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• questions who created it? What are the circumstances of the shot? It looks interesting but overprocessed. de Bivort 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metadata give no evidence of processing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - it seems a bit blurry, but its also clear enough to see the unique details of the image.--Truco 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support It's definitely informative. It shows the colors quite well, more so than most pictures of the subject. Might it be possible, though, to clean the background up a bit? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 03:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Whoa, whoa, whoa. We just can't go promote any picture with EV to FP. This is extremely dark, I can barely make out the subject, let alone the features in detail. Also, see debivort's comments above, this is not FP material, although it is interesting. Sorry ;( ₪Ceran →(slip→sled →snow) 02:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceranthor, how do you propose a photograph demonstrate fluorescence without being darkness? TAway (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all subjects can realistically be illustrated to FP standard, though. Nobody is contending that it isn't a good example of fluorescence. It just isn't up to the technical standards of FP, thats all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Just a bit soft and 'processed' looking. Admittedly a difficult subject to photograph, but probably more of a VP candidate than FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor lighting, Contrast/Saturation possibly fiddled with. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Muhammad(talk) 17:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Aside from the obvious encyclopedic value, in my opinion the image is interesting and high-quality.

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Ike, Effects of Hurricane Ike in Texas

Creator

Jocelyn Augusitno/FEMA

• Support as nominator --–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this picture is much more powerful. Renata (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I believe the current candidate depicts the damage and details more closely. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm not interested in the specific pieces of debris but rather the extent of the damage. The alternative linked above conveys the scale much better, but unfortunately it's too small.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also not in the PD, unless it came from somewhere else. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice image. iMatthew // talk // 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though powerful, issues with sharpness, noise, and an awkward viewing angle make me oppose. Spencer^T♦C 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your feedback. I'm fairly new to photography, so could you please point out where you see noise in the image? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wikipedia article is Image noise; and as an example, I see some on the roof of the house. Spencer^T♦C 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I thought at first, too, but it seems to me that the noise on the roof of the house is actually the varying colors of the shingles. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also try looking under the house, and in pools of water. It's the little speckles that are the noise, and IMO it looks more like noise than shingle patterns...shingles would probably appear in neat rows. In addition, the file name, "File:Hurricane Ike Gilchrist damage edit.jpg" indicates that an edit was performed from the original, "File:Hurricane Ike Gilchrist damage.jpg". Could you say how the image was edited in the image summary (see the other versions section of File:Amsterdam_photochrom2.jpg, for example). Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whoops, I didn't mean in the caption. I'll move it to the image description. Spencer^T♦C 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose per Spencer. In particular, the awkward angle is what holds this back, for me.--ragesoss (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality image of a problematic pest.

Articles this image appears in

Rabbits in Australia, European Rabbit

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - Sorry, but a rabbit's nose is one of its most distinguishible features (save for the ears of course) and lacking a clear view of that, I can't really support. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much of rabbit obscured by grass, especially the head. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support IMO quality is good and aesthetically pleasing as well. Half support for half the features :) --Muhammad(talk) 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, just a rabbit in the grass. Nothing particularly striking, and the fact half of the rabbit's face is missing really detracts from it. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An accurate SVG

Articles this image appears in

Idaho, County

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator --ZooFari 01:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is there any method to the colouring, or is it random? Spencer^T♦C 02:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the shading was used to distinguish them a little and so it won't look too simple. It is like the map of the United States, which is usually randomly colored regardless of the 13 colonies. ZooFari 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"So it wouldn't look so simple" really isn't a great reason for doing anything graphically; simplicity is bliss. As for distinguishing between the counties, four shades is the minimum needed to make the distinction. Otherwise, it makes it seem like you've classified the counties into two types, since it's hard to associate randomness by design in the shading when there's only two different shades. Thegreenj 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's a good picture, and informative, but it doesn't stand out. It strikes me as more appropriate for a valued picture. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like there is something going on in Washington County. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the county names are on the counties, then covered up, and labeled with text elements. Just makes the image larger for no purpose. gren グレン 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Sophus Bie (above). --Eustress (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Also, the name of the northernmost county, Boundary is misspelled. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think the EV value is immense, and the image meets the minimum resolution requirements. The only down side is the light that comes from the open roof; I don't know if someone can make the image a bit better by tweaking the contrast or the brightness, or both. Nevertheless, in regards to the EV it shows the damage done by the Western Allies during the bombardment of Italian towns and cities during the advance in 1943-44. I think it's a powerful image, just because the subject is an American soldier in a destroyed Catholic church.

Articles this image appears in

30th Infantry Division (United States), Acerno, Italian Campaign (World War II)

Creator

Office for Emergency Management. Office of War Information. Overseas Operations Branch. New York Office. News and Features Bureau.

• Support as nominator --JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think that the overblown highlights are a problem in a historic image, but is that a big dirt stain across it? If it is, this could really use a quick clean. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was replaced by one that someone found on another website, with higher resolution. Is that dirt stain still there? JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's quite visible. It doesn't look like a particularly tough cleanup job, though. If I'm feeling a little better in the next day or two, I'll do it, or try and find someone who can. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment under 1MB is really too compressed for this image size. Needs rotation, lots of dirt removal, and it looks like a fairly large vertical scanner streak is here. Unless a much better version could be located I'd recommend this for valued pictures instead of FP. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see if anybody is willing to try and remove the dirt and whatnot, first. I finally found the blots of dirt; I thought "by all over the picture" you guys meant literally all over the picture. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The nom is older than 7 days... so do we want to suspend it? Spencer^T♦C 14:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving image. Unfortunately the file is too small and compressed to work with. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry to be so late to the party, but this one really caught my eye. I saw it a week or so ago and came back to see how it was getting on. It's a superb, iconic image, well worth a little restorative effort. I'm not sure what people are referring to as "lots" of dirt; the very light grain seen through the roof area is probably a "ghosted" (over-exposed) view of an exterior wall or adjacent building and shouldn't be removed IMO. A slight rotation would do wonders for it but all it needs is a quick once-over with the clone tool. I'm don't consider 1Mb to be over-compressed for a b&w image at this resolution; there aren't any artifacts that I can see. The only thing I can't see is the article-relevance. It seems odd that such a powerful, evocative illustration of the destructive power of war isn't actually in the War article, rather than (mis)placed in a campaign article and a couple of others, with dubious EV. And if it's VP-worthy it's FP-worthy for its "wow" value, don't you think? Be a shame to cast it aside for want of a little effort. mikaul^talk 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I can't edit images very well. I will try to rotate it. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I wasn't suggesting you could. It's always a good idea to run unprepared images through Peer Review first, get it fixed and save all this last-minute stuff on the FPC page. I'd be happy to do the work, I'm just concerned it'd be too late for this nomination. Rotating and retouching won't take too long but it might take me a couple of days to get round to it; EV-wise, it needs to be added to a more appropriate article as War and perhaps Ruins are the themes here, not infantry divisions or Italian towns. As it's kind of polite to give images a chance to be vetted by article editors for a while prior to FP nomination, I'd suggest re-nominating. I'm not sure what others think, but once things get this far down the page it's hard to get opinions, never mind supporting !votes. mikaul^talk 05:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, unless someone locates a much higher resolution version, I don't see any potential for FP here. EV, moving, etc. Yet I can't restore data that doesn't exist. Unless someone is actively looking for a better original this nomination should close. Durova^Charge! 07:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Great picture with outstanding and immense encyclopedic value. --Peizo (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very high resolution etching in good condition with good technical execution for a significant Dutch monarch. Restored version of File:Queen Wilhelmina unrestored.jpg. (Note: We already have File:Queen Wilhelmina & Juliana.jpg of this monarch as an FP).

Articles this image appears in

Wilhelmina of the Netherlands

Creator

George J. Verbeck, engraver (based upon a painting by Thérèse van Duyl Schwarze)

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High resolution, obvious encyclopedic value. Nice work on the restoration, Durova. faithless (^speak) 06:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great resolution --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think we need two FPs of 'just another' royal. No offence to the Netherlands, but she doesn't appear to be that significant on a worldwide stage. I may consider a 'delist and replace', but would probably tend towards keeping the one with the bub. --jjron (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't see a problem with two FPs of the same person.--ragesoss (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Queen_Wilhelmina2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very naturally lit, shows the cere, could be cropped if EV requires. Is a competing candidate to this nomination.

Articles this image appears in

is competing with another nominated image, I expect the winner(s) will be placed in Rock Pigeon and cere

Creator

Tomfriedel

• Support as nominator Image seems less edited than the already nominated alternative. This one has a more clearly visible cere, lacking the "crust" present in the other image. I would speculate that one of the images may have been taken in the breeding season. If true, this may allow promotion of both images to allow comparison. --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A tighter crop of the face would show the cere better in the thumbnails Muhammad(talk) 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The cere does seem indicative (in the other nomination) of a pigeon in breeding season, as opposesd to this nomination, where the cere is not so crusty, and is less pronounced. (By the way, I am glad that the article I wrote was able to supply you with the information needed for your caption.) Elucidate ^{(light up)} 16:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, high resolution image. (The cropped version) The Helpful One 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting is superior on the other photograph in my opinion, but mostly due to the un-natural eye colour for rock pigeon. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

James Gilray is a major satirist/cartoonist, and, in the late 18th and early 19th century, if you were a politician, you knew you had it made when Gilray satirised you (even though it would inevitably be a pretty nasty joke). I saw that we had this, my jaw dropped.

We really should make this an FP.

Articles this image appears in

Charon, Ministry of All the Talents

Creator

James Gilray

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment By the way, there's quite a lot of satire going on in that page, I hope you'll forgive me if I just direct you to the image page, which attempts to untangle the caricatures. It's one of Gilray's most complex. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image. Good EV if you have some time to really study it. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful job with the image page description, which is, of course, the most important place for contextual information to go (rather than just in the FP nom).--ragesoss (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Charon's_Boat.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Dam Square is the center of Amsterdam. Sort of a sister nomination to Queen Wilhelmina below: a view of the plaza outside her palace during the early part of her reign (the palace itself is out of frame at left). This 1890s vista includes the 'Naadje' statue, which was erected as a military memorial during the 1850s and taken down in 1914. Slight tilt in the statue itself is probably accurate photography: according to the Dutch Wikipedia article it was so poorly constructed that the nose fell off shortly after it was built, the head had to be replaced, and in the decade following this photograph one of the arms fell off into the fountain below. Unfortunately the Dutch article about the statue is unsourced and I have been unable to locate English sources. Still, a period landmark well known in the Netherlands and a good view of the city at the time with horsecars and other period features. Compare to this modern panorama. Restored version of File:Amsterdam photochrom.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Dam Square, History of Amsterdam

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice restoration! Although the palace was at her disposal, she probably almost never used it as does the current queen. As for Naatje...yes, the statue was made out of a material, which wasn't very "weather-proof". They eventually just got rid of the statue after parts of her body came falling of. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has good technical quality, and the image is well balanced. It gives a good picture of the statue, as well. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 03:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To really understand the history of cities requires historic views. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC) this is also the best available picture we have of the former Dutch national monument that goes by the name of Naatje.[reply]
• Support Wonderful. Added it to Photochrom as a classic example of the process. Great historical value on several fronts. mikaul^talk 03:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Amsterdam photochrom2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, shows bird well.

Articles this image appears in

Dusky Moorhen, Moorhen, Rallidae

Creator

Benjamint 06:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 06:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good Ev in some articles --Muhammad(talk) 07:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alephalpha (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent EV in Dusky Moorhen. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dusky moorhen442.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality image of a common but surprisingly difficult to approach bird. Technicals are good and the moment captured IMO is perfect - mouth fully open in mid call. The background of a brown blackberry bush illustrates a typical habitat for this bird and also shows off its camouflage. Compares well with the existing Superb Fairy Wren FP.

Articles this image appears in

Superb Fairy Wren

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You should tweak the levels a bit. Then you will get rid of that grey vail over your picture. Pull up the picture in photoshop and move the arrow on the right to the edge of the histogram. Beautiful picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe I guess comments like that are good to make sure I don't become arrogant :) I'm actually very well versed in Photoshop and post processing and I'm quite pleased with this shot. I've deliberately held back on increasing contrast/levels in the photo in the interests of colour accuracy. If you read from the article "females and juveniles are predominantly grey-brown in colour" - I felt if I adjusted the levels any more the underside would be approaching a white colour. So yeah personally I'm pretty happy with this shot - but if more people want the edit I can easily do that too --Fir0002 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good action picture. As the photographer, you know the true colours the best. If it was this, no probs with me. Muhammad(talk) 12:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Colour looks accurate to me (and I've seen this species plenty of times in person). I think jjron is right about the crop Noodle snacks (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Even though my comment above I support this beautiful picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I know you tend to like to crop to 1,600 × 1,067 pixels, but I'd suggest removing the blurry green leaves at right as they contain no detail and are a bit distracting. I'd probably suggest to basically crop to square, which would still meet size guidelines, lose no detail, and IMO look better. Might put up an edit later for comparison. --jjron (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 as per comments above and in image caption. --jjron (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop, brilliant picture. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, neutral crop The original is excellent, except for the greenery. The crop, however, feels too claustrophobic to me. Thegreenj 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop The superb fairy wren is not so intimidating, I don't mind it up close and personal! Fletcher (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 Better than the existing FP. Narayanese (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Female superb fairy wren-edit1.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Yesterday an editor sent a friendly reminder that next month is the two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. So it would be good to have a featured picture to run for the main page. Restored version of File:Darwin unrestored.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Charles Darwin, Rotogravure, Darwin from Insectivorous plants to Worms

Creator

Elliott & Fry

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't suppose a good quality version of this portrait is available anywhere? It is the one I seem to associate with Darwin, and prefer in general. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the best quality original I was able to locate. Unfortunately the British archives aren't as Internet-friendly as their American counterparts. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It does what a good portrait should, and in this restored version it's the best Darwin photo available on the internet from a technical and printability standpoint. (I've replaced an inferior version of the same photo in Elliott & Fry with this one.)--ragesoss (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with the above; it's good from technical and informational standards. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 14:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unfortunately these Darwin photos are strangely hard to source. Certainly this is not my favourite either, in fact I probably prefer the one that failed this nomination a few months back, but support nonetheless. As I said then, we can delist and replace if we get a better one. --jjron (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, assuming this is promoted, I second fast-tracking it as POTD for 12 Feb, or alternatively it could be used for 24 November, the sesquicentennial of the publication of The Origin of Species. --jjron (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above Noodle snacks (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for its EV, despite being against his theories --Muhammad(talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LoL. --kallerna 22:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing wrong with that...some of his theories were WAY out there (and got much less publicity).
• Support Spencer^T♦C 15:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a really nice portrait with a high quality that's not available on most of the portraits available to us, showing his eyes and expression well at a late stage in his life. . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support His face has incredible character in this photograph. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Darwin restored2.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This got some positive comments at peer review, so am hereby submitting it for FP consideration. Good clarity, no discernible noise, and above all, a cute pose.

Articles this image appears in

Spermophilus

Creator

Howcheng

• Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yeah, nice shot. I'm assuming that's a fairly common environment for them. I wouldn't say no discernible noise though. It isn't bad, but it is there and fairly obvious. I don't think an edit to remove it is necessary though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They live in underground burrows wherever possible, whether that's in rocky areas or forest. Rocks are good because they provide additional protection. There's another shot in the California Ground Squirrel article that shows one with a burrow in a more open area. howcheng {chat} 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I thought they were more common in forested areas than among rocks, but good shot. Durova^Charge! 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definitely a good image of the squirrel. It's too bad more of the tail isn't visible, though. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even though the tail's not in full view, you do see a little more of its front with this angle. Good quality, very nice lighting and composition. Fletcher (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Not a huge fan of the back lighting (main source of light is on axis flash). There is also some noise and it isn't hugely sharp at full size. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. With the combination of slight problems (noise, back lighting, limited sharpness, obscured tail) and the commonness of the subject, I expect a little more from a California Ground Squirrel FP.--ragesoss (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per ragesoss. Reshooting this should be relatively easy. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the rock to the left is really distracting - maybe a crop would look a bit better. --B (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Don't see any deal-breaking issues with noise or sharpness, and lighting is ideal. mikaul^talk 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure it isn't a contrived and stale composition? Shouldn't the squirrel's head be tilted more to the left? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Au contraire, the subject is a model of poise and déportement, his placement in the frame crafting a potent dynamic between presence and negative space :-p mikaul^talk 11:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CA Ground Squirrel on rock.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The original plan was for a sequences of three images as the flower opens and the fruit appears, didn't happen as I was bed ridden during the time it was happening. Either way it adds value to the article and is of high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Passiflora tarminiana

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Depth of field a bit on the shallow side, but acceptable. Fine composition and contrast. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning pic...nice work! --Eustress (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Quality is OK, but I find this stretching EV just too far. The idea for the three photo sequence sounded good. There's been complaints about just showing a flower before, which I can sympathise with but don't necessarily totally agree with, but just a flower bud? C'mon... --jjron (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It opens up into the flower. Its also possible to find nominations where people complain about the leaves etc being distracting (eg Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dahlia Graceland Noodle snacks (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose jjron brings up a good point - shame the 3 shot sequence couldn't happen --Fir0002 07:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Photographic quality, lighting and composition in particular, is perfect, and it's good technically. I think this shows the bud in enough detail that its EV can be carried solely on that. Definitely not the highest EV picture that's been around here, but enough to clear the bar. Thegreenj 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Quality is quite high, adds value to the article

Articles this image appears in

Gaillardia

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Quality is good but I'm not so sure about EV,with so many flowers in the article. Muhammad(talk) 15:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think this might look better if it was cropped to put the center of the flower at the center of the frame, rather than the basing the crop on the slightly asymmetrical yellow extensions.--ragesoss (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would like to see it centered first. --Eustress (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've centred it on the requested axis. --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Aitias and Muhammad. Good work. Durova^Charge! 04:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 High quality shot --Fir0002 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1.--ragesoss (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer edit per above. Matt Deres (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree that Edit 1 is the better of the two. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gaillardia fanfare centered.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Uniquely situated photo of a charismatic leader

Articles this image appears in

Mitt Romney, as well as in 24 others

Creator

Jessica Rinaldi, FPC per Eustress

• Support as nominator --Eustress (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The best picture on wiki without a doubt Rockyobody (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too soft for a contemporary portrait.--ragesoss (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm elaborating a bit at the request of Eustress. I think this shot falls short for FPC 1: "Is of a high technical standard", particularly for focus and/or resolution. Basically, there is not much added detail beyond what is visible in the 800px wide version on the image page. The fine details are blurry (this stands out when viewing the eyes and hair). "Soft" is shorthand for all this; it's unclear whether this was caused by the focus being just a bit off (defocus aberration), by the limitations of the camera and lens (soft focus), or by motion blur. Compare at full resolution the eyes in this photograph with the eyes in File:HH Polizeihauptmeister MZ.jpg.--ragesoss (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its pretty small considering its resolution, so the softness could be the result of compression, though I'd expect more artefacts. It scrubs up ok at 1000px wide with some sharpening, but the quality isn't quite up to scratch for a 1.27 megapixel image. In my opinion whoever did the portrait should have used a hairlight so the head has some separation from the background (here is an example of the effect]). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Significant subject, but the technicals fall a little short. Durova^Charge! 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Who says he's charismatic? And his hair fades into the background way too easily. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose I have no idea where the hair on the back of his head ends and the background begins. Not a good portrait. Omnibus (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Photograph of an iconic building at a major research university, style is emblematic of early 20th century Beaux-Arts architecture and City Beautiful movement

Articles this image appears in

MIT

Creator

User:Madcoverboy

• Support as nominator --Madcoverboy (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The left edge of the facade is clipped off as a result of correcting the distortion and cropping the originally uploaded photo. :( Madcoverboy (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The image is tilted slightly (look at the steps- they're not quite straight). Spencer^T♦C 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Q. Does the photograph show the entire front of the building, or does it chop off both ends? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's a complex of buildings this entrance being the most famous and iconic. My earlier comment was regarding the lack of perfect symmetry owing to cropping. The existing images don't have the same resolution or detail as the nominated image. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I do not like the distance this was taken from. Being so close, I can no longer see the shape of the dome on top. I advise taking it from further away, and zooming in so that the top of the dome is visible. Omnibus (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It's a great photograph, but I agree with Omnibus that it could have been taken from an angle that reveals more of the building, including the dome.-- mcshadypl ^TC 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unfortunately, since I think it's a quality architectural photograph, but the dome which is a key element of the building is hardly recognisable at this angle. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Krm500. Cacophony (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good quality, high res image, contributing to three articles. Good EV as well.

Articles this image appears in

Kleptoparasitism, Miltogramminae, Craticulina

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another fine shot with all the wonder (and disgust) that goes with the species. Good work, Muhammad. Usually the 'fly on the wall' is the thing that escapes attention. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--ragesoss (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alephalpha (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Omnibus (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Craticulina sp.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality sports photograph

Articles this image appears in

Erik Karlsson

Creator

Krm500

• Support as nominator —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support Is a less tight crop available, something showing the rest of the hockey stick, or some of the crowd? de Bivort 01:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had looked at a few different crops and decided to go with a tight 1x1 to be as clear as possible at thumb size. But comparing head to head with a slightly less tight crop it looks better with the less tight crop, I replace it with that.—Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really like it. I actually prefer to see the stick cut off where it is than to see the whole stick because when you do that you get too much open background which can be distracting. Its too bad wiki's release criteria is a bad as it is cause I would love to see more of your work on here. -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Size and sharpness are both sufficient. I don't think the inclusion of the stick would necessarily make it a better photograph. Cacophony 13:10, January 18, 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support We have very little sports photos as FPs which I guess is indicative of the (relative) difficulty in taking them. So for that reason I'm feeling a bit lenient towards the cut off hockey stick. But it seems as though a lot of texture (particularly in the face) was nuked with NR software - could you please upload a less edited version (which I would full support)? --Fir0002 23:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2 --Fir0002 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I just don't think this is a good shot of the subject, lighting doesn't seem that great, the subject appears to be grimacing, the hockey stick is cut off... --Pstanton 07:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
• Weak oppose. I noticed the same issue with texture, especially on the face, that Fir0002 brought up. It looks great in thumbnail (and I think the cropping is good), but it's kind of a Monet.--ragesoss (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Ragesoss. Omnibus (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd go with Fir here, in fact I'd go with a noisy version in preference to the NR one; that's what sports shots tend to look like. I'd also point out that even as it appears here, if you view it at ca. 1600x1200 processing artifacts aren't an issue. It would be a pity to penalise larger uploads simply because they're big enough to see otherwise invisible faults, wouldn't it? mikaul^talk 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great to get some input, I will upload the non prepossessed version, and maybe someone can do a better job with it or simply go with that version for voting. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The cut off hockey stick isn't a big deal, seeing as this photo of Gretzky didn't have much problem getting featured. However, the overall photo isn't terrific. Something went bad taking it, I believe, as the face just looks terrible. –  LATICS  talk  02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original reviewers please comment on the unprocessed version. Wronkiew (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support unprocessed version or a better noise reduced version. Definitely more pleasing textures.--ragesoss (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Good EV and very few sort pictures makes this a worthy picture. --Muhammad(talk) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose I've been thinking about this one and oppose it even more than initially. Lack of "game situation" (e.g. a photo with the puck in play) or even facial expression displaying the emotion of the sport (e.g. this photo) makes this only "okay" for a sports photo. It's decent resolution, but is in no way a "best of the best" photo, composition-wise or EV-wise, on Wikipedia for sports photography. Omnibus (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly not an action shot, but I was looking for an image which would fit nicely in to an infobox. Thus the lack of game situation, facial expression and etc, but hopefully it adds some EV. I think we can close this nomination since we don't have consensus, but I'll be back with more soon! :) Also thanks to Fir0002 for your help with the editing. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

encyclopedic macro photography of a bismuth crystal with scale ratio

Articles this image appears in

Bismuth

Creator

Micha L. Rieser

• Support as nominator --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've been meaning to make some bismuth crystals myself sometime. Because this is a studio shot I find it fair to demand near perfection. The colour cast in the background suggests a while balance adjustment is in order. Compared to the other image I have added for comparison I find the fine detail lacking. I think the image needs a contrast adjustment, perhaps some sharpening and also some noise reduction in places. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your points. The crystal is constant sharp not like your comparison. All details are there. There is a big scope of brightness and darkness and a big scope of colors. The background is a nice gradient. The picture looks very natural because of not two much image processing. That was the point it became featured picture in the german wikipedia. Sharpen and conrast adjustment would destroy the clear impression of that picture. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice, the second shot is better with higher resolution, I like that one. --Pstanton 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I don't think "the second shot" is up for vote. Omnibus (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Has much more snap than comparison image. Omnibus (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I have to agree with Noodle snacks... If it's a studio shot, I think the background should be a consistant colour, not dark-to-light, etc. Spencer^T♦C 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alephalpha (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Spencer. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per myself, The other specimen is of a much less impressive size, that is why the depth of field is narrow, the peak sharpness is much higher though. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 10:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Absolutely fantastic portrait

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama, President of the United States, etc. etc.

Creator

Pete Souza, the newly-announced official White House photographer

• Support as nominator --Cacophony (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but more contextz should be added on the image page (e.g., the caption trivia and the fact that it was taken on the same day Pete Souza was announced as White House photographer).--ragesoss (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that we already have this featured picture of Obama.--ragesoss (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That was taken before he became President-elect, and is not an official portrait. I think they both have their merits. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one also has terrible lighting and expression. Its promotion received significant opposition and seems to have been a case of "best we have for now." This one is of far better quality; to have File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg featured but not this one would just seem madness to me. What qualities does featured image File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg possess that this image lacks? I see none, and in fact see a much better image here. TAway (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions:

• Are the white specks on his right shoulder and lapel lint, or is there something wrong with the photo?
• At least he trimmed his nose-hairs this time, but someone should have told him to trim his ear-hairs too. There's a forest in his right ear! I suppose the people who were bothered about the nose hairs at the other Obama FPC will want his ear hairs edited out too, but that doesn't bother me. Since I'm pretty new to FPC, do we go around giving people haircuts when they have bedhead? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well we don't/shouldn't make changes that would affect the accuracy of the original image. We would only make changes that fix faults in the reproduction of the scene (colour balance if necessary, remove spots/dust if scanned etc). None of this would likely apply to this image. As far as I can tell, all of the 'faults' you mentioned were part of the reality of the scene at the time and therefore there is no need to fix them. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I really wasn't sure about the faults, so that's fine. I'm also fine with leaving in the stray earhairs Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't promote. What makes this portrait any more special than any other bureaucrat politician picture? Nothing I can see. The fact that he is off center in the picture is somewhat distracting, IMHO. Kelly ^hi! 07:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every bureaucrat is the soon-to-be President of the United States, though. Doesn't that make it somewhat more notable than average bureaucrat's portrait? That last comment also makes you seem a bit ignorant of traditional studio portraiture. You might find it distracting, and that is your perogative, but it is very orthodox framing also used in every other presidential portrait, just as an example. Finally, the lingo is Oppose and Support, not Don't promote and Promote. Just a heads up. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's not re-enact the chimpanzee ladder here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Okay, lets re-write the book on portrait photography. The links I provided were to demonstrate consistency, but I wasn't trying to imply that it was the only way a portrait could be taken. It certain is a orthodox style of portrait though, as I said. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was just trying to point out that if he wants to say "don't promote", that's just fine. I believe the intention is clear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Regarding off center composition, see rule of thirds. Durova^Charge! 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rule of thirds is a statement about how to make an image subjectively more visually interesting, not about its encyclopaedic value. I've noticed that we crop a lot of images to center the subject. Why should Obama be any different? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The first two portraits you linked have the subject far closer to the center of the image, while the other two have a reasonable amount of background to the subject's right, as opposed to this picture looking like there was something unpleasant to Obama's right so they just cropped the photo. And as for lingo, this isn't a parliament or a court and so use of a specific word to indicate one's opinion isn't necessary. If someone wants to use 'support/oppose', 'promote/don't promote', 'yes/no' then all of these are fine because all that an admin requires for determining consensus is a clear indication of what the person's opinion is. Cynical (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As long as we're on the subject of lingo, Barack Obama is not a bureaucrat, he's a politican and elected official of the legislative branch. Unlike elected officials, bureaucrats have stable lineal careers, usually within an agency. Elected officials and entire governments may change, though the agencies and their bureaucrats remain. --Bridgecross (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I changed "bureaucrat" to "politician". Kelly ^hi! 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I completely agree with Diliff and Durova here. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - high quality picture of a very important man. Good composition, flattering, high technical quality and released under a license I'm thrilled to see Obama's administration fully supporting. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it is specifically Obama's administration that is fully supporting the free license thing... All works of the US Government are released into the public domain, aren't they? George W Bush's portrait license says "This image is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.". Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly however this image is under a Creative Commons license. Fletcher (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah I did notice that, but I'm fairly sure that it will also be Public Domain by default, which is the less restrictive license. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I understand, Obama's transition website, change.gov (which is not really a government website despite its domain name) has placed its material under the Creative Commons license. Once the photographer actually takes his place in the White House bureaucracy, his official work will fall into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose subject of the photograph isn't in the centre (or even near the centre) of the frame, making the picture appear as if part has been cut off at the right hand side. I know it hasn't (since this is a direct copy of the official release), but it is still off-putting enough that 'high technical standard' (#1 in the criteria) is questionable. Yes, other portraits have the subject off-center, but those that do (such as of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, linked above) do so in a way that doesn't distract the viewer and immediately draw attention to the composition, rather than the subject. Cynical (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Either of the 'other versions' listed (according to filenames they're different photos taken at the same time, for posters?) would be preferable to this image as they lack the distracting composition. Cynical (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A wonderfully composed portrait (putting the subject off-center is a good thing in my mind, it's more visually appealing), good use of depth of field. Colors are well used to and tie it together. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent image, and obviously encyclopedic. --Chasingsol^(talk) 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I'm not an Obama supporter, but this photo is definitely very excellent. It should deservedly be featured. Jason (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic image; very timely. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful photograph; it depicts an authoritative, handsome, important man. It's probably the best Obama portrait out there, and certainly the one of the highest resolution. aristotle1990 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I'll grant the objections to the composition are pretty weak; if you check the Commons gallery it seems in line with traditional presidential portraiture. However the plain white background looks almost clinical to me (other portraits use a darker background, if plain, or they use texture such as bookshelves, or even a window in JFK's portrait). There are also bad looking octagonal reflections in his irises, which must be from the strobes. It is common for reflections to appear in the iris, but they don't usually look so well defined. He's one of the most photographed people in the world so it should be possible to get a better one sometime. Fletcher (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Its a great photo, but per Kelly I don't see anything special about it. Perhaps if there was emphasis on the highest quality ever because its the first digital pic or something, but other than that I don't see anything special to it. The centering is not important to me. - A.J. (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per A.J. -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's just the official portrait of a U.S. President. I don't see why this one should be a featured picture when none of these pictures are featured pictures. They all look basically the same. OCNative (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those pictures come anywhere near the high technical standard of this one. Please look at them at full resolution. All are very noisy and lack sharpness. Cacophony (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about this one, this one or this one? OCNative (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at those and browsing around Category:Politicians_of_the_United_States, I'm now completely convinced that this is the highest quality political portrait available on Wikipedia. With the abundance of photos available I think we need far more than 18 political FPs. I welcome you to nominate some. Cacophony (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nothing special. Too much space above the head, and background is too clinical. TheCoffee (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the encyclopedic value is high as shown by the number of articles it is used in, this is also of high technical quality unlike the many of the other political portraits Thisglad (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the formality of this image makes it a far better featured picture than the current one. If this nomination succeeds, will it be used as the FP on Inauguration Day? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on basis of its high technical standards: amazing per-pixel clarity even when blown up compared to previous presidential portraits. Uris (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Very good picture. Chasesboys (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice detail at full resolution, but I still find it boring compared to File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg, which is already featured. There is nothing all that special about it. I don't think it's very Encyclopedic either; there is nothing in this image that any other good portrait photograph of him cannot do. Also feel it fails WP:FL? Criterion 5, Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. It doesn't do this any more than any other Barack photograph. Might be better at commons:COM:FP Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's just a posed portrait, no matter how good the quality of the photo. The Terminator (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Being a portrait does not disqualify a high-quality, high-resolution image from being featured. Like was said above: "Good composition, flattering, high technical quality." I don't see any real argument against this from the "oppose" votes. TAway (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about "flattering", but it is interesting how the photographer used shadows to partially disguise Obama's nose-mole. On Obama's Senate portrait, we kept having problems with people photoshopping out the mole (see the file history). Maybe this photographer has hit upon a way to prevent that. Kelly ^hi! 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well several of the oppose 'votes' above note that, in their opinion, the composition is poor and distracts from what is otherwise a good image. Cynical (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. The President-Elect of the United States' Official Portrait is pretty big, seeing as to how this is the official portrait of the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world. Armyrifle (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is about the quality/desirability of the image, not its subject. Cynical (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This nomination sure gets more votes than a typical FPC --Muhammad(talk) 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure does. Fascinating. I'd better hurry and upload a fourteenth century navigational chart. Maybe they'll stick around and review it. ;) Durova^Charge! 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or perhaps one of our photos of Sarah Palin. :) Kelly ^hi! 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why, because so many photos of Palin exist that meet these high technical standards? None on Wikipedia or Commons do, not even close. Omnibus (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Obama's right half (looking at the suit) is a bit out of focus and unsharp (an indistict DOF), and his left shoulder is cut-off. With so many pictures of Obama, certainly we can find one that isn't cut-off. Spencer^T♦C 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The picture is not centered. --Eustress (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ...and portrait photography is supposed to feature a centered subject, right? Omnibus (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Michael Shaw explains why it's a good portrait. Lampman (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As much a fan of President-Elect Obama as I am, I fear this nomination and many of the support votes exist primarily becase of the subject of the photo, rather than its worthiness as a featured picture. Senatedems (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think any of the opposition votes exist primarily because of the subject of the photo? We are voting on the merits of this particular photograph but it is inevitable that some voters allow political bias to affect their vote. Kinda like real life, dontchathink? We have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt though. Cacophony (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the !votes seem clearly biased one way or the other and should be disregarded. (That's why they're !votes; if you can't follow the criteria your opinion doesn't count.) I don't envy the closer. Fletcher (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support As someone who strongly dislikes Obama, I still think that this is about as good a picture as we're likely to get (I mean, hey, its an official presidential portrait, after all). ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just the fact that it is the first digitally taken portrait of a (soon to be) president should be enough. But it also got a wonderful composition, rule of thirds followed, nice contrast, good resolution etc. etc. Matthias.koetter (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per criterion #3 - I don't believe holding out an official portrait created by someone else as the best Wikipedia has to offer is a very good idea. Also, there's no binding precedents on Wikipedia, but even so, I don't like the precedent. File:George-W-Bush.jpeg, File:Bill Clinton.jpg, File:Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpg, File:Jimmy Carter.jpg, File:Richard Nixon - Official Portrait (1969).jpeg, etc, are nice pictures as well and I don't know that having featured pictures be a referendum on how popular a President was is a good idea. Bush, Sr and Ford are omitted from the list not because I didn't like them, but because their pictures are terrible. --B (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several other users have already pointed out that the technical quality of those photos is nowhere near the quality of this one. In fact, George W. Bush's portrait was itself a FPC in 2007 but failed for almost entirely technical reasons. Were that picture as high-quality as this one it probably would have passed. Flyerdog11 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Bad lighting prevents detail in the iris. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose He isn't the president yet, so I can't see how this is his "official" presidential portrait, and the blurring of the flag in the background looks awful, isn't particularly high resolution, and as above, the lighting detail in the iris "IS" bad. --Pstanton 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
  • Comment In what way does the blurring of the background "look awful"? And I assume you'll strike through your original complaint that begins with "he isn't the president yet" once he becomes President? Lastly, the resolution is very good, and better than all previous Presidential portraits. Omnibus (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I read it, Pstanton was expressing doubt that this could be the official presidential portrait, since at the time it was taken he was not president, so the complaint would be independent of whether Obama is going to be president at a later date. On the basis of Pstanton's comment, it would seem to be more correct that this is the official president-elect's portrait. Perhaps the official nomenclature is lacking in rigour on this point? After re-reading the caption, I took the liberty to correct an apparent substitution of "is" for "as". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alephalpha (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Ticks all the EV and image quality boxes. It lacks ever-so-slightly in wow, but it makes up for that in spades with importance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe this is a misguided nomination of an awkward and contrived portrait. The only recommendation is the subject, which seems to have swayed the majority of !votes, its only redeeming feature being the high resolution of the camera used. In all seriousness, I've never seen so many courtier's comments on FPC. Since when was the use of a digital camera sufficient grounds for Featured Picture promotion? Composition isn't only unbalanced, with disparate elements (subject, flags, white wall) forming a clumsy pastiche of previous presidential portraits, its slavish rule-of-thirds subject placement is wholly inappropriate and quite amateurish. The shoulders are too front-facing, making the left shoulder look "lost", the awkward white space between Obama and the flag draws the viewer's eye past Obama's right eye towards... nothing. It's so poor it barely warrants Valued Picture nomination, but given the subject perhaps retains just enough value for that. Please, try to see past the pixel count, through the lack of technique to the realisation that the President has no FP clothes at all... mikaul^talk 12:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, you sound more like a jaded art critic than an FPC voter, but fair enough, I respect your photographic experience on this one. I do think though, that whether you like the composition or not, this is very much in the style of all the other presidential portraits. They all have their own style (reflecting the photographer but also the decor and fashion of the day), but the general composition remains similar. Just as many good photographers cringe at the style of typical American senior yearbook portraits ;-), they are what they are, and within the bounds of that style there is still clearly good and bad photography. Likewise, within the bounds of what this photograph tries to be, it is a good portrait IMO. Out of interest, can you suggest an freely licensed 'official style' (not arty or informal) portrait of a politician or any other notable figure that is significantly better than this one? I'd just like to see exactly what you're looking for. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • <puts down pipe, strokes beard> I wasn't going to elaborate too much, just point out the formal reasons why this is a disaster of a formal portrait, but seeing as you ask... with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, almost any other US presidential portrait (given a suitable file) would be way preferable. The best comparison is probably the Reagan one, if only because the Obama one has obviously been based heavily on it. In Reagan's portrait, the President was photographed in time-honoured dignitary style. He's integrated with his surroundings, appears relaxed and assured, is positioned naturally with shoulders facing slightly into the frame, head slightly to one side, further "involving" him in the scene. Lighting is strong and direct (are you getting all these jaded art critic metaphors?) with backlighting to bring him forward, head close to the top of the frame to enhance apparent stature. Obama, by direct comparison, is a shrinking, isolated figure, with ordinary brolly-and-reflector lighting, facing front-on to the camera as if he were in a photo-booth, not the White House waiting room. Reagan was shot on film (of course) so it has grain at 100% (of course) so it would never impress those who equate high-resolution digital reproduction with technical expertise. But it's a vastly superior portrait from a photographic point of view and is much more deserving of FP status for the encyclopedia. You describe the ENC problem with this nomination exactly when you say within the bounds of what this photograph tries to be, it is a good portrait. That's not the point of FPC, surely, and actually not true, to boot. mikaul^talk 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (maybe Weak support?) Excellent technical quality, far far above previous presidential portraits. The composition irks me a bit, but I think the encyclopedic value and technical quality push it to FP level. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support after pondering for a long time. Quality IMO is quite good as expected of such a camera. Composition is not wrong, but I have seen many official pictures with a similar poses and I guess I now find it boring. This FP on the other hand has an interesting pose. --Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it isn't a very interesting composition, but the other one you linked to has a completely different purpose. Can you imagine that being the official portrait of the President? :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He would look more like a prophet if that were his official portrait ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image with no faults that I can see. -- 82.24.37.103 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nudge, nudge...could you wonderful newcomers skim the rest of the FPC page please and review our other candidates? Durova^Charge! 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm going to echo earlier contributor's concerns about the composition - off center, cropped shoulders, indistinct DoF, etc. don't make up for it being a high-res photo. I would also caution all the new commenters (presumably coming from BO's article) that there's no rush to promote this image - he's gonna be around for at least 4 more years. I imagine one or two more pictures will be taken! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not much for close-ups of people, as they don't show much. There is another FP of a grey-bearded man, but at least he's talking. This doesn't inspire me, effect me, or spark any interest, despite my support of the subject as a candidate. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear EV. High quality photo. Seems like a pretty obvious FP to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very high quality --Church of emacs (Talk) 17:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose strange crop on the right side. --Avala (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

I make 24 supports to 18 opposes, ignoring "strongs" and "weaks". I'm going to close as not promoted, and suggest that re-nominating it in a month might be a better idea, once we see what sort of images have become available.

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality image of an orbweaver with its prey - IMO a quintessential spider scene

Articles this image appears in

Spider web, Spider

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator (preference for original) --Fir0002 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. You've put this as the taxobox image in spider. Do you really think it's the best spider photo on Wikipedia? I personally think you yourself have created a number of better ones, and honestly don't find that it's particularly engaging as the lead image for that article. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually do think it's the best that I've taken for the article. To me this scene really typifies spiders. It's got a classic orb weaver web (and captured prey - which I think is important as that is the whole point of a web) and of course an orb weaver spider - a species which again to me really typifies spiders with its colouration, large abdomen, small thorax and extended legs. I know this is hardly an authoritative source, but a quick search in MS Office clipart online [12] in some way support this "generic" spider. --Fir0002 10:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After initial placement of this image another editor replaced it for another, then fir reverted. One user also had preference for the original (at thumb size) at Talk:Spider#Proposed_replacement_for_lead_image. I'd also be concerned about the stability of article placement at present. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One editor with 188 edits to the article expressed a preference for the previous image, another with 31 edits to the article removed it. With the current showing it seems unlikely to survive in the article, as currently positioned, for long. Considering that the uploader admitted to being bold when inserting the image I'm surprised they reverted its removal without further discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have gone with further discussion if I'd been reverted back to the original lead (the one before I replaced it). Anyway out of curiosity how did you get the page-edit statistics Guest9999? --Fir0002 10:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably by using http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl. Spencer^T♦C 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually used the "revision history statistics" link that's given at the top of a page's history ([13] in this case), although the link given above works just as well and has more detail. Guest9999 (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • And back to the original issue, I find it a bit messy as a taxobox image. The taxobox image for spider should clearly show a typical morphology, rather than trying to show any specific behaviour. As you say this spider may be reasonable to use in that context in terms of body shape and colouration, but they're not hard to find sitting cleanly in the middle of their undamaged web with their eight legs out and clearly displayed, and taken from above rather than below would also serve better for the taxobox (after all, how do most people view spiders?). In this shot it's taken from below, the legs are not all cleanly visible, the web is in disrepair, and the prey that you put emphasis on is blurry and indistinct. I don't really think it works that well. --jjron (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually the centre of the webs isn't particularly neat - check out this infosheet. The problem of course with taking from above is that you're bound to have DOF issues. Also you'd lose out on the prey - which while not in sharp focus (except for alt 2) is still there. It's actually relatively rare (at least in my experience) to find them out with their prey during the day as they typically only come out at night when there aren't any birds watching. --Fir0002 10:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • On that note a current featured picture of the same type of spider () would maybe work better as a general illustration of a spider. Guest9999 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1 only. The original lacks snap, it just isn't that interesting to me. There are many better images of spiders as far as composition. Alternative 1 is one of those images. Omnibus (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An excellent, encyclopedic image that manages to represent the punishment of the misers and wasters to great effect by adding a highly effective visual reference to their greed/spendthriftness.

Articles this image appears in

The Divine Comedy, could well be used elsewhere.

Creator

Gustave Doré

• Support as co-nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as conominator Durova^Charge! 19:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The caption would be improved by noting who the "O. Brux" is in the lower left. Was the picture sketched by Doré and engraved by Brux, or is there some other relationship? Matt Deres (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doré had a stable of assistants, in order to allow him to achieve the hundreds of engravings in his lavish sets. He would have done more than simply sketching it, but how much he did would have depended on the assistant and how long they had worked together. (Late in life, with certain trusted assistants, he did sometimes just sketch it out, but this is one of his first major works, and would not have applied here). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find some more information on Brux, but it doesn't seem like he's particularly notable outside of having worked with Doré. Maybe more will come out once I find his real name. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything, myself. There doesn't seem to be much out there; a Google search for +Brux "Gustave Dore" brings up my question as the top hit. :) Just to be clear, my support does not hinge on gaining this information. Matt Deres (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. Beautiful with good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gustave Doré - Dante Alighieri - Inferno - Plate 22 (Canto VII - Hoarders and Wasters).jpg --Fir0002 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very difficult picture to take IMO. This fly is very sensitive to flash and just as one takes a picture, the fly flies away, leaving the photographer with a picture of a plain leaf. In order to take this picture, I had to trick the fly. I noticed that whenever I fired the flash in quick succession, it did not fly away on the third attempt. So I manually fired the flash twice, and in less than a second had to manually focus and take the picture. To add to all that, the fly was small, only 4mm long. Compared to other images in the article, IMO this has the most EV as it shows the fly from an encyclopedic angle.

Articles this image appears in

Dolichopodidae

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 15:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd like more focus and resolution, but given the difficulties described above, this is acceptable.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Resolution is fine but 429kb is a little on the short, could you possibly upload a higher quality version and I will happily support. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Uploaded a less compressed version over the original one. --Muhammad(talk) 03:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support really nice shot! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agreed, this is a nice shot! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Putting the flash on manual (to avoid the E-TTL preflash) would also probably let you get them. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Long legged fly.jpg --Fir0002 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. No other images in the articles display the details that this image displays.

Articles this image appears in

Sunflower, Asteraceae

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Few problems to fix first. There are "reflections" on all four sides that need to be cropped out (typical artefact of the focus stack). The shadows and highlights are both clipped, assuming you are using CombineZM it seems to inadvertently increase the contrast during the stack process. If you are shooting from raw reduce the contrast, stack, then fine tune it afterwards. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I didn't shoot raw. Would just cropping the reflections be fine? I can't believe I didn't see those. --Muhammad(talk) 10:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you reduce the contrast in the jpgs before doing a restitch? The blown highlights and clipped shadows are pretty substantial at the moment. I'd recommend shooting RAW just for the extra dynamic range you get. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will do and upload a restacked version soon. Withdrawing and moving this to PPR for now. --Muhammad(talk) 17:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I know we already have an FP of this heron but I believe this one serves a different purpose - namely as a lead image for the article. It's sharp, well lit, shows the entire body (including feet), and has a clean background.

Articles this image appears in

White-faced Heron

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support originalbetter contrast. Durova^Charge! 08:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Only thing I don't like is that it seems slightly squashed from looking up at it. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we looking up at it? I don't get that impression, and the caption does say it is perched on a semi-submerged log, which I wouldn't expect to see in the air. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe just the contracted neck, or a flash flood Noodle snacks (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the latter, then Fir0002 must have taken the photo from underwater... Sounds reasonable to me :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Both are good images. It is a shame we don't have the best of both though. I guess for some people the out of focus branch in the foreground might be distracting, but I guess as a photographer I find it acceptable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt1 Good focus, excellent view of the bird. Yeah the branch in the original bugs me just a little. Fletcher (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference for alternative. Better composition IMO Muhammad(talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Both are great. Cacophony (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both well done. — Aitias // discussion 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt1--Alephalpha (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, mild preference to alt1. I think the alternate has slightly better composition. I also found the OOF branch just a bit distracting in the original. No biggie, though. Matt Deres (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either I agree with Diliff on this one. Composition in the alternate is better, but the original looks a little better. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt1 only. The foreground branch was more than a bit distracting to me. Still a good photograph, but not a "best of the best" to me. The second one (Alt1) is excellent, however. Omnibus (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both are great, but I really like the original actually! --Pstanton 07:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
• Comment The two images seem to be of different plumages, presumably breeding (original) and non-breeding (alt). I won't comment on technical aspects, but from an enycolpedia point of view I prefer the original, showing as it does the breeding plumes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both photographs are wonderful. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:White faced heron03.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historic cartography this time: it turns out the oldest map (or to be precise, nautical chart) at the Library of Congress was available in high resolution digital form. JPEG2000 unfortunately, which makes this a little less than ideal technically but still very high resolution and a substantial improvement over the previous lead image at portolan chart. Surprisingly, neither cartography or history of cartography had a lead image. They do now. Mediterranean and part of the Black Sea. Fourteenth century, second quarter. Ink on vellum. Restored version of File:Mediterranean chart fourteenth century.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Cartography, Portolan chart, History of cartography

Creator

Anonymous, probably Genoan

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Jpeggy, and inferior scan to others in its peer group. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I'm conflicted; the jpeg artifacts are not as prominent in the unrestored version, and it's hard to see what's going on in either map because the lines are so thin and the coastlines so faded (but harder in the unrestored version). On the other hand, it's quite a bit older than other European map FPs we have (all of which are from after Gutenberg, while this one is from before) and has strong EV for "history of cartography" and "portolan chart".--ragesoss (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks close enough to standard of other map scans of this type to me. Artifacts are there, but only at a magnification well in excess of the original document size. Very interesting map, nice restoration. mikaul^talk 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good restoration with strong EV. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 17:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Poor photographic quality with obvious jpeg artifacts. It's not enough to be the earliest extant portolan chart in the Library of Congress to become an FP. I can't understand this talk about restoration. This is a photo of a manuscript, not a scan of a print! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the compression ratio was 20 to 1 this is better then the 30 to 1 ratio indicated in this paper on the JPEG2000 compression. This is a hand written map, that makes it a manuscript. These historic maps are really one of a kind. They are highly encyclopaedic. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mediterranean chart fourteenth century2.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality/clarity

Articles this image appears in

Crested Pigeon

Creator

Benjamint 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Not bad and an interesting species but I'm not keen on the unnatural environment/bribing :) --Fir0002 05:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not actually as unnatural as it seems; I was in Matong, New South Wales which is very arid (basically just an expanse of dust and heat-haze) where the pigeons scavenge grain that farmers have put out for their live-stock. The land in its natural state wouldn't be able to support them but the species distribution has greatly increased as people began farming and inadvertently providing wildlife with water and food. Benjamint 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Mirror writing calligraphy flourished in the early modern Ottoman Empire where it was associated with the Bektashi order and carried mystical connotations. Restored version of File:Mirror writing.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Mirror writing, Islamic calligraphy, Culture of the Ottoman Empire, Ali

Creator

Mahmoud Ibrahim

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 07:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. For everyone's information, the phrase Ali is the vicegerent of God is one of the fundamentals of Shia Islam and one of the first religious phrases taught to children :-) Image could be added to Ali as well, under Succession to Muhammad. --Muhammad(talk) 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion, done. Durova^Charge! 16:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't understand the choice of leaving the modern mounting on the outside yet cleaning up other signs of this being a picture of a surviving artifact (i.e., the smudges, stains and other damage). If this is supposed to show the surviving writing in a modern context, then most of the cleanup isn't appropriate. If it's supposed to be a restoration to what it may have looked before history took its toll, then the mounting should be removed (it could be replaced with solid white, if a border is still necessary aesthetically because of the closely cropped paper).--ragesoss (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red is not the modern mounting, Ragesoss. On the original file File:Mirror writing.jpg, the modern mounting is secured by fibers to the outside of the red period mounting. Durova^Charge! 16:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intermediate mounting then. Not the original, though, and the original paper was probably never this clean since it was put on the red mounting.--ragesoss (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There seems to be a problem with the LoC page hosting link (not sure how). The bibliographic notes do state that this is the original border mounting and the calligrapher's artistic choice: The calligrapher has used the central vertical fold in the thick cream-colored paper to help trace the exact calligraphic duplication (Selim 1979, 162) prior to mounting it onto a cardboard and pasting rectangular pink frames along its borders. Durova^Charge! 19:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that's the case, then I don't have a problem with it. That should be noted on the image page, though.--ragesoss (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good idea. Done. :) Durova^Charge! 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The note on the image page makes no sense, as the central crease has been removed in the restoration. I'm not keen on restorations of this nature, where a good deal of original detail is removed for no real reason. It looks neater, but probably never was as clean and uncreased as this. Is there a reason why it needs to be cleaned up to this extent? mikaul^talk 01:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A substantial amount of degradation occurred in the three centuries since this image was made. Pigmentation flecked away from stress points, particularly the crease, and dirt gathered in crevices. Addressing that means making choices, such as a decision that paper seams themselves would remain visible with considerably less grime. A fold in a fresh piece of paper that has been flattened and glued to another surface is virtually invisible. Not absolutely invisible, of course, and that is where file size makes the difference. In a 60MB source image there would be enough data to reproduce that detail convincingly. This was a 21.8MB source file before cropping. Durova^Charge! 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with mikaul here; the crease is significant for understanding the image, and ought not be obliterated.--ragesoss (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Vicegerent of God" is a very narrow and specific translation of the general Arabic phrase ولي الله, which in many contexts would be translated "friend of God" (see Wali)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC) It is important to be a rich resource of all the types of calligraphy. These restorations help in this.[reply]
• Support My support was weak until I saw the un-restored version. What an amazing job you did in the restoration. Omnibus (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Omnibus, all the more impressive considering the state of the original. Not too keen about the fold, but oh well…--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mirror writing2.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A great, high resolution image of historical artwork with a high level of emotion showing the flight from Troy

Articles this image appears in

Aeneas Baroque Founding of Rome Trojan War Aeneid

Creator

Federico Barocci

• Support as nominator --Pstanton 07:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small to capture the full detail of the painting, and it's not clear whether a significant portion of the image has been cropped out (which it seems like it might have been). Also, the image page needs to be fleshed out. It should describe what is going on in the paining, and have details like medium and size.--ragesoss (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see your point, but I'm not very skilled at Wikipedia functions, so I myself would have no idea how to do that, is there some sort of forum in which this picture can be listed for improvement? --Pstanton 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, I've checked and if nothing else, it appears this is an uncropped image. I can't find any other versions of this that include more detail, but yes, the image page does need fleshing out. --Pstanton 00:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

• Weak Support I like this painting a lot, but it's only just on the borderline of resolution. I'll weak support because we're unlikely to get anything better in good time, but sincerely hope we can improve things. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Muhammad(talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Another reason to love the Library of Congress. This is a fantastic scan of a 16th century illuminated manuscript illustrating an important Persian romance, the Hamzanama. This is one of 1400 folios that were commissioned by Akbar the Great. A lot of context relating to the image is on the image page, if you're interested to read more. The verso is also available at File:The battle of Mazandaran verso.jpg if anyone is interested (though not featurable quality it could be interesting for the few en.wikipedians who can read it...).

Articles this image appears in

Hamzanama

Creator

Unknown calligrapher commissioned by Akbar the Great

• Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, one of the other interesting ones from that collection. Good choice, high resolution, substantial EV in an underrepresented area. Durova^Charge! 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but the image description page should also include the dimensions and note where it is held (both of which are on the LOC page).--ragesoss (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and above. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Are the colors authentic? They look kind of drab-- wouldn't an image that attempted to recapture the coloration at the time that the illustration was made be more striking? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportfor its Composition--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:The battle of Mazandaran.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

That's a fine photography of a gorgeous exotic fruit from Southeast Asia. The photo meets all the criteria established such as: sharpness, grainless, good definition, nice composition, high resolution (10mp) and others. Please,see it in full resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Rambutan, Sapindaceae

Creator

Whaldener Endo

• Support as nominator --Exlibris (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Thumbnail looked promising but this has been overcooked (contrast/saturation) to the point that there is very little detail in the fruit --Fir0002 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ... as per above. Omnibus (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fir. Clearly overcooked - rambutans are red, but not that red. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Muhammad(talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Ever wonder where the Eric Clapton song "Layla" gets its title? The love story originated in Arabia in the seventh century about a man driven to madness when the woman he loves is forced to marry someone else. This is a sixteenth century illustration for a twelfth century Persian adaptation of the tale. Restored version of File:Layla and Majnun.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Nezami, Layla and Majnun

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The source link appears to be dead. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 13:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it may be an issue with the LOC servers at the moment... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 13:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful illustration with great detail, and from an underrepresented area. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Can we get a translation of the text? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great suggestion. All I've been able to find is a plot summary. Durova^Charge! 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That deer in the lower right looks so happy! Good EV, BTW. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice. --gren グレン 22:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Layla and Majnun2.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Storm Power Plant, Aerial.jpg

Reason

High quality image with a clean background of one of Australia's most iconic birds

Articles this image appears in

Laughing Kookaburra

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either with preference for Alt 1. Nice shots! Omnibus (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Distracting background. — Aitias // discussion 11:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for Alt 1. Very nice composition but shame about the overexposure in the background at the bottom. Again it would have been nice to combine elements of both images! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the overexposed area is much of an issue because to me it's not particularly unaesthetic and it doesn't detract from the actual bird. --Fir0002 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt1 --Avala (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original, Weak Oppose Alt 1 I think the original is much better than the alternate. I only wish we could see some of the feet. Alt 1 has the feet but isn't nearly as attractive as the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either I only ever seem to see these after dark. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Even though I think alt2 has better contrast, the original has better detail, especially on the face and wings. ZooFari 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support either. The alt has better composition but the bright sky is distracting. --Muhammad(talk) 10:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt For me the greens and browns in the background of the "original" merges with the colours of the bird. The blue sky in the alternative provides a nicer contrast, allowing the details of the bird to show through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Laughing kookaburra dec08 02.jpg --Wronkiew (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why was the alternate promoted instead of the original? It looks like there is equal support for each. Perhaps more input should be requested... Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternate received slightly more support, by my calculations. Considering that both versions received overwhelming support, I decided to pick the most supported version instead of leaving it open. If someone who did not review this image thinks it was closed early, I'll be happy to revert the promotion and put it up for more discussion. Wronkiew (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I was really pleased with this shot, the quality is good and the bird really pops at full size, not so good at thumb size though.

Articles this image appears in

Little Wattlebird, Corymbia ficifolia

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great capture, setting is perfect, interesting view/angle, really adds to the article. Nice bird too... hang on, I think I've got a wattlebird somewhere... mikaul^talk 12:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The background is extremely distracting and much of the bird is covered up by the flowers. Overall it is a good shot, but it fails to highlight its intended target. -- mcshadypl ^TC 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm sorry, but I agree with Mcshadypl on this photograph. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not much of the bird is covered (the tips of the wing and tail) and the flowers are both striking (HBW quality) and highly encyclopaedic. It is a honeyeater, it eats flowers! (Or nectar, you know what I mean). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mcshadypl. --Eustress (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mcshadypl. ZooFari 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Bird is partially obscured, and those cool-looking flowers are too distracting! Sasata (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn A pity almost no one bothered to view it at bigger than thumbnail size, take into account this image's usage within the article or consider its encyclopaedic value. It is a sunken ship now though. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very detailed image of the Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama, showing detaling in the engraving, fibres in the paper, etc, etc. I've chosen to nominate this version because the original .png file, File:Inaugural invitation 2009.png is too large to be thumbnailed and used in articles, while the smaller .png version, Image:Inaugural invitation 2009 72dpi.png, doesn't show the detail this one does. There is also an alternative file, File:Reverse of seal of Obama inauguration invitation.jpg, which shows the reverse of the invitation and the indentation of the seal.

Articles this image appears in

Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama, Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration, and United States presidential inauguration

Creator

Commons:User:Kop (original png file), User:Matthewedwards (this jpg file)

• Support as nominator Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Very cool indeed, but I'm bothered by the shadow across the center (which looks like it's from a crease) and the crease in the top-right corner. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct. Commons:User:Kop said at the original .png upload that the creases occurred while in the care of the USPS; however, IMO, I think this just adds to the authentication. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The lighting is uneven, and the shadowed region of the middle crease is out of focus, apparently because it wasn't flush with the scanner. Also, holy crap, we have an article about the invitation!?!--ragesoss (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amen, but it's better referenced than most articles that I see out there. How can this be!? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am sorry to oppose, but the shadowing makes the invitation look creased in this photograph. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose left side of the seal is out o focus. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The seal is clearly blurred. The uneven lightning is also a major issue.-- mcshadypl ^TC 04:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if the invitation article survives AfD, feel free to nominate this at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, where I'm pretty sure it'd pass if it met all of the criteria. Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose While acknowledging Matthew's withdrawal, I just wanted to note that although most are opposing on technical grounds, this picture no enc. value whatsoever. It's just a souvenir. Fletcher (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, please. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The only decent quality image on wikipedia of a wild fairy penguin. The flash is a requirement since they only return to the nesting sites after dark. A very difficult shot to take. The light levels were far to low for autofocus (4 seconds at ISO 1600) and manual focusing was extremely difficult (I used a narrow aperture to raise my chances). I had to limit myself to a couple of shots as flash photography was not allowed (Though the sign and Tourism Tasmania photographs use flash!). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Little Penguin

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overflashed and 0% "wow". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose PLW is right about the overflash - the shadow is very distracting. However, I do find the photo interesting enough to be FP if its quality were there. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are both completely missing the point I have to say. It is not possible to get a picture of a wild bird during the day (they are in the ocean fishing). You can either have a zoo shot on concrete with tags in the arm or flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I'd like to see a similar zoo shot of this species for comparison please, because I can't see what this image conveys that a technically better zoo shot couldn't. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can find plenty of zoo shots in the article. Its all very well to show a shot of one in a zoo with a simulated natural environment, but doing so for this species is misleading; IRL they spend the day at sea and return to the burrows after dark. Many birds spend autumn and winter at sea without returning at all. File:Tawny frogmouth wholebody444.jpg was supported under very similar lighting rather recently (Tawny Frogmouths are most active at night). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The frogmouth is a higher quality shot. It doesn't have the nasty shadow from flashing, for instance. And let's face it - there is more than one way to flash. It's not like penguins are superfast on land. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - I apologize. Somehow I missed the line about the birds only returning at night. While I understand PLW's comments just above this, for now, this is the best we have and is still excellent for the situation. Again, I'm sorry for misreading (or unintentionally over-reading) that line. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with your comment, "the best we have". Please take a look at File:Fairy penguin.jpg. And if it's only the "best we have" for a given article, it shouldn't be promoted. It has to be among the best of all of Wikipedia. The criteria set this out quite clearly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Commendable effort to get the focus so good at night however I don't think the harsh lighting is worth the "in the wild" benefit. With careful composition you can get reasonably good shots at zoos and they typically only have tags on one arm (eg). Also the effect of the shadow would have been reduced a bit if you could have got one a little further from the bank (not sure if this was possible tho) --Fir0002 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Punctuation geek alert:in the caption it should be its chicks not it's chicks Lemon martini (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Papa above; rare pic but not FP material, in my humble opinion --Eustress (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Captured from the actual swearing in. Higher resolution than the other proposed image, better facial expression.

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama, Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration

Creator

U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo

• Support as nominator --TAway (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as uploader --PFHLai (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Like I said below: perhaps we should wait a while to see if any better photos of the inauguration come out. This one especially looks like it could be improved upon. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry but Chief Justice John G. Roberts was an important part of the swearing in, since he administered the Oath of office, and especially since he goofed the lines. If a picture exists showing the faces or profiles of both men, then it would be a different matter. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Matthewedwards.--Avala (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't like the back of somebody's head being front and centre. As said above, a picture of both men's faces/profiles would be preferable. --Rob (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's a dramatic photo, but technically, it's fairly poor. Obama's shirt and Michelle's dress (and the shirts of those behind them) have blurred into burnt highlighs, the focal point of the image is the blurry back of someone's head, and the bulletproof screen runs askew along the bottom border of the image (though admittedly, that could be cropped out without losing anything important). Laïka 13:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on oppose In addition to what others have said, it looks like the First Lady is blinking. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - what? Who cares if robert's head is faced the wrong way? The image is used to illustrate obama and his inauguration, not roberts. de Bivort 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not one of the better pics of the day. Omnibus (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - neither visually striking nor informative. Without the caption, readers unaware of the US inaugural process would be clueless to the proceedings. Furthermore, the swearing in ceremony is a formality performed by every president, I can't recall any prominent or FP-worthy distinctions captured in these proceedings. Please hold off nominating new pictures of Obama unless they will be considered iconic in twenty years time, there's no need to document things like his first presidential sneeze. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not visually striking and unclear copyright status. The nominator says it was captured from the inauguration (screen captures of news programms aren't PD), the source says it was created by a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. I'm having trouble believing Air Force employees doing their duties on the ground during the inauguration when they're supposed to keep the sky clear.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

President Barack Obama waves to the crowd after his inaugural address. The image has good lighting and framing, and shows the subject in an active posture. It is a historic image with high encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration

Creator

Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley, USN

• Support as nominator --Cirt (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --76.11.117.108 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but IPs do not have suffrage at FPC. If you wish to vote, please create an account. It is also good etiquette to provide a reason for your support, even if it is 'per nomination'. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks good, more FP-worthy than his official portrait. TheCoffee (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, facial expression looks like he is either playing an invisible trumpet or just got done sucking a lemon. TAway (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Noteworthy image, very well taken, and of a historical moment in history. Jason (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps we should wait a while to see if any better pictures of the inauguration come out. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think we should suspend all Obama/inauguration related nominations for a week, to see if any better photos emerge. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I think a bit of distance from the excitement (or maybe more than a bit) will let us deal with these without relying as much on our own personal impressions of what is or isn't a "historical moment in history".--ragesoss (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with this plan. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pile-on agree. Omnibus (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So does that mean that these noms should be suspended?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and any subsequent noms should be held until next Tuesday. We need time to digest everything out there so the best of the best can come forward. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original is too insipid, I prefer Edit 1. --06:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NBALIVE2551 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - Nowhere near the quality or EV of his official portrait, which was just defeated. Cacophony (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose since this wasn't suspended. Not high enough quality or EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality portrait photo, recently uploaded by the Federal Archives of Germany

Articles this image appears in

Willy Brandt
Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic)

Creator

Reinck, 1980-03-05, Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive)

• Support as nominator --Hapsala (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose excellent ev, short on technicals. The valued picture program might be the place for this. Durova^Charge! 08:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Bundesarchiv says resolution is 2838x3825. Why is the upload a smaller res? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they only gave us low-res files 800px on the longest side. See commons:Commons:Bundesarchiv.--ragesoss (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bundesarchiv has decided to retain full copyright on the larger resolution versions. I've been trying to coax that door open a little wider; did a restoration on a slightly larger portrait of Adenauer. Which unfortunately can't be nominated here for licensing reasons. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, then I'll have to oppose on formality reasons. There's no doubt that it's retained more detail in downsizing than a lot of less generously jpegged FPs do, but there you go. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I love the way that the perspective and tiny figures of Dante and Virgil add scale, and the stark strangeness of the landscape we find them in. Stunning in thumbnail, astounding at full size.

Articles this image appears in

Titan, Aloadae, Gustave Doré (gallery).

Creator

Gustave Doré

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Terrific scan, nice take on incorporating forms from classical antiquity with the strained postures of the late Renaissance. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another great one. Great EV in Titan. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This really is an absolutely astounding piece of art, I'd love to see it front and center on the Main Page someday soon! --Pstanton (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gustave_Doré_-_Dante_Alighieri_-_Inferno_-_Plate_65_(Canto_XXXI_-_The_Titans).jpg --Muhammad(talk) 17:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Detailed and clear

Articles this image appears in

Feta

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (aplies to garlic nomination, too) I would support, but there are two fixable problems. This pitcture (and to a much lesser extent the garlic nom) is oversharpened; prominent black/white haloes are everywhere. Also, along with the garlic nom, the backgound cut-out isn't accurately done; the big block of feta and the farthest clove of garlic are particularly prominent, but cut-out issues are all over the place. Thegreenj 02:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually they haven't been sharpened much at all, just shot with hard light which shows up the fine surface detail more. Where are you refering to on the feta? All the missing chunks I can see should be missing. Again I'm not seeing it with the garlic, the surface on the top right particularly is lumpy. Here are some references pre any PP: (feta, garlic) Noodle snacks (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the sharpening, I'm talking about the light and dark bands File:Feta Cheese crop.jpg here (taken from the middle of the original). The bands are apparent without enlargement on my screen. There are similar patterns in both images. The cut out follows the contour of the cheese fine, but I think the problem is that it doesn't fade into the background in the way a real OOF transition would. It looks unnatural to me. It's diffenent with the garlic: the OOF bulbs look blocky, almost pixelated. Not sure how to describe it better than that. None of the things I've mentioned are in either pre-PP. Thegreenj 04:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My main problem with this and your garlic shot is the no-shadows-floating-in-black style - I'd much prefer seeing some shadows giving it some "support". Also there are quite a few (easily fixable) jaggies at the top of the back piece. Finally I'm not too keen on the hard lighting of this as most of the white cheese has turned grey - more light on the top of the scene would have been beneficial I feel. --Fir0002 07:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose I'd have supported this shot had it been on a more typical backdrop - cheesboard? cheesecloth? - but the lengths you've gone to to provide a neutral bg have made it look surreal, as if hastily marqueed out of an entirely different shot for dramatic effect. Thanks for being honest enough to link to the original capture, but it only serves to show how un-redeemable it is as an FP candidate. mikaul^talk 12:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In addition to what's been said, I think there's something wrong with the lighting in general. This is not how I remember feta. Hmm... the meta-info says flash did not fire, but it looks a bit flashed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose bc of lighting. Does not convey feta cheese's whiteness effectively. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. During all my trips to outer space, I never once saw feta cheese floating around. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Because of the composition. It should be placed on a plate or in some other neutral environment, not floating in darkness. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Figured I better get in on a food nom or two before fir takes them all :P

Articles this image appears in

Garlic

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Similar to the feta shot I don't like the "floating" effect of the lack of "support" shadows. Also for EV I'd like to see a cross section --Fir0002 07:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one on the right is pretty close to a cross section, fair enough on the shadows, but at the same time I fail to see how white on white will have any contrast/background separation (applies to this and the cheese). Noodle snacks (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's close but there's no reason (for a studio shot) why it couldn't have included a cross section. I agree a white background probably wouldn't work too well, I'd probably recommend going for a kitchen cutting board such as in this shot --Fir0002 11:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No problem with the black here, nor the lighting particularly, just content: OOF clove up front, messy arrangement, not a good illustration of the whole bulb. Yes, it'd be a tricky subject on white, pity you didn't spend more time on it on black, I guess. mikaul^talk 12:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a wooden chopping board is a good idea. The shape of the bulb isn't shown here. If one were standing on its base with the stalk pointing up, it would be better, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image is sharp, clearly shows the shape of a white pelican swimming, and has beautiful reflections off of the water.

Articles this image appears in

Great White Pelican

Creator

Dakoman

• Support as nominator --Dakoman (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original per peer review, I think the shadows look more realistic and the detail is there anyway Noodle snacks (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Good clear view of the pelican and beautiful lighting. Fletcher (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either per the above comments. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either I wish I had light like that available everyday... A beautiful image.<sigh> Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - With a preference for edit 1 (on this monitor) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV, beautiful picture. Prefer original slightly. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at it a few more times, I think I prefer Edit 1 now. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Relisted. Which version? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. I didn't comment on this image previously though, so feel free to delete or strike through these words if I'm not supposed to comment now. Edit 1 is very nice, the Original looks a bit washed out to me though. It was well worth going in and retrieving the details of the plumage. Omnibus (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either per above. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 As the contributor/nominator. Dakoman (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Promoted image: Edit one According to my calculations, the original has 5 supports and edit one has 9. ZooFari 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you planning on finishing your closing? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Whitepelican edit shadowlift.jpg Can you follow the closing instructions please. --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]